Global warming?

Question

anybody can give me some answers .thanks......what are. facts that humans cause global warming .?

Answer 1

CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.

Look at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.
(see links below)

How's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.

There has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.

Yes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up.

Just to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.

HI CO2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
HOCKEY STICK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm
General climate stuff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm

Answer 2

It's a hypothesis at this time, at best. The ruckus started when a desk scientist wrote a white paper predicting calamitous results if pollution with greenhouse gases proceeds at current rates. The prediction was borne out by the most current models but those models were not validated at the time.

Anyway, the hypothesis is that certain gases tend to interfere with the dissipation of heat from the Earth into outer space. One of the worst offenders is carbon dioxide which, as you know, is one of the major products of the combustion of fossil and other organic fuels. These facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not the prediction and the models that support the prediction are valid. The prediction is nothing without the models and the models have still not been validated. As a matter of fact, the models are showing some predictive shortfalls right now so their support of the prediction may not be worth anything. (It's not unusual for models of this complexity to require several years of tweaking to get them even close to reality. Most never really make it and are only used to produce indices where one action can be compared to other alternatives.)

There's plenty of information on the web pro and con. In my view, the discussion has been mishandled and has now turned into more of a screaming match than a discourse. The hypothesis was taken to the public without proper peer review. (A mechanism where other experts review the work before it is released to non-scientific circles to catch improper logic, bad conclusion, bad math, etc.) Unfortunately, the hypothesis has been commandeered by the special interests whose agenda it would promote and it has drawn swift negative reaction from those special interests that it would hurt. My suggestion is that, if you want to know as much of the objective truth as you can handle, read both sides and decide which one seems plausible and which not. Very often, you have to mentally average the claims to be anywhere near reality.

One last piece of advice. Don't get your science from newspapers, politicians, celebrities or movies. These sources are notoriously bad and shouldn't be trusted. Be especially aware that one politician who is making a livelihood of promoting the most extreme view of global warming was just as vocal about our doom from chemical estrogen mimicry ten years ago but dropped it like a rock when it was obvious that that particular scare was a non-starter.

Don't fall for the scares until they show you the evidence.

Answer 3

Common sense tells us that we are causing it(Smog,anyone?).There are so many people that will go on and on about how it's not our fault,but these are the kinds of people that drive SUV's and don't want to dirty them driving to the recycling center.An Inconvenient Truth IS a good thing to watch.And my thinking is,what can it hurt to conserve and recycle and cut back on emissions?We know dirty air is bad for us.We know that everything will eventually run out.Why not clean up the air and our acts?I don't care what they say,I've lived in this house all of my life and only this year was it touched by a small tornado.Winter is going away and summer is getting unbearable.Yep,common sense.

Answer 4

Hello,

It's Neanderthal's fault. He brought us out of the pesty Ice Age and now it's out of control - we can't stop it.... he started lighting fires and probably herding cattle which led to increased presence of methane and ...

Umm..wait...who solved Ice Ages before Nea???? Who? Or WHAT?

Seriously now. Earth's complex process of heating and cooling is not limited to "global warming". It's only a small piece of a millions-year-old system. Humans don't cause it and they certainly can't stop it.

Best Wishes,

pup

Answer 5

watch the Inconvenient Truth...a lot of people have seen it and i haven't heard of any mob of scientists in the papers refuting it...it's hard science, check it out...watch it with and open mind, check out the facts it lays out, do your own research....it will change you.

Answer 6

There are no facts. Its all thory at this time, much of it based on very shaky science and unreliable modelling techniques.