Haley Florio

This conversation is closed.

Do you really think global warming is a huge problem on Earth? (Or even real?)

In my opinion, I don't. Last winter (In New York) was the coldest winter on record. The earth is getting hotter because that is mother nature's way, but I would like to know your opinions.

  • thumb
    Jan 3 2012: YES, living in Alaska I see daily evidence of climate change. THere are a dozen indicators from coastal erosion, tundra thawing, glacial recession, tree bark beetle kills, migrating species to the north both animals and plants, rising temperatures of bays and ocean waters, declining populations of certain species, ice roads severely limited in working time due to not freezing in same range of time, fish species sensitive to rising temperatures may be delayed in returning to spawn in certain rivers. others.

    Is it man made? Yes, our carbon footprint of 7 billion heading to 10 billion is enormous. Methane is being released from our warming Arctic regions around the world. See the proceedings of the 17 COP. The most recent in South Africa saw more evidence being reported. We need urgently to shift our economic cycle based on resource extraction leading to lasting damage to our ecosystems services provided by a healthy, balanced plnet.
  • Jan 2 2012: I believe global warming is real. It may be however a combination of man-made causes and natural cycles of warm/cold. Obviously we need to do all we can to reduce emissions, whether or not it is causing some dramatic change. Cleaner aire and water is imperative for the world.

    We must take long time span looks at this question and not just rely on "the average temperature" in any given year. There are way too many variables in something like that. These variables will give us short-term "spikes and dips" that are not truly indicative of what climate is doing.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: Michael, the science is clear. Climate change is real and human activities are causing conditions to shift in the blink of a geologists eye.
      • Jan 3 2012: Kat

        Thanks for the comment. I do agree that climate is changing (warmer) but I am still not convinced on the total human contribution to the net result. My opinion is that it is probably a whole combination of factors that are creating this dynamic system. I doubt if it is simple cause and effect of one major variable.

        That said I still do think that reducing emissions, reducing the part we can control is important.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2012: Does it make any difference Michael? If the globe warms up, the effects will be devastating. Even if it were a purely natural phenomenom (which it isn't) we have to take all steps to get below the threshold anyway, don't you agree?.
      • Jan 3 2012: Joanne
        Yes, it does make a difference. Yes we should do all we can to reduce CO2 emissions. But, (and I am serious here) what if there are climatological changes taking place we can't control? That is the real issue for me here. Yes, we should control what we can, but the very idea we can actually control climate is really way way out there. We cannot and do not. We are not "victims" but you know what? I wonder what our ancestors did before the last Ice Age? Maybe they said, we can build a big enough bonfire......
        Ok, just trying to be funny here. The globe might warm and food production areas will shift to other areas. What we are afraid of I believe, is that our breadbasket will now belong to someone else.
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2012: As usual Michael, you reveal an interesting perspective. 'What we are afraid of I believe, is that our breadbasket will now belong to someone else'. I think you outline an important trend, that changing global politics is deflecting interest in this issue. The issue of food, and water too, is especially relevent when we are talking about climate change.

          I am not sure I understand though, why you think humans cannot impact climate change. Since James Watt invented the steam engine in 1784 humans have released over half a trillion tons of carbon from where it had been previously; safely stored underground. Today we release about 10 billion tons a year, which is a million tons every hour. Why do you think this suffocating blanket of carbon dioxide will NOT have an affect?

          During the previous mass extinctions, volcanic super-eruptions dumped trillions of tons carbon into the atmosphere over a few thousand years, causing a similar effect over a longer time scale, to what we are produciing in a matter of decades.

          The planetry boundary committee has set the planetry boundary for carbon density in the atmoshphere at 350 parts per million. I believe we are about at 380 parts per million now. If we go to 450 parts per million, some models predict we will be ice free. No ice on the planet. If our current rate of carbon emissions continues unabated, scientist predict we will be at 450ppm by mid century.

          Why do you think these important limits are erroneous?
      • Jan 4 2012: Joanne
        I do not think they are erroneous. Much of this is based on good real-time scientific study. Some however is based on computer generated projections of future trends. We still do not do very well with that. Secondly, again yes, we reduce CO2 emissions. We must. There are ten billion reasons to reduce CO2, reduce air pollution, make the world a healthier place. My main point here is this. Yes we do that, but there are other variables we cannot control that I believe are honestly working here. We do not control these variables. They are impacting also.

        Now to the point of the breadbasket. Yes, strange huh? We are afraid of losing our food production in places like the Great Plains. What may very well happen though is that other regions may become more productive. These regions may not be within the US! Yes, we are worried about "less rainfall" (again maybe not less, just more in places that don't get it now) and higher temperatures. My question here is are we worried in point of fact about global warming or just what it might do to us (most computer projections are dim) and how it might help others? Northern Africa for example, used to be one of the bread baskets of the Mediterranean What if it became so again? Are we so worried that we might have to buy food from other countries? Of course we are.
        All of this doesn't even deal with the questions of shifting crops, water consumption, and lifestyle choices we make. Those are as they say, another issue.
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2012: HI Michael, you raise important issues around planetary boundaries. I hope we are not boring Haley and she is still reading, as it is her and her children who will be more affected by these things than me and my peer group.

          As we ruin our worlds soil, disrupt the nitrogen cycle, eradicate our biodiverse ecosystems and as we acidify and empty out the most important and delicate breadbasket of all, the oceans, we jeopardise the planet's ability to support human life. We will probably not be able to feed the number of people who will be alive on the planet by midcentury if we keep going the way we are. We cannot feed the people on the planet today without the Haber Bosch process, a process which fixes nitrogen from the air into ammonia to make chemical fertiliser. This process takes a collossal amount of energy, in a world where increasingly we are going to describe countries as energy rich and energy poor, as water rich and water poor.

          We have important management issues to contend with, in world where people still think it is patriotic and a sign of success to consume, consume consume, without thought of the future.

          Where do you think some of the solutions lie? What can Haley's generation hope for?
      • Jan 4 2012: Joanne & Haley
        What can we do now? People will probably not like some of these steps.
        1. Reduce CO2 output around the world rich/poor nations.
        2. Begin now looking at which areas might change and develop food crops for those areas. (Remember for example, much of the corn grown in the midwest is ethanol and cow food, not human food)
        3. Study now population shifts that might have to happen. We love living by sea. The question in 50 years is where might the beach be.
        4. Learn to roll with what nature gives us instead of trying to control what we cannot control. We need to stop pretending to ourselves that we do. That means yes, giving up trying to irrigate for example where water is already very scarce. Learn that hurricanes for example bring needed rain, not just destroy $500K beach houses.
        5. Learn that we are interdependent on new global levels. We already have been it is going to change again if it does drastically warm.
        6. If there are huge population shifts, make those migrations easier and with planned growth in some areas.

        What can Haley hope for? I think a world that will be different with different challenges, but not necessarily apocalyptic. We have after all, managed before. Getting people ready for change is as important as the consequences of the change. Her generation may be very fit for that. I honestly believe, not in a Pollyanna way, that life finds a way. We need to help her generation learn to get on with life that is not consumption oriented.
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2012: No not apocalypic. Not at all. We have the ability to live in this garden of eden we have been granted, peacefully, sustainably. It is not even hard, we just need to look at the problems and change a few things.

          All nations need to sign Kyoto for starters. Forget economic growth, aim for economic equilibrium. Intelligent design, intelligent technology will look forward to brilliant ways to conserve energy and recycle efficiently. We can live happy and even affluent lives tomorrow, but we do need to change some things. We need to take a deep breath and plan for a future world of dwindling resources. We need to protect the oceans and forests and biodiverse foodchain, with all our hearts and souls for the children of the future.

          We need to turn a deaf ear to the people who would say, for their own selfish reasons, that it is none of this counts, none of it is important.
        • Jan 4 2012: Your concept is too ideal. There is no way it can be in a working model, no one will just forget economic growth, nothing can reach Utopian equality, and we care more about the immediate future then the distant future. Also, human beings are naturally selfish, this selfishness deviates from the survivalist instinct.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2012: Hi Zared, an idea cannot be too ideal, only a good idea or a bad idea. It might be hard to imagine, I understand that but it is amazing how quickly things can change, indeed have changed when we look at history, when circumstance also changes. I think we are going to have to come up with some radical solutions and the model we currently use, will probably be rendered obsolete. What will replace it?

          I am not certain I agree that humans are naturally selfish. Stress, feelings of insecurity, an overblown sense of entitlement and circumstances of hardship create selfishness.
        • Jan 5 2012: Any idea can be too ideal if it focuses more on the goals than probabilities and applications.
          The concept you speak of involves a total recall and positive release of human morality, equality, and social norms on a large proportion of the human race essentially after a apocalyptical event which would most likely cause people to divert into survival mode then form caring communities. The societies after a apocalyptical events will lose great morals, be unfriendly to other societies, and they will do anything in terms of survival. Once again, it is a life or death situation in the new ice age which also means that you are only right on the focus of conserving items efficiently.
          Another scenario, people could survive this new ice age in underground bunkers where resources are abundant and most human behaviors will probably be the same except a slight decrease in concern of economics. This one would be the most probable society for this situation.
          I do not mean selfishness as arrogance, but selfishness as caring for oneself or a relation of oneself.
          I could be horribly mistaken so, please, point out any flaws in my logic.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2012: O.k, no argument with that definition of selfishness, and your logic isn't flawed.

          You seem to be asking me to reflect on the idea that societies cannot be 'designed' but are destined to be forged from circumstance. This is why you call my comment idealistic. O.K, I probably must concede, however reluctantly.

          Yet, although certain ideals might seem impossible for humans to achieve in current thinking, through history people have made similar leaps and changes. Galileo's proposal that the world was flat, Darwin's understanding of evolution, the aboliton of slavery, all ideals that people were terrified of initially. They resisted, because they thought the world as they knew it would crumble . The world as they knew it did crumble, but we carried on.

          IF we could arrive at a more sustainable economic model, no matter how radical such an idea might seem at first, and no matter how much some people would resist change, such a thing is possible and might be necessary. Population stability/control might also become necessary.

          As you can see, it is my hope, with our big brain, all our generations of accumulated knowledge, the brilliant people who live and think today, warp speed information exchange, that we can out think the trajectory we are currently on and avoid the circumstances which would FORCE change on us. To me it is still feasible, now but not for much longer, to avoid the critical planetry tipping points. The problem is more a political one, or perhaps an A-political one. Not enough people know and care.

          I hope we do not reach the apocalypse you describe and if we do, I doubt we will be in 'underground bunkers' . Who will construct those and what with?
        • Jan 5 2012: Well, if there is no global warming, then there is an upcoming ice age. The only way to survive the cold weather is to live in those bunkers for warmth. Paranoid people already built these bunkers to withstand nuclear fallout during the cold war. They are built into deep underground, mountains, etc. with the protective materials needed to withstand those disasters.
        • thumb
          Jan 16 2012: I agree with you, Michael; especially #4. Us humans do try and control things we cannot (I do not know if this is correct, but didn't President Obama try and increase/decrease C02 in general?).
          Sometimes, we just have to go with the punches. Mother Earth has let us live on her, therefore we need to accept what she throws at us (i.e hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.).
          Unfortunately, I do not agree with you on some steps. Population shifts, for example; those are not necessary. Is the weather drastically changing? I do not think so, maybe a little bit, but not by 20 degrees each summer. Maybe I think this because last winter was the coldest winter on record, and this summer was much cooler than last (In New York.)
          In your end paragraph; every generation faces difficult, new challenges that the past generation did not face. For example, my grandparents faced the Holocaust; my parents faced the Vietnam War, and my generation will be facing this. I am ready and open to new challenges, because no matter where you are, who you're with or what you're doing, you will face a problem. It's just the way life is.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2012: Hi Haley, I understand your thinking when you say this;

        'Is the weather drastically changing? I do not think so, maybe a little bit, but not by 20 degrees each summer. Maybe I think this because last winter was the coldest winter on record, and this summer was much cooler than last (In New York.)'

        But what I have read, and I hope you check it out yourself and don't just take my word for it, is that global warming means big jumps in weather changes, so you might notice things heating up one year, and then notice some drastic cooling the next. Also we should see deluges, which means lots and lots of rain. I have noticed deluges and drastic temperature changes happening in my country, and a few other freaky things too, like great big icebergs floating up from antarctica. (I live in New Zealand, near the South Pole, and we never ever see icebergs, but suddenly here they are!)

        Also, what they talk about when they talk about a warming planet is only a few degrees, so it might not seem noticeable to us especially from year to year. BUT if you are keen on dinosaurs and you have read about the extinction that happened in the Jurassic period, you come across the idea that these animals went extinct because the earth heated up (it was natural that time, because of volcanic activity). It melted all the ice as we are seeing now!
  • Jan 2 2012: There is no Global warming generated by human influence and man-made Carbon Dioxide. The whole theory is just a spam. Al Gore got the Nobel Price only because he could sell the theory supported by investors (recently the investors can buy and sell the clean air related commodities) Governments – they can add tax on air components as well. I did a calculation as scientist and only 3” of rain can absorb all the human made Carbon dioxide. The average rain is over 30” /year. Also the ethanol fuel is generating 1.7 times more Carbon dioxide as the regular hydro carbon fuel. The Government and pseudo scientist do not let me to publish my explanation, because is absolutely different from recent theory. The extreme weather condition, the volcanic activities and tectonic activities will grow in numbers and power. No one can stop it. My whole explanation will be published soon; I do not care about the Government and scientist any more.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: Hey John, so in your view the warming earth is caused by natural events. What are these natural events you are talking about?
      • Jan 4 2012: Everyone knows that the lava has a strong flow under tectonic plates and this flow is resulting the tectonic plates move. At cracks and at earth quacks there is a gigantic energy passing from magma into upper zones and into the sea water. The Carbon dioxide accumulated in deep sea and a little higher water temperature immediately triggering a lager quantity of Carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere. I could not understand longer time the function of volcanoes and the explosive reaction of volcanoes. But if our planet the Earth and all the other planets turning around Sun are little babies of our mother Sun, I find out that the gases and the strong lava flow must be fuelled by permanent energy generation. Also we know that the Sun has a thermo nuclear reaction and because no one stopped this thermo nuclear reaction I started to understand the reason why we have so many gases and explosive volcano eruptions. Probably we have still thermo nuclear reaction ongoing deep inside the magma – on our mother Earth - and many new elements are produced by this thermo nuclear reaction. This is explaining for me why we have this strong magma flow. The volcanoes are working as safety relief valves. The evaporated lager quantity of water and the volcano eruption are increasing the mass flow in the atmosphere and resulting extreme weather conditions as like torrential rain, extremely strong and fast wind, strong and intensive snowing and so on. At thermal energy calculation every Professional Engineer know that only 30% of heat transfer is transmitted by radiation and the rest is by mass flow.
        The recent theory – concerning the Global warming – is completely ignoring the geothermal energy and the mass flow in atmosphere. Ref. : http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2012: Thanks for taking the touble to reply and for giving me something to study and look into. I am sure that some carbon is released the way you suggest. Why then would you say more is being released now? If there was more thermal dynamic activity going on beneath the earth's surface would you not expect to see more activity, i.e. volcanic, plate movement on the surface? All the earths processes are cyclic as I understand it, including the carbon cycle. Other species have play a part in it over long time spans. We are accelerating our own impact on this particular part of the carbon cycle. Do you disagree with that?

          I will look into the science of what you re saying, but an iceberg the size of a street floated up past our southern island last year all the way from the South Pole for the first time in history. I took it for the portent it undoubtedly is.
      • Jan 4 2012: When I know that only 3” of rain all over the World absorbing all the human generated Carbon Dioxide and if we know that the temperature was higher many times back in history when the Carbon Dioxide had higher % this clearly proving that the C02 is only secondary effect and has no supremacy (especially no human generated effect at all) as recently Al Gore all the Governments and most of pseudo scientist stating. I will start an open discussion regarding my development soon and if these people cannot prove that I did a mistake I will publicly asking Al Gore to return his Nobel price.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2012: I also agree with John about how the earth is causing the global warming. Yes, maybe it is us too, but scientists are trying to replace the fuel in nature with a different fuel that produces 1.5 more C02 than the regular fuel; and many say C02 is the problem. Isn't this strange?
        I am only 13, so maybe I am not up to date on all of the global warming problems. But thank you for answering and taking your time to give me something to think about.
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2012: Well Haley, the most important thing is you are thinking about it, and I admire that, especially since you are only thirteen.

          I am very interested in your ideas, and I have heard about it before, that the replacement fuels might even be worse. I have two questions for you, I hope you can help me with, can you remember the name of the alternative fuel you are describing? I would like to look it up and check it out a bit more. I do agree with you it IS strange.

