http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJTDSEPSfhk This is so true...but many people don't see anything else but money...and the Earth is dieing... Many people will suffer because of big factories polluting the skies, I feel for those poor people in Africa. My family give 2 pounds a month to them, it's not much but if you know your helping thats all that matters
It's a terrible problem now, and there's not much chance we can totally eradicate the problem. Maybe in the future there will be some new technology that could do so, though. =\
The technology already exists. What is missing is political and personal will to be part of the solution and we will all pay a monstrous price for our inaction. Walk or cycle instead of driving. Make sure your next car is a hybrid. Recycle as much of your trash as you can and compost plant and fruit waste. Buy less . . . save your money. Avoid over-packaged products. If you have a yard, plant shrubs and trees instead of grass. Turn your thermometer down in the winter and your air conditioner -- if you use one -- up. If you buy a new house or condo, seek out buildings that use geothermal energy for heating and cooling. This will significantly reduce your CO2 contribution and is a cheaper way to heat and/or cool buildings. Try to get one with solar panels. If you have the space and by-laws permit, invest in a wind generator. Reducing your CO2 contribution and planting shrubs and trees could make you a net-negative factor in the global warming equation.
Thanks guys for the useful comments, I totally agree with you! I'm just very worried that things will get worse, it's true, in England there have been hurricanes, more floods etc all around the world, these things are happenning because of Global Warming.
The earth warmed 1 degree in the last 100 years...whooptie. Global warming is a myth...how many major hurricanes did we have in 2006?
Not according to the National Climactic Data Center/NOAA Satellite and Information Service, which reports a rate of .32F surface temperature increase per decade over the last 25-30 years (a centennial rate of 3.2 degrees), with trends in atmospheric increases following similar increase patterns. In terms of U.S. hurricane patterns, 2006 belied expectations, but the anomalous presence of a strong el nino pattern, as I understand it, had much to do with this, pushing several potentially major hurricanes off the east coast, out to sea to dissipate. Perhaps more interesting are trends over time as opposed to any single year. Interesting to me is this page, among many others making compelling arguments that we have done, and are increasingly doing, a number on the only ecosystem we have. I know there are a minority of scientific opinions denying anthropogenic causes of global warming. I am well convinced, however.
Hmm ... Back in 1975 I remember well the major national magazine with the cover story "New Ice Age Coming!" Of course, they based their conclusions on all the computer models that were crunching "scientific" data right up to 1975. If it's "scientific" it must be correct, right? Now, 32 years later, computer models are still crunching "scientific" data, leading today's scientists to a fit of hand-wringing over the pending global warming disaster. Now if it's "scientific" it must be correct, right? Which brilliant scientists, coming to totally opposite conclusions, were/are correct? Or have perhaps some junk science and personal agendas entered the Ice Age/Global Warming debate? in 1975? in 2007? in both? Ok, let 'er rip with the rejoinders.
I don't see "global warming" or "a coming ice age" as necessarily mutually exclusive. As I understand it, the former can bring on the latter by trend disturbances, disrupting, among other things, the gulf stream.
Perhaps, but our climate-science "experts" are saying the opposite. They predicted the new Ice Age before they predicted the global warming.
That's odd. Aren't you suggesting that the earth finds a balance? If it gets too warm, natural forces correct itself. if it gets too cold, same thing. If you believe that, then its hard to believe in global warming as a non natural occurrence. Since we've had ice ages in the past; as well as warming periods, it seems to be the natural order of things. I guess it sucks if you live during an ice age or a warm period. But that's life on a rock of molten metal flying thru the galaxy.
I'm gonna have to call my aunt. She was born prior to 1906, perhaps she has some insight on this subject.
Lorien - I am not a (physical) scientist, just an interested observer. But what I am talking about is not the earth finding some kind of "natural balance," anymore than a full blown nuclear war results in population decreases and therefore an answer to some kind of malthusian variant. If we are causing this, by industrial effluent; and this causes something on the scale of the Gulf Stream to do such a massive shift that we elicit a new ice age, then, no, I wouldn't call this a "natural process."
As am I; that's why I don't believe in global warming (manmade at least). It's hard to believe in something being caused by people, when it has a history of happening before people could have caused it previously. Read the wikipedia article on the gulf stream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream So, let's assume a warmer earth slows (how?) the gulf stream. Then after it reaches the 10% again, wouldn't the same thing happen again? Since the gulf stream HAS weakened before, its hard to say "pollution" or "man" is causing it. Isn't it?
That's an interesting article, Lorien. But I think it's important to untangle two things discussed in that last paragraph: The first is that there is some evidence of flow weakening, yet apparently no drop in temps across NW Europe; if the gulf stream flow is associated with temperature changes, one would have expected a drop in NW European temps with the slow of the last 30 years. This is interesting, and, I think, better serves the point you are making. The second is that the little ice age slowing may have had something to do with the cooling effects, 16th-19th centuries; a natural phenomenon. You are basing your argument on this second paragraph. The problem, though, is that isn't an exclusive game, is it? It may very well be that the flow undergoes cyclical increases and decreases in flow, all by natural causes. But it may also be significantly affected by man-made inducements. If this is true - if it is shown that anthropogenic effects may alter the flow - and if the correlation of reduced flow and reduced temp, as apparently happened during the 16-19th cent. period discussed, is a verifiable phenomenon, then the argument about "natural" changes goes to nothing and we need to discuss what we are doing to cause such changes. At the heart of it, it seems to me, is that this line of reasoning is kind of like saying that one can get cancer by "natural" causes, therefore, by definition, cigarettes don't cause cancer. Both things can happen, can they not?
Have you guys heard of global dimming? It is a side effect that is caused from the contrails (jet streams) of airplanes. I watched a 30 minute special on it that was rather informative. It was sort of interesting, because after 9/11 when all jets were grounded, evidence was given as the earth didn't show any signs of dimming until the jets started flying again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming