We all know that global warming is when the sun rays get trapped underneath the excess carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, causing the sun rays to bounce back off it and stay in earth causing the temperature to rise. What do you think about it? Do you think that it is real? Or just a media hype?
I think it's real, many people say that one reason that they don't believe in global warming is that most sources of carbon dioxide are natural but without that, the temperature of the Earth would be about -18 degrees Celsius (-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) so the amount that humans produce is enough to increase the Earth's temperature by about 5 degrees in the next few decades - 100 years which doesn't seem like a lot but is enough to turn the summer of Great Britain to the same temperature as the Sahara desert which would destroy many crops and raise sea levels and well you know the rest.
I think it's real, many people say that one reason that they don't believe in global warming is that most sources of carbon dioxide are natural but without that, the temperature of the Earth would be about -18 degrees Celsius (-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) so the amount that humans produce is enough to increase the Earth's temperature by about 5 degrees in the next few decades - 100 years which doesn't seem like a lot but is enough to turn the summer of Great Britain to the same temperature as the Sahara desert which would destroy many crops and raise sea levels and well you know the rest.
I already knew that. But as for the 5 degrees increase; was that natural? Or was the because of humans? We have had natural fluctuations in global climate before and therefore it might not necessarily be down to human kind. It might be just that we're contributing, but maybe this'd happen anyway... Who knows...?
What do you think about it? Do you think that it is real? Or just a media hype?
It's obviously real, you'd have to be stupid at this point in time to not be able to look at previous average temperatures globally and graph them and not see a rise.
The only real debate about global warming (Now, anyways, when it was first proposed it was not widely accepted) is whether human actions have caused a measureable difference, as opposed to a natural cycle. Many point to the increased CO2 figures and the rising trend, but really, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by 1 volcanic eruption than all the world's cars running for a year, so I don't think that's it. Personally, if we have made an impact, I think it's something on the degree of maybe .01-1%, which really isn't much.
i think world will balance itself again may b 100 years later Gb will b a desert and sahara will be a pasture bcoz very unexpected weathers have been experienced at many places e.g 30 years old record of rain got broken last year in KSA
i think world will balance itself again may b 100 years later
Well, if we're saying that human industry is not a factor, then technically the world is never balanced. It always has fluctuated in temperature, from Ice ages to moderate climates to hot climates and back again. We're just in the time when it's changing/we're able to notice it changing through the generations.
However, if you claim that human industry has had a measureable effect, then taking that away/cleaning it up would logically return the Earth's climate to it's previous climate in time.
Gb will b a desert and sahara will be a pasture bcoz very unexpected weathers have been experienced at many places e.g 30 years old record of rain got broken last year in KSA
The Sahara already is changing, although currently it is becoming larger. This, as far as I know, has nothing to do with global warming, rather it is a shift that happens every so often. It used to be smaller and has been growing, eventually it will shrink again. I believe they've found Giraffe/other animals in Africa bones in the Sahara from when it was not as large a desert.
e.g 30 years old record of rain got broken last year in KSA
And how long have they been recording rainfall? Not more than around 100 years I would bet. 100 years isn't much in the way of time when it comes to weather, breaking a record doesn't necessarily mean anything other than it broke that record.
And how long have they been recording rainfall? Not more than around 100 years I would bet. 100 years isn't much in the way of time when it comes to weather, breaking a record doesn't necessarily mean anything other than it broke that record
it is when usually there is no rain at al through the years and then suddenly a flood
here is a little impresion of whats going on. it's real and can't be denied.
To me though, that looks like it was cooling down, and then it spiked a little, went back to where it was, and slowly rose over a hundred years. If it was in large part contributed to by human industry, wouldn't there have been a larger spike/parabolic type curve as more greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere yearly at ever greater quantities?
I dont have stats but no rain means one or two very very light showers in an year and flood means so much water to break a dam
Well, without figures I can't do much than assume that it was just an anomaly, and that the average rainfail won't be much higher overall just because of one freak storm.
It's showing two cumulative totals that don't add up, and has two figures on the same line (Blue/green line)
Red line is showing about 1200 gigatonnes, the blue/green line (Which makes absolutely no sense, according to the graph the green portion is an ice core sample which directly rises in itself to the total emissions from a volcano, enen though an ice core would only have 1 CO2 level and wouldn't span over a thousand years, as opposed to a volcano constantly producing CO2) starts at around 2200, so even if we take stupid green/blue line which makes no sense and add it to the other total, you get larger than the graph is showing by about 500 gigatonnes.
So...yeah, that graph is horrible.
I may be wrong on the volcano figure, but I definitely remember reading somewhere about how much natural CO2 is released each year, and that the human figure was much lower.