          Secondly if you agree the earth is warming up, whether it is natural or manmade, what do you think we as humans should be doing about it?
    • thumb
      Jan 5 2012: Won't your prize in the end be a brown sky? I live in Los Angeles... We let the sky get brown, then we fixed it... Now, it's killing our economy... We won't go back. Poor people will leave. It's sad, but true. Why would anyone want to go back to living under a brown sky, on one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world?

      Proving Al Gore wrong, will only temporarily spur wasteful corporate spending on ancient, inefficient, unsustainable technology, which democracy inevitably will correct, through progressive legislation, that reminds us that the sky is supposed to be blue. I don't understand, why anyone would waste their time fighting that.
      • Jan 5 2012: The air, water pollution and contamination have nothing to do with clean Carbon dioxide. The Government spend billion of $ on “clean energy “like ethanol and bio fuel technology and generating more contamination. All the bio fuels are generating more than 1.5 times more C02 as the regular hydro carbon based fuels. I just started up a gas fuel plant in 1998 producing 110 octane quality fuels in Europe before immigrated to Canada. Till now North America has no vehicles and developed technology able to handle this quality fuels. When I asked why the North American vehicle manufacturer just not starting to use the more fuel economy engines already developed and used in Japan and Europe. The answer was: this decision is in hand of Vice president of USA. Just ironic remark: that time just Al Gore was the Vice President and that time nobody wanted to build better quality engines.
        Also I would like to let everyone to know, that at heating, power generation and in engines only the thermal energy is used, the electro chemical energy is just spoiled. I need to notice also that the lager % of energy is in the electro chemical energy in each fuel, what is recently just spoiled.
        Carbon tax is just on our shoulder and we need to stop overloading average people living just from paycheque to paycheque.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2012: I personally disagree with your assessment of carbon, because I see it as something that correllates with poisoning our atmosphere. Are technologies designed to reduce co2 intentionally ignoring arsenic? No. The same device innovated to reduce the co2 problem, solved other problems.

          I can understand disagreeing with that... In theory. What I can't understand, is, why would anyone dedicate their life, to defending something old, and extremely chemically inefficient. How could that possibly be more fulfilling than developing, or creating something new?

          The Tesla AC motor, is way more efficient than anything else we have, and it can be powered by solar, wind, water, or tidal power... If we use it for motorcycles, our children might actually be able to survive another 50 years or so on this planet... Why would anyone spend time debating causes, when the earth is literally becoming uninhabitable... We should be past this phase, and into the brainstorming solutions phase... We've known the earth was in danger for 40 years.
      • Jan 13 2012: Dear David Hamilton
        Your may disagree with me, but this is not helping to solve the problem. If you are thinking that the C02 is causing all the problems I am asking you why the recent scientist trying to replace the natures hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic (ethanol, bio fuel) when this one is generating 1.5 times more C02 as the regular fuels? Second I studied fuel and energy scientist and I have two masters of Scientist degrees in this field. Can we just chat as scientist? The idea to use the electrical power is good, but till today we have no suitable and sufficient storage system to use electric engines to operate vehicles, trains, ships and aircraft.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2012: I wasn't disagreeing with your science... Merely your attack on legislation, because I believe that current air pollution laws often attack CO2, but that attack, even if I agree with your science, still creates a market for new air purifiers, filtration systems, and efficient uses of power. These things corellate, with a decrease in other, actually toxic chemicals, that your study doesn't mention.

          I'm not necessarily for increasing CO2 regulation. However, getting the laws to where they are today, in California, has been a good thing for air quality. The increase in emissions you talk about, still sound large enough, to mildly over long periods of time, influence climate. Your research seems to suggest that the impact is just much, much smaller that previous research concluded... Not that the impact doesn't exist.

          Also, you don't seem to disagree that the earth is getting hotter, and in a few degrees life will become uninhabitable at the equator... so... How is reducing legislation going to fix this problem? We need better research, we need solutions... We need to stop debating the cause of a problem we've all seen coming for 40 years, and start working on solutions.

          Does global warming exist... Of course, no one disagrees with that. Did we cause it? Who cares? Lions, and sharks aren't going to fix it... We have to. In a conversation entitled "Is global warming real?", you basically responded "Well, no... because I've proven, that it's not our fault."... Well, great... Lets all just die happy then : p
      • Jan 17 2012: Attention to David Hamilton
        Because the originator (Haley Florio ) of this public and open discussion was initiated only about Global warming, I just respond to this article. But if you are asking about Air pollution and water & soil contamination, I need to respond. The situation in this field is really bad. The oil & gas companies do whatever they want and the Governments just do not care. Even in North America the situation is worst as in Europe. I do not know exactly what the situation in USA is but in Alberta we have extremely bad situation. Few years ago I find hydrocarbon (carcinogen) in drinking water and after many hard phone and letter exchanges I got a respond from Alberta Environment Minister. I try to explain it very shortly. My statement that WHO regulation prohibiting to have any hydrocarbon in drinking water was signed by Federal Government of Canada, but it was not ratified in Alberta and because no regulation he can do nothing. (many people get into the hospital as well drinking contaminated water ) The same situation is in food industry. I did ask Canadian and USA authorities why they have approve and listed additives knowingly toxic and carcinogen in food like wheat flour. These additives are prohibited already more than 25 years in Europe, most of Asian countries. I never got respond. Just for fun, I would like to mention here, that I already eliminated many allergies like wheat, gluten, lactose and dairy products, yeast and so on. I can make bread from wheat flour full of gluten, that 99 % people even with Celiac Disease can eat my bread as like gluten free. But everyone who has allergy or Gluten intolerance. I am not just a theoretic scientist. On the weather changes I have again only short respond.
      • Jan 17 2012: The humans are overestimation their influence. It could be better if they focus just on increasing their own safety and trying to survey but I am not excluding any catastrophic changes like it was for dinosaurs. We could face similar situation. The worst situation is the strong and depending networks, like communication, fuels, power systems, water and sawyer and food supply. If you look to any catastrophe these are gone and the local people have no knowledge what to do .
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: I like the way you are thinking, because usually I would say people go along with the scientists and what they say. As I am only 13, I'm not really up to date with what scientists say about global warming. But I can agree with you that it is confusing how scientists and trying to replace hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic, although it's generating much more C02 than the regular. It doesn't make sense, does it?
      • Jan 16 2012: The scientist just does what fore they get money. I did real engineering calculation and at the burning this is really about 10 % of C02 saved. But even if you are only 13 years old you know that at the fermentation (converting sugar to alcohol) there are clean gas bubbles and this is the C02. The Governments and Scientist just do not talk about this quantity of C02. You may ask any chemist or professor at school, why this part of C02 is is not published at Global Warming phenomena or at clean energy. Just the synthetic fuel is new business for Investors and Government, nothing else. I was younger than you when I started to collect scientific published information’s regarding volcanoes, earth quacks, tectonic plates moving, weather conditions, Earth magnetism and planets, and step by step I get close to my recent explanation and understanding of Earth Scientist. Also the El Nino & La Ninja (the extra large warm water flow in sea water, or missing this effect – the La Ninja) not yet explained by any Scientist. This effect is not generated by Sun or C02 but easy to understand if we know the earth tectonic moving and effects. The cold and hot weather also influenced by close to 70 % by energy and mass flow from Earth core (prove- the El Nino warming up more the air )and do not forget please that we are living on Fire Ball. If you want to compeer the thickness of tectonic plate and magma, you find out similar situation as like the egg and egg shell, but the plates are thinner. Thank you for your questions.
      • Jan 16 2012: The colder weather and the recent none standards snow in Alaska is also prove that lager quantity of water evaporated from sea. The water & snow is also in direct contact with atmospheric C02 and absorbing it. In high atmospheric region we have temperatures even under -100 degree. The higher evaporation generated stronger mass flow up and down in atmosphere. That is why we have more snow, rain and stronger wind and more frequent extreme weather conditions as like flash floods, mudslides. I just want to point out again, many entire scientist well paid, are trying to find out that how the water disappeared from Moon and Mars. I can call them again, just poor scientists. They do not know the simple physical and chemical rules. The magma has 0% of water and the lava by the time contacting the water make chemical and physical absorption of the water. This way by the time (could be many million years) from our Planet – Earth the water will be disappearing as well. Recently many scientists get paid to find out how the water disappeared and they do not want to talk to me and they do not let me to publish my developments. I hope ones they will start to talk with me and soon they can look even after magma on Moon and Mars and many of other planets.
  • thumb
    Jan 1 2012: anecdotal evidence does not count. it is as simple as this. whether we have a warming trend or not, is decided by observations, experiments, calculations and such. the current estimated rate of warming is slow. you can't notice it yourself.

    the actual rate of the warming is debated. some says it can wreak havoc on us within a few decades, others claim that it won't hurt us within a hundred years minimum.

    the cause of the warming is also debated.

    final advice: if you hear any "hard facts" about global warming, always look at the source. you can simply dismiss cracpot websites. you can also dismiss any sort of committee that is funded by governments, UN, EU or similar money wasting lie manufacturing organizations. if you find an actual article behind it, published in a peer reviewed paper, standing unchallenged for at least six months, that is hard information. not an assured truth though, but something you should listen to.
  • thumb
    Jan 1 2012: yes, and know it's said, it's believed that in 2012 will be a thawing of the poles, and it could produce environments problems, I don't really believe that, probably it's caused by the hypothetic apocalypses.
    But, yes Global warming could be a natural process, but it doesn't justify that we can expel harmful chemist product to the atmosphere.
    by:@ajchem93
    • thumb
      Jan 1 2012: A lot of the reindeer in Northern Russia and Alaska are having a hard time getting to their grazing grounds since the rivers are not freezing at the normal times. That is just one problem that our world is facing. You can not just take the problem from looking from your city. Global warming has got to be looked at as a global issue not a N.Y issues.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2012: I agree, but we've to be realistic, the society, although we are making progress every day more, we are so simple in these topics, for example, where I live, Barcelona, the Town Council is undertaking an initiative to awareness us to care scraps, and the Council is making new kind of containers to separate west, and the people throw the scraps into the common container, because they have a other preoccupations, like the crisis or terrorism.
        I post the link about the campaign, but it's in catalan :S
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-7Js3lZ1c
        by:@ajchem93
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2012: As I'm only 13, I'm not really up to date with the problems happening in Northern Russia and Alaska. I see how this is a problem, but my example (the coldest winter in New York) was just an example. I'm just not convinced that just because of the rivers not freezing at the normal times, it doesn't mean we are causing the whole world to be heating up. It's just Mother Nature; not us, that's what I think.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2012: Haley, connect online with any native Alaskan teen and they will report to you the many signs they see daily of climate change and how it is endangering their very communities.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2012: Yeah this problem is causing families to go hungry. You need to look out side your world. I know it is hard you know the big city but people in places like this hunt for their meat. Their stores have very little to buy. Search youtube is the only thing I know to tell you. The problems are teachers are not showing these young kids how peoples lives are different in different area's. I seen a show about an Alaskan family and the older man said that thanks to snowmobiles they can go farther to hunt but even with this food is scarce because the deer can not get to their normal feeding ground. You have to understand that you live in a city and would see the effects much,much later than some one in these areas. You are hungry you get $20 from mom go to the store buy what you want. These kids wait for Dad and Grandpa to bring home the hunt. Also South America is having huge flooding problems because of the raise in the oceans water. There are three ice shelves that they are watching because when they drop the water level will raise enough to damage even American beach front areas. Taking out beaches and homes around it.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2012: Hi Haley, very good question and brave of you to have an opinion and to speak out on such a heated topic. (Excuse the pun!) What did you read that caused you to think that? Can you tell me so I can read it too?
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: @ Angel good video.
      • Jan 3 2012: It is a natural process.Humans can only slow down the process of this cycle, but they cannot stop it.
  • Jan 1 2012: Global warming is just a natural process and it cannot be stop, but it can be slow down to prolong the demise of mankind.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: Wow. I like this answer a lot. I am only 13 and some things people say are just confusing to me, although informative... but this is perfect! Thanks!
  • Jan 17 2012: Attention to David Hamilton
    Because the originator (Haley Florio ) of this public and open discussion initiated only about Global warming, I just respond to this article. But if you are asking about Air pollution and contamination, I need to respond. The situation in this field is really bad. The oil & gas companies do whatever they want and the Governments just do not care. Even in North America the situation is worst as in Europe. I do not know exactly what the situation in USA is but in Alberta we have extremely bad situation. Few years ago I find hydrocarbon (carcinogen) in drinking water and after many hard phone end letter exchange I got a respond from Alberta Environment Minister I try to explain it very short. My statement that WHO regulation prohibiting to have any hydrocarbon in drinking water was approved by Federal Government of Canada, but it was not ratified in Alberta and because no regulation he can do nothing. The some situation is in food industry. I did ask Canadian and USA authorities why they have approve and listed additives knowingly toxic and carcinogen in food like wheat flour. These additives are prohibited already more than 25 years in Europe, most of Asian countries. I never got respond. Just for fun, I would like to mention here, that I already eliminated many allergies like wheat, gluten, lactose and dairy products, yeast and so on. I can make bread from wheat flout fell of gluten, that 99 % people even with Celiac Disease can eat my bread as like gluten free. But everyone who has allergy or Gluten intolerance. I am not just a theoretic scientist. On the weather changes I have again only short respond. The humans are overestimation their influence could be better if the focus just on increasing their own safety and trying to survey but I am not excluding any catastrophic changes like it was for dinosaurs. We could face similar situation.
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2012: From Wiki CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL; 'The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."[9] "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," according to University of California, San Diego historian Naomi Oreskes.[9] The article went on to say that individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, among others—formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research.'
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2012: From Wiki; CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3] Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[4][5][6][7][8] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

    Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[13] The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[15] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2012: Based on the events that went on in 2009 (the hackers getting access to information from the top global warming research facility in Europe, the fact that the earth was indeed 10 degrees cooler than it was said to be, the fact that world leaders were very hasty to hire their own hackers or computer tech's,followed by the fact that a "public conference" in Copenhagen, Denmark was created to convince "the people of the world" that global warming is indeed an issue", followed by the fact that people were protesting at the conference only to get beat up by what looked like a "fascist police force")

    I would have to conclude that most of what the media puts out in regards to global warming is only to protect those who have an investment in it.

    Now to answer your question of if it is real or not, most people do not realize that climate change happens all the time...this is nothing new and not the last time its going to happen...all we are doing is just sort of speeding things up, instead of letting things happen naturally.
    • thumb
      Jan 17 2012: Hi Orlando. do you know approximately the kinds of money currently invested in new green technology? Do you think it would bear any relationship to the money still invested in the oil industry?If you agree it would be relatively small, compared to the massive money invested in cars, plastics, fossil fuel refining, not to mention the oil wars themselves, then it would follow that every country still has a greater interest in oil, than in green technologies yes?If you accept this, would you still argue that we would not have a Kyoto agreement at all if there was not a real problem?

      I mean it would be against the national interest of every country who signed it would it not?Do you think the oil industry, the massive behemoth that it is, might have an interest in commissioning research and disseminating information through the media, which denies the problem with CO2 emmissions? Do you remember that the Dupont company did the same thing, to try to prevent CFC's they produced for use in refridgeration which were destroying the Ozone layer, from being banned?

      The carbon cycle, is a natural process as you say, and there have been at least five other times when the planet heated up causing the ice caps to melt, the acidification of the oceans, and mass extinctions each time. Those events, which look like they happened almost instanteneously in the fossil record, actually took hundreds of thousands of years and were due to volcanic activity. We (humans) have engineered a similar event, through digging up trillions of tons of fossilised carbon from below the earth and dumping it (among other things) into the atmosphere where it forms a blanket and lingers. Our event began when we began to utelise fossil fuels, and in the space of two hundred years is already beyond the boundary and close to the tipping point. The process may well be complete by midcentury or shortly thereafter, if we do not become carbon neutral soon.
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2012: Wow Joanne, I must say I did not expect such a great response, you give me much to think about. Being that I am not on your level intellectually I will try my best answer your questions and feel free to correct me.

        I do not know the exact amount invested in Green technology but I am sure there are a large number of investors trying to protect their investments. A friend of mines once said to me "The moment that Al Gore stated that we are going Green, a lot of businessmen had smile on their faces". In regards to comparing it to the oil industry I would say, at least from what I know, the investment in Green Technology does not even come close.

        Now do not get me wrong, I do think there is a problem weather or not the climate change is as devastating as the media puts it out to be, being that we know the effects of fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, nuclear waste, etc, so yes the Kyoto agreement is imperative but the way I see it is that many of those invested in green technology is really doing it for profit as opposed to really caring about the biotic communities.

        Your next paragraph is where I may have to disagree(somewhat). Some of these countries that are invested in fossil fuels would be going against their interest but I am pretty sure that they are also invested in Green Technology. The reason why I say this is because many of these individuals realize that their resources are limited if they rely too much on fossil fuels. So they would have to either come up w/innovate ways of getting their resources or they can invest in Green Technology. But for the time being, I'm sure many of them would do exactly what the DuPont Company did and protect their current investment.

        As for your last paragraph i have no disagreements. I hope I did not come off as if I was saying G.W. is a hoax. I was simply attacking the economic aspect of it because it disgust me how people can turn such an important issue into an opportunity for economic growth.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2012: Hi Orlando, please don't say this 'Being that I am not on your level intellectually', it is just not true, not now, not ever. You can hold your own with anyone.

          O.K, so you don't think the science of global warming is a hoax, but even so please be aware that much of the information you have heard, information that falls into the category of 'skeptical' can be traced back to certain industries that are trying to protect themselves.I would suggest to you, if you have doubts, irrespective of where your thinking has emerged from, that you at least take an objective look at some research yourself. Given your objectivity and your unflinching acceptance of logical truths, I am sure you will make up your own mind.

          I can recommend a good read, not tedious, not at all, which has plenty of good references. Its called The God Species by Mark Lynas and its available on Amazon, I think the kindle version is only about seven dollars.

          I agree with you, that the green tech industry is as full of corruption as any other. Actually Haley pointed out to me that Ethanol is not a solution, but will soon be another source of environmental problems.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2012: Ya, I'd just like to second Joanne, on the idea, that... Orlando Hawkins... You're sharp. You can hold your own. Me and Joanne agree on a lot, you and I agree on a lot, and we all disagree on a lot... but it's not for lack of intellectual abillity... In my humble opinion.

          The only place I would really argue with you, is the same place I argued with John Smith... Okay... It's natural... All the liberals are full of shit, and for the most part, global warming, and cooling, are on a natural cycle... Shouldn't we still do something about it?

          We're smart... Lions, couldn't fix the fact that 20% of them were going to die off over the last decade... We can... Can't we? My only problem with arguments against global warming, is that, no one... thinks the ice caps are getting bigger... and that's a problem... Isn't it?

          I have lots of sypathy for people who believe that liberals want to take over the economy, and destroy innovation... because, in essence, I think lots of socialist liberals do. I think there are lots of people that believe elected officials can solve their problems, and in general... I think they're wrong. I tend to think that what is popular, is almost never what's right...

          However, I do concede that global warming and cooling cycles, even in the abstract, cost humanity millions, if not a billion or so lives... So, I want us to invest, in not getting those people killed. Me personally, I really want to send a billion people to the moon, or another planet... I'm all for government spending on colonization... Do you at least agree though, that even if the cycle of warming and cooling is natural... There is a realm for government intervention, isn't there?

          Can't we force humans to contribute less to this cycle if nothing else, so that the population swings aren't so grand? Again... Yes, global warming, in the modern narative, may be a bit of a fiction, but isn't starvation along the equator, an undeniable fact?
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2012: Joanne and David, Well thank you both for your comments and all that you say to me I hold in the same regard for you two.

        I will certainly take a look at that book.

        In regards to the science of global warming, I do not necessarily think its a hoax, I just think that its as serious as we are putting it out to be (I'm not saying that its not a serious issue, but I have a feeling that some of the information may be, misconstrued.

        Ok, I get what your saying and if am I reading what our saying correctly, I too agree that we should be concerned about the well-being of the planet's ecosystem regardless of if the information about global warming is true or not, being that is the only planet that we can call home.

        David:

        I honestly have not disagreement what you said. Perhaps it was the way I put it but I am not against putting some sort of investment in regards to sustaining the environment. I would have no problem if more businesses invested in green technology being that they will only serve to be good for the eco-systems. So in regards to doing something about the environment, weather or not global warming is a hoax or a natural process, I am all for that.

        As I stated to Joanne, what I am not in support of is, how many of the world government can take all of the important issues around the world and somehow turn it into some sort of economic investment to fulfill their own interest. In that regards, I think it should be up to us, everyday people, to change things, as opposed to the government because once the government gets involved the issues only become more convoluted.
  • Jan 16 2012: The colder weather and the recent none standards snow in Alaska is also prove that lager quantity of water evaporated from sea. The water & snow is also in direct contact with atmospheric C02 and absorbing it. In high atmospheric region we have temperatures even under -100 degree. The higher evaporation generated stronger mass flow up and down in atmosphere. That is why we have more snow, rain and stronger wind and more frequent extreme weather conditions as like flash floods, mudslides. I just want to point out again, many entire scientist well paid, are trying to find out that how the water disappeared from Moon and Mars. I can call them again, just poor scientists. They do not know the simple physical and chemical rules. The magma has 0% of water and the lava by the time contacting the water make chemical and physical absorption of the water. This way by the time (could be many million years) from our Planet – Earth the water will be disappearing as well. Recently many scientists get paid to find out how the water disappeared and they do not want to talk to me and they do not let me to publish my developments. I hope ones they will start to talk with me and soon they can look even after magma on Moon and Mars and many of other planets.
  • Jan 13 2012: Dear David Hamilton
    Your may disagree with me, but this is not helping to solve the problem. If you are thinking that the C02 is causing all the problems I am asking you why the recent scientist trying to replace the natures hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic (ethanol, bio fuel) when this one is generating 1.5 times more C02 as the regular fuels? Second I studied fuel and energy scientist and I have two Masters of Scientist degrees in this field. Can we just chat as scientist? The idea to use the electrical power is good, but till today we have no suitable and sufficient storage system to use electric engines to operate vehicles, trains, ships and aircraft.
  • thumb
    Jan 5 2012: yes it will become a problem in the future, and yes it is caused by human activity,
    I have an idea on how to solve it here,

    http://www.ted.com/conversations/8049/carbon_taxes_placed_every_year.html
  • thumb
    Jan 4 2012: It depends on your worldview. Is God in control; or there is no God.
    The ones telling us we are doomed are mostly of the worldview that the earth has survived for billions of years with no I'll effects. Slight inconsistency!
    Scientifically it I seems to hang on the ocean temperature. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the sea to heat, & it gives off more CO2. Conversely, if the sea is warming, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. We have chicken & egg dilemma. Is the sun warming the sea, or the atmosphere ? Either way, there's really not a lot we can do about it. We can only burn the fossil fuels we have, therefore we can only add so much CO2 in total. Make it last as long as possible would be my instinct, but we are selfish creatures and will probably continue as-is, probably with little ill effect.

