Global Warming?

Question

Global warming?
Who belives global warming is happening? I know there is hordes of evidence to support it, but, in MANY cases, of repressed information, there is proof of it NOT happening.

Does anyone know where there are places that have studies to support each side of the argument?

I remember reading about all those ice cliffs that slide off, that you see tapes of, is filmed from these two or three spots. Only. Nowhere else does ice come off like that. Also, that the poles are each getting colder, along with the sea levels hardly rising, and in some areas, not rising at all. South America, as I read, has not raised any. As Micheal Chricton said is "State of Fear" : "It's hard to say your country is flooding from sea water when sea levels are all the same." Or, something like that.

Yet, all the information supporting warming is important, the hottest times in US history, 8 out of 10 have happend in the last 10 years.

Any thoughts?

Theo and Thin don't have much to say on the subject besides what the media yells about. And, the North Poles ISN'T getting warmer. The area surronding it is getting warmer, Iceland, Greenland, section os north Canada, etc.

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

There's no such thing as "each side of the argument" because there is no argument. All of these a@@-holes (yes, you heard me) who post on yahoo answers that they have some evidence against global warming use bogus Internet sources. Why don't they try reading peer-reviewed, scientific journals? They're not hard to find.

I happen to teach physics as a graduate student at my university, and my students give presentations occasionally. A lot of them use Internet sources and come up with the most ridiculous things that I have heard in my life. Anyone in the world can create a web page, and say that they're professor science. Books are a little more secure, because publishing companies tend to check credentials before laying down cash for someone to write a book.

However, on issues of political controversy(notice that's political, not scientific, controversy) such as global warming, even books can be written by someone with ulterior motives. Scientific journals are peer-reviewed by panels of scientists who don't share any common interest with each other, or with the author.

As far as the actual arguments, yes there are temperature fluctuations that have been occurring throughout geological history, but nothing approaching the rise in temperature that we have now. As far as the notion that we're just too small to affect the earth, remember that nature involves BALANCE. Tip the scales one way or another, for long enough, and you will have an impact.

Then there's the old fall-back argument that they always tend to make, that the scientists have ulterior motives. That's a pretty big conspiracy for the entire scientific community, wouldn't you say? A big conspiracy that's been going on for how long? Without any information leaking to the press? And what's this mysterious motive? The oil and gas industries have pretty d*mn big motives to want you to believe that global warming isn't real. They're the ones whom we should be skeptical of.

Answer 3

Anyone who looks at global warming with a critical eye knows that it is far from "proven." There are plenty of doubters out there, including in the scientific community. But they are ignored and we are told that scientists are in consensus about it. Never mind that it's a lie, but since when has consensus in science actually meant a damn?

Science is about proof and evidence. There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat. There was a time when the consensus was that the heavens revolved around the earth. There was a time when the consensus said that man will never fly. Scientific proof has proved these wrong.

Just in the last couple of weeks, the UN has revised downwards by 25% it's estimations of global sea level rise due to global warming.

The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, including periods warmer than now, even before man had much of a footprint on this planet. Especially between 1100 and 1300. Somehow, nature, and man, survived just fine.

Don't fall for all the global warming doom and gloom stories. Man has been predicting environmental doom for decades. Remember Erlich's Population Bomb. The world was supposed to be plunged into worldwide famine back in the 80's. Billions were supposed to die off because the planet could not sustain us. Did it happen?

No less than 4 times in the past century has the media sounded the alarm about climate change. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then cooling again, now warming again. Do you sense a pattern here? We go through cooling and warming cycles, and the media jumps on it and tries to scare the hell out of us. The global termperature has been cooling since 1998. In about 10-15 more years, the alarmist media will notice that we are going through another cooling cycle, and sound the alarm again about global cooling.

Answer 4

Hehehe. Al ('I invented the Internet') Gore has some kind of personal agenda and he's managed to panic and stampede all the 'sheeple'. ☺

The last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago. During the last Ice Age the North polar ice cap and glaciers extended down almost as far as the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think that anybody would argue that the reason they melted (and the oceans rose, etc. etc.) was because the Earth got warmer. And I also don't think that anyone would try to convince you that the reason the Earth got warmer was because of something that the race of man (less than a million of us) did.

Truth is, there's all kinds of Geological evidence to support the fact (that's 'fact', not 'speculation') that the Earth (in times past) has been quite a bit hotter *and* quite a bit colder than it is right now. And absolutely *no* evidence (that'd be 'hard', 'scientific', evidence. Not speculation.) to suggest that we had anything to do with it then, or now.


Doug

Answer 5

I don't think we should look at any localized incidents as proof. Scientists have proved that the global temperature, in general, has risen along with CO2 levels. How much clearer can it be? One freak snowstorm doesn't disprove it, just as a heatwave doesn't necessarily strengthen that theory.

Oh and where did you hear that the poles are getting colder? Antarctica is, very slightly, but the North Pole is getting warmer by leaps and bounds.

Answer 6

Yes, it's happening, and I believe this to be fact. If you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" (and I'm not a Democrat) you can see why.

Also, please visit www.stopglobalwarming.org.

If you don't "believe" in global warming, fine. Continue to do your part to destroy your own livelihood. Just wait and see what happens to our earth in a number of years. Hopefully, with new legislation and more and more people joining the fight to stop global warming, you won't have to see what happens.

At the very least, think about what you can do to help the environment. Drive less, conserve energy, recycle--what's bad about doing these things? Sure, they may require more effort, but laziness is a problem you can overcome. Even though small steps like these aren't going to solve the problem entirely, they can help. There is no good reason why we shouldn't do more to preserve our planet.

Answer 7

From all the evidence, global warming because of human activity seems quite likely to be true.
I'm a glider pilot. I wear a parachute when flying. It's a fairly expensive item which I'm extremely unlikely ever to need, but I figure
-why gamble on my life?
There's certainly a chance that the globe is warming, giving rise to dire consequences.
Why gamble?

Answer 8

well thay dont call it global warming for nothing..lol Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century [1].

The current scientific consensus is that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[2].

The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially carbon dioxide (CO2), due to activities such as burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture.[3] Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and was first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius[4].

Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium response to increased GHGs, and other anthropogenic and natural climate forcings. It is found by observational [5] and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, which, according to the 2001 IPCC report, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) (with a statistical likelihood of 66-90%)[6]. This should not be confused with the expected temperature change by a given date, which also includes a dependence on the future GHG emissions and a delayed response due to thermal lag, principally from the oceans. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using a range of SRES scenarios, project that global temperatures will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years. [7]. Only a small minority of climate scientists disagree that humanity's actions have played a major role in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over implementation of policies that deal with predicted consequences, what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences.

Answer 9

Deal with it as a risk of doing business. Would you be willing to spend 5 to 10 to 20 percent of your profit to protect from something that may or may not be happening? Not if it was your business! So why should we as the USA economy penalize ourselves in today's dollars when we don't know a) if it is occurring, and b) if it is, what will be the effects and consequences.

It is real easy to extrapolate into the future with some ream doomsday scenarios. But why should we spend today's money on something that may not benefit us at all when we could use that money on things today that are obviously more beneficial.

I believe that when the problem is big enough to know then we can address it appropriately. Until then, we should save the money and continue growing the economy so that we will have resources available IF it is required.

Answer 10

My name is Rafael Lomena. I write from Alicante (Spain). I am independent investigator on the Accelerated Global Heating and want to share with all something that can turn out from interest to fight this phenomenon.
I believe that the main cause of the Accelerated Global Heating is in the great and increasing forest fires that are whipping to the planet in the last years.
My complete report is in: http://inicia.es/de/rlv/clim.htm
If they do not understand the Spanish they can use the automatic translator that will find in the main page of site:
http://inicia.es/de/rlv
Thanks to all.
(* This message has been translated with a translation software)