What difference does it make if the amount of harmful gases we produce are tiny in comparison to what nature itself causes? We are producing enough to tip the scales. "Volcanoes probobly exert more harmful gasses than anything humans could" would be seen as a very poor excuse if we enter an early ice age, after all turning off your TV at the mains and putting bottles in a different bin is slightly easier than stopping a volcanoe.

I find it quite funny given mankinds arrogance in the past, that we are being so modest about the impact we can have on our planet.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

We don't have ANY reliable historic data going back further than 100 years AT THE MOST.

Geologically speaking this is a very short time /sarcasm

We have no idea what is normal, therefore how can we say what is abnormal ?

If we have no point of reference then we have no idea if it is changing and if it is changing then what speed or direction it is changing in.

We have reliable data going back for eons. We have hundreds of points of reference to tell us what "normal" is for the given time period. How do you think we know about previous changes like an Ice Age? Reliable data from long ago.

We have historical information, it was a hard winter, grandma was eaten by wolves etc.
We don't have detailed metrological data.

And an eon is rather a long time -

An eon is composed of several geologic eras, which in turn are composed of geologic periods, which are composed of geologic epochs. We are currently in the Phanerozoic Eon, the Cenozoic Era, the Quaternary Period, and the Holocene epoch. Formerly, only one eon existed besides the Phanerozoic: the Precambrian. More recently, the Hadean, Archean, and Proterozoic "eras" of Precambrian time have been considered eons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_(geology)

So unless the dinosours were really keen on weather forcasting we're probably in the dark for detailed weather facts for prehistory.

I'm not really trying to be smart, just trying to make the point that it's generally accepted that the earth as about 4.5 billion years old.

Our records go back 500 years max......

So that means that we only need to find out about 4 499 999 500 years.

How will we know what 'an early ice-age' is? Do we know when the next one should be happening without human intervention? Wasn't it Friday?

Any data older than 80 years is mostly guesswork taken at HUGE intervals. How can you compare that to daily updates?

Okay... think about it like this. (all hypothetical) We might be able to know, from various sources, that Halley's comet has been slowing down for the last 15 million years. But recent data from Hubble suggests last week it speeded up by 0.5%!! Estimates for next week suggest a further 0.1% increase in speed.

The above does NOT mean Halley's comet is 'speeding up' overall, just has a localised increase for some reason. There is NOTHING to suggest to overall trend has changed one little bit. All we had is snapshots before, suggesting an average change, and comparing that to weekly updates where 'all the wiggly bits' get taken into account isn't fair.

With global warming we are doing just that. Old data (thousands - millions of years ago) show very very very very very vague trends, with no subtle changes. Now we are looking at accurate data, and trying to compare that with the old data. Zoom in on a smooth line and it might be wiggly, zoom out of a wiggly line and it might be smooth AND GOING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

So, you see (you probably don't), we don't have the first clue what's going on. We don't know what the world would be like without us. We don't know how the climate has changed in the last 100 years compared to the 100 years or million years before that. We know, simply, nothing.

The first approximate estimates for human impact upon 'global warming' will not be able to be made for about 1000 years.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Look, an eagle! [points]

P.S. I don't believe half the rubbish about Global Warming, but I'm not denying it's existence in the slightest.

....how many times have we/you discussed this topic.
Spam (j/k)

Funny how we do not believe the leading scientists, after all they do this for a living and they are THE experts

Its like bill gates giving advice to Räikkönen how not to blow up his engine.

The climate is getting warmer, but so what? It has changed ever since, and we will not be able to stop it (or cause it for that matter, at least to a noticable extent).
There is data that suggests that we are still "recovering" from the Little Ice Age in late 17th which ended in the mid 18-hundreds. Before that Littel Ice Age, you were able to grow wine in England, which is still not possible today.

Also, I can't see the apocalytic aspect many want us to see. Humans as species in general were able to survive in most extreme habitats, ranging from sub-polar freezers to sub-tropical deserts, so I guess we will survive. Sure, there might be some species going extinct, but that is part of how the world works, and species are coming and going all the time.

Anyone that disagree that it is the human`s fault that the global warming is this bad, is stupid. Yea, it`s harsh to say that, but if you don`t belive that we are destroying our plannet by the way we live, then you are just as stupid as Bush.

Of course, people can say that the globe goes from ice ages to warm periods, over 10 000 or millions of years, I don`t have any problem with that. But problem is that it has speeded up, and by a HUGE amount. The normal cycle between ice ages and such gets completely screwed because we heaten up the globe with the way we living, and the temperature is increasin much faster than it should.
I readed somewhere that at the moment the natural changes in the temperature is going almost 100 times faster than it should do, thanks for global warming. Just by some years the overal temperature on this planet has increased by some celius, and thats insane!

If it continue, the poles will melt, the ocean will rise a lot, and since the pole`s are gone, there will be much warmer on this plannet because all the snow areas on the poles works as sun reflection areas, that cools down the globe.

Well, we probally are going be dead before the retards in US governement agrees that there is a problem.
Well this is not right too, because out from the size, my country, Norway has the biggest Co2 polution amount in Europe >.<
And the government here said they would go for a better focus on nature and such, but has anything happend?
NO!

And the same trend is all over the world, I really hate you all humans.
But then again, I hate myself for not doing anything to help. But what can I do? Sure, I don`t have car so I`ll walk or take the bus or any other mass-transports, but I feel so useless alone. Even if a whole country had stoped completely to polute the globe, there still would be over 100 other lands that really woul`dn`t give a shit.

(No offence to any of you people, I just get worked up and get a little nasty and angry when we talk about this subject)

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Sure, there might be some species going extinct, but that is part of how the world works, and species are coming and going all the time.

thats such utter rubbish
by the looks of it were currently heading straight into a mass extinction largely caused by human activities thats progressing way faster than any exctinction event ever before

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Sure, there might be some species going extinct, but that is part of how the world works, and species are coming and going all the time.

You really though long on that before you wrote that?
The nature itself has a fine balance, if we suddently had lost one little animal or some types of bugs for example, it can screw up the whole balance, because everything relies on a other to survive.
So, thats just rubbish what you wrote there!

Whatever humans are doing to the earth, be it significant or not, I can't see it changing any time soon.

Sure people try to 'do their bit' buy buying a Prius and feeling all smug, except for the fact they don't realise a Prius costs more resources to produce than a Hummer. [1] Which means more energy is used in production and therefore more harmful gases are produced.

Car usage in Europe has increased over the last 5 years or so [2], which is to be expected, but its not going the right way to helping reducing emisions.

However finally the greatest %age of greanhouse gas emisions appears to come from power usage, and in 1999 USA used 3.23 terawatts of electricity, which in its production created as much as 20% of all global emisions of greenhouse gases that year. [3] As can been seen from the data there, power comsumption is not being reduced, and appears that it won't be for a very long time.

Which beings me to the point that yes 'global warming' has spead up the rate of change of temperature of the Earth ovre the last 100 years or so, however it's also not going to slow down any time soon, so we really need to get used to it.

To everyone who believes that global warming isn't caused by human activity: Why do you think people are trying to convince us that it is?

I mean, I can understand why those involved in the oil industry would want us to believe it's not our fault, but who stands to benefit if we all switched to green lifestyles?

It's all very well being a skeptic, but at least try to be a good cynic at the same time!

Quote from thisnameistaken :

To everyone who believes that global warming isn't caused by human activity: Why do you think people are trying to convince us that it is?

Well, the common answer for that would be the government, who can use it as an excuse for yet another new green tax. And we all know how much people hate taxes.

Quote from Blackout :

Well, the common answer for that would be the government, who can use it as an excuse for yet another new green tax. And we all know how much people hate taxes.

Well, we've had a couple of decades of warning about global warming now, and the UK still doesn't have any "green" taxes. We have duty on fuel, but we've had that forever.

If it really is a plot to tax us more heavily, it is materialising very slowly. I don't believe it. I think the private sector is much more likely to put out misleading information to protect their interests.

actually concerning this very matter ... dont you think its curious that not even the oil companies can come up with anything substantial against global warming ?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well, we've had a couple of decades of warning about global warming now, and the UK still doesn't have any "green" taxes. We have duty on fuel, but we've had that forever.

If it really is a plot to tax us more heavily, it is materialising very slowly. I don't believe it. I think the private sector is much more likely to put out misleading information to protect their interests.

Yes, I'm not behind what I said, just stating what some others might think.

But I think they have green taxing on cars in Sweden for example, lower emissions means lower taxes. They are planning to implement something like that over here too, but instead lowering the tax on some cars, they probably just add one tax top of another and increase the tax on cleaner cars less than on bad polluting cars. Like cars weren't expensive enough already, the oldest cars in Europe, I wonder how on earth?

But just wait it to come. Industry has paid emission fees for years. Something like house energy efficiency tax isn't that far fetched. I'm not entirely against paying the green taxes if the money is used for good and something related to the issue.

Quote from Shotglass :

actually concerning this very matter ... dont you think its curious that not even the oil companies can come up with anything substantial against global warming ?

That's a good point - I'd not thought about that. Not saying that I've now changed my views, but it's food for thought. Thanks.

It's not like polluting should just be a free lunch anyway. It's a distortion when some products/services are coming to you cheaply but have a very high pollution cost attached to them, which is never accounted for. It's gotta be cleaned up at some point, and the money has to come from somewhere. Up until this point, the economy's been wired to benefit polluters; the more wasteful use of a resource, the more profitable. But hopefully that's all changing now.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

It's not like polluting should just be a free lunch anyway. It's a distortion when some products/services are coming to you cheaply but have a very high pollution cost attached to them, which is never accounted for. It's gotta be cleaned up at some point, and the money has to come from somewhere. Up until this point, the economy's been wired to benefit polluters; the more wasteful use of a resource, the more profitable. But hopefully that's all changing now.

