The climate scientists say that global warming is likely due to human kind, is it or isn't it?

Question

They've been studying this stuff for years, can they come to a conclusion or not? What about natural sources of green house gases? What do we do about them? Is the rumour of underwater volcanoes warming the oceans true? I wanna know!!!!!!

Answer 1

just think computer model - that's what it's based on - you know the same models that claim they know what happened a millisecond after the Big Bang

Answer 2

On the news last night governments in all the countries have finally agreed that yes global warming is due to humans. As if we couldn't have already worked that out for ourselves! So in answer to your question yes it is people. The bigger question is: Now what are we going to do about it? It is impossible that the only source of the oceans being warmed up by valcanoes. The polar icecaps are melting because the sun is hotter because the ozone layer that reduces the UV rays from the sun is weak. The warm water then flows into the seas and oceans all around the world. Cause them to rise, flood and destroy the Great Barrier Reef. Already over the last thirty odd years the world's oceans have warmed up 0.5C!! Now that is unnatural and very alarming! Many rare and unique animals are extinct and even the polar bear is under threat and as more years go by penguins are finding it harder to find ice to mate and start new families. Furthermore the depletion of the world's rain forests will cause more soil erosion and land slides in tropical downpours which in turn will cause more human and animal deaths. There is an answer but the big business corporations are refusing and the government is telling the public their hands are tied. Because consumers want bigger, louder, noiser cars, houses and machinery that puts a strain on the world. Everyone must pitch in to save our world before everything that we once knew will be gone forever. Governments don't need a 12 page report for future policies, they know what is going to happen! All the indigenous people have been seeing the results for years. It is time to act and act now! Save the world!

Answer 3

The correct answer is that it is both natural and caused by man.

Natural: The planet goes through climate changes over time. There are greater warming trends and greater cooling trends. These occur over time due to numerous natural reasons.

Man-made: The premise of environmental science indicating that global warming is man-made is that our industrial processes introduce chemical (in this case, CO2) that would not be present at the levels they are in our atmosphere.

Basically, both of these aspects are true. We know, for a fact, that there are greater levels of CO2 both in the atmosphere and in the ocean... we have models, experiments, chemical evidence, and even data collected from other planets (like Venus) which prove that CO2 does generate a greenhouse effect.

What climatologists want to change policy to do is limit emissions so that we don't push the balance farther than we wish to. Opponents to climate science want to believe that what we do has no impact on the world around us and that all of the models and experiments are simply wrong.

This is at best wishful thinking, and at worst ignorance and self-interest.

Dr. T has been tossing around http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ in all of these threads. You may go ahead and read it but after looking at it myself it has all of the hallmarks of junk science.

They make a major flaw here. The core of their "acquittal" of CO2 is basically that the Vostok core data doesn't prove that CO2 levels cause global warming effects in nature, therefore CO2 can't be responsible for man-made global warming effects.

This is a causative fallacy, and actually represent an ignorance of very basic research methodologies.

Put simply, the data from the Vostok record doesn't regard man-made global warming, and does not shed direct light on causation... it does provide some correlative data, but even then you can't establish causation (or a lack of causation) with core sample data... their premise is flawed on a number of levels.

Answer 4

The report just released claims that it is, and certainly a reasonable case can be made for it. It is not possible to prove the matter one way or the other, as controlled experiments are obviously impossible. The question of what to do about it remains; one program proposed by the UN would cost, over the next 50 years, $557,000,000,000,000 -- several times as much as the total value of every asset on the planet. There is literally not enough money in the world to do it.

Answer 5

The scientists have looked at everything. Volcanoes, solar variation, etc.

And they are united in their conclusion. Man is causing a rapid and unnatural climate change that threatens to flood coastal cities and severely damage agriculture.

2500 scientists worked on this report for five years. Think they all forgot about volanoes? Of course not.

This is not a test, this is really happening.

Answer 6

I saw a report about 5 years ago from a group of scientists with different thoughts. They felt that the earth's climbing temperature is just part of a cycle. They supposedly had proof that the current temperatures were just as high, if not higher a few thousand years ago. Its just a different opinion to consider.

Answer 7

There is acually proof that the world has "recycled" its self over millions of years. This has happened before, and the planet will get so hot (faster becacause of pollution) That the planet will be forced to cool its self down(faster now because of pollution) ( ice age again maybe?) Im sure its already to late, and scienist know this, now we need to find a way of possibly slowing it down. But i believe we will start to see dramatic effects, as we already have but much worse in the near future...

Answer 8

I wish existence have been so straightforward that we could only count selection the style of scientists who say something, and act for this reason. In 1900 you ought to discover 2, 500 scientists who mentioned no longer something is left to be found. In 1920 you ought to discover 2,500 scientists to assist you recognize that rockets can not function in area. (none could say that on the instant) In 1945 you ought to discover 2, 500 scientists to assert that we would desire to continually supply the atomic bomb to Stalin so as that there could be peace in the international. (they replaced their minds by using 1958, at which era they moved the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to hour of darkness) In 1970 you ought to discover 2,500 scientists to assert we would run out of oil by using the year 2000. in case you want to verify one hundred ridiculous issues scientists mentioned that year, examine destiny ask your self the place some even envisioned many human beings could have gills by using now on the grounds that we would run out of land and might stay in the sea. In 1980 you ought to discover 2,500 scientists predicting President Reagan could start up a nuclear conflict, the two quickly or by using attempting to shield us from one. (he began no substantial conflict) In any given year, hundreds of scientists will sign a petition swearing to the main preposterous nonsense. lots of them have a slender education, an uncontrolled ego, and a political schedule that makes them think of they understand each and every thing approximately each and every thing whilst all they understand is their very small area of learn. how lots of your 2,500 have simultaneous stages in geology, chemistry, and climatology it quite is mandatory at a minium to charm to close the themes? enable's no longer take billions of human beings on a hay journey only because of the fact some self annointed specialists who will replace their minds in a decade or 2 have the fanciful thought that human beings are the substantial clarification for this around of international warming. they don't have the approaches, the data or the data to place the complicated puzzle together.

Answer 9

Yes it is without any Doubt. We are killing our Planet and one of these days we are going to witness a major catastrophy that will see Millions killed as a result. I would go as far as say that a major city will be destroyed as a result of a Flood caused by a major storm never seen before in the history of mankind..

Answer 10

It is not. To say it is is equivalent to saying that shaking a thermometer to change the equilibrium level of the mercury therein will change the temperature of the room.