Global warming? yeah right. What factual, concrete proof do you have Al?

Question

No one has concrete evidence of the existence of global warming - you all have speculation only. We are in a warming trend since the 1850s. Shut up Al Gore and your fanatic minded leftwingist buddies like Bono. Al Gore reminds me of the forsaken eugenicists - he doesnt know anything. Can anyone dispute this? I doubt it.

I appreciate all of your well-tought out answers but I think we all need to read SuzyP's answer because it makes the most sense - agree or disagree?

Answer 1

Great question! I think there's some terrible confusion going on here globally. There's no doubt that there is climate change, the problem comes when trying to work out what is causing it.
It seems that scientists that actually study climate change have some sort of agreement. We produce a tiny ratio of the total global CO2 - 1.17:1000. The extra amounts of CO2 that we have produced in recent years do not account for the fluctuations in temperatures and storms that we have seen.
However we are within a natural cycle of the sun. The changes that have been occurring with the sun have a far closer correlation with the changes happening on Earth (and, incidentally, every other planet in the solar system), than our CO2 production.
The sun has an ebb and flow of temperature change lasting thousands of years. We are in one now which is giving us increased sun spot activity and more geomagnetic storms. These storms blast out from the sun and have a strong correlation on many activities on earth from mood and health to extreme weather conditions.
So we need to look to the sun - as well as how we expect to deal with the extremes of weather that are upon us.
However, I do not think that recognising the sun's role on the earth's weather should turn us away from looking to supply power through renewable sources. If anything it should increase our efforts. We need to increase our knowledge and the availability of renewable energy to help us through the extreme conditions that we could be faced with. By using renewable energy we also reduce pollution, which definitely does have a detrimental effect on our health and the health of the plants and animals on earth.
Here's a link to the New Zealand Science Climate Coalition that can fill in some of the numbers.

Answer 2

Disagree that SuzyP's answer makes most sense. Just a few quotes from the page she referenced:

"the ECO conference demonstrated inability to distinguish between what we actually know and what they choose to believe."

"All that we actually know there is that the world has got a few tenths of degree warmer in the last 100 years and that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased over the last 60 years. We also know that the world has not got warmer since 1998 ..."

And one from the Washington Post:


By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A01

New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures.

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998's record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.

Answer 3

I don't have any concrete evidence that you exist, but I'm going to answer your question anyway.

The science behind GW is very complicated... so it's easy to see why a layman such as me or you may notunderstand all of it's intricacies.

Basically, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It allows radiant energy in, but traps infrared energy as heat. No one disputes this fact.

Right now, our atmospheric composition has 380 parts per million (ppm) concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. At no other point in the last 650,000 years, all of human exisitence, has CO2 atmospheric concentratons been this high. Again, not a disputed fact.

If population extrapolations continue to grow as predicted, by the year 2050, we could be looking at a global population of over 9 billion people... presumably all using fossil fuels for energy genration.... considerable loss of vegetation, due to development to accomodate all these people... which will result in even less CO2 being scrubbed out of the atmosphere...

This is not a viable model. Human activity is responsible for a rise in global temps of 1ºC over the last 100 years. It's going to start accellerating now because the "pendulum" is swinging...

The wise thing to do would be to invest NOW in alternative energy generation technology... and not wait to be hit over the head with a falling piano.

Pick up a science journal and stop reading biased media from other laymen like yourself. They only know what other people tell them. Don't rely on them for your info when it comes to science.

Answer 4

Currently there is plenty of proof showing that global warming is occurring. Now to say whether it is happening do to human pollution or a natural trend is up in the air.

This much is known, there are gases in the atmosphere that obsorb heat thereby increasing the temp of the Earth. Also, thanks to the dust cloud from 9/11 they have also proven that particles in the air decrease the temp drastically. There had been theories of this, but on watching the temp of rain (which doesn't change much like air temp) around 9/11 they found it has a big effect. They have also used satellites to determine that the particles (dust, pollution, etc.) cause a drop in temp on a constant basis. If we stopped producing the excess pollution, we could see a drastic change in the opposite direction.

Answer 5

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 6

gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
the recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels
we know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration
the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
the urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect
humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future.
climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas forcing.
climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006.
action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
the IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science.
there is a scientific consensus behind all of the above just go to wikipedia

Answer 7

Global warming is real. How can you say its not. First off do you know what causes global warming? The sun heats carbon dioxide water vapor, and other gases in the air produced by humans and there waste. These gases trap heat from the sun and may be the cause of the earth average temperate rise. You are right that the earth has gone through temperature changes in it life time but we as humans and waste producers are not helping the problem. We aren't the total cause of global warming but we are helping it along.

Answer 8

Don't get me wrong, I think AGW is pure Religious bullshit AND the change of name from the definable 'Global Warming' to the vast umbrella 'Climate Change' was a truly spectacular bit of masturbatory pseudo science BUT... to be fair, Warmons do mean 'negative' Climate Change. E.g. fewer or more mild hurricanes do NOT fit the Apocalyptic model. They aren't just looking for flooding & drought, they want the worst in recorded history. So while their recent name change was in fact driven by a decade WITHOUT Warming, This decade will, by Warmon protocol, be described as the 'hottest on record'. Now that 'record' is only 160 years. And it a pretty good bet the Medieval & Roman periods were warmer STILL the Warmon issue is 'hottest' So yeah they're being weasels... but these weasels are looking for 'Change' that is bad. Islands flooding & dead polar bears - not vast new croplands available in Siberia.

Answer 9

The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country - although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.

For the agreement to become a legally binding treaty, it had to be ratified by countries which together were responsible for at least 55% of the total 1990 emissions reported by the industrialised countries and emerging economies which made commitments to reduce their emissions under the protocol.

As the US accounted for 36.1% of those emissions, this 55% target was much harder to achieve without its participation.

But 141 countries banded together and the protocol came into force in February 2005.

President George W Bush said in March 2001 that the US would not ratify Kyoto because he thought it would damage the US economy and because it did not yet require developing countries to cut their emissions.

He says he backs improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions - rather than imposed targets - and through the development of cleaner technologies.

As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.


Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."

What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.

Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.

And Cicerone, who’s an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.

"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.

Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all — the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."

But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." It’s a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."

Answer 10

A) Al Gore is wacked and will say anything to get press attention.

B) The glaciers are melting and the ice caps are retreating. That's a fact. Can't dispute that. The fact that Al Gore jumped on it doesn't make it not be indisputable evidence.