Global warming - Anyone else know that in 1975 scientists were up in arms about global cooling?
368747
yeah I heard all the crap about the new ice age what a crock same thing about human activity causing global warming bunch of nonsense read the astronomy reports the sun is burning a little hotter it does this ever so often like during the middle ages and think about it haven't we been coming out of an ice age for the past ten thousand or so years does this not mean it has been getting warmer
1113639
Global Warming is a myth
1017501
It is thought by some geologists that the Earth experienced global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C. Research by the Open University published in Geology (32: 157–160, 2004 [59]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. Rock weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, which are minerals with various degrees of carbon oxides. As a result of this, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.\n\nSudden release of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis), has been hypothesized as a cause of past global warming. Two events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last ice age is thought not to be due to methane release [60].\n\nThe greenhouse effect has also been invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the Snowball Earth period. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached about 350 times current levels. At this point temperatures were raised to an average of 50 °C, hot enough to melt the ice. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Thick layers of abiotic carbonate sediment which can be found on top of the glacial rocks from this period are believed to have been formed by this rapid carbon dioxide removal process.\n\nUsing paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years (Veizer et al. 2000, Nature 408, pp. 698-701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly coupled to carbon dioxide variations. Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [61]) extended this by arguing that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy. Afterwards, they argued that over geologic time a change in carbon dioxide concentrations comparable to doubling preindustrial levels, only results in about 0.75 °C warming rather than the usual 1.5-4.5 °C reported by climate models [62]. Veizer's recent work has been criticised by RealClimate.org [63].\n\nPalaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued (e.g. Scientific American, March 2005) that human influence on the global climate began around 8000 years ago with the development of agriculture. This prevented carbon dioxide (and later methane) levels falling as rapidly as they would have done otherwise. Ruddiman argues that without this effect, the Earth would be entering, or already have entered, a new ice age. However other work in this area (Nature 2004) argues that the present interglacial is most analogous to the interglacial 400,000 years ago that lasted approximately 28,000 years, in which case there is no need to invoke the spread of agriculture for having delayed the next ice age
1063451
We've known for decades that the earth is in in a perpetual state otemperate fluctuation.  Over thousands of years, the earth has seen numerous ice ages and thaws.  Our fear of this change is largely due to incomplete or imprecise data.  Humans didn't start acurately measuring GLOBAL temperature trends until the 1960s, and the first trend they saw was cooling.  I predict that in 40-100 years, we'll see another slight cooling cycle.  Remember, average global temperature has only warmed a fraction of a degree.
724297
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.\n\nThe Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century [1]. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"[2].\n\nThe increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming[3]. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later. [4]\n\nClimate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium response to increased GHGs, and other anthropogenic and natural climate forcings. It is found by observational [5] and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 2001 IPCC report estimates a likelyhood between 66% and 90% for a climate sensitivity in the range 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F)[6]. This should not be confused with the expected temperature change by a given date, which also includes a dependence on the future GHG emissions and a delayed response due to thermal lag, principally from the oceans. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using a range of SRES scenarios, project that global temperatures will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.\n\nAn increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years. [7]. Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over implementation of policies that deal with predicted consequences, what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences.\n\nYou could get more information from the link below...
669941
I don't see any correlation of electro-magnetic radiation and global warming at all.  Honestly, I am not even sure that we as human beings have caused what we call 'global warming'.  Every day scientists discover more and more natural patterns on this planet, some of them hundreds of years to work full swing.  This entire 'global warming' may be a 1000 year 'pattern' that we have just yet to discover because we have insufficient data (aka, haven't been measuring it long enough).\n\nBut EMF or EMR having an effect on it?  No, I don't think so.\n\nJust my .02 worth.
