Navigation
User login
Quote
John von Neumann
In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
Global warming natural (humans 5%, nature 95%)
Fri, 06/15/2001 - 08:21 — jheimann
This scientist has drawn a startling conclusion that takes into account other significant factors in the global warming debate. He feels that the current warming is natural and that humans account for only 5% of greenhouse gasses as opposed to 95% provided by nature, thus decreasing our affect on the environment. He also states that it is possible we will "peak out" in the next couple of decades and then the temperature will start to cool again. It will be interesting to see the scientific community's reaction to this. Read the ScienceDaily.com article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
1998-2008 temple of the screaming penguin
TotSP Search
Community
Chatter
- Rankings for WeatherReporter
7 hours 40 min ago - bar and xy-graph
11 hours 2 min ago - Ohhh, let me know when they
1 day 13 hours ago - WTF?
2 days 8 hours ago - Cobb County's nocturnal habits
2 days 17 hours ago - I think you mean "Best Buy."
3 days 3 hours ago - So are there going to be any
3 days 4 hours ago - jimmy carteris the best
3 days 11 hours ago - iphone: saw that too
4 days 3 hours ago - Did you buy it already?
4 days 6 hours ago
Comments
Re: Global warming natural (humans 5%, nature 95%)
I call shenanegans!
I have no doubt that his numbers 5%/95% of CO2 emmissions are accurate, but thats still HUGE. It only takes a temperature increase of 3 degrees to cause disasterous climatic dammage.
Im sure you can dig up a hundred respectable scientists who will disavow humanities impact on the global climate. I'm sure I can dig up an equal number who don't believe in evolution, or quantum theory.
Re: Global warming natural (humans 5%, nature 95%)
I agree, this is ridiculous. The science is real we do affect the global climate and whether it be 5% or 50%, its too much. If humans at our current peopulation affect 5%, then thats way too much, unless we plan on not increasing our population any further (yeah, right.) It takes LESS than 3 degress to be catastrophic. And Global Warming is only part of the problem. Many people confuse global warming and UV protection (ozone depletion) and lump into the same problem. Different problems, some common causes. UV protection depletion means we all get cancer from being in the sun for short periods of time. Global warming means many populated areas or nations are flooded and the entire planets eco-system drastically shifts affection almost everything (food production, etc.)
At the root of studies that disaow the affects of global warming are usually coroprate sponsors. It would not surprise me in the least that this study was funded ny x, inc. somewhere along the line.
Also, consider this analogy. Consider that hypothetically this guy is right, or worse he is wrong and we only affect it 1%. When you are building a sky scraper, if you find some possibility that some element of the construction could potentially cause the entire structure to collapse and kill all its occupants, even if that is only a 1 in 100 chance (1%) then you fix it. You build in extra measures, way beyond the normal safety buffer to ensure that a disaster is averted. Yeah, it costs a little more money, but I think someone somewhere once said better safe than sorry. Whats the big deal about doing things right and regulation emissions and cleaning up our act? We dont need to look for excuses, we need to be responsible and ACT. It costs more to produce clean power, or renewable energy, or a cleaner burning car and or truck (dont get me started on commercial trucks, they have lobbied their way into zero emissions standards while cars keep getting cleaner and cleaner) but its well worth it whether or not the potential risk is real. Its a margin of error game that you cant afford to lose.
All of this comes down to long term thinking vs short term thinking. Responsible people vs. greedy people. Why else who you be opposed to cleaning up our act?
Re: Global warming natural (humans 5%, nature 95%)
Everything is a guess at this point. At any time we could see an ice age come and it would slap the whole idea of global warming down. I think sometimes that we put ourselves on a pedestal, but this earth is a whole lot bigger than all of us.
This information is taken from www.globalwarming.org.
Is global warming occurring?
According to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase."
Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.
Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
WWW.globalwarming.org