# General Discussion > Opinions >  Global warming, what are your opinions about it?

## Tokis-Phoenix

Global warming, what are your opinions about it? Do you think your countrys goverment is doing its best about the current situation to its best abilitys or not doing enough about it? 
Do you believe that the bulk of global warming we are/could be experiencing now is down to human intervention or a completely natural process that is been brought on right now because it was destined to, or both? 
Do you think there is enough info available on the facts on the weather changes we are experiencing right now or do you think that the goverment could be doing more to prioritise and educate people about global warming? Do you even care about global warming, or aern't you really bothered about it as long as it doesn't affect your life too directly etc?

All comments/views/opinions are much appreiciated :)

----------


## Yokan

I think it exists, however I don't think it is a big deal. It's exagerated I think, that's only my opinion though. Though better to be on the safe side and let the government work their magic trying to prevent it - But WE can make a difference though, we are the citzens who give off the heat. Other things that would cause this is the green house effect, oil rigs/factories etc...

y0kan :)

----------


## Void

it exists... more likely it is not due to human activities.... governments can do nothing about it... but politically it is convinient to spotlight only side of anthropogenic factor disregarding all other scientific evidence

on the other hand this year we have dreadfull winter. In my region it almost a month long of -30-51 C below zero with rare warming till -20-25... It`s all over Russia... and AFAIK all world is affected (at least in northern hemisphere) - so much for global warming  :Laughing:

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> it exists... more likely it is not due to human activities.... governments can do nothing about it... but politically it is convinient to spotlight only side of anthropogenic factor disregarding all other scientific evidence
> on the other hand this year we have dreadfull winter. In my region it almost a month long of -30-51 C below zero with rare warming till -20-25... It`s all over Russia... and AFAIK all world is affected (at least in northern hemisphere) - so much for global warming


Global warming isn't about everything getting hotter, as the heat melts the ice caps they dump loads of cold fresh water into the gulf stream- the gulf stream is powered by 2 things though in particular;
a. Hot/Cold water
b. Salt content
If too much cold freshwater gets dumped in the gulf stream in a short period of time, it slows it down and changes its course- this is bad because the current route of the gulf stream is responsable for giving countrys like England warm summers, and without it we'd be like Greenland or even colder.
So Global Warming isn't about everything getting hotter, things are destined in many places to get colder and scientists say that not only are the cold freshwater levels in the golf stream getting worryingly high, paleontologists and a whole group of other types of enviromental experts also say that the Gulf Stream itself is a very unstable thing and has stopped completely many times throughout its history. 
Before you go through a typical ice age, you get a hot brief warming period with higher sea levels, followed by a sharp decline in temperature and sea level and weather chaos, and then the steady drop into the constant ice age. 
Some scientists believe we have still yet to go through the warming stage, while others think we are currently going through it, and some even believe that it has ended and we are beginning to experience the climate/sea chaos stage- all we know is that things are happening, and they dont look positive.

Its debatable wether if we are going towards ice age weather brought on by global warming, how much of it was speeded up by mans influence, as paleontologists have noticed that our weather has been going through small ice age stages followed by warming periods of about 10-11,000yrs, and either way we are pretty much nearing the end of our warming period.
Personally i believe its a bit of both- i do think what we are going through its natural to a certain extent, but it has been vastly speeded up by mans influence.

----------


## Void

> Global warming isn't about everything getting hotter


you just enlightened me  :Evil:  
and don`t foget about 3/4 (i think, but always forget the ratio) of Earth is water... ocean breathing "exhales" MUCH more CO2 than whole humanity with all its industrial activity

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Global warming is real. I think it is partly the natural cycles of the planet, but largely as a result of human activity. I think 'global climate changes' is a better phrase, then people wouldn't think it is all about warming. Some governments certainly aren't doing enough - Mr Bush should sign the Kyoto agreement for a start.

----------


## Void

> I think 'global climate changes' is a better phrase


exactly - changes on global scale but differently from region to region.
And there is no one clear point of view in scientific society. 
For example recent research of ice core from the depths up to 440 000 years deep shows that the current concentration of CO2 and CH4 is the highest comparing to all these years, but at the same time there is enough of evidence that growinfg concentration of these gases is due to the warming (and not vice versa).Back to breathing ocean - air gets warmer and more gas is released from the water.
Yes, Gulfstream weakens, since 1992 up to 30% (according to some sources) , it might lead to the same situation as about 12000 years ago? and might even disappear by the end of XXI century
On the other hand, 1300 - 1850 considered as minor ice-age and we might be reaching one of those
as about Greenland, not really long ago it was actually green
and according to some other scientists average temperature in Europe will gel lower by the end of XXI century only around 4-6 C from current
It`s easiest way to panic (like , for example Lavlock did), it`s easy to brag about butterfly effect when it comes to atmosphere and ocean masses. But there are too many gaps in our knowledge to state that the only point of view is the correct one. Yes, humanity influnced natural cycles, as well as any other species did (though we still can`t beat bacterias  :Laughing: )... for better or for worce we don`t yet know

----------


## Reiku

I really don't have an opinion on this anymore.

I used to be a bit of an environmentalist--even ran my own chapter of "Kids For Saving Earth" in my youth...

...but I realize now that all my opinions on the matter were reached by blindly accepting what I was told. In regards to global warming, lots of people _tell_ us it's real, it's a threat, ect.--but I've seen reliable evidence that global warming is in fact _not_ happening...

...and now that I think about it, I've never seen any environmentalist present actual evidence to support global warming.

Sure, the KSE newsletter and many other publications were full of diagrams and explanations about CFC's, the ozone layer, greenhouse gasses, and the like--but that was just them saying: "This is what happens" I never actually saw anyting to back up thise claims.

For all I know, CFC's could be good for the ozone--all I've ever been given is "It's bad because I say so", and not from very impartial or qualified sources at that.

And before people start posting links to temperature charts showing an overall rise in temperature, let me remind you of two things:

1: I can draw charts too, that doesn't mean they are accurate.

2: Even accurate charts and graphs can be misleading.

If we had an unusually hot day in my neighborhood, and I only used the portion of a temperature chart showing that increase, I could make an alarming case for rising temperature in my town. But looking at a broader time range would prove it to be just a fluctuation, not a trend.

I'm left to conclude that I don't have enough reliable information to form an opinion about global warming.

----------


## mad pierrot

is why people think our climate was ever stable to begin with?

 :Biggrin: 


Pretty much all the recent evidence shows that humanity has, in fact, lived through an _unusually stable_ period of climate. If anyone needs sources, I'll go looking, but otherwise I won't post any. Anyways, the climate is changing, it always has been. Human development is most definately a factor, but exactly what that is and how much is up for debate.

----------


## Maciamo

Global warming exist, but it has always existed, in alternance with global cooling periods. This one may in part due to human activity, but could be easily countered by a natural periodical cooling. Therefore, I think that it is not such an important issue. I believe that other ecological issue are much more important, such as the destruction of the Amazon (dozens of species disappearing _daily_) or the extinction of species in general, which is irreversible. Pollution control and recycling are also more important issues in my view.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

I believe global warming exists and that our goverment needs to do more about it, but i also understand where Reiku, mad pierrot and Maciamo are coming from.

Firstly, i agree Reiku, you will never get anywhere in learning "the truth" if you never seek out your own answers and just go by what other people tell you- on the other hand, it does help alot in just by looking at things logically. I think the problem with our understanding of global warming as it is, is that its like a book of information that we are missing many of the pages to, or that many of the pages have not been read through properly yet. 
I think that we just dont have enough knowledge/info to go by right now to understand what exactly is going on, all we are doing right now is making assumptions and theorys about things- but at least thats better that not saying anything. I agree though that if global warming exists, there's far more to it than just CFC's, charts and basic understandings of various enviromental cycles- there are millions of factors that you have to take into consideration just to get an up-to-date view on the current understanding of global warming, and we are finding new factors to add to the theory every day- for example, just a couple of weeks ago, scientists discovered that tree's emmit methane. Yes methane! We have so much more to understand about even the basic ways our enviroment works.
On the other hand with mad pierrot's comment, no, our climate never was stable to begin with. Going by the archaeological and paleontological records(which are one of the biggest ways in gaining sound evidence for our understanding of climate change), our climate has never been stable, in fact, its been becomming more unstable as the millions of years go by.
Partly due to this, i believe that part of what we are experiencing(increased rate in natural disasters like huricanes, tornado's, wet seasons out of sync etc) is probably natural to a certain extent if you go by the paleontogical records for things like ice ages and warming periods, but at the same time its not helped by mans effect on the enviroment.

So when it comes down to it, there's still no clear answer as far as im concerned to sum all of this up- but the way i see it, there's no harm in playing on the safe side of things either. 
So wether global warming exists or not, i think we should start making changes starting we the way we treat our local enviroments- i agree Maciamo, that there are some very pressing issues that we know for sure exist in our enviroments that are in great need of being properly tended to. I am very keen on supporting the wildlife and their habitats, not just in England where i live, but in other countrys too. Part of why i am keen on supporting the enviroment is partly due to reasons that concern morality, and also due to just "logical" reasons i guess when you just look at the cause and effects of the human race's impact on this world. Most things that concern global warming though also concern things like polution and re-cycling and stuff too though.

----------


## Reiku

Well, it's nice to express an opinion and not piss anyone off for a change... 

...actually, I didn't express an opinion did I?

Oh well.

The two main fallicies I find in the issue of global warming--and indeed most environmental/animal rights issues--are these:

1) The view of humans as seperate from nature.

2) The belief that an impending change that threatens humanity's survival is even remotely likely.

First off, humans are not seperate from nature, other animals, the ecosystem, or any other such thing. We are a product of the system and so is everything that we do. The drastic--some life forms could veiw it as cataclysmic--change that resulted in out current, oxygen-rich atmosphere was the result of life forms altering the environment. Likewise, our current impact on the environment is as much a part of nature as plants pulling C02 out of the air and replacing it with oxygen.

As far as the likelyhood of the human race becoming extinct...

...the only known organisms more adaptable than us are bacteria.

We can survive in space, under the sea, on land, in the air--the only inhabited climate I know of that humans can not survive in for at least a short period is within molten lava--and that shouldn't be too far away, if we put our minds to it.

With our grasp of tool using, including science and technology--because they _are_ tools--it would take an almost unimaginable cataclysm to destroy us completely. A meteor could do it, but all it would take is a group of wealthy paranoids with a high-tech, privately funded bombshelter or self-sufficient space station to render even that incapable of destroying us.

Given our present level of technology and scientific understanding, I'd say just about the only thing preventing us from having those already is a lack of funding.

Is global warming real?

Maybe.

Is it a threat to humanity?

Not likely.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

I agree, global warming is no threat whatsoever to the survival of the human race, but, it has to the potential to be very destructive to the large majority of various countrys economys, which could be very bad on the quality of human life and the enviroment together wolrdwide- given that, the only reasons why politicians are paying so much interest in global warming now days is because of its potential to hurt the local economys and the growing awareness that the enviroment is changing no matter how you look at things.
People will always naturally see themselves as superior to animals- either way we are highly evolved, although not nesarsarily superior in terms of evolution in comparsion to other animals. 
If people saw all animals eye-to-eye it would change a heck of alot about the way we live and the way we saw ourselves in the role of life, unfortunatly its highly unlikely that even a reasonable amount of the human race will ever look at the world this way.

We are far more likely to be wiped out by super viruses than global warming, we already know of viruses that would have the ability to nearly wipe the human race. 
But even if global warming only slightly effects the human population, it will negatively effect the enviromental ecosystems/wildlife that surround us in a bad way, so i think we should continue to make great efforts to slow down/prevent the effects of global warming or find ways to deal with it just in case its as bad as its predicted to be over the coming decades.

----------


## Maciamo

One major issue which is much less discussed and much more threatening to humans and animals alike is the shortage of fresh water. According to specialists, we are using up so much of the Earth's fresh water reserves (esp. underground water tables) that there may not be enough water for all of us in two generations ! Unfortunately, water tables take centuries to refill, so a good chunk of humanity may well disappear in a few generations from now (as a generarion is about 20-25 years, many of us will see it happen). Let us not forget that the world's population is booming and should reach 9 billions in 45 years (3x more than in 1961 !). Naturally, the plants and animals needed to feed such a population increase in unison.

So rather than global warming or even pollution, overopopulation and the lack of fresh water essential to non aquatic life is IMO is single most important problem at the moment (in comparison, terrorism or wars are just jokes).

----------


## Reiku

Good point.

Although I wonder about that figure...

""not be enough water for all of us in two generations?"

Given the rate at wich humans can reproduce, we could concievably double or quadruple our numbers in that time, which would likely be disasterous...

...but what do they mean by "not enough for all of us?"

That could mean enough for everyone but one unlucky person--which is why I tend to be sceptical of vauge statements made with an air of scientific authority...

...okay, I'm skeptical of everything--but some things more than others.

There is a tendancy to present an unlikely "worse case scenario" as a scare tactic when trying to prove one's opinion, and this one in particular seems to ignore the practice of water recycling.

The technology exists to produce drinkable water from seawater or even air with only moderate difficulty at worst. Some of this is already in common use in the US.

Granted, this could mean the end of bottled water as we know it--and I can say from sad experience that recycled water can be almost unpalatable.

(The tap water here kills fish and tastes like it comes from a swimming pool.)

But if the issue is survival, you can be fairly certain that we will either change our ways or build something that will lets us keep doing the same stupid stuff for centuries to come--usually a combination of the two.

Of course, one could argue that we'd still go down because there wouldn't be any water for the other forms of life in the ecosystem...

...but I'm going to go out on a limb and propose that even if the earth turned into a dried up wasteland, we'd have a little bio-dome or two going with enough plant's and animals and machines to do just fine.

Then again, I _am_ of the opinion that a rapid, drastic population decrease could do humanity a world of good--no pun intended--so my idea of "just fine" might differ substantially from yours.

----------


## Maciamo

Here is an interactive zoomable world map (based on Google Earth) of the rising sea level caused by global warming. You can choose any sea level rise from 1 to 14m and estimate the consequences. Most big coastal cities (esp. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, London and New York) are in trouble, even with 1 or 2m of rise. Flanders, the Netherlands, North-West Germany and parts of England are also in trouble, and so are Florida, Bangladesh and other low lying areas.

----------


## Mitsuo

I think Global Warming exists. I THINK it is bound to happen no matter what. But I think that us humans have sped up the process.

Yes. The Government should do more. But the people should do more as well.

We all just need to be more responsible.

----------


## LeBrok

Do you know that last 10 million years (which is very short in geological terms) was unusually cold? One of the factors is extremely low level of CO2 in atmosphere! That's right, it is almost all gone. When earth was born there was 100 times more air and 99% of it was CO2. Scientists think it was like atmosphere of our sister planet, Venus. CO2 was slowly turned into sedimentary rocks through water action and also buried in ground as biomass like coal, oil and methane. When dinosaurs roamed the planet there was 5 to 20 times more CO2 than now. Now we have only 1% of air we started with and only 0.00003 of it is (or close to it) is CO2! Looks like we are losing CO2 very quickly. What if the rest is gone? We'll lose all the plants, and animals with it, and earth will freeze solid in another 10 million years.
Maybe burning some fossil fuel is not that bad idea? Maybe we should restore more healthy level of CO2 to save life on Earth as we know it?

There is a nice read to balance Al Gore's point of view. Google friendsofscience, unfortunately I can't post a link yet.

Cheers

----------

