Global Warming: Fact or Folly?
88Global warming versus Global Climate Change verses What's All the Fuss About?
There are basically three ideas people have about our climate. One group believes that whatever changes that occur are all a part of a cycle as old as nature itself. They really can't see what all the fuss is about. Warming and cooling cycles have been around since the earth first formed, and that is simply the way things are. This group usually vehemently denies that they, or we Humans, have had any appreciable effect on the climate of the Earth.
There is another group, which somewhat believes this first group, but also detects that we Humans may be just a little responsible for any changes in the climate. After all, they point out, things seem to be changing, but how much we should blame ourselves has yet to be determined. They form the great majority of people in the world today. Ether they can't be bothered about these things, and therefore ignore them, or they are concerned but simply can't make up their minds.
The third group comes in two varieties of folk. The first are scientists who study the effects of pollution and carbon release into the atmosphere and draw conclusion based upon the evidence and facts they discover. This group is usually not extremely vocal, but works daily to sort fact from fiction.
The other part of this group, which is not a very larger part, although they seem so because they are the more vocal part, shouts and rants and raves like Chicken Little that the sky is falling and we had better do something about it, right now. To everybody else in each other group, these people look silly, sound shrill and are generally ignored or marginalized as kooks and gloom and doom fanatics. They are the voices in the wilderness that the great majority either has no time for, or ridicules as being somehow mentally deficient in their thinking processes.
So, just how is one to know who is correct? Who has the answers, and what will those answers show us?
The scientific community is not made up of people who are looking for fifteen minutes of fame. The data gathered is sound, and the science points to the fact that we Humans are having a profound effect on our environment. Most of the effect comes from the release of long-dormant carbon in the form of fossil fuels. It began long ago when people began to use buried coal and petroleum products to heat their homes and power their industries.
Long before coal and oil were widely used, however, people burned wood. Didn't that add to the problem? Well, not exactly. Wood was a source of carbon that was still above the soil, and was part of the balance the earth had achieved over the millennia. Wood that was burned gave off carbon dioxide, true, which was then taken back in by living plants, converted back onto carbon and oxygen. For every pound of CO2 that was released in burning wood, somewhere a plant was taking in that pound of CO2 and was actively converting it back to elemental carbon and oxygen. The carbon became part of the plant, while the oxygen was released back into the air. There was a balance.
However, when the long dormant fossil fuels were once again being introduced into the atmosphere the cycle became skewed. We began taking something that had not been seen on Earth since a very early age and starting pouring it back into our atmosphere at ever-increasing rates. We built up what is essentially an excess of carbon, and today that has added up year after year. There is currently no natural way this excess carbon could be returned to a dormant state far beneath the soil, so it simply stays either in the atmosphere, or becomes dissolved in the oceans.
There is only so much atmosphere to be found on the earth - it is not unlimited - it is quite finite. Whatever the balance once was, by pouring billions of cubic feet of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, it is bound to make a change. That is simply a fact.
But the obverse side of this is that when we burn carbon fuels, they need oxygen in order to combust. In effect, not only are we dumping excess carbon into the natural cycle, but we are also in effect taking oxygen out of the same cycle. For every ONE carbon atom reintroduced into the air, TWO oxygen atoms are taken out. We are not only adding more carbon, we are in effect stealing from ourselves the very air we need to breathe. For anyone who doubts this, just close yourself in an airtight room and see how long it takes before your air becomes unbreatheable. There are still atmospheric gasses there as you breathe, but the oxygen you need to survive quickly converts to CO2, which at only a 5% concentration will kill you.
Conversely, there is about 21% oxygen present in the atmosphere. Can we live when it reaches 19%, or 15%? What about 10%? The facts are that we are oxygen breathers. Without O2 we die. We exhale carbon dioxide. When CO2 reaches too high a concentration, we die. There are about 6 billion people on earth, plus countless billions of other creatures, all breathing oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, we drive cars and fly in planes and use transportation and heating and cooling that uses energy that is derived from fossil fuels, and these power plants and transportation needs ALL exhale their own quota of carbon dioxide. If you take the sum total of all carbon-dormant gasses expelled into the atmosphere over the centuries, how long would it take to gather a significant amount? Science tells us we have already reached that point.
When and where does the balance tip so that we are using more oxygen than is being replenished? Where is the tipping point when there are not enough plants alive to convert CO2 back into oxygen for us to breathe? That we do not yet know. But as we continue to tear down the great rainforests that serve as the lungs of the planet, I am certain that we either have, or will reach a tipping point of no return.
Some pundits, those who disbelieve that we are experiencing global climate change, or global warming, remind us that water is a greenhouse gas. Also, methane, and many other atoms and compounds found in nature. They claim there is nothing to fear because of a little CO2 in the air. Unfortunately, they forget or fail to mention that if we were working with the same balance of carbon present in the atmosphere that we had 500 years ago, then maybe everything could be explained simply by natural cycles.
However, we have changed the equilibrium, we have changed the balance, and that is why scientists are finding that without doubt there is something going on in our climate which does not bode well for all oxygen-breathing creatures on the Earth.
After all is said and done, I really hope that the naysayers of negative human intervention in the balance of our atmospheric climate are correct. It would be comforting to think that there is no crisis, and that the voices in the wilderness really are just kooks and screwballs. I really would like for life to just go on as it has since I was a kid.
However, being a realist, and understanding science, I have come to the conclusion that it is the rest of us who are wrong. There is a crisis, and we are part of the problem. What we do about, or fail to do about it, will determine whether or not we continue to survive as a species, and in what shape the survivors of our foolishness will be in after we are gone.
Global Warming Websites
In order to better understand the data collected on global warming, you have to do a few things that many of us are not inclined to do. First of all, you need to learn to understand just what Scientific Theory is all about. Unlike the way we casually use the word theory in everyday speech, in science a Theory is based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence, proof and facts, if you will. It is not just an educated guess or best guess. It begins with a discovery, and then eventually becomes a hypothesis. Then it often takes millions of bits of data before a scientific hypothesis will be accepted by the mainstream of the scientific community and eventually becomes a Scientific Theory.
During this process the hypothesis will be tested, scrutinized over and over again for years until the both the evidence and proof stand the test of time, or are replaced by a better model, again formulated after painstaking research and data collection leading to a new hypothesis. However, once something becomes a Theory in science, it has stood the test of an overwhelming amount of testing in order to be proven true. And remember that in order to become a Scientific Law, the Theory must be reproducible. Since things like Evolution and Global Climate Change are not reproducible in a laboratory, they may never become Scientific Laws. That does not diminish the truth they offer, however.
The truth is that most of the people who decry global warming do not have a solid grasp of what it takes to create a Scientific Theory such as that which supports the facts about global warming. In lieu of necessary facts they use anecdotal evidence, which is not applicable in creating solid science, to base their arguments. Like most conspiracy theorists, they use a set of negatives to try to prove a positive, and that is not science, that is science fiction, and there is a difference in approach and outcome.
The Scientific Method leads to the truth, while the science fiction method leads to interesting story telling. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the turth is that you don't get good, reliable science by using faulty methods and inaccurate information. Garbage in leads to garbage out. The truly dangerous part of all this is that it "sounds good" or "feels right", and therefore people want to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
Look at the websites I have given you below, and then scout out some of your own. Look at opposing views, but educate yourself as to what is being said, and what proof, facts and evidence backs up every point of view. It is not a simple task, but until you learn how and why global warming has become the scientifically accepted theory it is today, you will not be able to easily discern someone who is blowing smoke to someone who is stating the facts.
An addition from another source: some great information here, so please check it out!
I found another web site that gives a lot more information about carbon entering the atmosphere. I would like for you to see if you agree that we have a problem here. It may be greater than even I explained above!
CommentsLoading...
Excellent, well reasoned hub. The science is pretty well in on this one and global warming is only a "theory" in the scientific sense--that is with proof behind it just like "evolution" and "gravity" which are also scientific "theories" sooo glad you explained that the use of the word theory in science is quite different from the everyday use of the word.
Mankind has always changed his environment, from our hunter gatherer days on. We have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species of plants and animals and that trend continues today. We'vwe made discovieries that have allowed more and more of us to be supported on this fragile planet of ours. The bottom line is that there are now too many of us on the planet. I suppose mother earth will take care of that in her own way eventually, but in the meantime it would be good if we could try to stop fouling the air. Thanks for this. Thumbs up up up!
