Are Humans to blame for global warming?

Question

i need peoples opinions on weather people or natural causes are causing global warming?

Answer 1

affcossssssss.its a funny question.no doubt we the animals means human

Answer 2

I think GW needs to move to religion and spirituality...

The answers posted have much more to do with beliefs than science or fact.

I've posted many, many links to proofs that demonstrate quite clearly that GW is happening and the causal links to human behaviour. I've also spent hours debunking all the myths and links to pseudo-scientific websites with other agenda...

It makes no difference.

To me, even without the huge amounts of data, fact and science backing it up, it is simple common sense that six billion humans, all consuming resources and burning fuel, must have some impact upon our environment.

Our environment is an equilibrium, a balance between many, many factors that results in what we call climate. Change any of those factors and the net result, climate, must also change - simple logic.

Then the question is, by how much?

Again, 6,000,000,000 people all burning things - that's a fairly big change from the previous few million years. Fact is, it's 500,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon thrown into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

Given just that one fact (and ignoring all the other myriad activities that humans do that impact the environment), how people can think we don't have an effect on the climate is simply beyond me!

Answer 3

yes

Answer 4

The global warming hypothesis is not if human can cause warming, but can human cause catastrophic warming.  Human co2 alone, without any feedbacks can not cause catastrophic warming.  The hypothesis is that this initial human induced increase in co2 will be amplified many times over to cause catastrophic warming.  This hypothesis is what is highly questionable.

Answer 5

No humans are not to blame. It's the sun and the temperature of the ocean these two things have the biggest impact on how warm or cold the planet will be during any given year. Our atmosphere is our planet's blanket, but it doesn't cause any warming, you need the Sun to get any warming at all.

One other thing, if you study temperature and CO2 charts side by side you'll notice warming comes before a rise in CO2 levels. Also if we continue to cool down the ocean will absorb more CO2 and give off less water vapor.

Answer 6

I know when you mean natural you mean its out of our hands because nature is in control and thats what most skeptics(ie me) would think too. But you have to know this: Even the most smartest climate scientist would tell you that man doesn't know enough on how the earth's climate system works to give accurate long term predictions as crazy as global warming.

Answer 7

of course its people....but its the natural causes as well..but humans r definetly first

Answer 8

It doesn't matter whether global warming is man made or just a cycle in the earth's history .... it is happening. Between solar processes or natural earth processes such as volcanoes and the ever present forest fires which will be argued to have occurances whether or not mankind were present. It still just doesn't matter how it is happening, it is.

FACT: "Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming."

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

We have gone past the point of no return unless we can build improvements to assist in reflecting light away from the earth.

First you have to understand how long the earth has been storing up the fossil fuels. The coal, oil and natural gas that we are using now are products of the earth converting plants and animals into their present forms over (often) millions of years. They have been stored now for millions of years without being used until now. By being used now, we are converting these fuels from stored carbon, into released carbon. Thus allowing this released carbon to act as a greenhouse effect gas again.

Since we are talking about a situation where the Earth once had a lot of stored carbon and now that stored carbon is disappearing at a tremendous rate (and will continue into the future) We can be truthful in saying that there is a definite trend, and relationship in the increase of greenhouse gasses. We can also say that these greenhouse gasses would not have been released without the intervention of man. Logically therefore we can say that global warming gasses have been released and any global warming increases are directly attributed to mankind’s releasing them.

The damage done by increased greenhouse emissions has already taken its toll. This is evident by the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. Some will say that there is no such thing as global warming, because there is in their opinion very little change in the average global temperature. However when you take into account the fact that there is less ice, and snow, because of the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. That melted ice, snow and glaciers across the globe will in themselves temporarily lower the overall ocean temperatures untill they all melt. Thereby lowering the average temperatures on the earth. So if you account for that, the temperature can be proven to be increasing.

We cannot get the world back the way it was, even as of fifty years ago, much less stop the damage that will still occur in the future. Sure we could try to stop all industry that will cause pollution, but at what cost. Without industry we could not sustain the present world population. Giving up industry and sacrificing billions of people on this planet in the process, is not a viable solution (even trying to merely lower greenhouse emissions is at best a temporary solution).

The biggest problem we have now is not just the fact that we have more greenhouse gasses trapping heat in, but we are getting less and less sunlight being reflected out from the planet. As the snow cover melts from more and more of the planets surface, the sunlight heats up more parts of the earth that once reflected light back out. It is like a dog chasing its tail (until it gets dizzy and falls from exhaustion). As global warming just keeps building on itself till the ecological balance fails, and this planet will no longer sustain the teeming human populations.

Greenhouse effect cure (there are no real cures but this may help till we can find one). First I want to point out that there are no real, viable short term, or easy methods of curing our Global warming woes. The damage to the environment has already been done and is, for all intent and purposes, basically irreversible. It is likely, however, that any type of plan to get rid of Global warming, will require some type of dramatic ecological compromises.

Some will say that all we need to do is give up industry on the planet and the world will eventually go back to the way it was. I say it is too late for that solution (as a short term solution anyway).

My plan, however, will require the use of old tires and recycled plastics. Of course it will require some engineering feats also, and a few ecological compromises. The benefits of using these wasted products will far outweigh the compromises required.

My idea is to build large floating islands (white on top, to reflect sunlight back out of our planet) made from used tires (filled with co2) and recycled plastics. Yes there are engineering and ecological problems, but everyone has to admit there are worse problems in our current situation. So the only feasible solution is to build a bunch of artificial reflection "islands" across the planet.

We can also try to get more people to use reflecting surfaces on buildings (which will be as difficult to do, as no one likes to have to do things exactly the same as everyone else).

