This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does war expedite global warming ?
Smoking cigarettes, idling cars and factory emmissions continue to be the leading cause depleting the ozone layer. How do missiles and bombs compare to the leading cause hurting our ozone layer.
When discussions include reasons why war is not a good idea how often does this discussion look at global warming and the big freeze ?
Should war be responsible enough to report their carbon imprint ? Why don't we ever talk about this ?
http://youtu.be/FDToT27itkA
Ken brown 30+
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/291814/20120203/climate-scientists-predicts-mini-ice-age-future.htm#.URjGhB1JMQg
We might have to warm up the planet instead.
edward long 100+
Lejan . 30+
Could you please explain the cigarettes and the 'idling' of cars in the context of global warming?
On wars you might be right. If the killing of people isn't enough to make us think about it, its carbon footprint definitely should ...
Mathew Naismith 10+
It would have to add to the problem of course, could you imagine what a heavy tank would put out on its own!!
I’ve read most of the replies, this is my reply to them…..We have never in human history had so little forest but we have also never before put out such pollution, with this deduction alone one would have to think that we just might have quickened up the greenhouse effect on this planet many times over, global climate change runs on a cycle obviously but we have quickened this cycle up a number of times over. If the world isn’t heating up why are the caps melting at such an alarming rate?
The following is a small segment of what is written in the below link address. “Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world”.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Love
Mathew
Isabelle Morgan
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT/countries
Some of these stats are not what I expected to see, Katar and Kuwait are way up there.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
It is better to cut cancerous growths when they are still small than when they are massive or big or hideous and harmful.
This applies to our fight against global warming (which I support); this applies to just wars.
george lockwood 20+
Isabelle Morgan
Robert Winner 50+
edward long 100+
Robert Haacke
Second, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. According to a recent study, global average termperatures are about the same now as they were 16 years ago. There are other studies that indicate that the average world wide temperature has actually declined somewhat in the last ten years.
Third, even if wars did somehow impact world temperatures no one is gonna care in the middle of a war.
Isabelle Morgan
Thank you for your comments though, and what I hear you state is that in the middle of war there is no motivational factor to quit such activity with or without global warming ?
Robert Haacke
I said that anthropogenic or man-made global warming is a hoax and it is. The Earth did warm naturally over several decades startiing in about the 1950's or 60's. The warming stopped sometime in the mid-90's to 2000's despite the fact that we are spewing more CO2 than ever into the air.
The Earth's temperature naturally varies over the years. Sometimes the changes can happen quite rapidly. For examples, of how the world can either heat up or cool down quite rapidly then stay that way for extended periods google both; "The medieval warm period" and "the little ice age."
Xavier Belvemont 30+
"According to a recent study, global average termperatures are about the same now as they were 16 years ago"
"man-made global warming is a hoax"
"The warming stopped sometime in the mid-90's to 2000's"
NASA, The MET office, NOAA and JMA all disagree with you.
Global surface temperatures have almost consistently risen with some of the sharpest inclines taking place in the time period you listed.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/468
NASA then concludes:
"The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000."
and even provides an animation to demonstrate its findings
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/
When we then look at carbon dioxide concetration levels we also see the same correlation
(Ref: direct measurements 2005-present)
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Sorry but you're completely wrong. The direct measurements of carbon concentration and the global temperature consistently demonstrate that global warming is largely the result of carbon dioxide and thus human actions and that temperatures are rising as a result.
Robert Haacke
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Even if I were wrong about the temperature increases when this article says I'm not, I'm not wrong about either the medieval warm period or the little ice age and the fact that the Earth's temperature varies widely and sometimes rapidly with no help at all from us.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
'Even if I were wrong about the temperature increases..'
You are. The MET office inactuality simply adjusted their predictions downwards to account for additional natural cycles that naturally reduce temperature, thus somewhat stemming global climate temperature increases.
The MET office says itself:
"Taking into account the range of uncertainty in the forecast and observations, it is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest ten years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012."
Thats what happens when you use articles in newspapers written by simpletons - for simpletons , you're not going to get the correct information. Try using scientific and original documents for reference next time.
" I'm not wrong about either the medieval warm period or the little ice age and the fact that the Earth's temperature varies widely and sometimes rapidly with no help at all from us."
You're not wrong, but you're not right about the conclusion.
Ocean Oscillation, solar insolation do adjust temperature and allow for fluctuations, but it doesn't change the fact that carbon dioxide concentration and temperatures are in correlation with human actions.
Reference:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
Your argument is akin to saying
'The fact that the radiator was on this morning proves that the oven isn't responsible for the heat we're feeling in the evening'.
Allan Macdougall 30+
If you have a masters in physics, can you please support your argument with something based on scientific evidence, rather than political dogma?
Robert Haacke
I once read a study that said that there was a correlation between the number of telephone poles in a country and the rate of colon cancer. Their was also a study that said that ability on certain cognitive tests was strongly correlated to a child's foot size. It was not the child's foot size but the fact that older children are both better at cognitive tests and tend to have larger feet that was responsible for the results. Correlation is not causation. The globe can warm naturally and, as a result, all of the things you have referenced will come to pass.
I have a master's degree in Physics and no particular ax to grind one way or the other in the global warming debate. I'm only interested in the truth. I spent several years waffling back and forth on whether there really was a problem. Finally, I investigated the issue thoroughly from both sides a few years back and reached the conclusion that there is no incontrovertible evidence for global warming. Nothing I've seen since has changed my mind. There are, however, plenty of people out there with axes to grind, products to sell and power to gain.
Ken brown 30+