Excellently researched and written. I've never been the one to jump on the whole global warming thing, but your argument makes perfect sense to me. Good job.
It probably won't happen in our lifetime but something definitely needs to be done or our relatives further down the line are going to see an entirely different planet.
Bravo Chef, Bravo! Well and rationally said.
Here's another site to add to your list:
Thanks for the link, CWB - I added it in above.
donnaleemason, I agree that it may take time for the effects to show up in some major way, but we really don't know where we are in the grand scheme of things. I can only hope that we are not past the point of no return.
I know we stand in awe at the majesty of our world, but it is a fragile place, with a delicate balance that does not take kindly to being trounced upon. Think about those foorprints from more than 100 years ago that can still be seen in the Arctic tundra, and the wagon ruts from 1848 that are still cutting into the soil out west.
How we touch the world makes a big difference, even if the touch is light. Thanks for commenting and I hope you will keep writing and commenting!
nice hub chef jeff, good to see there are people like you concerned enough to write about this. Well done, Thums up. I am going to share this on my blog.
Well written hub. There is another group (scientists) that believe we are actually going into an ice age. They say before an ice age comes on it is warmer for a while. Kind of like it's the darkest right before the dawn.
I also wonder about the Ice Age postulation, but what I have learned that some scientists are saying that we should be entering an age of global cooling - a natural cycle that follows a more-or-less regular cycle.
However, due to the extra carbon emissions, we are balancing between an ice age and a warming trend. Be not fooled, however, as some are saying, by thinking that we are somehow getting one over on nature - we are not in the position of regulating our climate any more than we are in the position to understand the danger of actually trying to do so.
We are not God and should never think we are so wise that can play God.
Great observation, though and thanks for writing!
You are correct Chef. If not for the unprecedented level of disruption by humans, the climate should now be heading towards an ice age. Our carelessness has altered the cycle and locked us in a warming trend. Will that ultimately produce a cold cycle? Almost certainly but there may be no one around to record it.
Either way, we will be in a world of trouble if we don't prepare. Unfortunately, governments will be doing less than nothing, so maybe people should just start storing away a little long-lasting food every week. Not bad advice even if it's just to get through some local disaster.
It's time to take matters into our own hands, concerning our survival for whatever may occur.
You are absolutely correct.
On you last comment Chef Jeff. Absolutly!
Chef, have you heard anything about Antarctic glaciers increasing, as arctic ice is melting? There's a lot of alarmist internet buzz, but nothing substantial... at least that I've found.
Constant, I have not heard anything about the ice thickening - recently a chunk the size of Rhode Island broke off, and while ice does from time to time break off, a chunk that big seems substantial.
I do know that researchers are busy looking into both poles - what happens to one may reflect the opposite of what to expect at the other, or maybe they will both do the same.
The idea is - this is all virgin territory for our species - we simply do not know with 100% certainty the day-by-day things that will happen. Scientist seem to believe one of three things:
1): Thing will generally get hotter for most of the planet. If unstopped, things will get hot for everyone who survives, a most dire outlook that hints at mass extinction of many species, including us.
2): An Ice Age will be temporarily diverted, but will come back in force. This is a minority view, backed by some solid data, but not as widely accepted.
3): Nothing - this is all just a cycle of nature. A view held by people who do not want to accept the data collected, usually these people believe it is a Greenpeace hoax (aka Liberal hoax) meant to ruin our consumer lifestyle and change our way of life to a Left-leaning agenda.
My own belief is that climate change would not be the same everywhere on the planet. Some places will swing back and forth, others may actually cool a bit, but I do believe that climate change of some sort - be it hotter or colder - is taking place, and I can't understand why so many people do not understand that by our pouring billions of tons of carbons into the air we are helping to make a change.
Are we 100% responsible? I can't say that, but what does it matter? If you know a tornado is coming you don't wonder if you caused it - you get to shelter and prepare. Apart from that, I am not convinced we have reached the point of no return, and I do believe that we will need to change our consuming habits.
We create too much trash, burn too many petro-carbons, deforest at alarming and dangerous rates, kill off the coral reefs, fish whole areas to death (literally!), use water like there's no end to it, and if I can put it bluntly, as a whole, many people simply waste the good and precious resources that have been given to us.
