You are not wrong about natural swings and trends. They are a reality.

Given that, the impact that 6,000,000,000 people make cannot be just ignored. Everything we produce, consume and do has an effect and - natural trends notwithstanding - there is every reason to believe that we as a species are making a potentially bad swing much worse.

We cannot do anything about the natural cycles, but we can reduce our own effect.

Yep. I agree totally. :D

Well said :yep: This only makes sense, we need to be much better Stewards of the land.


RDP

But is the condition accelerating faster than other climactic changes in our history. You just see it as there's a climatic change and I get the impression you think we should wait till the end of the cycle to come to a decision. Exactly how would you determine when the cycle should be at an end? How would you determine if it's as should be or that something isn't right.
Nature is a complex system of balances. Any changes that nature takes, takes centuries to implement and natural adjustments made. When artificial changes imbalance nature there are going to be repercussions. We have imbalanced nature faster than the blink of an eye. The world is not a sponge that soaks up imbalances forever. It can filter as nature intended but if it can't filter fast enough there are going to be repercussions. There has to be. Thats what gets me is that people can't or won't seem to come to that simple conclusion.
Nature doesn't adjust to man. Man must adjust to nature.
Or to put it simply "You don't f#@k with mother nature. You'll loose".:)

Edit: Take water pollution for example. Everybody knows there is water pollution and the level is pretty bad. Everyone sees that. Yet we are doing the same thing to our atmosphere and people are under the assumption that the world can sluff off or soak up pollutants. What is the difference between the two? It's estimated that mankind has pumped 3% of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If I gave you a glass of normal water and added 3% sewage to it would you drink it? Think fish can live in it? Before you drink it be aware that 15 micrograms per liter is the allowable pollution for drinking water.

To bradclark1, we see the data differently and we must therefore agree to differ.

Carbon dioxide can't be considered sewage so imo your analogy isn't really valid Brad.
The world could run just fine without sewage, but without carbon dioxide we all die.

Going to have to agree with August here, it is a silly analogy.

Not to mention that the example above also assumes a static, unchanging environment within. It is total rubbish to compare the Earth's dynamic environment to a glass of water.

@TDK1044 - I agree with your assessments. One of the main ways of trying to promote the theory of increasing CO2 vs. sustained (potential thermal runaway) increasing temperatures has been to take a small sample of temperature data and identify the recent delta in temperature. The data sample is not complete at all considering that some newer weather data didn't actually agree with that model this past winter. The model showed something different than what we actually are seeing.

>>What is your view on global warming?


I beleive it exsists, and that we are accelerating its onset. Looking back at through history (according to the geological record), the earth goes through warm and cold cycles. A warming trend is most likely inevitable, but its onset is being accelerated by us.

Unseasonably cold weather , to my understanding, is acutally a sign of global warming. The polar ice melting, drifts down into the oceans currents, thereby cooling them. Its these currents that more or less regulate temperature iin various regions. Cool the currents, you get cooler weather as a result. If it wasnt for the retreating polar ice, id think it was all a load of crap too.

Generally speaking, i think most people choose to ignore, or deny global warming for one of two reasons. Firstly, the acknowledgement of global warming would require a huge change in lifestyles and infrastructures, which is not likely to happen as people are resistant to change (myself included). Secondly, by the time the effects of global warming are in full swing, most of us in this day and age will be long dead. With the general attitude probably being, "Doesnt effect me, so why should i care?"

Ducimus - Well said.

Not really. Too much is a bad thing. If it makes you feel better change it to lead or arsenic or anything that isn't good for you. More or less what I'm trying to get across is if you put it in someones face so they can see it it makes an impact. Because your average person doesn't see too much Carbon Dioxide they don't recognize the hazard so they can't grasp it.

When was the last time your weather man was wrong? I'll bet not too long ago so guesstimating the weather a year in advance is just that, a guess.

Why is it rubbish? 3% is 3% I don't think the Carbon Dioxide changes measurably very much in a day, or a week, or a month. Because it rains today and is sunny tomorrow doesn't change anything. Variance from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2% slow it or speed it? Doesn't matter, it's still having an adverse effect. I'm willing to bet it's a slow steady rise.
Dynamic: Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress

I believe it's humans and environment's problem but a friend on DeviantArt pointed out that there is a natural cycle which I know is mentioned here. I agree we're simply accelerating it. I don't know if I make sense here, lol.
I once wanted to get a Hybrid car but that's ain't gonna happen at all (yes I did see the explanation about the Nickel thing and I agree, I did chemistry too). Though there is a car I saw on Beyond Tomorrow that has been made in Europe, that runs on air :o I think it's called CityCat or something but if it works well and comes to Australia, I'm definitely getting one :hmm:

I think the main problem with this issue is that people tend to come down on one side or the other and then only read and repeat the data that supports their view.

This is an issue where you really need to have the courage to read all of the available data on both sides of the argument and with an open mind. When you do that, you'll come to the conclusion that the answer here lies between the two polarizing views.

Clearly some level of global warming exists, and clearly to some degree that is part of our planet's natural evolutionary cycle that none of our scientists fully understand. Could we and should we do a lot more to help our environment? Absolutely. It's common sense. There are small things that we all can do on a daily basis that wouldn't compromise our lifestyle at all and would certainly help our climate.

Ordinary people are sometimes put off doing these things because it's usually the left wing eco warriors telling people what they should be doing in this area. That needs to change. People don't trust anything coming out of the mouths of extremists. You need to have credible spokesmen and women informing rather than bullying in order to effect change.

We also have to factor in political realities here. As an example, the reason we all still drive around in cars with antiquated combustion engines has nothing to do with available technology and everything to do with stability in the Middle east.

The reality is that if we all make small changes and give our children the education they need to continue to evolve environmentally friendly technologies, we'll be fine.

Al Gore's predictions of iminent climatic catastrophe are currently pure nonsense, but they could become reality within a century if we take the wrong course.

Why is it that anyone who's anti-GW automatically point to Al Gore when disclaiming GW? As far as time I'm not sure anyone can say for sure that it would be at this point or that point that it's irreversible but low and slow is the wrong answer.

Firstly, I'm not anti-GW...Just smart enough to be well read on both sides of this argument, as opposed to just reiterating one point of view while being ignorant of any other. As for Al Gore...he's always front and center on the pro GW position, to the point of making an inaccurate movie claiming to represent the truth on this issue.

Not sure about anybody else, but my driving a gas-burner has precious little to do with stability in the Middle East and everything to do with that's what is available to me at this time. When something else comes along that I can afford and that is better for the environment, my present one is Gone.

The reason that your gas burner is the only technology available to you is entirely political and not technological.

:lol: OK, I won't call you arrogant or anything. I will however point out something you might have missed. You only spout one viewpoint. The only difference between you and anybody else is the assumption that you are the only one who's read both sides. Not to mention supporting the wrong viewpoint so you must not be that well read. Try reading something other than Al Gore.