Unfortunately, we'll go on debating about whether or not it's real, and who's causing most of it, or whether we have the technology to do anything about it until it's affects are undeniable. Yes it will worsen, because humans don't react until they feel pain, and by the time we start to feel real pain it will be too late to avoid severe trouble.

I've seen lots of people argue against Global Warming (should be Global Climate Change), but I've never seen anything that refutes any of these facts:

1. Apply enough force to anything, and its position will change. Yes, this includes weather.

2. Burning fossil fuels adds millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every day, and this is a significant force being applied to our weather patterns.

3. We have plenty of technology to reduce CO2 emissions. The use of solar and wind power is barely in it's infancy, and electric motors are far more efficient than combustion engines. Even without further technological improvements that would surely follow, switching to these technologies can significantly reduce our emissions while reducing our need for oil.

Global warming is not a debate, as I stated, most of the respective scientist around the world are in agreement about this and it is primarily due to CO2 emission. The only debate is how do we minimize its human and ecological effects around the world. People that disagree are in the same camp as the scientists that were trying to argue that smoking isn't bad for your health. As we found out these scientist were being paid to skew their data in this way.

The last 5 years were the highest recorded global temperatures on records which strongly correlates with CO2 emissions and data modeled by scientists. If the CO2 isn't there, the recorded temperature would have been lowered.

I agree with this in the abstract, but it is when you try to apply this, however, that a problem arises.

I am a student of Industrial Engineering. My career will be to maximize productivity while at the same time minimizing waste (which includes pollution and CO2 emissions these days). The thing about it is, you don't just take these kinds of measures overnight. The capital investment along with trying to keep up regular business would put many companies under and cause massive layoffs for others.

And I am looking at short term profits. I look at them because they are important! But I am not looking only at short term profits. In order to have long term success, it is necessary to have some kind of short term success as well. Think what would happen if all the sudden, 30-50% (or more) of American companies were no longer turning an annual profit! Our economy start going downhill very fast.

I argue that making the changes is necessary, but trying to do so quickly is not a rational act.

To Zalister: I agree with you as well that breathing in pollution on a daily basis is definitely a bad thing. That is one of the reasons that I want to work for Tesla Motors (an electric car company mentioned in my earlier post). I really believe that they have a product that is not only good for the environment, but one that is economically feasible. Another reason I want to work for them is because of a problem I believe to be huge that no one really brings up (yet).

Have you ever thought of the impact plastic has had on our society and economy? You know what plastic is made from? Oil. I think we need to take steps towards stopping wasting all of our oil on stupid cars. I would much rather have plastics in my house than a muscle car in my garage.

Unfortunately, science is not a democracy. It is about finding out what is happening, and then proving it.

That is exactly what they are doing... New data is coming in everyday and all of it is pointing in the direction that humans are responsible for global warming. This is based on scientific data and not just heresay.

All other explanations to explain global warming without human interaction don't stand up under the scrutiny. Again, you can ignore the data but that would put you in the same camp as those scientist who state that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

At any rate, I am glad that people and the world communities realizes that this a problem and are working out ways to resolve it. So the data is in and continues to come in, communities are organizing and thinking of ways to resolve this issue. More money is being given to Global Warming association than any other environmental issues even at the expense of other pressing environmental concerns.

I am glad to see that in your profession you will be working on ways to minimize CO2 emissions. You can't prove these things like mathematical theories. In science, you develop hypotheses and test them with data. You assign error and risk to the results. If the hypotheses stands up to the scrutiny, debate, and ridicule with a small error rate and risk then it is likely to be accepted in the scientific community. I will back this kind of scientific method any day of the week because it has proven so robust and reliable over the last 200 years or so.

It's still there, although reportedly decreasing due to the lessened use of CFCs etc. Prediction is for it to decrease to pre-1980's levels by 2060 or so. (i.e. it is getting better, but slowly)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

.
The Easter holiday is almost over here in Norway, with most people returning to work tomorrow. Before every major exodus of skiers to the sun-bathed mountains, there are dire warnings to use sun blockage or high-factor sun protection -- far more so than when I was a kid. No, that’s not just modern dermatological research. So, yes; decreased ozone protection is a big deal.

However, decreased use of chlorofluorocarbons is an environmental success story, and the very gradual "repair" of the ozone holes is a clear benefit of our "sacrifice".

I thought I would mention another success story while I’m at it: decrease of acid rain, at least here in Northern Europe. Two decades ago, hundreds of lakes in Norway were unable to support fish life. British and German industries are no longer spewing out NOx and other pollutants at 1980’s levels, and the fish have returned to most of the lakes once affected.

British success story: Fish are swimming in the Thames again! :)

China and Russia...
 

