A question for some environment / ecology experts about global warming?

I doubt it since the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will. Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there. Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well. I hope that helps...

Your history teacher has watched the fictional movie 'The day after tomorrow', way too much.

Watch the movie The Day After Tomorrow....it will explain it in an entertaining fashion......however....since Global Warming is a bunch of crap anywho I don't see the whole scare for it.

I doupt it. warming is oposit to get ice age. maybe your teacher wanted to say the class the earth have some periods in warming and ice ages.

The answer is no, but there is a shred of scientific basis to her claim. When the Greenland ice cap melts, it will pour a lot of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic. It is likely that this will disrupt the Gulf Stream to at least some extent, and may lead to cooler weather in Europe.

Geologic history shows that the climate goes in cycles. The climate has a sort of stable equilibreum. When things like temperature go one way, various factors tend to push it back, usually overshooting somewhat. So it is possible that warming will in the long run cause an ice age. Trouble is, it's hard to say what the long run is. The climate change which man seems to be causing now is going at a pace far, far, far faster than any change we see in the last 63 million years of geologic history. Noone really knows how the environment will react to a change this abrupt. The last change this major may have been when the dinosaurs went extinct. The climate recovered from that event and certainly would recover from whatever we can do to it, but in the meantime, there might be a lot of damage and suffering for us. Noone really knows.

She is right. There have been lots of periods in Earth's history that have been a lot warmer (no ice in polar regions and crocodiles living near North Pole) plus lots of times that have been much colder (full Ice Age). So it is expected that Earth will continue to cycle in and out of Ice Ages. But our problem is that we're leaving an Ice Age very quickly and we need to adapt. It is only a problem because it is happening quickly. If global warming happens over 1000 years, then humans would have little problem, if it happens over 100 years it will be disruptive but manageable, but if it happens quicker than that, then there could be massive problems (like crop failures that cause mass starvation).

By all means watch Gores Liberal propaganda masterpiece (he must have reincarnated Goebbels to produce that one) then log on to <>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm> Read it ALL, you will then have the real story. After you know that, and the fact that man can in no way, by any immediate or long term action reverse current climate change trends, you may be able to answer any questions people might have about Gores version of "Global Warming" and his solutions, which would plunge the world into economic chaos, starvation, and civil unrest..... the stuff socialist liberals thrive on. Now, here are the rules, no matter how (liberally) you spread peanut butter and jelly on it… anything that burns creates Co2, including forests, lava flows, volcanic pyroclastics, city dumps, apartment houses, wheat fields… and fossil fuels. Adding to that information the incontrovertible fact that this planets basic ecology is in a constant state of o2/Co2 exchange which creates a daily addition of Co2 to the atmosphere based totally on natural plant photosynthesis and natural decomposition of organic vegetation…. I (eye) defy ANY reasonable (and rational) man of science to show a viable discrimination between these naturally occurring Co2 sources to indicate man is any way MORE to blame than mother nature. While looking out the window (do it NOW, today) at the freezing rain build up on your Mustang Fastback... ask again, how does heat cause ice ???

With the information that I've seen, anything is possible. Just take whatever data you want, over any period of time you want (leave out some data if it doesn't agree with you), and extrapolate that to whatever you need it to be. The most logical explanation of this reasoning is that the global warming crowd is floating a trial balloon. Basically, that will allow them a way to explain any years or series of years that don't fit their model because they are colder than expected. Then, they'll probably say that the process is not always linear because of time delays in the positive and negative feedback loops.