Can someone give me info about global warming?

Question

i'm doing a project and need help.

Answer 1

It depends upon what you mean by global warming - a global climate shift or the theory that man is the proximate cause.

The earth's temperature is, on average, a little over 1 degree F higher than it was a little more than a century ago.

Climate shifts on this scale have happened numerous times in the earth's history and in fact within human history.

Most scientists suspect that there is a material human contribution to the present warming, through our emissions of CO2.

Key word here is "suspect" - there's no actual, tangible, direct PROOF of it. We know that humans have increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that starting about 80 years after we began to do that, the climate began the first of two waves of warming. And most scientists suspect that the cooling between those two waves was caused by other human emissions (aerosols and the like) though that is also not proven.

The CO2 increase since 1800 has been 90 parts per million - about a 30% increase relative to prior CO2 levels and a 1/11,000th increase relative to the atmosphere as a whole. Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 650,000 years - but then, during the last 650,000 years, in fact during the last 6,500 years, there have been other similar climate shifts even though CO2 levels were much lower than they are today.

The present climatic shifts are significant relative to the way the present generation remembers things but not relative to historical climate shifts. I can no longer skate on the lake I learned to skate on growing up - but that lake was formed by the melting of a glacier a half-mile thick. Glaciers are retreating on the Alps and with another 100-200 years of warming the Alps could be ice-free - but they've BEEN ice free, and tree lines have been 300 feet higher, twice within human history. The severe droughts that are predicted for the American Southwest with another 50-80 years of warming at the present rate would, if they happen, represent history repeating itself - such droughts DID happen during the Medieval Warm Period. At the same time, tree lines were higher from the Sierra Nevadas to the Alps, the plains buffalo migrated north to grasslands in Canada that are now permafrost, the Vikings sailed in wooden ships in and out of inlets and bays that are now ice-bound for much of the year and maintained a farming settlement on Greenland, England became a major wine exporter and fig and olive trees were grown in Cologne, Germany.

And not only has it been warmer and colder than today for many multi-century periods throughout history, but generally it has been the case that human living conditions were better when it was warmer and worse when it was colder.

CO2 is also just one of many "greenhouse gases" most of which have much stronger heat-trapping properties, including water vapor, the human contribution of which is immaterial.

It could be us. I can see why we're a popular candidate - if it's not us, there's nothing that can be done to stop the recent trend. One SOME level we must be contributing, since CO2 does trap heat. But are we contributing on a material level?

We do NOT know that.

The next argument becomes "well even if we don't know, shouldn't 'we' do what's prudent and limit ourselves?"

Except that there is no "we" - there are 6.5 billion individuals. Government action is not a matter of "us" doing something but SOME of us forcing OTHERS of us to do something or to refrain from doing something. If it weren't, you wouldn't need government action to achieve the limits sought in Kyoto - if "we" were all in agreement, everyone would just go along. But everyone doesn't and that is why you need force if you're going to have your way - the one thing that is certain in this debate is that government action to curtail emissions means some people dictating to others that they are not allowed to live the lifestyles they have chosen for themselves.

If we're going to call this a free society, that means you should be allowed to do something without government interference unless it causes some alleged harm. But who bears the burden of proof once an allegation is lodged? How can the burden rest on those who want to engage in otherwise free, productive activity - you'd spend your whole time trying to disprove any and every allegation, and anyone could just simply get any activity they didn't like banned simply by making an allegation. Before you could do anything, you'd have to prove that it didn't cause an alleged harm - prove a negative - and once you'd done that, someone could just allege some other harm.

And any such standard would have to be applied even-handedly - - - - homosexuals would have to prove that society's toleration of their activities don't cause the eternal damnation of our souls. I don't want that - do you? This IS the same thing - Al Gore has admitted that he sees global warming as a moral issue - it's a crusader demanding government control over individual activities that he does not like, on the unsubstantiated basis that tolerance of those activities will bring about the end of the world.

