Do you believe that

we might be experiencing global warming from both man-made and natural causes?

by George Washington (68 articles, 18 quicklinks, 139 diaries, 180 comments) on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 12:16:09 PM
 

Hi George,

Yes, of course both sides are right. The earth has been without polar ice caps, and with ice caps that almost reached the equator (look it up). This all happened without human intervention. Also, everyone should look up “the mini ice age”, which occurred between 1300 and 1850 or so. World temperatures went way down on average, and crops across northern Europe failed repeatedly. We are still coming out of the last big ice age (for the last 20,000 years), and we are arguably still coming out of the mini ice age.

Man is speeding up the natural rise in temperature, and we have no idea if we are adding 10%, or 90% to the current increases. My guess is about 50/50, but much more research is needed to try and find out.

I am more worried about deforestation, destruction of habitats and the oceans, and stripping mountain ranges away for coal. These may be irreversible near term changes, rather than long term, reversible changes. The Earth recovered from horrible ice ages, and “hot house” slow cooker periods. Whether we will recover from killing off 2/3 of the Earth’s species and most of their habitats is another question. Human-based habitat destruction is the unprecedented variable in the equation.

by John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments) on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 2:06:25 PM
 

Yes, they are both right, though it's not about sides

I was surprisingly in agreement with your article, up until the point where you felt compelled to somehow magically link 9/11 with global warming. Tsk, tsk, tsk because you were making sense but shadowed your previous assertion with such silly linkage. The link only justifies your dividing of the issues into "sides" for ulterior and political motives.

But... I do believe that both natural and man-made sources could be pinpointed for the observed global warming trend, but Nature is by far the rider on this horse of global warming.

"Some people argue that variation of earth's climate is natural, and has been occurring for millions of years, so we have nothing to worry about."

I don't think that these people (which I count myself as one) claim we have nothing to worry about. Rather, we claim that Nature is far bigger and more powerful than us (at this point); so, why should we alter drastically our processes under the presumption that we could actually influence Nature on a global scale? This is nothing more than a colossal hubris on humanity's part.

As Nature tends to demonstrate its power over not just us but itself, one good volcanic eruption or collision with a decent-sized asteroid will quickly reverse any global warming concerns. While this doesn't mean we do "nothing", neither does it mean (like Mr. Gore is often want to do) we need to act now, today, Good Golly Miss Molly It's Too Late Already (e.g., James Lovelock)!

Prudent and practical measures should be taken, while an increased number of data points are established, more accurate measurements obtained, and computer models further refined. All of these actions will better tailor our response to a global issue in a more meaningful manner.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1550 comments) on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 10:53:30 PM
 

Global Warming - who knows

The case for Global warming might not be as dire or as certain as many portray it to be.  For example, reading the August 2007 issue of Scientific American containing an Article “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming” on page 67 there is a chart showing the almost directly vertical upturn in Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide, but when I converted those changes to percentages the results didn’t seem so dire.  Carbon Dioxide went from about 275 to about 375 parts per million –WoW!! causing an almost straight upturn on the chart.  This is what that giant of a scientist, Gore, calls the “hockey stick curve”.  Oh, but the devil is sometimes in the details. Not what could be wrong with that chart? Well the horizontal value (Time) was over 10,000 years while the vertical value is shown about 40% of the scale of the Horizontal but represents just about 1/100th of 1% of change, and no doubt was done that way to save paper (you know hug the trees). So Carbon Dioxide has exploded up .01%, that’s not much of a blip in true scale.  And similarly Methane rose about .01% and Nitrous Oxide about 1/1000th of 1%. But I do think human activity has helped cause a “Teeny bit” of the Global warming taking place.  I don’t think I going to worry about burning up.  I think the asteroid Apophis has a better chance of hitting us in 2029 or on its next swing thru the Solar System in 2036 than any danger we have from Global Warming.  So if the infinitesimal bit that human activity has done to contribute to Global Warming is significant long term, we do have the ability to control what we contribute toward destroying ourselves.  Why don’t we do that?  Who knows.  Mother Nature probably won’t notice anyway.    

by Cliff Carson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 8:18:37 AM
 

"Man Made" Global Warming is Propaganda

The propaganda is designed to make us think there's no way out of it. The real problem is weather modification via chemtrails / HAARP. See my blog for more information:

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 9:44:10 AM
 

Propaganda

Yes. Any intelligent discussion about global warming and climate change is incomplete without acknowledgement of the continuing, massive aerosol spraying program of the atmosphere that anyone can see if they pay attention to the skies overhead. It was evident here in New Hampshire just yesterday.

by Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 271 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 10:28:38 AM