Is global warming real?

Question

It seems that as many people say it is happening as those that do not. For example one side of Antartica the ice is melting while the other side is growing.

What are your thoughts ?

Answer 1

Dont you realise that seasons are also getting messed up and hotter...
It's not only about the Antartica...

Lets recycle, use less energy and take care of our planete otherwise our children won't be able to enjoy it as we've had!

Answer 2

Gee, you people are all so certain. I have not seen any conclusive evidence of global warming. There is certainly no evidence that CO2 emissions are doing any such thing. The very same people back 30 years ago were convinced there was a global cooling trend leading us to a new Ice Age. They had all kinds of readings and studies and theories. I really marvel at how easily so many people buy into whatever crisis the self-appointed lifestyle police come up with. Back in the 1960's they were convinced the world would be hopelssly overpopulated by the 1990's.

You are correct. The earth is quite remarkable. It will always return to balance no matter how you try to tip the scales. For instance, if CO2 were to warm the earth, the increased humidity would create greater cloud cover. More cloud cover the less solar radiation and the earth cools again. The only thing that could upset the balance enough to threaten life would probably have to come from outside of the environment such as a drastic increase/decrease in slolar radiation or a meteor strike, something of that magnitude.

Then you have the pathetic people who agree that there is no real evidence that we are causing the problem but shouldn't we do something anyway? The answer is no. We should not just start doing things without knowing exactly what is going on and how what we do will affect it. Otherwise, you risk creating a problem where none existed or aggravating a problem instead of helping.

Here is what we do not know:
1) Is global warming even happening?
2) If so, how much will happen?
3) