This conversation is closed.

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 ?

  • thumb
    Jan 31 2013: Your talking about carbon ommissions .. the single largest human contributor is the two homes and large jet owned by Al Gore the spokesman for the global warming cause.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2013: That is an inconvenient observation sir. I wonder if you considered some other terms instead of "spokesman for". . . like "inventor of", or "developer of", or "promoter of", or "ambassador of", or "czar-at-large of", or "minister of"? They have had a lot of climate change--formerly called Glolbal Warming-- in the Northeast recently. I wonder why the inventor of the Internet (Mr. Gore) doesn't call global warming "GW", after all, he is the cause all of the world's problems.
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: G’day Isabelle

    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”.

  • thumb
    Feb 11 2013: Well if climate scientists are right at NASA then wars will be scaled back and those area that are out of the cold zones will be hotly contested if this comes to pass.

    We might have to warm up the planet instead.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2013: If increasing temperatures are caused by human activity imagine how warm it would be today if 50 million people hadn't been killed in WWII.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2013: Smoking cigarettes? Idling cars?

    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 ...
  • Feb 2 2013:

    Some of these stats are not what I expected to see, Katar and Kuwait are way up there.
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2013: War has its contribution to global warming. Like so many human activities. But we can not be paralysed by fear such that nothing would be done becasue we dont want to contribute to global warming. Some wars are neccessary, not all wars are senseless.

    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.
  • Feb 1 2013: Why do you say that except to say that everything has an influence on global wqarming.
  • Jan 31 2013: First, the ozone layer has nothing to do with the theory of global warming. Ozone is a molecule which contains 3 oxygen atoms. It is carbon dioxide that is widely held to be the leading cause of global warming.

    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.
    • Jan 31 2013: Having lived next to the Columbian Icefields and watching the icefields change since the sixties I tend to believe that global warming and environmental change is inevitable. I have since moved however I can see how one would take your view with ease without a timeline of those changes I have personally seen take place myself.

      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 ?
      • Jan 31 2013: You are correct about my assessment of people's priorities during a war.

        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."
        • thumb
          Jan 31 2013: .
          "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.

          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

          When we then look at carbon dioxide concetration levels we also see the same correlation
          (Ref: direct measurements 2005-present)

          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.
      • Jan 31 2013: Right back at ya Xavier

        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.
        • thumb
          Feb 1 2013: .
          '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.

          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'.
        • thumb
          Feb 1 2013: Robert, Referencing articles from the 'Daily Mail' to support refutation of man-made climate change, does not fill me with a great deal of confidence in your claims.

          If you have a masters in physics, can you please support your argument with something based on scientific evidence, rather than political dogma?
      • Feb 1 2013: Xavier,
        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.
        • thumb
          Feb 1 2013: When was the last co2 spike in the planets history? Not in our history line has there been one so we don't know what will actually happen do we?