are there any MIT professors challenging that global warming exists?

Question

I am looking for scientists who doubt if global warming exists.
I have 50 years of data showing that global warming has not started yet.

Answer 1

Well, here is some REAL data with real references to scientific research.

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

The whole climate change issue has become mired in politics and groups with axes to grind. That makes it difficult to sort out the genuine science from the hype. This means you have to be wary of who is telling you what and what your source of information is. Point in case - the hockey stick is now largely discredited - it shows results from two different measurement methods on the same graph (!!!) so it isn't self consistent. Its now known that CO2 is quite mobile in ice and this has an averaging effect so it smooths out the peaks in the graph. If you compare it to birch tree data (which is a much more reliable CO2 indicator) for the same period you can see that CO2 has varied wildy over the time scale involved.
We are only now beginning to appreciate how long the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions linger - it may be a century or more.
The computer predictions of future temperatures occassionally say we'll be hotter than the surface of the Sun. These results are quietly deleted - obviously they're wrong, but what they are telling you is that the models are wrong. This information isn't reported so the results are biased.
Maybe the climate is warming or perhaps its entering a phase of wild fluctuation as has happened in the past and in 10 or 50 years temperatures will be falling.

Answer 3

If you want the real scoop on climate change, talk to the geologists. We have been studying climates, as in depositional environments, since forever. The earth is over 6 billion years old. The climate changes constantly. It may be relatively stable for several million years, but it is still changing. There have also been some very dynamic changes over several thousand years, long before the appearance of man.

You cannot base exacting change ratios on a 6 billion year old system dynamic with only 150 years of accurate temperature and even less time of accurate atmospheric compostion determinations.

Carefully examine the famed "hockey stick". The actual rises shown at the end of measured time are quite small, but the straight line dramatic upward extrapulation is absolutely absured. Yes, temperatures are rising, but it is not a straight line correlation.

Yes, the glaciers are retreating. They retreated before. They also grew before, at least ten cycles of growth and retreat. Never before have we had ice at both poles.

If I remember right, in the 1970's, we were worried about causing another "global ice age" because of our polluting ways.

The Geological Society of America, an organization of thousands of respected geologists and geoscientists have a position paper on global environmental change. Read it below:

Bottom line is this: We are polluting our environment. We are using all our resources. Our environment is changing. Are we the direct cause? Debatable because of its continual change anyway, and the huge dynamics invloved in global environments. Can we stop global climate change? NO.... it will change no matter what we do.

Worry points: Not global warming. Poisoning our environment and ourselves. Exahusting all our natural resources. Blowing ourselves up.

Answer 4

You have 50 years of data showing that global warming has not started? Tell that to the melting glaciers, the shrinking ice caps, the ice shelf that just broke off into the Ross sea, the polar bears starving or turning cannibalistic because there are no more ice floes from which to hunt for seal. You'll probably still be in denial as rising sea levels eat up your coastal vacation home.

Just for snits and giggles, how about posting some of your data in Additional Details? I'm serious. I'll be back in an hour to see what you have to say.

EDIT: it is 3 hours later and Danville Joe has not been back to defend his claim. Wonder whether he can? I'm waiting, Joe..............

EDIT, 1 hour later: Johnny B deftly demonstrates for us that he is wiser than all the geophysicists by disproving global warming. Johnny, all you've done is demonstrate that you fail to grasp the carbon cycle. Where do you get your science info - from the backs of cereal boxes?

Answer 5

I have 10,000 years of data that it has generally been warming for about that long with some short term variation. It will eventually turn around and begin to cool again but that should be in hundreds or thousands of years, hopefully. We should be grateful we were born in the warm times between the ice ages. We are clearly in a warm period. 50 years really isn't a long enough sample of time to make much a conclusion regarding long term global warming. Man induced global warming is altogether a separate subject and probably belongs more in the political realm than science.

Answer 6

I'd like to see your data, too! It can't be temperature data, because global temperatures have been rising.

I haven't heard of any scientist who denies global warming is happening now. Even the current cause of our global warming is pretty well agreed upon, except by politicians and people in the oil industry.

Why MIT professors? MIT is hardly the leader in climate science (although they do have a few climate people on staff). I'm not sure who is the leader, but I know it's not MIT (I went to MIT as an undergrad).

Answer 7

The thing is that the environmentalist attacked the US for all the fuel That we burn ,because we are using more than is our proper share of the worlds supply. Then they started on CO2 as it comes from burning fuels . Well that is even stranger as the pollution caused by CO2 is quickly removed by plants in a process of photosynthesis . They calculate how much CO2 that has increaseed 30% is affecting us. Wrong again if the CO2 was that high we would have people on low areas dead. Our is only 20.9% and if the oxygen gets less than 19.5% u are in trouble. If u get an increas of almost any gas it will deduct from oxygen.
Nothing but political hype.

Answer 8

the foremost argument is against international warming is "Oh even with the undeniable fact that it is chilly as we communicate" whilst she comes up with this argument you may clarify the impact that the launch of unpolluted water from the polar caps will reason. It dilutes the salt content textile of the oceans interfering with currents inflicting various substantial heat currents to cool down inflicting the chilly temperatures even although the earth customarily is warming. it's time-honored as thermohaline circulate. all of us who says it is a democrat rip-off is an fool. the foremost proponents of international warming at the instant are not American. Gore shares that noble prize with over 3 hundred people. I hate to tell you this however the international does not revolve around the yank government.