I neglected to vote, I don't really agree with any of your options.
It has throughout earth history occurred naturally, without any help from us, and any anthropogenic inputs are relatively minuscule.
That said however, you never know! It's that old cliché about a grain of sand buggering up the mechanism of a precise watch I suppose, but I keep an open mind until further evidence arises...
Floreat Salopia
"There are many talented people who haven't fulfilled their dreams because they overthought it, or they were too cautious, and were unwilling to make the leap of faith". ~ James Cameron.
I don't think anybody can say it "doesn't exist." Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but it definitely exists, as Benauld pointed out that the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles since it formed. But I'm sure you (and everybody else who uses the term loosely) implies man-made acceleration.
But I say it's impossible to tell how much man has affected it. We'll never know how the earth would have done if we weren't here. Not to mention all of the conflicting data. Some says it's warming, others show it has been static since 2000 I think. Plus it's impossible to accurately determine the earth's temperature in years past. The graphs we see show smooth lines prior to the last couple hundred years, but you can't expect the earth to actually behave like that. There may have been periods of decades during the Cretaceous where the average temperature rose 15*F in a 50-year time span then fell back down 15*F in the next 50 years. Who knows.
Though with that said, I chose option 2. I think the earth's natural forces are much more powerful than many people give them credit for and overstate how much we affect it.
Certainly it exists, and always has done. We can 'read' it in the rocks almost anywhere. Ice ages and greenhouse effects have happened often in the past, and they will do again in the future.
However politicians see this as a way of taxing us further, and are determined to 'save the planet'. How pompus is that?????? We are doing little to add to the situation (the true figure is around .5% - (that is point five!). Yellowstone alone puts around 6% of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Are the Greenies going to cap it or tax it?
You may have noticed that the term 'global warming' has now been quietly dropped in favour of 'climate change', since there is a possibility of the on-set of another ice age.
But now other bits are coming to the fore, regarding manipulation of data, and the angle photos have been taken from. Even that iconic picture of a couple of polar bears on a very small iceburg that was intended to tug at heart strings was actually taken in the summer.
I would recommend anyone to watch Al Gores 'An Inconveinient Truth'. It is utter tosh. Armed with a fairly small amount of geological knowledge this film will almost cetainly convert any thinking person away from the terrible things Man is doing.
However I do believe in recycling. Quite simply we waste far too much.
John
“Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.” - Will Durant
John
“Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.” - Will Durant
I totally agree with john on this. Any geologist who's had a look at the facts in my opinion should totally disagree with people saying it's our fault about climate due to global warming, we are but a drop in the ocean and any changes we make would be minimal.
I think there is more than one argument here and they need to be broken down to make progress on this issue.
Firstly: Does elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause warming of the Earth?
I think everyone would agree that this is the case.
Secondly: Has the been a measurable rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 50-200 years?
I await to be corrected but I believe that this is the majority view. Regardless, it should be (relatively) easy to prove one way or the other.
Thirdly: Is man contributing a significant quantity of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that it has a distinct and measurable impact over and above the natural emissions of greenhouse gases?
This is where the big disagreements take place and, amongst politicans at least, it is frequently related to their world view and less to the science. However, I would argue that this question is largely irrelevant in the face of the more important final question below.
Finally: If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is yes then shouldn't we be doing something to reduce the level of greenhouse gases? It doesn't really matter if man is responsible or not if we are to suffer the consequences regardless.
Producing a map can be a political statement occasionally. The job is, at best, hard. The Times Atlas has found itself at the center of some political discussion after posting a map that revealed Greenland shrinking. Source for this article: Greenland ice mass maps causing political uproar
GeologyRocks
Comments
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
I neglected to vote, I don't
Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:00I neglected to vote, I don't really agree with any of your options.
It has throughout earth history occurred naturally, without any help from us, and any anthropogenic inputs are relatively minuscule.
That said however, you never know! It's that old cliché about a grain of sand buggering up the mechanism of a precise watch I suppose, but I keep an open mind until further evidence arises...
Floreat Salopia
"There are many talented people who haven't fulfilled their dreams because they overthought it, or they were too cautious, and were unwilling to make the leap of faith". ~ James Cameron.
Rank:
Contact:
I don't think anybody can
Tue, 05/19/2009 - 17:32I don't think anybody can say it "doesn't exist." Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but it definitely exists, as Benauld pointed out that the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles since it formed. But I'm sure you (and everybody else who uses the term loosely) implies man-made acceleration.
But I say it's impossible to tell how much man has affected it. We'll never know how the earth would have done if we weren't here. Not to mention all of the conflicting data. Some says it's warming, others show it has been static since 2000 I think. Plus it's impossible to accurately determine the earth's temperature in years past. The graphs we see show smooth lines prior to the last couple hundred years, but you can't expect the earth to actually behave like that. There may have been periods of decades during the Cretaceous where the average temperature rose 15*F in a 50-year time span then fell back down 15*F in the next 50 years. Who knows.
Though with that said, I chose option 2. I think the earth's natural forces are much more powerful than many people give them credit for and overstate how much we affect it.
Rank:
Contact:
Certainly it exists
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 00:50Certainly it exists, and always has done. We can 'read' it in the rocks almost anywhere. Ice ages and greenhouse effects have happened often in the past, and they will do again in the future.
However politicians see this as a way of taxing us further, and are determined to 'save the planet'. How pompus is that?????? We are doing little to add to the situation (the true figure is around .5% - (that is point five!). Yellowstone alone puts around 6% of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Are the Greenies going to cap it or tax it?
You may have noticed that the term 'global warming' has now been quietly dropped in favour of 'climate change', since there is a possibility of the on-set of another ice age.
But now other bits are coming to the fore, regarding manipulation of data, and the angle photos have been taken from. Even that iconic picture of a couple of polar bears on a very small iceburg that was intended to tug at heart strings was actually taken in the summer.
I would recommend anyone to watch Al Gores 'An Inconveinient Truth'. It is utter tosh. Armed with a fairly small amount of geological knowledge this film will almost cetainly convert any thinking person away from the terrible things Man is doing.
However I do believe in recycling. Quite simply we waste far too much.
John
“Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.” - Will Durant
John
“Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.” - Will Durant
Rank:
Contact:
I totally agree
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 17:54I totally agree with john on this. Any geologist who's had a look at the facts in my opinion should totally disagree with people saying it's our fault about climate due to global warming, we are but a drop in the ocean and any changes we make would be minimal.
Rank:
Contact:
I think there is more than
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:16I think there is more than one argument here and they need to be broken down to make progress on this issue.
Firstly: Does elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause warming of the Earth?
I think everyone would agree that this is the case.
Secondly: Has the been a measurable rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 50-200 years?
I await to be corrected but I believe that this is the majority view. Regardless, it should be (relatively) easy to prove one way or the other.
Thirdly: Is man contributing a significant quantity of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that it has a distinct and measurable impact over and above the natural emissions of greenhouse gases?
This is where the big disagreements take place and, amongst politicans at least, it is frequently related to their world view and less to the science. However, I would argue that this question is largely irrelevant in the face of the more important final question below.
Finally: If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is yes then shouldn't we be doing something to reduce the level of greenhouse gases? It doesn't really matter if man is responsible or not if we are to suffer the consequences regardless.
Rank:
Contact:
Producing a map can be a
Wed, 09/28/2011 - 09:24Producing a map can be a political statement occasionally. The job is, at best, hard. The Times Atlas has found itself at the center of some political discussion after posting a map that revealed Greenland shrinking. Source for this article: Greenland ice mass maps causing political uproar