Why would you differentiate between the two? Not based on the severity of the harm alleged - both claim the world is going to end.
And not based on track record either. These are the same self-styled Greens who told us that Monsanto corn pollen would kill off the Monarch butterflies. Sometimes they're right (acid rain) and sometimes it's just made up (Patagonian sheep) and it's about 50/50 - and when they're right, we know it because there is PROOF.

And the extremists on this issue are not building any credibility by trying to re-write the climate history to eliminate the more recent warm periods. If a bush growing in central Alaska in greater numbers than was the case 100 years ago is proof of a global phenonemon today, then higher tree lines around the world prove the same thing about the climate 1000 years ago. You can't have it both ways. The efforts to re-write the climate history are nothing short of Orwellian - the facts cause problems, so they decide the re-write the facts.....

Constantly re-writing near-term predictions and theories to fit what actually happens isn't helping either. Boston was going to have the "climate of Atlanta" after the warm winters of 1998-2002 and then after two cold winters we were told that the Northeast US climate would actually cool because of cooler ocean temps from melting ice caps, then the next year we have an average winter on the whole but a lot of volatility and THAT's what we were told to expect as a result of GW. THEN the ocean temps were going to RISE and our hurricane seasons would look like 2005. Now we've had a mild 1.5 winters and it's back to Boston having the climate of the Carolinas and "wild fluctuations" in terms of storm activity (fluctuations in weather - i.e., it's going to be the way it's always been, and no matter what happens, the fact that it's different from what happened the week before is supposed to prove man-made global warming...).

Even with their track record's being spotty at best, I'm not saying dismiss the Greens out of hand, and I'm not even saying that the existence of similar climate shifts in the past despite lower CO2 levels means that the present climate shift definitely is NOT us. I'm simply saying that in a free society you have to let people do what they want, free of government ban or limit, unless and until it's actually SHOWN that the activity you seek to curtail causes some alleged harm, otherwise anyone can pretty much shut down any activity they don't like by lodging an allegation severe enough to scare people.

In a free society we can't compare motives. Motives are irrelevant. We can't apply a different standard to some proposed bans because we think the people who want to propose them are "good" people. What or who is "good" or "bad" is subjective. That is why we need to apply the same standard and require actual, tangible proof.

And if we apply that standard to man-made global climate, it is an interesting hypothesis, worth looking into but not a justification to shut down power plants and limit what or how far people are allowed to drive.

Answer 2

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 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

Global warming is very real, just like global cooling. These are natural cycles.

Some people believe that global warming is caused directly by man; however, their research is often sloppy and is based on suspect data. Most legitimate and objective scientists will confirm that man has very little impact on the earth's temperature in relation to other natural occurrence. Regardless, this does not give us the green light to pollute at will - we should always strive to reduce our pollution and impact on the environment regardless of global warming.

Worse yet, some very deceptive people use global warming as an opportunity for financial and political gain. They create propaganda films designed to scare the weak-minded into supporting their agenda, either via money or votes. The motives of professional liars like Al Gore should be questioned at every opportunity.

Answer 4

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future.

Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1] The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture.

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.

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, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, 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) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime.


i hope u got the complete information on global warming...
all the best for ur project.

Answer 5

I get SO tired of reading the junk written by PatrckCTrombly (http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AvvxQZfxUCh29eyjZxPnqg0Fxgt.?show=68625259986146510cbf9f8cfa6f98ebaa) on global warming. He's not science educated; he’s a banker and a registered Libertarian. For those who do not know, a libertarian is someone who opposes government intervention in, well, just about anything and believes that the willful pursuit of self-interest always takes precedence over the common good. In other words, his personal self-interest supersedes his ability to be an unbiased reporter and suspends what might otherwise be his good and honest judgment.

He says, "Climate shifts on this scale have happened numerous times in the earth's history and in fact within human history".

