Seems like "scientists are basing their data on the past 100 years of air temperature.
The earth's atmosphere has been here for millions of years. Would it not make scence to base the data one the past several 1000 years of data,, a typical scientific way to run a test with more data points.
Obviously we don't have that data,seems like the pro global warmers don't care to explain that to the sientifically retarded
I'm looking forward to warmer winters in the northeast, spray that deoderant!
2006-11-13 15:13:46 · 10 answers · asked by gentltailya 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Weather
Start with Al Gore's Inconvieniant Truth to get the big picture. Then if you can consider other people elsewhere besides where you live you would know they are being effected right now. The world is warming up and ice is melting everywhere. We should all be very concerned......
2006-11-13 15:23:43 · answer #1 · answered by robjoss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We may only have 100 years of exact temperature data, but knowing the earths history, when the ice ages occurred, etc. a reasonable estimation can be made.
Also, the argument is not whether or not global warming is occurring, but what is the cause. Global warming is without a doubt occurring. That can be said looking at the past 100 years of air temperature alone. Is the cause pollution, or is it just the natural cycle of the earths long term warming and cooling? That is the question. And from what I have seen the data is inconclusive. There have been long term warming and cooling cycles in the past. What evidence is there that this warming cycle is due to pollution and not part of the natural cycle? What evidence is there that it's part of the natural cycle and not caused by pollution? How long can I balance myself on this fence before I should fall? This question creates far more questions then there are answers available.
2006-11-13 15:26:03 · answer #2 · answered by ginnsu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think for most people who really read the data, the jury is still out on this. As to if it is man made or a natural cycle of the planet, I'm not educated enough to say for certain, so I have done a ton of reading and comparing of data from a lot of different sources and tend to believe (not know for sure) that it is part of the natural cycle.
I think we need to treat it as if it is not BS though. Change our consumption habits. I have 3 grandkids and would love for them to have food to eat, warm homes in the winter and a clean, safe environment to enjoy.
EDIT: FYI..
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
2006-11-13 15:25:40 · answer #3 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As lots i like to agree that AGW is hogwash I could desire to point out that your test is a non-sequitur. If all the floating ice melts and the oceans advance it will make infrequently any distinction in any respect. it is the basis of your test and it may be superb, despite the fact that the area with melting ice is that as quickly as ice on continents soften it is going to upload to the sea point. that's extra like melting a block of ice beside your sink so as that the runoff is going into the sink. despite the fact that this technique is so sluggish that it is a not a controversy. we can't possibly lose lots land mass in the worldwide with the aid of fact as we lose section we are able to benefit it in different factors whilst ice recedes. We could lose a pair of low mendacity islands, yet it is nature and could ensue in any case, they could migrate like quite a few all our ancestors did in the previous. The coast will pass up slightly and a few homes could be lost over the subsequent couple hundred years yet it is a ingredient of the possibility of shifting next to the sea.
2016-10-17 06:12:40 · answer #4 · answered by kigar 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the polar ice caps melting should be a big clue.
Or how about the effects of the ice not freezing adequately and threatening the polar bear populations.
Wake up and open your eyes.
2006-11-13 15:17:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ever think cars have only been around for the last 100 years or so? Not to mention airplanes and other gasoline driven vehicles.
2006-11-13 15:17:08 · answer #6 · answered by Sensei 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not BS. Have you seen the movie The Day After Tomorrow? Its based on true information.
2006-11-13 15:32:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lots of BS in the global warming debate.
2006-11-13 15:37:27 · answer #8 · answered by Yak Rider 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IT'S B.S. ! At least that's my view after taking many "Environmental science" classes, and "Meteorology", weather and Earth's climates are "CYCLICAL" ! We've only kept records for a short time in weather.
2006-11-13 18:44:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ask an Alaskan
2006-11-13 18:07:55 · answer #10 · answered by geo3598 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