    :-)
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jan 4 2012: Hi Pierre

        I take your points. This is not an issue for me really. Politicians are always trying to scare us with something or other. Maybe they're scared themselves, or maybe they see a way to fame & fortune. I don't know if there is a science book on global warming. I agree the most likely scenario is just the normal effects of the sun. It's not that many years since we were being told of an immanent ice age, as the Thames was frozen over etc. Interesting that "Global Warming" has evolved into "Climate Change". Can't really go wrong now can they. The climate always changes.
        Yup! This selfish creature is still headed for heaven; plenty room for another one.

        :-)
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 16 2012: I think the sun is not warming the sea; the sun has been here since the beginning. If it was warming the sea, I would think global warming would have been going on for 1.2 billion years!
      You are completely right though; it could be true. Global warming could have been going on for 1.2 billion years but just noticed recently.
      There are many humans not willing to help, but I think everyone should give a little bit to help the Earth.
  • Jan 4 2012: When I know that only 3” of rain all over the World absorbing all the human generated Carbon Dioxide and if we know that the temperature was higher many times back in history when the Carbon Dioxide had higher % this clearly proving that the C02 is only secondary effect and has no supremacy (especially no human generated effect at all) as recently Al Gore, all the Governments and most of pseudo scientist stating. I will start an open discussion regarding my development soon and if these people cannot prove that I did a mistake I will publicly asking Al Gore to return his Nobel price.
  • Jan 4 2012: Everyone knows that the lava has a strong flow under tectonic plates and this flow is resulting the tectonic plates move. At cracks and at earth quacks there is a gigantic energy passing from magma into upper zones and into the sea water. The Carbon dioxide accumulated in deep sea and a little higher water temperature immediately triggering a lager quantity of Carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere. I could not understand longer time the function of volcanoes and the explosive reaction of volcanoes. But if our planet the Earth and all the other planets turning around Sun are little babies of our mother Sun, I find out that the gases and the strong lava flow must be fueled by permanent energy generation. Also we know that the Sun has a nuclear reaction and because no one stopped this nuclear reaction I started to understand the reason why we have so many gases and explosive volcano eruptions. Probably we have still nuclear reaction ongoing deep inside the magma – on our mother Earth - and many new elements are produced by this nuclear reaction. This is explaining for me why we have this strong magma flow. The volcanoes are working as safety relief valves. The evaporated lager quantity of water and the volcano eruption are increasing the mass flow in the atmosphere and resulting extreme weather conditions as like torrential rain, extremely strong and fast wind, strong and intensive snowing and so on. At thermal energy calculation every Professional Engineer know that only 30% of heat transfer is transmitted by radiation and the rest is by mass flow.
    The recent theory – concerning the Global warming – is completely ignoring the geothermal energy and the mass flow in atmosphere. Ref. : http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 8 2012: Why?
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2012: Hi Joanne,
        An answer to your questions up there ^^^ : The fuel is called "ethanol" (I think).
        I have many mixed feelings about your next question. I feel that global warming could or could NOT be manmade; therefore it is hard to tell wether or not us humans should be interfering with it. If it is manmade, then we can definitely work on harnessing the power of the sun; that way, we can have unlimited power that is also safe and does not use harmful fuels that hurts Mother Nature. Also, (I don't know if this is even possible) but I think scientists should work on making cars that run on air. Air is unlimited; no need to waste money on gas, which is also harmful to our environment. Everyone should be making a difference to help the Earth anyway; planting a tree, recycling glass.
        Did you know recycling one glass bottle will preserve enough energy to power one T.V. for six hours? Anything helps.
        That's how I think we can make a difference to help global warming, and the environment in general.
        • thumb
          Jan 16 2012: Well, I think you have more good ideas than many of the people I know. I checked out what you said about ethanol and found you are right, I copied this for you from 'business.com' online;

          'Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce.'

          There are plenty of other articles to be found on line, from reputable souces, to back up your argument, if you want to study your idea further and build up a good strong argument.

          Running cars on air? Well I had to look that one up and indeed you are correct again; I found this on gizmag, an online magazine about new technology;

          'Many respected engineers have been trying for years to bring a compressed air car to market, believing strongly that compressed air can power a viable "zero pollution" car. Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention,'

          Thank you for teaching me something new, and keep spreading the word! With young people like you in the world, I know things are going to turn out just fine.
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2012: Hi haley,

    Please watch this video --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU ( HOME). i hope you will clearly understand the global warming .


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNGDj9IeAuI&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: Thanks, that video was helpful. I am only 13, so this was a very informative video for my age.
  • Jan 2 2012: Well global warming may or may not be a problem, for a few reasons, 1.some species of animals and plant life cannot take a change in their natural enviornment and you have to consider humans are highly adaptable 2. Fiish are sensitive to water temperature and some coutries depend on them for economic. 3. there isnt solid proof of global warming and the little that we know is that its riseing VEARY slowly and not enough to cause an apocalypse. So in my opinin no its not a huge problem butwe do add to it every day.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: What do you call slow Reynaldo? If you look at the global time scale, it is not slow, it is the blink of an eye. The last great extinction when the earth heated up, looks in the fossil record like it was almost instantaneous, yet it happened over thousands of years. Conversely, we can measure the rate of mass extinction today in decades.