True -- nevertheless I certainly do blame China. And Russia. I have been told that China is opening coal-burning power plants at the rate of one a week. And to attain pollutant-reducing value for your environmental dollar, they are best invested in these countries. (Mind you, I’m not to be misconstrued as calling for abstention in the West!) Norway has tried to do so with the metallurgical industries in Nikel, Russia. Unfortunately, rampant corruption makes it difficult to put money to effective use.

We got Russia to tear down that wall, and China just wants to have the same prosperity that we do, so they're adopting our economic system while maintaining their political system. We keep preaching about Capitalism without paying any attention to its downside. Sure, it's the best system out there, but it isn't perfect, and if we aren't willing to do something about its failings, how can we expect the newcomers to take action?

So you fancy trying a local London delicacy from the Thames? How does 'Jellied eels' sound?.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellied_eels

just the thought of it turns my stomach!


EITHER WAY?

Arctic... whats it like in Norway for being 'green'? I understand you guys are light years ahead of the rest of the world (when your not broad-siding it around a forrest in a suped up Fjord Focus) :)

I wouldn’t say that; in fact there are times when I’m rather embarrassed about the noise/measures ratio served by our authorities. There’s a heckuva lot more that could be done here.

All in all I have the impression that Germany, for instance, is doing more. Even Arnie is on the right track...

Fjord Focus, huh? Nice pun.

thanks, I have been working on that for a while now :D

The Germans seem to be a very well organised bunch... the same cant be said for a lot of the UK... I get a recycling box form Warwick DC picked up once every 2 weeks... all they take is paper, alu and glass... thats it. If I want to do card, plastics, green waste and so on I have to drive to the local tip! Which on a mass scale.... kinda defeats the point!

A bit off the topic... did anyone hear the statistic that 'cows farting creates more CO2 than your average family car?'... perhaps cows need to be fitted with catalitic converters :D

No, but I once saw a cartoon that showed a brilliant solution to America’s energy crisis. It showed a glass bubble in place over Washington DC, with pipes distributing the hot air to the various parts of the country where it might be needed.

...I’m sure we could implement similar solutions with London or Oslo as hot air hubs. ;)

yaay everyone in england would love it to be warm all the time, infact a load of my friend think that since global warming is making the country warmer, that its a good thing :)

They're being misled by the name Global Warming. One theory is that the warming we're experiencing could melt enough glacial ice from Greenland and the arctic cap that the resulting cold fresh water could stop the flow of the warm Gulf Stream that keeps western Europe from dipping into an ice age. The scary thing about this theory is that if it happens, the ice age begins within a 10 year period.

Global Climate Change may have some temporary benefits, but you can be sure that the longer it occurs, the worse it will be for us.

yeh... I saw that on the Al Gore movie.... eek!

then the English would really be justified in complaining about the weather all the time :)

lol, but im confused now, so do the ice caps melt then theres an ice age? what about the oceans rising dronwing alot of land and some countries

Both can happen at once.

The ice melts, but is still cold, and it's fresh water. Very large quantities end up in the northern seas, where it floats instead of sinking like cold water normally does, because fresh water is lighter than salt water.

The act of melting and flowing into the sea raises sea levels, then the floating cold water stops the warm water from flowing north. This causes western europe to enter into an ice age, and as the ice layers build, the sea will lower again.

Some people bring up potential ice ages as being the opposite of Gobal Warming, but they're not different at all. What's wrong is the name Global Warming. It's really Global Climate Change, and that's what we should be fearing. We may be setting ourselves up for rapid swings in climate that we won't be able to adjust to. If we can't adjust, we can't survive. Evolution doesn't care if we do. The planet will be fine without us: so-called tree huggers aren't worried about the tree so much as what will happen to us if we lose it.

Letting our children’s children pay the price?
 

.
That’s right; the term Global Warming is more than a bit misleading, as is the overfocus on CO2. What we are seeing is a gradual amplification in the disturbance of global weather patterns -- and it does not bode well.

The retreat of glaciers, the fading ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro, the weakening of the Gulf Stream, more frequent Carribean hurricanes, alterations in tradition precipitation patterns in many parts of the world, advancing deserts some place, increased floods other places... Few intelligent people believe these to be coincidence.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about precisely to what extent this is induced by humankind. Whatever natural factors there may be, such as cyclical variations in solar activity, climate experts are virtually unanimous in pointing to the cumulative consequences of our activities since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Measures are called for. Some of these may be "bad for business"; but does that mean a few more New Orleans-wreaking hurricanes are better? Or that we should let change continue unabated while sticking our heads in the sand, perhaps gloating about "new business opportunities" that then might arise?!

I don’t think so. Such a wringing of the hands is a political disgrace that future generations will remember. For they will surely pay tenfold whatever price we refuse to pay today.

If there is to be a raise in sea level, the Solomon Islands will have one less thing to worry about. Check this out, the entire island was raised up 10 feet out of the ocean.

Unfortunately, many of the coral reefs there were destroyed. Some of the reefs that were destroyed were among the most coveted in the world.