Do you believe global warming is man made & do you think it's catastrophic?

[CrONoS]

Do you believe global warming is 100% man made & do you think it's catastrophic?

(Poll is bogus:
Discuss:
Is GW man made? And is it catastrophic?)

[Zkribbler]

Yes, to both parts of the question....or at least, it will be catastrophic.

[CrONoS]

@Zkrib:

Is there any possibility that global warming can, in fact, help humanity? By prolonging the period that we can grow food?

And can also help people who are living in cold region?

Maybe it can even reduce the number of hurricane?

(On a side note; I understand that there is no global climate; that global warming could lead to more extreme climate at different place)

[CrONoS]

And I vote:
I don't know what to believe

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that GW is 100% man-made, and I don't think it will be catastrophic.

So I can't vote.

JM

[CrONoS]

@JM:
I don't believe GW is 100% man made and we can't do anything to stop it.

(I understand that my answer are problematic, I should have formulate them differently)

[Dis]

yes, I'm unsure if it is catastrophic. I do worry about the runaway greenhouse effect. Though I shouldn't worry, I'll be long dead.

[Blake]

If you don't know what to believe, then watch this. The guy has put an amazing amount of effort into explaining global climate destabilization and how lay people would do well to assess the issue, he has like 3 hours of videos at least (!!!), this is like the summary.

How it all Ends



Poll is stupid. What do you mean by 100% man made?

Lets say that man raises the temperature, and the increasing temperature causes a forest to die, that forest, standing dry and dead, gets hit by lightning and burns down, releasing it's carbon into the atmosphere.
Are those emissions from entirely natural processes, man made?

I have no problem saying, that there is a 0% chance that the climate would be changing as rapidly as it is without the influence of man.

[Kontiki]

Option 4 seems like the most logical choice.

[Jon Miller]

I have no problem saying, that there is a 0% chance that the climate would be changing as rapidly as it is without the influence of man.

All that is a statement that there is a man-made component. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that statement.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Option 4 seems like the most logical choice.

Well, his poll is bugged and I answered the question of catastrophic? and 100% man-made? Which isn't really what the poll answer has I admit.

JM

[Dis]

I say it's 100% man made. Why? Sure carbon and methane get released into the atmosphere by natural causes as well as manmade. But they normally wouldn't cause global warming. Because we are in fact due for a cooling spell from what I heard. So while volcanic and other such activity is happening it isn't the cause of our current global warming. We should be cooling, but we aren't.

[Blake]

To answer the second part.

It's not catastrophic YET. Does it have the potential to be catastrophic? HELL YES!

If we put a real effort into global warming, we could make the world barely habitable. And sooner or later, something catastrophic is going to happen because that's just how the climate works, if we put more effort into global warming, catastrophic things will happen sooner and will be more severe.

Climate is catastrophic by it's nature, the question is, how much of and how soon do we want that catastrophe?

The concept is a tipping point (like a change to the jetstreams causing a global rearrangement of climate), that is how catastrophic climate change happens. And the more we push on the climate, the closer to a tipping point we get. We don't know where the tipping points are, we don't know what triggers them, but you can guarantee that it's easier to hit a tipping point by changing the climate as quickly as we can, than by letting it change slowly.

[CrONoS]

poll is bogus I admit it... I think you see the point of the thread.

[CrONoS]

Is GW man made? And is it catastrophic?