Can we really reverse current trends in global warming?

Question

Can we really reverse current trends in global warming?

Answer 1

Just let it go away by itself.

More than 30 years ago political scientist Anthony Downs discerned what he called the “issue-attention cycle,” a five-stage process by which the public and especially the news media grow alarmed over an issue, agitate for action, generate piles of scary headlines, and then begin to draw back as we come to recognize that the problem has been exaggerated or misconceived, and the price tag for action comes in. While Downs thought that the issue-attention cycle for the environment would last longer than most issues, it appears the mother-of-all-environmental scares -- global warming -- is following his model and is going to begin to fade like other environmental alarms of the past such as the population bomb and the “we’re running out of everything” scares.

Just give it another 2 years, it will die all by itself...  Then the next BIG issue will be all over the media, but rest assured there will be nothing we can do about that next BIG issue either...

Answer 2

Even if we do you can bet your a** Al Gore won't admit to progress. He's making too much money off of it as are his "friends" in the same business. We'll never know how good things have gotten.

Answer 3

Not likely. CO2 makes up about 3% of the air we breathe. Our technology is responsible for 0.0037% of THAT. Not to mention that CO2 is a FOLLOWING indicator, so it's not actually involved in making it hotter. But don't let facts get in the way of your fear.

Answer 4

nature will take of it on it's own just like it has since the beginning of Earth. you are very gullible or ignorant if you think mankind can have any significant impact on nature when it comes to the climate.

Answer 5

No. Even if we stopped CO2 output right now it would continue to warm up to a certain point and cause serious problems. The issue is preventing catastrophic warming which is what will happen in the future if we continued on the same course we are going now.

Answer 6

The Book “An Inconvenient Truth” was written by a pure politician for purely political gain and has absolutely nothing to do with reality, except that he is taking advantage of natural climate cycles to yell “The Sky is Falling”   Considering 90% of our impending climate change is due to natural solar cycles and Earth orbit eccentricities (proven by Mackovich Earth orbit and Vostok ice core studies), and it has taken over 200 years of industrial pollution to create our share of it (about 10%)… no short term action will have any immediate effect.  In theory, if we immediately stopped using Co2 producing energy sources, we could expect to see a reversal of our contribution (that’s only 10% remember) to climate change within 100 to 150 years.  

I will remind you of the Chicken Little’s a few years back that forecast an end to life on earth if we didn’t do something about the ozone holes at the poles… we stopped using flouocarbon aerosols in spray-cans (a decidedly symbolic gesture) and voila, the ozone hole problem was solved (but the ozone holes are still there, unchanged, because they are now known to be a natural phenomenon due to the earths fluctuating climate and magnetic fields).   The interesting part of this climate change scenario is the total lack of any meaningful action.  Predictions are grim, we could be facing global extinction of Homo Sapiens within 200-500 years, but all the politicians are doing is jockeying for power. The truth is, if we immediately cut back fossil fuel use world wide by 10% it would plunge the world into political chaos, millions starving in the first few years.  It was studied years ago what would be the outcome if the population of China added one egg a day to their diet.  The answer surprised most people…. To add one egg a day, the additional number of chickens would consume all the grain currently produced daily, worldwide.  Back to the drawing board… There is NO simple answer.

Answer 7

We already have!  2007 global temperatures were the lowest in 25 years.  We have succeded in stopping Global Warming ahead of schedule.  Now, if we can just get Al Gore to move on to his next chicken little - money making scheme.

See aticle below explaining how computer models are off by 375%.

Answer 8

Al Gore is no scientist.  He can even figure out how to tie his shoes now because of his massive, carbon eating carcass.  He has even misrepresented scientific facts to buttress his bogus claims.

There is a global warming trend occuring but it is hard to say for how long or that we may already be cooling once again.

Answer 9

try to reverse nature. let me know how that goes.

Answer 10

No,you cannot beat nature!

Answer 11

Sort of.

We can slow down the rate of increase, and avoid the worst problems.

Then we can stabilize CO2 someplace, where we can cope with the effects.

It's probably not cost effective to try to get back to the natural level of 300ppm, although we'll eventually get there naturally, as we run out of fossil fuels.

Note some of the nonsense deniers post here.  Like 2007 was the coldest year since 1982.  Simply ridiculous.  Proof:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Answer 12

Reverse what?  When in the history of man have we ever had any impact on this planet?  Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.  We even try to destroy this planet and we will not succeed.  Alarmism is based on rhetoric and fear mongering.  There is no global warming trend, only the same cycle that has been occurring, which they obviously can't predict, even with their all powerful climate models.  

Why do they keep changing those models by the way?  Simply because they keep getting proven wrong!

Answer 13

yes . We can cut back on the number of cars we own, the fuel we use to drive it, ei. alternate fuel

We can boycott manufacturers that over package, paper is made of trees and we need trees to create oxygen.

With the population explosion its a hard call as we get spoiled, we demand toys and easy solutions, we buy products that is cheaper to replace then repair.

Your answer is YES, BUT humans being humans, some dont even consider the possibility that future generation will fry in the sun, along with the food we cant grow, as some areas will be flooded, others will be parched, still other areas frozen solid. But most of all humans will NOT trade in creature comforts for long range consideration, as they do not think all this is a serious issue.

As for politicians, if its not catering to the rich, its a none issue to them. They give lip service to climate change, but the solution is not one they tackle, as it is a political suicide