Is global warming sudden or gradual?

Question

I'm writting a paper on it. I need to know if global warming has been a gradual process or it suddenly started happening.

I'm not answering such a question in my essay, it's just an idea I need to work into something sensible.

I appreciate all your answers.

Answer 1

Global warming started in the 17 hundreded when peope started builting plants to burn coal. Global warming is a graduel change because it started a while back not in the 20 century if everone burn coal everday productly and overly you may get a sudden result but we happen to day a a slow way.

Answer 2

Global Warming gradually happen... as nature always do.

From factories that exhaust smokes which contains greenhouse  gases... Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes greenhouse effect...  That causes climatic changes of today.

In short, it is a "domino effect"...

Answer 3

for sure it is gradual it has been happening for a pretty long time look at how the world is right now if we keep on doing what we are doing then we will all be miserable heat would be unbearable and meteors would kill off the earth

Answer 4

"sudden or gradual?"  is "relative".

in the life time of a tadpole, it's very gradual.

in the length of time that the earth has existed, it's almost instantaneous.

the problem in Darfur is thought to be caused by global warming induced drought, causing people to move to where there was some food.  For them, it was pretty sudden -- sudden being a few years of little rain, and insufficient crops.

all of the species alive today have evolved to live in the location and climate where they're found.  as temperatures increase, and rainfall changes, many of them will need to move.

where there are small localized populations, which frequently happens with insects and the like, there already have been many extinctions, and there will be more, because the change has been too rapid for them to find suitable new habitats.

if we compare what's currently happening to the more typical 100,000 year ice age cycle, it's very rapid.

Answer 5

Be sure to read the questions at the end!!

>

>  

>

>  

> -----

>  

>  

> Into the wild green yonder

>

>

> May 11, 2008

>

> By Walter E. Williams - Now that another Earth Day has come and gone,

> let's look at some environmentalists' predictions they would prefer we

> forget.

>

> At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel

> Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside

> nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for

> mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,

> "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and

consistent enough

> that it will not soon be reversed."

>

> In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero

> and mentor, predicted a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the

> 1970s... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."

> Mr. Ehrlich forecast 65 million Americans would die of starvation

> between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have

> declined to 22.6 million. Mr. Ehrlich's predictions about England were

> gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England

> will not exist in the year 2000."

>

> In 1972, a report for the Club of Rome warned the world would run out

> of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and

> petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.

>

> Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said

Americans

> were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they

> [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them."

>

> In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The

> World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

>

> Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization

> will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken

> against problems facing mankind." That was the same year Sen. Gaylord

> Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75

> and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

>

> It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers

> have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced

> there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California,

>

and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In

> 1939, the U.S. Interior Department said American oil supplies would

> last only another 13 years. In 1949, the interior secretary said the

> end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

>

> Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the

> U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year

> supply of natural gas. In fact,, according to the American Gas

> Association, there's a 1,000- to 2,500-year supply.

>

> Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making

> predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and

> millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government

> policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

>

> When Mr. Ehrlich predicted England would not exist in the

year 2000,

> what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent

> such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the Interior Department warned we

> only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should

> President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think

> environmental alarmism is any more correct now the tune has been

> switched to manmade global warming?

>

> Here are a few facts: More than 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is

> the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the

> greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees

> Fahrenheit. Most climate change is due to the orbital eccentricities

> of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural

> wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all

> human sources combined.

>

> Walter

E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a

> professor of economics at George Mason University.

>

Answer 6

* There is no "scientific consensus" on global warming

* Climate is always changing – with or without man

* The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today – and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan

* Most of Antarctica is actually getting colder

* Hurricanes are not getting worse – our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater

* Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will increase their profits – and our costs

* The media only recently abandoned the "global cooling" scare

* The real agenda behind the "global warming" scare? A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives

Answer 7

Really really really gradual, its only sudden now because of the media coverage

Answer 8

Write in your paper and investigate when warming goes up CO2 goes up... NOT when CO2 goes up warming goes up like Al Gore and other alarmist what the universe to believe.

Answer 9

70 MILLION TONS!!! of CO2 is pumped into our appleskin thin atmosphere by MAN -EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!  

THIS IS THE CAUSE!

NASA says GW is man-made. NASA sent us to the moon! But some dont even believe that. Some of these morons  still believe the earth is flat in fact.

Go to school, get educated. The Trillion dollar Fossil fuel industry Sheisters are everywhere trying to confuse you with their "snake oil". Get educated. GW is real.

Dont believe the crackpots. Most are over 60 and dont CARE if the earth boils because THEYLL BE DEAD ANYWAY in 20 years.  If youre young, you should be very concerned about GWarming.

Answer 10

We wish we knew.