Actually, they haven't. He is using sources that are six years old. Now you might think six years, what's the big deal? That's the problem. Not only has the average temperature passed anything the planet has seen in the last 4,000 years (somewhere back about 2003, visit link below), but the RATE of temperature change is absolutely astounding and accelerating. It is moving so fast, there is no time for new species to evolve; no time for anything to adapt.

He says, "Most scientists suspect that there is a material human contribution to the present warming, through our emissions of CO2. Key word here is "suspect" - there's no actual, tangible, direct PROOF of it".

What you should know is there is never any proof of anything in the real world. The only place where something can be PROVEN is in mathematics. In science, there are only theories: Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity. And you have to admit, Newton's THEORY of gravity is pretty compelling. I, myself, have never seen anything fall UP. And, yet, we still call it a theory.

He talks about the Medieval Warm Period. Well ok, we went shooting past that back in 2003. Here's what the last 2000 years of temperature looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. But this graph just goes to 2004. The one in CO2science (visit link below) was done in 2006 and really shows how far we've gone.

He reveals his failure to understand the science when he poohpoohs the global warming threat by saying it's just one degree. If you look at the graph (link below), that one degree is HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. One degree average over the entire planet is 12 degrees at the poles. As the polar ice caps melt, they no longer reflect the suns rays, hence the acceleration.



Here's the numbers; judge for yourself. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 250 ppm to 381 ppm (parts per million) in the last 115 years (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65). In the last 30 years, it's increased by 30 ppm. This rate of change is totally unprecedented. Prior to the last 100 years, over the entire last 800,000 years for which we can determine atmospheric CO2, it took 1000 years to accumulate such a change (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65). Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"... 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)



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 industrilaized nations?

There are self-interested people and groups doing everything they can to confuse and obfuscate the issues around global warming, similar to what the tobacco companies did back a few years ago, before they started losing lawsuits. These are a small group of very vocal people on the oil industry payroll (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389313&page=16) and others whose livelihood and comfort depends on things continuing as they have been. Don’t be fooled.

Answer 6

worldwide warming has in no way been scientifically shown to be actual, did you recognize? some fool got here up with the thought, and the clicking observed it, and theory it may be a stable tale, and publicized it, and all and sundry replaced into all freaked and immediately believed it. the earth is warming up clearly, and, nonetheless pollution is definitely undesirable and we could consistently recycle, the ambience does not have holes in it every time human beings attempt to "restoration" something, we finally end up making it worse. we could consistently all initiate recycling stuff, yet we don't could be all petrified of it and freaked that we are going to have a ice age and lose miles of lands. and polar bears do no longer fall over and die every time somebody activates a mild i doubt this is the form of junk you have been searching for, yet please do no longer arise with some extensive speech to scare all and sundry approximately worldwide warming, it is not needed

Answer 7

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future.

Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture.

Try these links (I hope it can help your project)

^ a b Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Part 7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I. United Nations. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
^ Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2006-01-12). Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
^ Real Climate, 2005 temperatures. RealClimate (2007-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
^ Gregory, J. M.; R. J. Stouffer, S. C. B. Raper (2002-11-15). "An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity" (PDF). Journal of Climate 15 (22): 3117-21. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Part 6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Earth System Research Laboratory, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Global warming - the blame is not with the plants
^ RealClimate, "Scientists baffled!"
^ Hirsch, Tim. "Plants revealed as methane source", BBC News, 2006-01-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, "Estimates of the global methane budget (in Tg(CH4)/yr) from different sources compared with the values adopted for this report (TAR)."
^ Physorg.com, "Level of important greenhouse gas has stopped growing"
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration
^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Information
^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Los Angeles Times: Ocean Report
^ UNFCC, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data
^ Sample, Ian. "Warming Hits 'Tipping Point'", The Guardian, 2005-08-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12
^ VandeHei, Jim. "President Holds Firm As G-8 Summit Opens", Washington Post, 2005-07-07. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
^ Holmes, Jonathan. "John Howard Interview - Energy", Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006-12-09. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.

Answer 8

Try this website http://www.globalwarming.net/