First, scientists love to blame people for 99% of all global warming problems. In fact, one lady, who had been convinced people were the sole problem of global warming, even aborted her child so that she could help save the planet. I was not only shocked but horrified that such measures should be taken in the name of "saving the planet." Back on topic, however. One of the very common phrases used with global warming is the phrase "the greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect is simply the process by which certain gasses (principally water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) trap heat that would otherwise escape the earth and radiate into space. Basically, we can't live without it, but scientists seem to think it's just about the worst thing that has ever happened. There are a few basic facts about the greenhouse effect.
1) Because of the industrial revolution, huge quantities of coal, wood, natural gas, and gasoline have been burned to generate electrical power to keep society running. As a result, we have, indeed, been generating a lot more carbon dioxide and putting it into the air.
2) The population of the earth is greater than it has ever been. All these "extra" people have produced a lot of carbon dioxide.
3) Humans only produce approximately 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by natural processes on the earth.
Because of the first two facts, worries about global warming have been generated. We know that carbon dioxide is a big participant of the greenhouse effect, which helps to warm and maintain this planet. We also know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily over the last seventy years. Since carbon dioxide is a big factor in the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect warms the planet, won't that result in global warming? Not exactly. Although all of the conclusions are based on sound scientific reasoning, reality hasn't happened quite like that. See the two figures below to see what I mean. Notice that the carbon dioxide concentration is in parts per million (ppm).
The top figure does, indeed, tell us that the carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in concentration. Now look at the second figure, but before you get panicked about all those spikes, look at the y-axis. Notice how the temperature is going up by increments of tenths of a degree. In total, this graph shows 1.2 degrees Celsius. That's not much. Also notice how the temperature change doesn't match the change in carbon dioxide concentration. Once the second graph hits about 1925, it averages out to be about the same temperatures every year.
A more accurate graph of the temperatures would look something like this:
It seems that this is a much better way to graph temperatures. Twenty degrees Celsius is going to make a difference. 1.2 degrees Celsius is not. The way in which the carbon dioxide is added to the air is also important. When we burn fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is not the only gas that is released. There are many others also. In fact, some of these gases reflect the light instead of absorbing it. This actually reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, causing a cooling effect (maybe that is what happened in Colorado).We know for sure that the greenhouse effect is not being enhanced enough to cause global warming. Because of this, the majority of atmospheric scientists believe that global warming isn't a problem. A poll conducted at the Institute of Science, Technology shows that only 17% of all the atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is a problem. The majority (53%) said that global warming is not a problem, and the rest (30%) said that there was not enough information to make that decision.
So, why is global warming made such a big deal? My guess is that politicians choose it as a popular thing to talk about to show their debating skills. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most politicians don't even realise that global warming isn't a problem. I think it's just another one of those great debate topics that people throw into the pot of things for politicians to argue about. It's a shame that people aren't more educated on the topic and that innocent lives are lost because of their ignorance.
~~~
Dr. Jay L. Wile. Exploring Creation with Physical Science. Indiana: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., 2000
Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner. URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html (11 June 2008)
12 comments:
Do you Support or Oppose the position that man is significantly responsible for Global Warming or believe it is a natural planetary cycle? Toss your brick to your elected offical at bricktoss.com.
I guess I oppose that position because yes, man has secreted more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but no, that hasn't made a huge difference in terperature change. I am kind of the opinion that "it is a natural planetary cycle."
That is, if it even is happening, which I'm not totally convinced about.
Did you know that NASA is working on some huge space shuttle/station to put "the privileged people" in when this earth blows up?
Perhaps global warming will eventually cause the President and some billionaires to have to split and live in the space station.;)
In fact, one lady, who had been convinced people were the sole problem of global warming, even aborted her child so that she could help save the planet. I was not only shocked but horrified that such measures should be taken in the name of "saving the planet."
An example of the philosophical sickness in our modern world. Humans in general terms are to procreate and look after the environment.
A poll conducted at the Institute of Science, Technology shows that only 17% of all the atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is a problem. The majority (53%) said that global warming is not a problem, and the rest (30%) said that there was not enough information to make that decision.
