• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Global Warming really all that disputed anymore?

E

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Watching these Forecast Earth segments on the Weather Channel website, about Alaska.

It seems to be a fact that Alaska's climate is changing. I guess the question is, is it really global warming? What if it is just arctic warming? Is there a difference?

Is it caused by humans? Clearly, the Earth has been getting warmer for the last 20,000 years or so - ever since we came out of the last ice age. Are we simply causing the inevitable to happen more quickly? Or are our carbon dioxide emissions negligable on a worldly scale?

How do we know that it isn't simply a 100(or even 1000...) year anomaly?

My Dad says he notices the climate differences here in Oregon from when he was a kid, but is 50 years really a big enough picture of time to see the whole picture?
 
My impression was that global warming is accepted as fact, but the dispute is over what its cause is. For example, I've read somewhere that a single volcanic eruption in a few days can put something like a zillion times* the amount of CO2 in the air as what all the people on earth will put in the air in years.

*I don't know the real number, so this is purposefully exaggerated to give the boys something to nitpick my post about.
 
Originally posted by: XietyCOM
OMG the hippiessss!!!!

J/K Eli 😛
Click to expand...
I worded the title this way on purpose.. but my post is really searching for answers. I imagine that there will be a lot of opinions, but I was also hoping it would generate some discussion, or at least some link postage, from people that know a little about what they're talking about.
Originally posted by: NuclearNed
My impression was that global warming is accepted as fact, but the dispute is over what its cause is. For example, I've read somewhere that a single volcanic eruption in a few days can put something like a zillion times* the amount of CO2 in the air that all the people on earth will put in the air in years.

*I don't know the real number, so this is purposefully exaggerated to give the boys something to nitpick my post about.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is my general view of it, also.

So basically, instead of pointing fingers and freaking out about it, we simply need to accept the change and welcome it with open arms- adapt.
 
The temperature is changing but I don't think there is anyway to know how drastic the affects will be. A geology professor I had once said that we will run out of fossil fuel before enough damage was done that the Earth couldn't repair itself.
 
Yes it is quite disputed. Virtually all scientists feel we need a minimum of 10 more years of data to fully understand anything. Until that happens (and even afterwards) it will be disputed.

For the best discussions just think of the two methods of measuring temperature.

Method 1) Measure the temperature only at the surface of the earth. In fact only measure at airports. Ignore any other location. Forget that as cities grow the city produces heat and affects the weather. As the city heats up, the airports (usually within the city) show hotter temperatures. Thus the world must be heating up.

Method 2) Measure the whole surface of the earth from a satellite. Average the temperatures. Guess what? No significant change.

Since method 1 gives dramatically different results from method 2, there is a major dispute going on.
 
Greenhouse gases incubate the earth = warmer temperatures
humans produce greenhouse gases = even more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than produced naturally

Sampson, are you trying to say that over-hunting animals for game/food won't drive them to extinction? And are you also willing to say that over-polluting won't drive temperatures higher?


Also, its not just greenhouse gases and global warming thats a problem. Ozone, chemical clouds/photochemical smog are very serious issues that coexist with global warming. Mexico City, a highly industrialized city, has seen irregularly high temperatures which can be attributed to the photochemical smog above them. Local warming will facilitate global warming IMO.
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
I don't think humans can influence earth and its cycles that much.
Click to expand...

Logging of the rain forests has had a tremendous effect by clearing huge portions of forest. Surface winds are increasing (evidenced by the recent hurricane off the coast of S.A.) Also, the average temperatue of the Phoenix area has increased by more than 10F over the last 40 years due to the huge expanses of concrete and asphalt from buildings, parking lots, roadways, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
Greenhouse gases incubate the earth = warmer temperatures
humans produce greenhouse gases = even more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than produced naturally

Sampson, are you trying to say that over-hunting animals for game/food won't drive them to extinction? And are you also willing to say that over-polluting won't drive temperatures higher?
Click to expand...

In Sampson's defense, animals are not part of earths' cycles or earth "itself".
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SampSon
I don't think humans can influence earth and its cycles that much.
Click to expand...

Logging of the rain forests has had a tremendous effect by clearing huge portions of forest. Surface winds are increasing (evidenced by the recent hurricane off the coast of S.A.) Also, the average temperatue of the Phoenix area has increased by more than 10F over the last 40 years due to the huge expanses of concrete and asphalt from buildings, parking lots, roadways, etc.
Click to expand...
I bet if you contrast thoes events against the entire planets climate, they are very small.
 
Cycles in global temperatures are normal and have been documented throughout human history. For example, scientists know that the 100 years ending by about 1950 were among the coldest on record. Prior to that, there was a similar cold cycle in the 1300's. That we are in a warmer cycle is not questioned. That humans are creating this warmer cycle IS questioned.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Yes it is quite disputed. Virtually all scientists feel we need a minimum of 10 more years of data to fully understand anything. Until that happens (and even afterwards) it will be disputed.

For the best discussions just think of the two methods of measuring temperature.

Method 1) Measure the temperature only at the surface of the earth. In fact only measure at airports. Ignore any other location. Forget that as cities grow the city produces heat and affects the weather. As the city heats up, the airports (usually within the city) show hotter temperatures. Thus the world must be heating up.

