Global Warming.. (In your opinion) Caused by us , or Just the normal cycle of climate change throughout time?

Question

Global Warming.. (In your opinion) Caused by us , or Just the normal cycle of climate change throughout time?

Answer 1

Regardless...

We cannot keep spending finite resources like we do at the moment. If it is not yet man made, it eventually will be if we do not change our consuming habits.

We are an expensive species for the globe. We use too many resources and there are too many of us.

Answer 2

The Earth has many problems because of man

this is undeniable ,how much we are responsible for Global warming is debateble ,But there is a definate change in Global temperatures that is affecting nature in a bad way.

this text only covers some aspects of Climate change ,mainly agriculture i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification

water and air polution such as caused by

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,

and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions

there are natural cycles in the planets life

but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

climate change is caused in great parts by desertification ,and most desertification is caused by man

the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result,

And now many animals are becoming sick because of changes in temperature ,

vital links in the food chains are disapearing affecting other species further along in the chain

90% of the feral (wild) bee population in the United States has died out.

In the Netherlands bee diversity is down 80 percent in the sites researched, and that "bee species are declining or have become extinct in Britain."

wildflowers that depend on pollination have dropped by 70 percent

we are witness to a mass exstinction ,for the first time since the dinosaurs, of the earth's estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past 50 years. each years, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct.

everything is happening so fast it is not possible to monitor things any more.

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year

and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up ,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,

and there are less and less farmers to do it..

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter

Global warming could be slowed down to some extent,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where,instead of just some third world countries Source(s) here are a 100 ways to help

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur... Source

Answer 3

We have to be a factor. Never before have so many people been on the earth and doing things that change it. More people, more fuels burned, more trees cut, more cows being raised (producing methane), etc.  However, I'm not ruling out natural cycles, too. It could be a combination of both.  We should do what we can to limit human impact. That's only sensible.  Even if it's a natural cycle, we could help things by lessening our impact. No reason to add to it, even if it is natural.

Answer 4

the normal cycle throughout time! and the government have seen a money making opportunity to tax us more!

Answer 5

Normal cycle. Note the current trend in our solar system - all the planets are going through a warm phase. I don't think that burning fossil fuels on our small planet could cause Mars to heat up. I don't know why Global Warming fanatics like to forget that not only is our sun getting bigger, but it's also getting hotter...

Answer 6

if it is global warming then why does the U.S .A keep sending up that shuttle and burning so much fuel i swear it is causing a lot of it think about the ozone layer being burnt off

Answer 7

omg you've started it...lol both. it naturally happens but we don't exactly help it slow...but no worries ((:

Answer 8

Global Warming is a normal cycle through time...

It is just that in the last century we have sent CO2 emissions OFF THE SCALE compared with any previous historical period! (That is the activity of Man - machines/industry/burning fossil fuels, etc, etc...and all indications are that with India and China making rapid headway in the global economy they will likely re-double ...or even 're-quintuple' the amount of CO2 being emitted!!!)

Noone really knows what, if any, effect this massive peak in CO2 will actually have in the coming decades/centuries/millennia!

There are two distinct groups that are vying for public approval -- the 'Humans will destroy the planet via Global Warming' brigade, and the 'We can emit all the gases we want and Global Warming is just normal' gang...

Do not be misled by either -- NOONE knows what our activities will really result in -- it is all a great and thoughtless experiemnt we are subjecting the world to in the name of 'progress'!!!

Answer 9

normal cycle of climate but speeded up by us

Answer 10

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming.  I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  

Another general resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2.  When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink.  As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them.  The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere.  Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas.  All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.  Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is.  So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature.  However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses.  Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways.  One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality.  This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming.  Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters?  The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.  

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real.  People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t.  Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index....  That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2.  The natural sources have been completely ignored.  Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr....  The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor.  This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth.  Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements.  They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report.  This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers.  Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming.  The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.  

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct.  While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options.  Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty.  For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT.  This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells.  Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided.  These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate.  If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea.  Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.  In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age.  We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world.  Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today.  Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away.  That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 11

Primarily by us, partly a natural cycle.  If I can refer you to the last question I answered you'll find my thoughts on the matter...  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 12

I think it's a mixture of both

Answer 13

its definitely caused by us

Answer 14

From the early 1900s we burned millions of tons of coal (fossil fuel). Where was the warming then?

Do you know many people with coal fires now?

When the volcanoes were erupting all over the earth the dinosaurs still were alive. Where was the warming then?

They died of the cold !!!

Global warming is a great newspaper seller.

Do you ever hear of the Africans saying " hey it's getting warmer here"?

Because the colder countries are getting better weather they say " hey there must be something wrong".

Enjoy it and get a tan !!!

Don't buy newspapers!!!

Multimedia hysterics !!!

Answer 15

Just the normal cycle.

Answer 16

just the earth moved a small axle

Answer 17

both

it is caused by human actives

but also by natural pollutants that is caused by nature.

it would be fine if there hadn't been an increase in these in the last 300 years. other wise we need global warming or else we could freeze.

Answer 18

Global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  Three reasons, with solid support, most important first.

There's an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed scientific data that says that.  Short and long summaries.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater...

There's a large number of people who agree that it is, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy".  Just four examples of many:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

The "swindle" movie (and its' "science") are wrong.  It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durk...

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 19

This particular incidence of global warming is most definitely caused by us. The rate of warming is unprecedented as is the rate of rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, no natural cause can account for what we are experiencing. We are engaged in a very dangerous experiment.

Answer 20

I am not sure.  The scientists can't even agree...

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.2–7.2 °F (1.8–4.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Answer 21

There is a natural climate cycle, but we are throwing it off. The IPCC panel of scientist have now stated that it is highly likely (>90%) that humans are the main contributing facto to climate change.

You should ignore those who claim "it's solar, all planets are warming", as they really don't understand the phenomenology of climate change. The scientists are smart enough to include solar variations into their models.

We have dozens of satellites monitoring hundreds of climate parameters on our planet. We know the climate is changing here. For other planets, we can only infer that they MIGHT be warming. Add this to the fact that as far as other planets go we know hardly anything about their climatological dynamics, and they really have no support. As an example, Saturn and Jupiter are far enough away that most of their "heat" is not really effected by the sun. They generate heat internally. A case and point, the Cassini probe has no solar panels as they would have to be mosntrous in order to collect enough sunlight to power the probe.

You don't go to a car mechanic to get a physical. You shouldn't go to the general public for climate change. Listen to the experts. They know what they're talking about.

~X~

Answer 22

I think the increased magnitude of the Earth's present warming is human-caused.