992609
No, becasue, if you ever watch old shows from the 70's.. they were all hyped up that there was an ice age coming. odd how we suddenly changed it into global warming? yes.\n    if you actually study charts of the history of our planet's heating and cooling over time, its quite normal for earth to heat up and cool down by a few degrees over a couple hundred years. \n    do you know where the big concern is? 1.5 degrees on average. Over 200 years. of course a BIT of it might have been influenced by the coming of the industrial revolution, but as already mentioned on here, volcanoes etc give way more crap into the atmosphere than we ever did. and besides.. with all the tree huggers etc businesses arent allowed to put nearly as much gas into the atmposhere as before. we're almost cleaner than before the industrial revolution. we dont use coal furnaces... everything is cleaner on the whole. \n       and also.. i always find this funny...if you look up the past ice ages... you'll notice how the tempurature rises for a time steeply.. then plunges. i forget the interval of years exactly... but i do know we're ready... and guess what? then temps rising. i'd be moving towards the equator, not the poles in coming centuries. \n\n      besides... how could ppl make money in the news etc if they didnt make a big hype about something so non-effecting as global warming? they should at least get their information straight and threaten us about an ice age. then maybe you can beleive them.\n\nif all else fails people... DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! dont trust what everyone else says. you cant even tell where the facts are coming from.
329268
global warming is a designer cause like so many of the other causes that are being puffed up at your local Starbucks as we speak. Of coarse we want to be smart and clean about how we live.  Try punching in global warming and you will see that the real science institutions i.e. MIT. Cal Tech. etc. have this cause under junk science.  real scientist, I don't mean phd's who are looking for easy research money, will laugh at this notion that your weed wacker is warming the planet.
680298
Global warming and cooling has occurred throughout history, so in a sense, yes, global warming has happened since the last ice age.  The differences between the average temperatures on earth correlate to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (one of the greenhouse gases).  The global warming that has scientists concerned lately has to do with how humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how this might be related to recent warming trends.
80116
The last time we had global warming was in 1000 AD.\nScientists call this the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)\nand it persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th and 15th centuries. Warmer climate brough a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe.  As the temp. increased so did agricultural yields. Marshes and swamps dried up, removing the breeding grounds of mosquitoes that spread malaria. Former wetlands were converted to productive farmland. Infant mortality fell, and the population grew. From 1100 to 1300 AD the population of europe increased from about 40 to 60 million.\n\nThe surest sign of warming climate in Europe was the settlement of Greenland by Vikings from Iceland. The Greenland settlements reached a height of prosperity in the 12th and 13th centuries when 3000 colonists occupied 280 farms. The settlements came under duress in the late 14th century due to the onset of Little Ice Age cooling. They finally perished in the 15th century.\n  I don't know how long it will take.
843194
No, temperatures are going up due to Global Warming.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
814336
Global warming is happening, 100%, there is no evidence the other way.  The only poblem with the data is the lack of data, we need more of it, more research.\n\nTell your teacher this:\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
842533
No.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
1108076
It seems as though humankind has caused global warming. I don't think that it was pre-ordained, but I'm sure God knew it would happen.
1061595
We do not have enough scientific data to show that the current warming cycle is being adversely affected by man.  The sun is the source of global warming.  It always has been.  Weather, on our planet, has been changing for 5 billion years.  Scientists have at most 100 years of temperature data to look at.\nLook at the weather in Northwestern Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1978.  I was there.  During one winter, there were record snow falls.  During the next winter, there was record cold.  People were looking for the start of an ice age.  \nOur weather changes every day.  It will continue to change every day.  Until man has infinite knowledge, which will be never, man will never be able to factor in the endless number of possibilities that affect climate.  Several months ago, I watched a program on PBS wherein scientists were claiming that global warming was causing surface cooling.  I got a head ache and shut it off.
702213
honestly global warming is a big f'n lie. If anyone knew anything about meterological weather history, they would know this "overall world warm up" happens all the time, along with the "overall world cool down" if you knew anything about science in that area, you probably wouldnt be a crazy liberal. PS, driving a enviornlementaly friendly car isnt going to do squat.
806892
The 'debate' is in the media only.  The data only supports human-caused Global Warming.  It has nothing to do with political party IF you actually look at the data like a scientist.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm