I want to hear every one's idea on this topic. I personally think it's just a cycle and it can be SOMEWHAT preventable but some people's theories are outrageous. I've told people about the cycle of after great cooling (Ice Ages) comes great heating. And I've had people almost yell at me about how it the GREEN HOUSE GASSES OH and lots of other great things. So you guys hit it up and let me know what you think! 

I think people are just over exagerating when it comes to global warming to think they actually think global warming is caused by harspray that is just pathetic.

Yeah, it's really not caused by hairspray but it is caused by large factories and they amount if cars in the world. Global warming is not really as bad as everyone says but earth has gotten hotter than it used to be. It is preventable and with all of these electric cars and renewable energy sources it could
possible go back to normal. The only place that is actually in danger of this is the far north and far south. There ice is melting which is basically their land.

   I would also like to bring up the use of Green Technology, like electric cars, solar panels, pretty much anything self sustaining and that doesn't give of carbon emissions. It's kind of funny to think how easy people think it is to switch to these technologies. It will take anywhere from 15 to 50 years. And we would also have to use these "un-green" factories to create green technology. Like taking 1 step backwards to take 2 steps forward.

the earth has traditionaly fluctuated, yes.
however not in such a short time span.
if it takes 50 years to get green tech we better get cracking, because whether you believe global warming is real or not, its undisputable oil and gas reserves will run out.
and with so many nations dragging their heels, humanity looks pretty screwed.
on top of that itd be nice to be free of the stranglehold oil nations and companys have on us.
its ridiculous, my country could run off its own oil reserves for many years, yet the oil companys still ram us with the prices. its not being imported...
their is much to be gained by investment but little to be lost.
frankly, id be pretty embaraased to tell the next generation we were happy to spend money on crap like mcdonalds and xfactor, but come renewable investment our pockets are suddenly empty.
our prioritys are shot.
woops, I accidentally spelt that with an o...

First of all, I think we should call it Climate change instead of global warming maybe, since it does not necessarily mean warmer temperatures all over the globe.

And whether you believe in it or not, think about how much in only a hundred years of time we have released all sorts of chemicals in the atmosphere and how much the human race has multiplied in such a short time.

And maybe it should be reasonable to think of your carbon footprint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

Brigand : Global warming and climate change are synonomous; the term global warming is accurate because the overall temperature of the earth does in fact warm.

And for those who think this is some sort of natural cycle caused by the sun, I'll just leave a very simple article explaining how wrong you are.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Of course global warming is a real phenomenon, and of course our greenhouse gas emissions are responsible. Carbon dioxide has already been demonstrated to have a large influence over the earth's climate, and the recent increase in the global temperature has corresponded to our recent carbon dioxide emissions. Denying climate change at this point is on par with sticking your head in the sand.

Traduweise :

The last sentence of your post I can 100% agree on.

In the 70s, it was global cooling. In the 90s, it was global warming. Now, it's climate change/disruption/extreme weather. However 1) there hasn't been an increases (strength, number) in hurricanes since their recording started (1853?), 2) there hasn't been an increase in the strength of tornadoes (there are "more" because of more precise instruments), 3) the Arctic is nowhere near ice-free 4) when global warming, er, supporters show "extreme" events they like (drought, strong hurricanes), then it's a proof of their theory, 5) when skeptics do the same (ice-fishing in Minnesota in May, increasing snow fall in UK), then it's simple weather

" Carbon dioxide has already been demonstrated to have a large influence over the earth's climate, and the recent increase in the global temperature has corresponded to our recent carbon dioxide emissions"

Actually, it doesn't. Temperatures have stagnated for 15 years despite an increase in CO2

" I'll just leave a very simple article explaining how wrong you are."

