Welcome to Gaia! ::

The big deal is because the climate changes will effect on 50-100 years, and we'll not living long enough to feel a big change. But well, what world are we giving to our children/great-children? Do we learnt that in a place, or in a toilet, we should always keep the place in the clean situation where we found when we enter? It's the same in the planet, but well, i'm sure great-children will be disappointed and disgusted to see what was the world in 19th and 20th century and what is the world we give to them

Science is reason itself. It's the reason why mankind has progressed in many fields within the past few years. I'm not going to doubt facts that can be proven, just because skeptics think other wise. I'm not saying that they're wrong, and i'm not saying that i'm right. I just go by theories or facts only. I only guess when i'm not sure. I've researched global warming down to the very detail. It's majority of causes is human-related. And how is CO2 emissions hyped? We all drive cars that give out these gases, power plants do the same thing. How is it hyped when it's right in front of us? I still think that 98% of the cause is human-related. We alter the environment everyday. How is it impossible for us to not be linked to something like this? I'm not really in the mood for debating on this topic anyways..... stare

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comments on the graphs I have been busy for the last week or two. Humans definitly are not the only cause of climate change. And I don't think that most proponents of Global Warming a predicting an utter apocolypse (I haven't actually seen An Inconvenient Truth yet so I don't know exactly how far it goes).

But I do think mankind is playing a role and even a relativly(to the overall cycle) small one could cause a whole whole lot of problems in the long run.

A couple of interesting points I would like to bring up.

1. Even though there is still some disagreement as to the extent of the role humans are playing in global climate change (and room for it, we are on new ground here). The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) finds it 90% likely that humans are at cause for recent global warming. (as I understand it this means we are cause significant warming beyond the normal cycle, also many of the major powers behind this panel disapprove of the use of this strong of language both U.S. and Chinese delegate opposed it). This is the same group the predicted the 7-23 inch rise in sea level(later revised to 11-31 if the trends in ice sheet melting continue) and increased temperature of about 1 degree Celsius (same as the geology professor in the video Kitten posted, he was actually inconsistent in this statement since he also said he expected a thirty year cooling period starting by 2010, he also implied that the IPCC report projected 10 degrees *glares suspiciously*)
Here is the prerelease summary from the IPCC

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

A couple of high points from the Report. Atmospheric content of Greenhouse gases is higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years . (well beyond the scope of the trends shown in any of the graphs).

Volcanos and aerols have a cooling effect (partially offsetting the rise in greenhouse gases) There has been an overall drop in the earth's Irradiance called global dimming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
This has a cooling effect.

The only Scientific organization to openly doubt the basic claims of the report is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (to the best of my knowledge). Numerous individual scientist doubt it for various reasons (quite a few say it is not extreme enough in incorporating feedback effects for runaway global warming, others say it predicts way too much global warming) but the overall consensus seems to support it.

Check the bottom of the article the top links to for various dissenting opinions.


Back to my opinions....
Just a trend I have noticed is that Geologist tend to be the most against global warming. I suspect this has to do with the type of data they look at as opposed to any oil company conspiracies. The geological record shows very predictable heating a cooling cycles, but until the last century we haven't had man tinkering with the enviroment on the scale that he has since the industrial revolution(which is why no on really knows what will happen on this cycle)


This chart shows one of the models used to predict global climate change. (as far as I know the ones used by IPCC were a bit more complicated but multivariate like this, and including many other effects to some degree or another)
You have various cycles In gas emmissions (some of which lower temp, and some of which raise it, as well as variable energy from the sun (which goes in its own cycles)

All said there is a lot going on, but the greenhouse gas levels are out of whack with what they have been since the dawn of man (at least higher than they have been in 650,000 years possibly longer) and there is no precursor for them haven risen this fast before (gradual ups and downs between cycles but we weren't even close to a high in greenhouse gases last warming cycle and suddenly we spike way way up. This doesn't mean that we will neccisarily have massive warming CO2 level have been very very high during a previous Ice Age, but it is a factor and a large and scary one (at least to me).

The really big fear with green house gases (as shown in the IPCC report in the first link) is not their present levels but what will happen if their emmission levels continue to rise over the next century. With China and India becoming industrialized (together they have about 8 times as many people as the U.S.) the potential for it to be much much worse exists. The observable climate change over the next century is mostly due to the current state of things and can't really be stopped with current technology (but it is not catastrophic, just inconvenient). However if we run wild for the next century the one after that could be (if for instance emmission levels continue to rise for the next 75 years). We really could be looking at a full blown catastrophy by 2200 or so. My real concern also isn't Mother Nature wiping us out, but rather causing enough trouble to provoke us into doing each other in. (imagine if flooding displaced 500,000 Million people in South and South East Asia, you make that many people homeless and desperate it can lead to real problems). I know there isn't incontroversial proof of all this (and there won't be unless it happens) but I do think it is reasonable to invest in our future, try to find alternatives to fossil fuels (which we have very compelling reasons to do any way) and make them affordable enough that devolping countries won't need oil and coal.

New Study on Global WarmingA new study on global warming has startling implications.

I just found an article talking about how CO2 absorbtion by the ocean is going down faster than expected (40 years ahead of the IPCC model).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

Just my response to what has been said, which pretty thoroughly covers the debate. Scientists can show a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature increase. Also it is obvious that humans are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. So by this the theory of global warming is sound. But theory is not fact, and correlation is not the same as causality (I remember somebody else mentioning this). I beleive that global warming is real, and can contribute to climate change, but that this effect might be lost (either contributing or detracting) from the natural cycle.

On a more philisophical note, I once had the following thought. If we burn all the fossil fuels we will only be returning to the atmosphere all the CO2 that was there at one point. If the Earth survived the carboniferous period, then it will survive now. At the same time, Earth back then was covered with shallow seas and tropical swamps. Is that the Earth we want to live on? We must decide, and then act accordingly to the greatest extent that we can contribute.

On one final note I saw a special a while ago on TV weighing out the issues of global warming with the issue of global dimming, which is basically the idea is that human pollution (think smoke, and smog) blocks sunlight, decreasing Earth's temperature and countering or maybe even exceeding global warming, as well as effecting global ocean currents. It just goes to show how much we still don't know.

Ok, as of what I thing. Wow. Um....

I think that golobal warming is NOT caused by humans. We are NOT the main problem with dealing with it and if we really did stop whatever we are doing, like polluting and calening up all of our garbage, it would only knock down the Earth's overall temp by ONE DEGREE. <-- Proven true.

Although we still do really need to clean up, Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and we do not have a HUGE impact on it. Not saying that we don't at all, we just don't have the impact needed to "make the world die and blow up...."