Very informative--just too much for my little brain. I just ride along with the weather changes...a weather is a weather I can never fathom, and I am just a little insignificant part of it trying to contribute in my own little insignificant ways.
Zylla3philippines - Well, act local, help out globally, as someone wiser than I once said. Do what you can where you are at, and if we all did that, maybe things would be better for all of us! I applaud that you do acto locally, because that is what it takes - a grass-roots movement, the trickle up theory, as I like to call it.
I also have to mention that I misspoke about the possibility of a scientific theory becoming a law - they are indeed two different things, and I simply forgot that in my passion to write.
A theory is as I explained it, but a law is much different. To explain, it is a scientific law that gravity exists. It is irrefutable. Gravity exists.
However, how we explain gravity and how it works is in the realm of Theory. Therefore a Theory will never graduate to become a law, as I misstated in several hubs or comments. I humbly apologize for that, inasmuch as I hold myself to a high standard in my writing.
However, once a group of ideas, data and information has attained the level of being recognized as a scientific Theory, it is fact, in the sense that fact means a truth. Thus a theory is a large group of data and facts that propose an idea that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus attain or supersede the same status of a Scientific Law.
Therefore a theory in and of itself does not become a law, although, and this is where I failed to make things clear, a theory can indeed lead to a law being created, and vice versa. We knew of gravity before the working model of the Gravitational Theory was created and we know of evolution before we may someday write it up as also a scientific law. evolution, right now, is not a law of science.
Concerning things such as Evolution, however, it is doubtful that the Theory of Evolution, which is scientific fact, could ever lead to the Law of Evolution, because a Law requires a different set of proofs and observations.
For Evolution to become a scientific law it would need to be demonstrated through observation. Much as dropping an apple demonstrates the Law of Gravity, and Einstein's work, and others that have follow, prove the Law of Gravity.
While it is doubtful that we will become powerful enough or wise enough to become gods - able to create a new world and put into place all the things needed to make evolution occur - this does not, however, negate the fact that evolution does indeed exist, and is still working in our world of 2008.
One day, I predict, it will become a scientific law, much as, but along a different path to how Gravity and other subjects of scientific interest were recognized as scientific laws.
For further clarification, please see: http://www.notjustatheory.com/ I And thanks to Gems4friends for the link.
PLEASE HELP ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
ok How much greenhouse gasses are we putting into the air a day/week/month/or year, and how much is converted back into oxygen?
Hailey, there are different accounts of the numbers you ask for. If you take the view that carbon dioxide is a bad thing in excess, then you believe that we produce more CO2 than is converted to O2. I happento be one of those people. It take only 5% CO2 in a room to kill you. You can have 95% O2 and only 5% CO2 and you'll be dead.
We do not have close to 5% CO2 in the atmosphere, but the entire argument is that you only need a small % and that will start to heat up the Earth. Some comes from the Greenhouse effect, and other many also come from the studies that show CO2 and other carbon based poolutants actually begin to cause a microwave oven effect. that is, solar radiation causes them to vibrate and give off heat. It may be a two-edged sword.
More later, I'm at work now and am on break.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
OK, here are some other hubs that speak to this question:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Earths-Temperature-Brief-H
The issue with greenhouse gases is not just the air we breathe - it is the entire chemistry of our planet. While it can be overwhelming to contemplate, a great book to start with is Alanna Mitchell's "Sea Sick". For a summary of her overall thesis on how our oceans hold the key to life on land (and global warming), see my hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/Sick-Seas-How-Alannah-Mitc
I will be writing more on this important topic and the most important actions we can ALL take, right now.
If you want a reasoned and very readable explanation about globa warming read the late Michale Crighton's essay http://crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironment
Whether you support cap and trade or not, a good read is Carbon Folly, http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Carbon-Folly
Excellent article with many great detailed facts. I do believe we are responsible for global warming (in our case here up north it is more like global cooling!) to some extent but am not a fanatic about it. I am all for any positive things we can do to slow global warming down and keep our planet clean and healthy for all of us. Thanks for the wonderful information.
Thanks, Monique! The website has a lot of great info for people to dig in deeper and think about the issue. I look forward to reading your hubs on the issue!
Keith S., thanks for the website & info! I agree with dsletten that at times it seems more like global cooling in the northern latitudes, but climate change is the operative word. It will be like a mix of odd conditions, cooler in some places, warmer in others.
Some people are using the "cooling" we've noted in North America to shout down climate change. In the end, however, things are getting warmer world-wide, and science is refining its ability to actually measure this. Using another branch of science I can explain why science is always seeking to find better ways to measure events.
some 50 years ago carbon dating was an inexact measure of how old certain carbon-based oranic materials were. It gave a wide range of dates and was often blamed for confusing dates due either to contamination or faulty techniques.
Since then science has refined the ability to more accurately carbon date items so that it is now a very precise measurement. However, once it was not. That is only one example of how science seeks to improve methodology & technique.
Great job on hub about global warming. Like to know what your feelings are on House Bill 2454 on American Clean Energy and Security Bill that was passed by the House and is now before the Senate. Summary of bill can be found on my hub know your congressman and conservative talk radio. Thanks again LOL
Great info! Thanks for the read!
Good data. Personally I don't know if any one can prove or disprove why global warming seems to be occurring. Perhaps it is just a natural cycle that the earth is going through and perhaps it is caused by man, and perhaps it is both. The point is that the only thing I can do about it is try to do as much as I can to not contribute to the problem. I certainly cannot change the Earth's orbit, or solar flares, or any other natural cause; but I can use solar energy, recycle, and use energy efficient products. It might not solve the problem-especially if only a few do it- but it is what I can do.
I agree, GreenMathDr, this may all be a natural phenomenon, a cycle that occurs from time to time. Or, it may be augmented by human activity. I prefer to call it global climate change, since it may be cool in some areas while warmer in others.
Thanks for the reply!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
perfect !! good job
I agree that it might be normal, and I also agree that climate change will be different in other places on Earth, just as there is a North and South Pole and an Equator.
Wildstuff, thanks for the comment and the link. Obviously this debate continues, but I wonder what will happen if people who deny it are wrong? Have we or will we reach the point of no return?
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Well, a saying where is fire there is smoke. Global warming is becoming a fact and it is because of a materialistic trend . Just as we see in health care (a very sacred field) some people are exploiting the patients for profit and creating more diseases only to get money. Similarly, the selfish people do not think about effects of bad doings on cimate. So, the mankind needs to come out of this materialistic trend which is going on since industrialization. We should listen to good voices and do whatever we can do to stop bad people harming our earth planet. Thanks for a good hub.
RK Sangha on hubpages
good explanation !
Great article. I was concerned long before climate change topic became so "heated" the effect that aircraft have on the outer edges of our atmosphere given that they are constantly there in increasing numbers burning away the gases which one would think are protecting us from the sun...
Well, ClimateGate has happened. Dr. Phil Jones, in a leaked email, said himself (in 2005):
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
What does this mean? That the CRU (and likely IPCC) knew about temperature declines, and essentially hid that fact from the public.
The emails reveal a pattern of deception, bullying, and perhaps more troubling, unyielding "faith" to an idea not bourne out of the data. Global warming was more like a religion to them, than a science.
I've written a little regarding some of these startling revelations:
barryrutherford, thanks for the info about aircraft contrails. These are still being studied as to any effect they have of climate, cloud creation, rainfall, etc. remember when we used to seed clouds to cause rainfall? It may be that contrails have a similar or opposite effect locally. Of course, other natural and recurring phenomenon also contribute, such as El Nino and La Nina in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
MNicopolis, I also heard about the emails on an in depth report on NPR. However, since global climate change does not necessarily mean warming all over the globe, local areas of cooling have and are still observed. there are some areas, such as in Southern Europe, where warming has been noted during a thirty year span. Rain in Central Spain has been extremely sparce for that same period of time. these could be normal phenomenon or perhaps are produced by climate changes outside the normal expectations. We need to do more researce and observations to be certain. Of course there is also the expanding Sarah Desert problem which may also be part of climate change.
Depending upon which model of climate change one observes, such cooling as has been experienced in some areas may be expected before a general overall rise in temperatures. It seems like a paradox but is concievable by melting of glaciers, ice packs, etc.
Since the entire idea of global climate change is still being studied I guess I'd take with a grain of salt any "concrete" statement made by anyone. Tthe general consesus is still that data supporting climate change is solid, but the particulars about how this will affect the world are still open to debate.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
If Global Warming is caused by man then you have to consider this:
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.