Method 2) Measure the whole surface of the earth from a satellite. Average the temperatures. Guess what? No significant change.

Since method 1 gives dramatically different results from method 2, there is a major dispute going on.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.. I have heard of this before, and I do find the idea quite interesting.. but surely we can't be that stupid.

Have any links that show that the average temperature of the Earth is "normal"?

It seems to be a fact that the average winter temperature in Alaska has risen almost 7 degrees. It is causing noticable changes in the permafrost and arctic ice distribution...
 
I don't think the current trend of warmer temperatures is disputed. Nor is the greenhouse effect. However, I think it's still debated whether the greenhouse effect is causing global warming, or if global warming is "really" happening.

 
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles in global temperatures are normal and have been documented throughout human history. For example, scientists know that the 100 years ending by about 1950 were among the coldest on record. Prior to that, there was a similar cold cycle in the 1300's. That we are in a warmer cycle is not questioned. That humans are creating this warmer cycle IS questioned.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

I don't know if I believe that humans are even a fraction responsible. Is it really true that a volcano spews out more CO2 than we ever have in a single eruption?

If that is the case, global warming by humans is certainly a load of bunk.

What about local climate change, though? As dullard and others have pointed out, replacing the cool forest with heat-absorbing concrete certainly changes local weather. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that it must also effect global weather.

Whats that one line of thought called.. Chaos theory or something? Where a butterfly flapping its wings in China may cause a tornado in the US, or whatever? I think the point of that expression is to simply state that the Earth and it's systems work in symbiosis with eachother and are so heavily interlocked, that we have no way of knowing what our changes to the Earth's surface are going to do to local and global climates.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
It seems to be a fact that the average winter temperature in Alaska has risen almost 7 degrees. It is causing noticable changes in the permafrost and arctic ice distribution...
Click to expand...
And supposedly (I haven't seen the data) other areas are cooling. Leading to a relatively unchanging temperature.

My personal opinion is that we have very slightly impacted the weather. For example we know for a fact that a city is hotter than a rural area. And we know for a fact that cities tend to create storms (look downwind from a city on radar). Yes we can locally impact it. But cities are such a minor fraction of the total earth surface that when averaged out it is so far unmeasurable. So I feel we do impact it, but so slowly that we need many more years of data to fully understand the full impact.

I also disagree with the premise that CO2 is the cause. This analogy isn't 100% perfect, but you'll get my drift. Suppose I have a greenhouse. The temperature is steady for many, many eons. Then one day I start a fire in the greenhouse and the temperature goes up. Did the temperature go up since the fire created more CO2 which assisted the greenhouse effect? Or did the temperature go up since there is a damn fire creating heat? I personally feel that it is the latter. The sheer amount of oil/coal/wood/nuclear power we are releasing is the bigger contributer to the local temperature effects we are making in my opinion.

 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Eli
It seems to be a fact that the average winter temperature in Alaska has risen almost 7 degrees. It is causing noticable changes in the permafrost and arctic ice distribution...
Click to expand...
And supposedly (I haven't seen the data) other areas are cooling. Leading to a relatively unchanging temperature.

My personal opinion is that we have very slightly impacted the weather. For example we know for a fact that a city is hotter than a rural area. And we know for a fact that cities tend to create storms (look downwind from a city on radar). Yes we can locally impact it. But cities are such a minor fraction of the total earth surface that when averaged out it is so far unmeasurable. So I feel we do impact it, but so slowly that we need many more years of data to fully understand the full impact.

I also disagree with the premise that CO2 is the cause. This analogy isn't 100% perfect, but you'll get my drift. Suppose I have a greenhouse. The temperature is steady for many, many eons. Then one day I start a fire in the greenhouse and the temperature goes up. Did the temperature go up since the fire created more CO2 which assisted the greenhouse effect? Or did the temperature go up since there is a damn fire creating heat? I personally feel that it is the latter. The sheer amount of oil/coal/wood/nuclear power we are releasing is the bigger contributer to the local temperature effects we are making in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Ahh, yeah, I see. Average is the key word.

Yeah, I have no doubt that warming in some parts of the world will cause a cooling in other parts. It's all about balance, as far as nature and the Earth is concerned.

I also agree with your second assessment. We do use and release a LOT of energy. That has to account for something - it doesen't just disappear.

I'd still like to know how much CO2 we have put out in the last 50 years, compared to a single moderate volcanic eruption.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
I'd still like to know how much CO2 we have put out in the last 50 years, compared to a single moderate volcanic eruption.
Click to expand...
I may be off, but if I remember right, one eruption is on the order of magnitude of one days worth of human CO2. It isn't zillions like mentioned above, but it is quite significant.

 
The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury?another 3°F to 10°F (1.6°C to 5.5°C) by the end of the century, the IPCC projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."

national geographic
 
Even if there is no global warming, I still dont find it good to pollute the air by burning fossil fuels. That causes acid rain and smog looks outright ugly. However, knowing the way human civilization works, we wont do anything drastic until something bad happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top