what is global warming?

Answer 1

“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat. His statement is misleading and incorrect.

He says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that, and most of it in the last 40 years.

He says, “The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero.” If you go to his source, it says, “Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in summer.” OK, now the observation that the caps are melting makes more sense. It melts at the coast, in the summer, DUH! (Note by the way that his average number (-109) is only 3 degrees lower than one of the minimum numbers. I wonder, what kind of math did he learn?)

Then he says, “Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING”. All what hype? I was around then. I don’t remember any hype. And if you go to his source, it says, “This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting … The theory never had strong scientific support”. He tries to mislead us, by implying that a temporary flurry pf press reporting is comparable to what we are seeing now and that some hype without scientific basis is somehow similar to a consensus within the scientific community about global warming.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity’s BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

The link between CO2 and global warming is undisputed at this time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% over the last 115 years (250 to 381 ppm, http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). In the last 30 years, it increased at a rate 30 times faster than at any period during the last 800,000 years. In other words, this change is totally unprecedented. (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). What else is totally unprecedented about the last 115 years? Industrialization and the population explosion. Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"If Bert Drake is right, the good news is that, within the foreseeable future, Maine residents will be able to stop banking their foundations and to store their down parkas and snow blowers in the barn permanently. The bad news is that a lot of those barns will be underwater" (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). Yes, this is opinion. Who is Bert Drake? He's an SERC researcher who's been studying this for 17 years. If we aren’t going to believe our scientists, who then shall we believe??? Oh, I know. Let's believe CapNemo!!!

If global warming wasn't a real threat, why have 178 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions? Why are the US and Australia the only two holdouts among the industrialized nations? (http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm )

CapNemo’s statement reminds me about the frog in the pot on the stove that doesn’t move as the water gradually gets hotter and hotter. From this seemingly insignificant 2 degree change, we’ve already seen enormous consequences. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/) How much hotter does it have to get for some people to wake up and face the music? And in the meantime, while you’re pondering all of this, be sure to check the dates on people’s references. Things are changing so rapidly that older information is no longer useful.

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

Answer 2

Some will say it's a constant warming of the entire earth but actually the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

Answer 3

If you wish to receive grant money for climate research, do you think that you'll get a cheque if you say," I need the grant, as I think that I can prove that the figures that the current paradigm is based upon are wrong" ? The great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There is still no proven causative link between the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and an increase in global temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming were taken in the Arctic summer; when the ice cap partially melts, as they couldn't get up to photograph in the winter. The ice was too thick! The East-Anglian uni research figures. "Oh! The figures don't match our expectations. Oh well. Keep quiet. Because we know that we are right." When the belief, and the faith is more important than squarely facing the legitimate doubts of a lot of non grant-supported scientists, science has been superceded by religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully said." I pray thee, in the bowels of Christ, consider that thou mayest be wrong."

Answer 4

We all know what global warming is about, and we are destroying the planet for our grandchildren, and there children.
I find it so SAD to hear comments (like the one s answering the question should David attenboroughs programme CLIMATE CHANGE be compulsory, and should cars be limited to 900cc.).
Just what right have we . We are an invasive, destructive being, and really we don't deserve to live on such a beautiful planet.Why do people need more and more. We are a throw away society and now we are reaping what we've sown, we too will be thrown away, and a lot of people will be very angry about that(the ones who do most of the polluting). The ones who care and try to do everything they can to help[ the planet will be the ones who are saved.......

Answer 5

Global warming is where the earth has been gradually been heating up over time. Scientists believe that very far from today the earth will no longer exsist because of the fact it will get hotter. They have reason to believe this because of the polar ice caps melting. And that is global warming.

Answer 6

Global Warming is the cringing of the Earth due to monstrous levels of carbon in the atmosphere, that act as traps for heat, preventing it's dispersion into space.

If you take the green house as an example, the gases are trapped by the green house, preventing it's dispersion, thereby increasing the tempreture of the green house.

Answer 7

Just a scam to get federal funding for bogus weather analysis. There's no real evidence of any causes produced by man or even other animals. If you follow the money you'll see why it's such a hot topic (sorry for the pun.)

If you want to see one side of the argument that ignores all facts pertaining to opposition to that argument, see "Inconvenient Truth," Gore's boring and fake movie. Most of it is actually lies and kooky predictions that anyone with even a little scientific knowledge would see as ridiculous. But watch it because Igor wants all your money.

Answer 8

Global warming/cooling/frosting/dimming/whatever is a natural event that is evolving and will continue long after the virus that infects the planet is extinct.

Answer 9

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Answer 10

watch Al Gore's movie
An Inconvenient Truth