I've read varying reports that put the "caused by man" part of the equation at about 3%.
So the real question is how much of the 3-5% can be eliminated? Clearly we need to have energy sources.
So lets say we eliminate ALL man caused sources of CO2... is that going to make any difference? Seriously.
The push for "Green" is so the Government can implement new taxes. It's already occurring.
Corporate America is not going to change anything, they are going to continue to pollute and pay the taxes which they will pass on to the consumer.
We need to stop pollution for sure. But to suggest that anything we do can really change the climate is pure fantasy. Twist the numbers however you like.
Focus on the problem... which is not temperature, it's pollution and corruption.
MikeNV - I'm afraid that the website you use for your analysis is misleading. Remember that the 'greenhouse effect' already warms the Earth by something like 30 degrees. So what we want to know is do human impacts change the existing warming potential of greenshose gases? I will ignore the water vapour part of the website as they provide no source for their data. According to the website 2.33% of the warming effect of greenhouse gasses is due to human inputs. If we assume that the warming effect is c.15degrees C then that equates to 0.66 degrees C - a not insignificant effect. This doeesn't consider future inputs of CO2 and the other greeshouse gasses. We're not outside the range predicted by the IPCC here. And this is a REALLY basic calculation with loads of assumptions, but the same assumptions as the website.
Back to their water vapour figures. I've no idea where they get this from. I assume they are confusing all water vapour in the atmospher with water vapour in the stratosphere (this is the stuff that causes warming). Luckily someone has done these calculations properly for us. They are included in the IPCC report. You can read what they say, follow up the literature they use and decide if they are corect. I'm not sure why you chose to believe a very poor website (which 'twists' their numbers hugely) over the IPCC report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a
finally, the last part of the website you quote infers that human inputs of greenhouse gasses are insignificant anyway, when compared with natural emissions. This shows either that they are massively incompetant or very misleading. They use GROSS figures. What is important are the NET figures. For example, 120 Gt of carbon is released from plants on the earth each year (through autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration). However, 120 Gt is absorbed through photosynthesis. Gross inputs are 120 Gt, net inputs are 0(zero) Gt. Very different numbers. Read about it here (note that this is a peer reviewed article written by a respected expert) - Figure 1 is very useful in this respect: http://www.miombo.org.uk/grace04.pdf
It is the website you are quoting who are misleading, they misquote the figures, provide erroneous calculations, they are lying to you. You have simply seen that they seem to agree with you and cited them uncritically. Why did you chose this website rather than the IPCC report. did you critically analyse both and choose. You surely can't have thought that the website you cite has better, more robust science?!
MikeNV, there is still a great need for more research to determine how much our use of oil and coal have added carbonto the atmosphere. And as I have read before, the amount of carbon in the entire atmosphere is not as important as the amount in a significant layer closer to the ground. Inversions of pollution, smog, can radically change local conditions for short periods of time. This may not affect the entire globe but it does affect an area large enough to include millions of people, such as Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other cities. remember that a century ago an entire town was being killed off by gasses emitted just from local steel & zinc mills. And in Africa an entire area was wiped out when gasses from a lake suddenly erupted to the surface and spread out over the land. Isolated incidents, to be sure, but perhaps also predictors of things to come.
Also, the coal and oil we use now was stored beneath the gorund, put there after a time when CO2 was at a much greater level in the atmosphere than it is today. Figuring the huge amounts of these carbon deposits we have used over the centuries adds up to putting into the system more carbon than was there, say, 600 years ago.
Any addition of CO2 and other carbon-based greenhouse molecules can only have a negative effect on climate as we move into the future. This is what scientists are working on now, and if natural causes add to that, such as warming oceans releasing carbon and methane which were held in suspension in formerly cooler waters, or carbon sinks such as those in Siberia and Alaska releasing more carbon molecules into the atmosphere, then that also has to be taken into account.
My argument is that global climate change is occurring, no matter the source or cause. If we humans add 10% or 50% to the problem, every addition, no matter how insignificant it may seem to you, often has an exponential effect.
I would implore everyone to stop looking only at the data that agrees with your position and start to seriously and in an unbiased manner read as much as you can from all sources before you decide what is "fact" and what is "fiction" on this matter.
