Global Warming : Natural : Man~Made : or Both ??

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I have a healthy scepticism over this issue, particularly when I read scientists & politicians ( what a mixture ), arguing over what is or isn't due to "Global Warming"



"Its snowing ( in winter ) ...must be due to Global Warming"



"It's hotter (in summer ) ....must be due to Global Warming"



Of course the press ( mainly ignorant journos ) have a field day, labeling everything under the sun as an effect of such global warming...



But the fact remains that those who do know about this issue: ( I don't mean self proclaimed enviromentalists or politicians looking for a band~wagon to jump on ); are hotly disputing what effect if any man's industrial pollutants are producing. No doubt there are localised influences & effects; but on the much larger global picture, spread over a much larger time scale; all the evidence seems be inconclusive at best.



In other words "Natural Vs Man~made" is very much in contention.



Now we read that volcanoes may actually be triggering the El-Nino effects that in turn cause massive floods or droughts across a large part of the globe.



From my point of view, such research points out how little we actually know about the profoundly complex global warming issue.



But of course this wont stop the eniviromentalists "blaming" mankind.



Is mankind the king pin in the global warming picture? Or is our influence on par to that of a flea biting an elephants' hide ?



What's your opinion ?
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 95
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    But the fact remains that those who do know about this issue: ( I don't mean self proclaimed enviromentalists or politicians looking for a band~wagon to jump on ); are hotly disputing what effect if any man's industrial pollutants are producing. No doubt there are localised influences & effects; but on the much larger global picture, spread over a much larger time scale; all the evidence seems be inconclusive at best.



    Scientists are very clear on the fact that we are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this increases the greenhouse effect and that this warms the earth.



    There are a few scientists who debate this, and that's good. But those few have been highly publicized by those with an economic or political interest in the status quo in order to make it seem like there is no consensus about global warming and human activity, which there really is.
  • Reply 2 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    .....Scientists are very clear on the fact that we are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this increases the greenhouse effect and that this warms the earth......







    Which in turn draws more moisture into the atmosphere creating more clouds which in turn produce more precipitation which "cools" the planet down...



    And let us not forget geographical & natural records dating back tens of thousands of years show past "global warming" episodes causing world wide "ice~ages"



    See..how easy it is to dismiss your "evidence".



    Ps If I remember correctly.." The Flintstones" all had foot driven cars at the time......
  • Reply 3 of 95
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I didn't intend my post to be considered "evidence." I was just summarizing the consensus among scientists.



    This website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus of the researchers, and their conclusions have been agreed to by the US government, among others.



    Some of the primary conclusions below:



    Quote:

    The Earth?s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities. Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era.



    Quote:

    There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.



    Quote:

    Observed changes in regional climate have affected many physical and biological systems, and there are preliminary indications that social and economic systems have been affected.



  • Reply 4 of 95
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Wow. You've provided the clearest example of trolling since the last time you started a thread about global warming. Is there anything new here since April? I'm surprised you didn't copy your arguments verbatim because they're the same.



  • Reply 5 of 95
    I'll take this over a "What wonderful things are you thankful for today" or "what miracles and other beautiful lovey warm things have you seen that make you want to smile and kiss a kitten this week" thread.



    EDIT - was going to use a smiley, but really don't feel like it.



    EDIT - ah, what the hell:







    ()
  • Reply 6 of 95
    Global warming doesn't exsist. It's like elves and eskimos! Seriously though, people blame global warming or el nino for everything. Like you said, snow in the summer, warmth in the winter. It's a problem that we create to scare ourselves because we apparently don't have enough to be scared of already.
  • Reply 7 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Wow. You've provided the clearest example of trolling since the last time you started a thread about global warming. Is there anything new here since April?



    Hardly Trolling...



    If anything, my previous post which you so graciously brought up, will bear testimony to the then questionable idea of Volcanic effects on a number of atmospheric issues.



    So what is NEW here ? .... the published scientific evidence pointing to the general correctness that I and other eco-sceptics took.



    But you go right ahead believing all the soothsayers and gloom merchants...



    Its much safer to let others do the thinking for you..
  • Reply 8 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    You might want to read the most recent report.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1120073847.htm
  • Reply 9 of 95
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    haha, the US seems to be the place where people deny the reality of global warming. there are lots of people whom it would benefit if it didn't exist, and they have many spin-doctors and "scientists" who will reel in a few oddly gullible people. of course, the consensus in the unbiased scientific community is that it isn't even a debateable issue.



    germany, for example, realizes the extremely high likelihood of global warming and thus makes policies accordingly. seems to be better to go this route than just deny everything.



    worldwide emissions are staggering in tonnage, and to think it has no long-term environmental impact is just ridiculous.



    not sure why i'm participating in this troll
  • Reply 10 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by progmac

    haha, the US seems to be the place where people deny the reality of global warming. there are lots of people whom it would benefit if it didn't exist, and they have many spin-doctors and "scientists" who will reel in a few oddly gullible people. of course, the consensus in the unbiased scientific community is that it isn't even a debateable issue.



    germany, for example, realizes the extremely high likelihood of global warming and thus makes policies accordingly. seems to be better to go this route than just deny everything.



    worldwide emissions are staggering in tonnage, and to think it has no long-term environmental impact is just ridiculous.



    not sure why i'm participating in this troll




    You might care to note that I didn't say any influence: I said it is over-played and that our human influence is the equivilant of a flea biting and Elephants' hide..



    Of course it's ALL a huge conspiracy set up by the government...Eco~sceptics are all funded by industrial magnates and republican rednecks...



    And all self proclaimed "enviromental" scientists, eco-politicians & greenies are as pure as driven snow....
  • Reply 11 of 95
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    You might care to note that I didn't say any influence: I said it is over-played and that our human influence is the equivilant of a flea biting and Elephants' hide..