Introduction:  California can start a worldwide revolution by becoming carbon neutral. In some ways this new standard is superior to the requirements of AB32. Carbon Neutral is only achievable by stopping procrastination and making real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation plus reducing natural threats and mitigating numerous others. A pollution surcharge and progressive consumption tax is far superior to the proposed cap and trade systems under the Kyoto Protocols and the European System. Simply by reducing emissions California does not reach the desired outcome of a more stabilized cooler atmosphere. Mankind needs energies and fuels that changes the way we think and live with multiple beneficial outcomes. Instead of burning fuel creating heat, bold renewable energies are needed that have the potential to be massively produced at lower prices than fossil fuel. Mankind needs energies and/or fuels to cool earth; these energies must create a whole new set of standards, new or renewed industries and a new and renewed international growing economy. The industrial revolution has put chemicals into space like refrigerants, methane and carbon monoxide that are destroying Ozone and causing global warming. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, governments have to change. Otherwise, the result is:  change is on the way; we just do not know what changes let alone where and when. Fossil fuels are nonrenewable resource and with increasing demand over the next 30 years, gas will sell for $30 per gallon without major intervention. California, therefore, must look beyond the bigger picture, beyond solar concentrating electric power plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and even beyond nuclear energy. Humans must understand many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction:  blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), dust storms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents, including benzene (destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates, cause air pollution), and plastics (clogging landfills, killing fish and birds) while most cars, airplanes, ships and electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases). Mankind has destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases dust storms. But adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming which is more prevalent at the poles; increase the amount of water in the atmosphere (warming earth’s surface) and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing tornados and/or flooding. With so many variables, the climate models are having to be made as we go along with current evidence! Even other natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (great destruction), sun spots and even lighting (producing ozone near the surface raising air pollution levels) later increasing the size of the ozone layer. Some humans know that to solve global warming including saving Earth’s Coral, a major goal in winning the global warming battle, and saving the ice caps is going to cost a great deal of money. As with any investment the sooner we start the less the price tag will rise. Humans know what is cost effective; where better technologies are needed. Earth's resource of oil energy, estimated at 3 trillion barrels, is supplied by the Sun to Earth every 2 days. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. With 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that needs oil, natural gas or coal to operate, it will take a generation to depreciate these assets and cause the shift humans demand. Estimates are that humans need 20 trillion dollars of renewable energy, conservation and new technologies by 2020. That puts California’s share at $2,500,000,000,000. Californian’s have to put our money where we get the best return on investments and where we get multiple beneficial outcomes. Energy conservation is the wise use of energy plus the right time of usage. While energy efficiency is putting the right equipment in that uses the least amount of energy. Efficiency is like buying a car that gets 60 miles per gallon, but still having to plan our trips and time of usage to conserve energy.

Carbon Neutral Solution:  carbon neutral technologies are being advanced and will continue to be a big part of this century’s greatest technological advancements: Compressed Liquefied Air (CLA) has more potential energy per gallon than gasoline used by a car. CLA is a viable form of power that allows the accumulation and transport of energy that can be made cheaper than fossil fuels. One CLA gas is liquid nitrogen; it is cold enough to improve our lives by allowing resistant free electron flow, also know as (AKA) superconductors. Motors run better; generators produce more power, and transmission lines transfer more power. With superconductors supplying power, it is best to go to six phase power generation and transmitting system. CLA could power almost any device powered by gasoline today when used with other types of clean energy like batteries. Electric car superconductor engines will end the fuel mileage standards debate. These technological breakthroughs means a new generation of concentrating solar power plant, hydro-electric power plants, wind turbines and wave power plants generators will dramatically increase efficiencies. Because not all good solar locations are good for electric production; therefore, new direct thermal solar to CLA, Biosphere Cleanup MachinesTM (BCM), use concentrating solar energy to CLA by taking in and cleaning up hot deserts air. Solar power can also be used in new low altitude satellites, cruse ships in the sky that sail endlessly in the jet-stream, an electric airplane AKA, Atmospheric Cleanup MachinesTM (ACM) which produce liquid air and separate out the oxygen and nitrogen while cleaning up the other chemical in the atmosphere. The CLA is then available for the USA to build a cross country superconductor electric high speeds train capable of 200 MPH. California must work with Amtrak to build a high-speed route from Mexico City to Anchorage, Alaska, starting with Los Angles to Stockton. Phase two will expand the route to Sacramento in the North and San Diego to the South. But California must start by expanding San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service to San Jose, Santa Rosa, Sacramento, and Stockton. To best take advantage of this extraordinary global warming solution, California must plan a later expansion from Sacramento to Monterey Bay through San Jose. And Sacramento must expand the Light Rail to Placerville, Roseville and Woodland. To control flooding, California must upgrade the pumping stations to superconductor and double the pumping capacity of state water works, and double the capacity of water treatment plants. California has to regulate ground water and all wells. Another flood prevention step is to upgrade sewage treatment plants to double storage capacity and mandate all water to be recycled keep out of ground water, the ocean and rivers. Recycled water can be used to water lawns, golf courses, in cooling towers, agriculture and nonhuman consumption live stocks. California has to meet the new electrical demands with conservation, new hydro projects, solar and new and replacement nuclear power plants. Estimates are that California needs 20 gigawatts of concentrating solar steam turbine electric generating power plants. Pushing the limits of heat transmission, a new generators and using heat recovery, are several breakthrough technologies that will improve solar concentrating power plants from 35 percent efficiencies up to 60 percent. California has to double output of existing hydro electric power plants and add many small ones all over. California has 1200 water storage and hydro systems, add 300 more 5 the size of Shasta. California needs 100 by 2012; this put us far behind our needs. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy, flood control and cooling earth by evaporation. California rivers must be returned to living natural waterways and parks. It is vital to earth to return the water flow to the Colorado River. California can build one nuclear power plant when this proposal is adopted then four by 2020 with ten overall. California has to move past the “turn it off mode” to conserve large amounts of energy and to push for higher standards. Californian’s must embrace old and used wood recycling,  used lamp recycling and used engine oil, plastic, bio-waste, cosmetics, used tires, sewage treatment floaters to make bio-fuels and synthetic gasoline even using natural gas and coal. All public schools must add online classes to conserve energy while adding solar. Public schools are to work out plans to end most electric use by 1 PM in the summer-end of May to beginning of September. UC to combine all online classes to form an online campus, same with CSU system and no student can start at university, must start at community college, take AP classes in high school or online undergrad classes. To give renewable energy a competitive advantage, we must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and