And always keep in mind that this is the only world we have. we can't afford to get this wrong, no matter what our beliefs.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Chef Jeff: One bit of interesting and thought-provoking data: The thickness of our atmosphere to the mass of earth is akin to the thickness of a coat of varnish on that large globe we studied as students. It's an incredibly fine and fragile coating that protects us from the extremes of space. We'd do well not to tamper with it lightly. RickZ
Excellent point, RickZ. People sometimes forget that the thickness of the breatheable atmosphere is not that many miles stright up, and the volume of the atmosphere, as I remember it, is less than the overall volume of the oceans. If I remember that wrong, someone please correct my memory.
I used to live & teach in Galena, Illinois, and I would tell my students that the distance from Galena to Dubuque, Iowa (15 miles) was greater than the thickness of the breatheable air above us.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
The only side of the Scientific Argument that gets any press is the side that agrees with the Money Whores who will make Billions by cramming it down the throats of the people in the form of Carbon Taxes.
If these people truly cared about the planet they would be looking to solve real issues of pollution - not just targeting one single form of gas. A gas which is natural to the planet. And these people would not be looking for ways to profit, they would be looking for real solutions that didn't allow companies to buy the right to pollute. They would be looking for ways to truly put an end to pollution.
This whole movement is about money. The problem of pollution and contamination is not going to go away because companies are allowed to buy tickets to pollute.
So no matter what side you take, the pollution is not going to be cleaned up... it's going to be auctioned to the highest bidder.
Water pollution is an even bigger issue and no one is talking about it.
Great read thanks
"But the obverse side of this is that when we burn carbon fuels, they need oxygen in order to combust. In effect, not only are we dumping excess carbon into the natural cycle, but we are also in effect taking oxygen out of the same cycle."
I think the plants missed your memo.
Bang On! Wake up people this is the real deal don't let BIG oil Win!!
I admire you for your great interest and research on this issue. Global warming is indeed worldly concern for all of us. I do believe that it is a fact though.
I do however, think that people need to be more aware of the environment regardless of the cause of global warming and realize that in damaging the environment as we all are, it is seriously screwing things up for the future generation and the Earth would be a great and thriving place WITHOUT humans in it.
the dinosaurs did not have humans to bring them to extinction.the earth always is in change and we have done lots to change the way we heat and drive ,slso generate electricity.so i think there is not enough to make a big deal of it.god only gave us what we needed to make it until he comes to change everything.
Well, D. Burchett, dinosaurs had other problems as well as reasons for their extinction, but the end result was the same. If, as some scientists believe, a comet or a massive volcano led to their demise, it was still the clogging of the atmosphere that brought down global temperatures and froze them to death.
Global warming is a different phenomenon that actually causes solar radiation to penetrate the air above us, but does not allow the normal and natural venting of excess heat back into space. Some of this effect actually keeps the temperatures on Earth within the range necessary for our continued existence. The Greenhouse Effect, as we have known it, has been beneficial for life on our planet.
Nevertheless, as with all systems, small changes can often bring about huge changes. For example, water at sea lever will not boil at 211 degrees F (99 degrees Celcius). It does boil with the addition of just one more degree of temperature.
We have seen in somewhat recent history that a huge volcanic eruption can cause world-wide temperature changes that have lasted from several years up to a decade and more. Yet the amount of material ejected by one of these mega volcanoes pales in comparison to the levels of various greenhouse gasses we have put into the atmosphere over the past century and more. And also never forget that the U.S. is not the only nation spewing forth these hydrocarbons. Add China, Russia, Europe and all the other nations into the mix, and the problem becomes huge with a very short period of time.
Worse yet, some of the hydrocarbons we are creating in massive amounts actually vibrate under solar radiation and create friction heat that adds to the problem. In other words, not only are the extra greenhouse gasses preventing the earth from going through its natural cooling process, it's also adding to the heat generated when solar radiation is converted to heat when it gets past the atmosphere. (Solar radiation coverts to heat when it strikes an object, such as the ground or water, your house or your car. When you leave your car in a sunny place with the windows closed, you get an idea on a small scale of just how much heat can be generated by this process. Now imagine that going on world-wide!)