    Of course it's ALL a huge conspiracy set up by the government...Eco~sceptics are all funded by industrial magnates and republican rednecks...



    And all self proclaimed "enviromental" scientists, eco-politicians & greenies are as pure as driven snow....




    well, i do agree that in the long run...the REALLY long run, the ravaging of the earth humans have done will be fixed in one way or another...this is of course millions of years after humans have died out.



    to say that only greenies agree with global warming is pretty false though.
  • Reply 12 of 95
    Not having read the whole of the linked thread (I want to move away from my computer at some point today and get breakfast...), and being semi-asleap anyhow, I'll throw in my 2p. Apologies if this's already been said somewhere...



    Basically, a volcano doing off would give off more stuff to cause the greenhouse effect than humans have since the industrial revolution... So while we've changed things slightly, nature regularily beats us. Or so my Physics lecturers have told me...



    But then, when nature causes things like ice ages etc, we should still be kind of careful...



    *randomly remembers "The Time Machine", although that wasn't really about global warming... Also, nuclear attacks - much worse than iccle global warming. They're global freezing*
  • Reply 13 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    You raise an interesting comparison.



    On the one hand we have those scientists who say that after a global nuclear war ( and lets for the sake of argument ignore the radiation aspect ), the world will go into a deep freeze period for several years.



    Their scenario is based on the notion that huge quanties of material ( dust & gases )will be blasted into the atmosphere, effectively blanketing the earth with clouds that will be so dense as to radiate most solar energy back into space..Thus cooling the earth



    On the other hand we have enviromentalists arguing that a massive increase in Co2 & other gases (plus coal dust, carbon soots, produced by factories & cars etc ) is causing a runaway hothouse that is oftened and simplistically likened to Venus. Further more they claim this will in turn produce clouds so dense as to trap solar energy...thus heating the earth.



    Strange...



    Anyone tell me how the same sort of extreme cloud cover can produce two diametrically opposite temperature effects...?
  • Reply 14 of 95
    Nuclear war would cover up the atmosphere, so light and heat from the sun couldn't get through. Hence deep freeze.



    On the other hand, the greenouse effect is a lessening of the Earth's protection from the sun. So more heat and light get to the ground. Hence the earth heats up.



    Think of the Earth as a greenhouse (i.e. heat stays in the system for longer), but with a tent over it. The "greenhouse effect" causes the tent to be worn thin, so more heat and light can get in. Nuclear's the same as burying the greenhouse underground.



    It's rather more complicated than that, but that's a brief overview...



    Brief edit: note that I'm a 2nd year Physics student. Not geography or anything, so I could be wrong. This's on the wrong scale for me - I'm used to galaxies or atoms. Things in between are more complicated, and cause me problems...
  • Reply 15 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike Peel

    Nuclear war would cover up the atmosphere, so light and heat from the sun couldn't get through. Hence deep freeze.



    On the other hand, the greenouse effect is a lessening of the Earth's protection from the sun. So more heat and light get to the ground. Hence the earth heats up.



    Think of the Earth as a greenhouse (i.e. heat stays in the system for longer), but with a tent over it. The "greenhouse effect" causes the tent to be worn thin, so more heat and light can get in. Nuclear's the same as burying the greenhouse underground.



    It's rather more complicated than that, but that's a brief overview...




    I appreciate the explanation Mike, but realistically, any increase in surface temperature means that there is a subsequent increase in evaporation leading to more cloud cover, which in turn "shields" the earth from extra insolaration..all of which in turn cools the earth...
  • Reply 16 of 95
    True. Will have to think on that...



    As a sidenote, remember that following on from that, the ocean will heat up a bit, and hence you get the icebergs starting to melt a bit.



    As I said in the edit of my last post, physics not geography is my speciality... 8)
  • Reply 17 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike Peel

    True. Will have to think on that...



    As a sidenote, remember that following on from that, the ocean will heat up a bit, and hence you get the icebergs starting to melt a bit.



    As I said in the edit of my last post, physics not geography is my speciality... 8)




    Thanks again Mike...Physics is my hobby



    Not the hard stuff ....just the nacho & beers versions..written by Prof's Paul Davies & Stephen Hawkins..



    Speaking of oceans, apparently there are massive frozen lakes of methane hydrates in every ocean & these have recently been linked to at least one massive global extinction episode..



    Http://www.nature.com/nsu/030818/030818-16.html
  • Reply 18 of 95
    Cool... Oceans belch, end of mankind as we know it...



    Re oceans evaporating and causing cloud cover: I'm not sure, but I vaguely remember water vapour being mentionned as a greenhouse gas... I'm not too sure about this, and i really don't want to dig though all of my notes to find it (they're in a rather large folder...), but I think this might be because the water will not do a whole lot to keep light/heat coming in, but does stop it going out. This's because the wavelenght of the incoming radiation is different to that outgoing (Something to do with absorbtion/re-emmision, or the atmosphere, or something...) This's only a guess really, put together from what I remember from the brief mention in one of my courses...
  • Reply 19 of 95
    Nature created humans. I'd say it's natural. Nature is always able to adapt and correct itself. If that means we are exterminated, so be it. That said, I think Global Warming is total bullshit, the planet obviously goes through climate cycles, and our meteorological knowledge is very limited. Whether humans have helped the process along is irrelevent.
  • Reply 20 of 95
    I'd agree that nature will be able to cope with most things we'll throw at it (i.e. as long as we don't blow the whole planet up into bits). But I think the aim is to avoid humans being "exterminated"...



    I tend to think of the big picture. The universe doesn't really give a damn about us and our iccle planet. But then, on the iccle (i.e. our) scale, it does kind of matter...
Sign In or Register to comment.