Yes, which is good, but it should be the same everywhere. I'm under the impression in that some countries don't have it, or it's not forced anyway, or the officials take brides, and such countries have huge advantage because they everything is cheaper!

What shotglass said is a good point. But I think there is some possible explanations for that.

Global warming is now generally accepted theory and is becoming such a hard fact that denying is like arguing the earth is flat. Denying global warming would give any company loads and loads of bad press coverage, and make them look retards. Nobody wants that and especially not your shareholders who don't like their shares hit the rock bottom. Basically, you stain your brand image. I'm also pretty sure they see global warming as a new opportunity, oil is running out and is there a better word to sell alternative fuels for masses than Green? No, and would you buy that stuff (whatever it might be, hydrogen for example) from the company which few years ago claimed global warming didn't exist? You wouldn't. I think it's all about the future image and the fact that they don't want to spoil their changes on the new fuel business.

Also, they don't have to make excuses. People need fuel and it's not like everyone has a huge variety of different types of fuel alternatives to choose from.

What ever the reality is those that want to effect change must make it cost effective for the masses, otherwise they will not support it. That's human nature unfortunately That would generally mean substaintial help from Governments, both in policy making and funding.

The other side of human nature is that the people making huge profits from something will not choose to stop making huge profits from it just because its harmful They generate those huge profits with the Governments blessings and empowering. Governments recieve a huge amount of royalties from such ventures

Do you see the conflict of interest

When Governments do give funding for worthwhile endevours it is that tied up in red tape that it generally becomes non effective probably because those big benifactors that they have willingly empowered in the past hold them to ransome as they are not ready to let go of their monopalised market just yet.

Am I cynical?

Quote from Electrik Kar :

It's not like polluting should just be a free lunch anyway. It's a distortion when some products/services are coming to you cheaply but have a very high pollution cost attached to them, which is never accounted for. It's gotta be cleaned up at some point, and the money has to come from somewhere. Up until this point, the economy's been wired to benefit polluters; the more wasteful use of a resource, the more profitable. But hopefully that's all changing now.

I don't see that changing anytime soon to be honest as for example my neck of the woods is prospering from China's boom which is happening because they are selling mega amounts of consumable items to the world at dirt cheap prices while generating overwhelming amounts of polution. For Governments to actually do something about this "problem" that would have real immediate impact, would require breaking the economies of the world closing down free trade (which they have just spent the last 20 years fighting for) and I don't see that happening. It may eventually happen when there no longer is a choice though, we will see I guess

Quote :

What ever the reality is those that want to effect change must make it cost effective for the masses, otherwise they will not support it.

That's true, probably in most cases. An exception I can think of is the organic food sector. People seem happy enough paying a premium for these things, not just because they taste better (that's subjective) but because they're most likely aware of the benefits of organic methods over conventional methods of agriculture, eg. the differing approaches to soils, and taking waste and environmental impacts and costs seriously.

Quote :

The other side of human nature is that the people making huge profits from something will not choose to stop making huge profits from it just because its harmful They generate those huge profits with the Governments blessings and empowering. Governments recieve a huge amount of royalties from such ventures

Governments have also poured incredible ammounts of money into some such ventures to keep them financially afloat and chugging along. I can imagine there are some rather large companies which are actually quite burdensome on governments.

The other thing is, if your business is to make money by selling things, wouldn't you have a better time of it by selling the things that people actually want? I hear this argument all the time, that companies have been repressing certain things that people have been screaming about wanting for years- solar power, decent electric vehicles, etc... Surely if the market demand was high enough, you'd just get serious and start producing. Sounds like normal market logic to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Well the green taxes would only affect those who waste electricity and don't bother to recycle, two things that actually save a lot of money. The government knows theres some people out there who for some reason have stuck their heads in the sand and are pretending its all made up, so they wake them up by hitting them where it hurts, their pocket.

Oh and as for not being able to get accurate data from thousands of years ago...bullshit. They can tell you what temperature it was on the day a bubble in a block of ice was formed three thousand years ago.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

That's true, in most cases. An exception I can think of is the organic food sector.

Hmm while I see that the organic food sector is doing ok it certainly isn't overtaking the mass market cheap and/or marketing hype is what wins out always imo (i.e. big business)

Quote from Electrik Kar :

The other thing is, if your business is to make money by selling things, wouldn't you have a better time of it by selling the things that people actually want?

Short answer is no people really don't know what they want.

Successful business enterprises find something they can produce lots of (that no one else is doing) and then go about convincing the public at large that they "need" the said product. The long term sucessful companies actually take the original product and vary it multiple times selling it at higher value each time.

And about science - it is contiually evolving and almost always is based on certain assumptions, so what is considered theory today can become established fact down the road but just as easily what is assumed fact today can be proven later to have been an incomplete theory. So at the end of the day I listen to what scientists say, but that is only small protion of what I draw upon to make daily decisions about life and the world around me.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

They can tell you what temperature it was on the day a bubble in a block of ice was formed three thousand years ago.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and have a punt: Zero degrees celcius?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5r6TqpOQGc

Global warmings are happening!