Whether or not you or I agree with any of this is irrelevent since it will or won't occur regardless of popular opinion. If we are causing a change of global climate, no amount of denying it will cause it to go away.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
hi,,please could u tell me what are the natural causes and human causes of global warming?
Nice article. I note some to and fro about law/theory etc. Perhaps this may be useful: http://hubpages.com/hub/A-short-description-of-imp
You brought some interesting points I haven't thought of. True, any fossil fuel needs oxygen to burn as well as heat. When any carbon product burns it uses us oxygen from the atmosphere and releases two greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide and water vapour.
Secondly, mentioning that wood is above ground while the petroleum is below ground. Brillant! Yet, nature keep everything in balance until man discover coal and later, oil. The carbon cycle was in balance until man decided that burning oil and natural gas is the miracle needed to replace aniamal and human power. Unfortunately, they feel that burning fossil fuels faster and faster was better -- to increase economic growth.
Thirdly, I didn't know that it takes only 5% carbon dioxide to kill you. We have only 0.04% in our atmosphere now, but how low does oxygen has to get to before animals will perish?
Besides plants, another source of oxygen that people don't know about comes from the ocean. One-cell plants known as Phyloplankton provides 50% of the oxygen that land anamals need. We also know with warmer temperatures, two things tend to happen, it changes the nature of the marine life possibly killing the phyloplankton(and it has been killing the coral reefs) and the ocean, which is a major carbon sink (absorbing 50% of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere)cannot absorb more carbon dioxide -- it is reaching a saturation point. A secondary effect is that the carbon dioxide absorb by the ocean is forming carbonic acid -- which is deadly for all marine life.
And lastly, I agree look at both sides and learn some science. There are excellent books out there on physics, chemistry and meteorology easily to understand by the layperson. Once you understand the basic science, you can determine who is "pulling your leg" or telling you the "straight goods"
Global Warming has occurred so slowly and unevenly (as one would expect nature to respond) that it is understandable that the average person without scientific training would genuinely question whether Global Warming is actually something to worry about. The problem is that with melting ice caps and permafrost releasing even more Global Warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Earth's atmosphere is likely to reach a tipping where a positive feedback from these gas releases cause even more gas releases and so on, which will then likely raise the global temperature dramatically. At that point, it will be too late to do anything about Global Warming.
As far as man not being capable of influencing the Earth's atmosphere. That's like saying millions of termites and carpenter ants cannot influence the health of a forest, just because they are tiny insignificant creatures. Tiny is size yes, but when added up, all those little critters can do real damage to a forest that is much bigger than they are. The same could be said about the 7 Billion humans on Earth. We are tiny as one, but cumulatively, human activities can affect the Earth’s atmosphere.
I recently looked into the issue of Global Warming, and it does appear that we are in a lull in the general warming uptrend of the past 150 years, see: Has Global Warming Stopped? http://rocknj.hubpages.com/hub/Has-Global-Warming- for my analysis.
|
Resilient Coastal City Regions Planning for Climate Change Global Warming Floods
Current Bid: $24.99
|
|
AN Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, Nigel Lawson, Very Good Book
Current Bid: $3.98
|
|
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD !!!!!!
Current Bid: $.99
|
|
Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by Houghton. 3rd Edition (Perfect Copy!)
Current Bid: $29.99
|
|
Climate Change: The Science of Global Warming and Our Energy Future, Edmond A. M
Current Bid: $21.37
|
|
|
Resilient Coastal City Regions Planning for Climate Change Global Warming Floods
Current Bid: $24.99
|
|
Global Climate Change and U.S. Law by
Current Bid: $13.13
|
|
Clean Energy Common Sense An American Call to Action on Global Climate Change
Current Bid: $4.99
|
 | Amazon Price: $37.10 List Price: $65.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 List Price: $23.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.61 List Price: $17.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.00 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $52.10 List Price: $65.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $69.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $25.75 |
 | Amazon Price: $14.97 List Price: $27.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $21.19 List Price: $26.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $87.55 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.07 List Price: $18.00 |
NateRider 4 years ago
Detailed scientific information is something I appreciate in everyday life. I myself love studying science and also understand the effect of pollution on the atmosphere and the entire eco-system of this green-and-blue earth.
On the brighter side, nice hub, detailed, oh, and a nice photo (that always brightens up a page) ;)