Citing "skeptical" science to prove global warming/climate change/disruption/extreme weather is like quoting the Bible to prove that God exists. There seems to be a link between solar cycles and global temperatures : http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

The Earth's climate is somewhat cyclical. Without all the pollution and whatnot, the climate would warm by itself. However, the emissions that come from man-made pollutants have definitely given things a bit of a boost.


austipokedude : Thanks for the laugh, it brightened my day.

austipokedude :
They dont think its caused by hairspray, they think the propelant, which its made of *strains to remember* chloroflurocarbines causes it. I did a paper on it for chemistry once. The idea was since its highly nonreactive, it can make it into the atmosphere where the energy from the sun is then great enough to start the bonds breaking down. And then one of the elements (im going to guess chlorine) attacks the 03 in the atmosphere, which is a natural shield to the suns rays, and breaks them down into 02 bonds, which dont stop the rays passing through.
A fairly simple fix to that is use propellants which break down quicker, that way they don't actualy make it to the atmosphere.

janus : As a matter of fact, "global cooling" is a myth that was begun not by any reputable scientist, but by Time magazine. It was never taken seriously by scientists. Arctic is not gone but is indeed diminishing, as even the most cursory check on Google will show. Extreme weather events are not "proof" of global warming - nothing in science is ever proven - but are consistent with predictions and models regarding global warming. And you are correct, an individual weather anomaly has no bearing on global climate; increased snow in one part of the world is virtually meaningless in the larger context.

Now, as for the articles you've posted, they do not say what you seem to think they say.

The first is about an 11-year solar cycle: this is already factored into global warming models and graphs and does not explain the increased warming we have been seeing. You'll notice that none of the scientists comment on global warming. This is because global warming is beyond the scope of their study.

The second article actually says the opposite of what you are hoping it will say. It demonstrates that the evidence linking solar cycles to current global climate is weak at best. Go and read that article a little more carefully instead of just skimming the title.



IgorBird122 : A few degrees is significant. Think of your body. It has to be maintained at a specific temperature. If you develop a fever for instance, your body temperature increases by just a degree or two Celsius (approximately double in Fahrenheit). It's incredibly unpleasant because many of the chemical reactions that your body needs to function rely on having an exact temperature maintained. This temperature change also harms the invasive bacteria and hopefully kills them. The point is that life is incredibly dependent on temperature, and even fluctuations of a few degrees really can matter. 

Walkingprodigy : I would think most North Americans would freak out over a glacier covering most of North America. I really don't see what your point is.

Global warming is real. Not only that, but we also know that human processes are primarily to blame.

The effects of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, on the earth's climate are not a matter of opinion. It's a perfectly understood physical and chemical phenomenon, and it's what keeps Earth warm in the first place. If such gases were incapable of capturing heat as well as they do, then the earth's climate would be completely unstable.

In the last 100 years, or so, the average temperature of the earth has risen about 1 degree (C). That may not seem like much, but remember just how massive our planet is. To increase its temperature by just one degree, an incredibly large amount of heat energy would be necessary, an amount that cannot be accounted for simply by natural processes. (Indeed, even the biggest one, the solar cycle, can't account for all the temperature increase from 1970 onward.) Additionally, even a small increase in temperature causes a significant increase in the amount of water that evaporates around the world. Water vapor is actually one of the strongest greenhouse gases, so global warming is a vicious cycle; an increase in temperature causes an increase in water vapor, and an increase in water vapor causes an increase in temperature, repeating the cycle. We can deal with the current effects of global warming, and it won't result in disaster for a pretty long time, but for every degree the earth's temperature rises, the difficulty of stopping it increases tenfold.

97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activities, and a vast majority of scientific organizations around the world also agree. There is no controversy among those who are educated on this subject; the only people who deny it either have some personal gain in denying it, like oil companies and politicians, and those who simply don't know the facts.

"97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activities"

One of the articles that said that was based on the selected answers of... 79 people. The most recent one actually is closer to 35%. Plus, science is not a popularity contest.

Climate change has existed for 4.5G years now. Yes, temperatures have increased in the past 150 years... compared to the Little Ice Age. And they are nowhere near what they were in the Eocene or even the Medieval Optimum

*climate change

The proper term is climate change..not global warming. And climate change may seem like something that is debatable..but in reality is not. It is happening, albeit not as horrendous as people make it out to be...so deal with it. Stop trying to make a debate out of something that is non-debatable.