What is your opinions on the greenhouse effect of global warming?

6 Responses to “What is your opinions on the greenhouse effect of global warming?”

1. Mr Jello says:

   July 30, 2011 at 11:07 am

   Greenhouse effect does exist and it’s needed to support life on this planet. It would be far colder without it.

   However mans impact on adding to warmth is negligible. A mere 0.0001% increase in co2 will have no effect, no change on the climate.

   That’s like saying increasing the distance of a football field the width of a dime will make a change to the game, or getting a $ 1/yr raise is going to change your life if you make $ 100,000/yr salary.

   Man is just too insignificant to impact something as huge as the climate.

   However there is profit to be made from “global warming”. Sometimes you’ll hear that the CEO of Wal-Mart says global warming is a real and big issue. Well, if I had the opportunity to sell as many CF light bulbs as Wal-Mart, I would make the same statements!

   Reply
2. mytic0420 says:

   July 30, 2011 at 11:59 am

   i think we should all do more to halt the destruction that is going on,,, make ourselves more aware of what is going on,,pretty soon the water will all be depleted and our forests will burn,,the pollen will become so unbearable , relly i seen it on a hbo special amazing what you can learn from the tube

   Reply
3. Abmaobre says:

   July 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm

   Let me tell you a little story to illustrate- a man gets married, during the few months he is blinded y love. Then the love decreases and he little by little he fails to recognise her importance, until one day she suddenly dies and life becomes a burden for him– he discovers how much her presence was important to him- actually the man took her wife for granted and when she’s not here, he saw how much she’s important. This is actually what is happenning between man and the earth. Man is taking the earth for granted an he seems to take some pleasure while destroying it.

   The earth has been gifted to us, and to my displeasure we are making wrong use of it. While it is of our purpose to take care of it, we are destroying it conciously and we dare talk about sustainable development. But with what we are dong to the world, what will others be left with? How are we going answer our children and grand children when they are going to see a wonderful picture of the Amazonian forest in an encyclopedia and ask us how the world have changed so much? Will we be able to explain without any shame that we caused this metamorphosis?

   If you wanna more info from an expert, go to http://www.climatecrisis.com, if is on Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. I f you haven’t watch the film, you should really- it would help you to achieve your project.

   Reply
4. Roy J says:

   July 30, 2011 at 12:44 pm

   The greenhouse effect would mean that the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface of the planet (since that is where the ‘warmth’ gets trapped), and the data from both balloon and satellite measurements dispute this fact.

   It is a solar cycle that is occurring. Some say sun spots… others say Earth orbit variation. But greenhouse gas makes no sense as anything other than an extremely minor contributor to the equation.

   When Krakatoa blew, we had snow in August. Sure, that was because of the dust blocking out the sun. But after a couple years and the particulates had been scrubbed from the atmosphere… why didn’t that liberation of all that greenhouse gas have an effect? It was decades worth of modern industrial generation in a single event and yet we didn’t experience a spike.

   And the CO2 that is in solution in the ocean is a huge source that outproduces even modern mankind. As the sun warms the ocean and heats it (a slow process) it liberates more dissolved CO2 (like a warm pop fizzes more vigorously than a cold one). A slow warming trend CAUSES CO2 increases which is evident if you look at the polar ice CLOSELY with enough scale to see the time lag (temp falls while CO2 still increases for a few decades) until the oceans cool enough to again act as a reservoir/buffer for CO2.

   Reply
5. Hokiefire says:

   July 30, 2011 at 1:16 pm

   Greenhouse effect is about as reliable as the theory of global warning. Its all based on opinions, theories and computer models. No one was here to record earth climate 10,000 years ago or a million years ago. In fact they can’t even prove the million years theory or evolution. All you hear is the hype of the press and academia. Academia will do what ever it takes to keep their grants and their jobs. If you do enough research you will come across articles written by the more then 2000 scientists that disagree wholly or in part with global warming but never get the press.

   Do some research, become educated. Options are a dime a dozen, lack of truth is very costly.

   http://www.heritage.org
   Ozone: The Hole Truth
   by Ben Lieberman
   September 14, 2007

   The international treaty to protect the ozone layer turns 20 this year. But is there really much reason to celebrate?

   Environmentalists have made numerous apocalyptic predictions over the past several decades, virtually none of which has come to pass. Yet each time, the greens and their political allies proclaim victory, arguing that their preventive prescriptions averted disaster.

   Such is the case with the 1987 Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The lurid predictions of ozone depletion-induced skin cancer epidemics, ecosystem destruction and others haven’t come true, for which Montreal Protocol proponents congratulate themselves. But in retrospect, the evidence shows that ozone depletion was an exaggerated threat in the first place. As the treaty parties return to Montreal for their 20th anniversary meeting it should be cause for reflection, not celebration, especially for those who hope to repeat this “success story” in the context of global warming.