Interesting, and yet in the media I receive the impression the majority of scientists reason global warming is a major problem.
I think you are correct, politics is a major factor in the global warming discussion.
Russ:)
nice .realy it was nice....well i m jk from india.whatever u have written it is absolutely right...i also have written something about same topic but in my vernaculer...so it may be possible u could'nt get these thing ..but even i'll say plz do visit my blog too.......bye....
Are you saying that my new hero Al Gore has it all wrong? Man...I'm so confused. Can I still "go green" without hugging a tree?
See 'ya Sunday!
jj
Never, ever question Al Gore.
There is simply no way he could be wrong...no way he could lead you astray. After all, he invented the internet.
Yeah, Jason. I've heard that you've been reading a lot of "Christian" tree-hugging books... :P
Here is the real 'global warming:'
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat."
(II Peter 3:10-12, NIV)
^LOL
Alaska's Polar Bears: Going With The Floe
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
June 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy:
The green light given by the Fish and Wildlife Service for oil drilling off Alaska is being portrayed as an OK to hurt polar bears. But there are so many polar bears, it's the drillers who should worry.
Environmentalists rejoiced last month when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne declared the polar bear endangered. The designation gave them a poster pet for the dangers of global warming and a club to bludgeon oil companies.
Last week, however, there was a break in the ice, so to speak. New Fish and Wildlife regulations gave legal protection to seven oil companies that plan to search for oil in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast if "small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed over the next five years.
The Associated Press went ballistic, proclaiming that less than a month after the polar bear was listed as endangered, "the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas."
What the administration is doing is honoring contracts signed in February, before the polar bear was listed — wrongly, we believe — as endangered. Fact is, polar bears aren't endangered, either by oil companies or climate change.
When he made the listing, Kempthorne noted that exploration in the Chukchi Sea was exempt. "Polar bears are already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act," he explained, "which has more stringent protections for polar bears than the Endangered Species Act does."
Listing the polar bear as endangered was a political decision made under political pressure.
The Mineral Management Service estimates we could recover 15 billion barrels of oil plus 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the Chukchi Sea's 29.7 million acres. Oil companies enjoyed a similar exclusion in the Chukchi from 1991 to 1996 and in the Beaufort Sea since 1993 with no effect on the bears.
In fact, there's no proof of a single bear being harmed by oil operations in Alaska since 1993. Since 1960, when the Alaska oil hunt began, only two oil-related bear fatalities have been documented.
The world polar bear population is at a modern high and growing. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist with the Government of Nunavut, a territory in Canada, puts the current population at 24,000, up 40% since 1974. Some 2,000 of these bears live in and around the Chukchi Sea, where the oil companies purchased leases worth $2.6 billion in February.
Taylor says that, contrary to greenie hype, climate change, particularly in the Arctic, is not pushing them to the brink of extinction. They have and will continue to adapt to their environment.
The ice-loving bears have survived warmer periods than we are experiencing now. The most recent such period occurred 6,000 and 9,000 years ago, and it was even warmer between 110,000 and 130,000 years ago, long before the first SUV hit the road.
In a report to Fish and Wildlife, Taylor stated: "No evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions." Taylor stressed polar bears' adaptability, saying they evolved from grizzlies 250,000 years ago and as a distinct species about 125,000 years ago when natural climate change occurred.
From caribou that have thrived for 30 years as 15 billion barrels have been pumped from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to marine life thriving among drilling platforms that act like artificial reefs off the Louisiana coast, evidence says oil exploration and the environment can coexist. Katrina ravaged Gulf of Mexico oil facilities and not a single drop of oil was leaked or spilled.
Oil companies are criticized for not using their "obscene" profits to find more oil but then attacked when they want to. Lift the polar bear's endangered status. Drill in the Chukchi. Drill now.
That last post was an article from an evolutionist's viewpoint, obviously. I am not an evolutionist; I am a 6-day (i.e., 'Short-Day') Creationist. Nevertheless, other than the ages of the earth that it talks about, I think its a good article.
Post a Comment