There will be other benefits realized, once we build enough of these islands. One of the problems associated with the increased temperatures we are experiencing is the possibility of increased hurricane intensity and frequency. Having enough of these floating islands in strategic points in the oceans will help to alleviate this problem also. It is a well known fact that hurricanes form in areas of the ocean where the temperature rises above approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit. If we can keep those areas below that temperature (by reflecting sunlight away), we can prevent the formation of hurricanes. Without these floating islands, hurricanes will probably continue to increase in intensity and frequency…

We need a solution to deal with our Global warming woes, and we need it now. Even if this is a difficult path to follow, it will pay off in the future. The overall problems I see for Greenhouse effect is that we can go green all we want, but Global warming and our constant desire to be comfortable, will eventually undermine any efforts we may do. Unless we can get rid of some of the excess heat in this world, we will always be under the eventual threat of a thermal overheating demise.

Answer 9

yeah

Answer 10

I would say yes, because human activties are changing the climate. but there is still time to slow down global warming from happening.

In the strongest language ever used by the IPCC, the report says that human activity “very likely” has been the primary cause of global warming since 1950. (The term “very likely” indicates more than 90 percent certainty.)

Answer 11

Well, you asked for opinions, so here's mine based on what I have learned as a layman.  Global warming is occurring, and the best research data to date indicates that it is a combination of natural processes and mankind's activities.

While we don't know exactly the influence humans have on global warming or what the outcome may be, there is sufficient evidence-especially taken with increasing global population, growing competition for food and finite natural resources (such as oil)-to warrant taking action.  What action exactly is a matter for political debate and discussion; nonetheless, many of the things we need to do to minimize our impact on the environment are already in progress, particularly the development and exploitation of alternative energy sources such as wind energy, solar power, and biofuels.  Biofuels and corn ethanol are interesting to me since there is some debate about using corn for fuel, but the byproduct of corn ethanol production is still usable for feed stocks, so that improves the equation in a number of ways; moreover, as the infrastructure for ethanol production is built, research continues on other biomass products such as algae, and improving the efficiency of the process itself.

The alternative energy comments are kind of a sidebar to your question but I added them anyway.  I think there are more environmentally friendly ways of doing things that are also economically viable which will meet our needs and those of developing nations; if global warming is at a 'tipping point' due to the influence of mankind's activities, many prominent scientists and researchers say that we have time-not much, but some-to prevent an unnatural acceleration of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and etc.  So the quick development of alternative energy sources that is going on now is very relevant to the discussion, and I hope not too much of a tangent in reply to your question.

I remain optimistic that further research will show that our impact on the environment may not result in climactic shifts as rapid and severe as the most aggressive promoters of AGW suggest, and that natural variations in the climate will allow us more time than they are currently predicting-but that doesn't alter the need to develop more environmentally sound methods of seeing to the needs of 6 billion+ human beings around the globe.

Answer 12

No, animals are to blame.

Just kidding. I believe humans are definitely to blame, and non vegetarians. If you truly are an enviromentalist you'd be a vegetarian. The grain we use to feed factory animals eaten could be feeding third world countries, and we use extremely large amounts of water just for the factory animals to drink. To think, that we could be saving an animals life, and saving the world and LIVES if everyone just stopped eating meat. Have you seen America, and how obese it is? I know, meat's healthy and everything but it's so selfish, and it's causing global warming. Plus you can add 10 years to your life by being vegetarian. Theres more to life then food. Look up vegetarian sites, like Peta and you'll know what I mean when I say it's also causing Global Warming. Then theres all the waste we make. Yeah, Humans are definitely the problem. But they can also be the solution.

Answer 13

In a 2004 paper (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004... Dr. James E. Hansen talks about how his research group calculated that human-made gases were heating the earth at a rate of 2 watts per sq. meter.  In his own words:

"The paradox that this result presented was the contrast between the awesome forces of nature and the tiny [2 watt] lightbulbs."

Two things are going on here.  First, Hansen is admitting that the human impact is as nothing compared to the awesome power of nature!  How right he is.  Then something odd happens.

Rather than be open to the possibility that human-made gases are negligible, as the data shows, Hansen goes on to make the statement:

"small forces (read: humans), maintained long enough, can cause large climate change."

How?

"Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot

and other small particles, now EXCEED natural forces..."

How?

Hansen uses an unjustified appeal to theorize a chaotic mechanism, the old "butterfly flapping its wings causes a storm on the other side of the world" kind of thing.  The 'How?' turns out to be pretty important, and any explanation gets very complex very quickly.  

In my humble opinion, the human-made part of global warming is about 0.28% (taking into account water vapor), and if humans & all their associated activities disappeared from the face of the Earth, there would be a 0.28% change overall (or less).

Answer 14

Well its a mixed effect of both..

Answer 15

I think we need to stop those d**n cows from farting!

uhm but no....its us...using too much c**p and ruining the earth's atmosphere..we are gonna kill ourselves one day...I call it.

but seriously...i heard animal farts are a great cause..

just saying.

Answer 16

most global warming things are natural processes. the humans have just sped the natural process up...

Answer 17

Disclaimer====> Opinions are useless (see most answers below)

Only scientific facts backed by traceable and reliable sources matter... all  the rest has no value at all.

Answer 18

yes of coure, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

Answer 19

yes... especially the ones managing those factories and business establishments that uses our land and water and air in their garbage disposal.

Answer 20

o·pin·ion (ə-pĭn'yən)

n. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

Beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to Global Warming.  Man either is or isn't the cause, period.  Until the science is in and we know for sure, we should not get caught up in our beliefs, because that will only lead to misguided actions.  Look at how many are starving right now because of the rash misguided push for corn based ethanol.  Personally, I am waiting until the science is in.