   The treaty came about over legitimate but overstated concerns that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, a then-widely used class of refrigerants) and other compounds were rising to the stratosphere and destroying ozone molecules. These molecules, collectively known as the ozone layer, shield the earth from excessive ultraviolet-B radiation (UVB) from the sun. The Montreal Protocol’s provisions were tightened in 1990 and again in 1992, culminating with a CFC ban in most developed nations by 1996.

   So what do we know now? As far as ozone depletion is concerned, the thinning of the ozone layer that occurred throughout the 1980s apparently stopped in the early 1990s, too soon to credit the Montreal Protocol. A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that, “since 1991, the linear [downward] trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …” However, the same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing through 1998. This lends credence to the skeptical view, widely derided at the time of the Montreal Protocol, that natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer.

   More importantly, the feared increase in ground level UVB radiation has also failed to materialize. Keep in mind that ozone depletion, in and of itself, doesn’t really harm human health or the environment. It’s the concern that an eroded ozone layer will allow more of the sun’s damaging UVB rays to reach the earth that led to the Montreal Protocol. But WMO concedes that no statistically significant long-term trends have been detected, noting earlier this year that “outside the polar regions, ozone depletion has been relatively small, hence, in many places, increases in UV due to this depletion are difficult to separate from the increases caused by other factors, such as changes in cloud and aerosol.” In short, the impact of ozone depletion on UVB over populated regions is so small that it’s hard to detect.

   Needless to say, if UVB hasn’t gone up, then the fears of increased UVB-induced harm are unfounded. Indeed, the much-hyped acceleration in skin cancer rates hasn’t been documented. U.S. National Cancer Institute statistics show that malignant melanoma incidence and mortality, which had been undergoing a long-term increase that predates ozone depletion, has actually been leveling off during the putative ozone crisis.

   Further, no ecosystem or species was ever shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. This is true even in Antarctica, where the largest seasonal ozone losses, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, occur annually. Also forgotten is a long list of truly ridiculous claims, such as the one from Al Gore’s 1992 book “Earth in the Balance”that, thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, “hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon.”

   Overall, the Montreal Protocol isn’t making these bad consequences go away — they were never occurring in the first place.

   The parallels with global warming are striking. Again we face a real but greatly overhyped environmental problem. In both cases, virtually everything the public has been told that sounds terrifying isn’t true — and what is true isn’t particularly terrifying. But doomsayers such as Gore simply soldier on. His claims of blind animals from ozone depletion have been replaced by equally dubious assertions in his book “An Inconvenient Truth,” including predictions of a massive sea level rise that would wipe away south Florida and other coastal areas.

   Perhaps decades from now, participants in the Kyoto Protocol, the global-warming treaty modeled after the Montreal Protocol, will meet and congratulate themselves because none of their scary assertions came true. But how many resources will have been spent to save a world that never really needed saving in the first place?

   Ben Lieberman is senior policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

   First appeared in the McClatchy Tribune wire

   ©2007 The Heritage Foundation
   All Rights Reserved.
   214 Massachusetts Ave NE
   Washington, DC 20002-4999
   phone – 202.546.4400 | fax – 202.546.8328
   e-mail – staff@heritage.org
   http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed091407a.cfm?RenderforPrint=1

   Make it a great day!

   **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
   without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
   educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

   Reply
6. jim z says:

   July 30, 2011 at 2:06 pm

   Clearly there is a greenhouse effect. Without it, life would not be possible. There are many other things that make life possible as well. Sunspot activity may have influence on the 11 year cycle, or the longer solar cycles but is not likely to be responsible for the periodic ice ages we have been experiencing. These are probably caused by the Milankovitch cycle that is influenced by variations in our orbit around the sun and spin around the axis. There has been many consecutive periods of glaciation that have happened every hundred thousand years or so. The latest one ended about 10,000 years ago. The last several thousand years have been warming in a pattern consistent with the previous warming episodes. Typically the warming has been relatively fast. Once it reaches a point that we are nearing, the climate begins to cool again slowly until it enters another period of glaciation. These trends of warming and cooling have minor warm and cold spells that may confuse the overall trend. In the 1960s and 1970s we were in a relatively cool period and many alarmists were predicting that man was causing the climate to spiral into an ice age. Since then it has warmed and alarmists have changed their tune suggesting that we are causing the climate to spiral into a warming trend. The truth is, we have been warming for thousands of years, so trying to tie the warming of the last couple of decades to man made global warming is more about wishfull thinking and politics than it is about science. Those proposing all sorts of alarmists positions have been funded by the government eager to appease the leftist who compensate them by pouring money into their campaigns.

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.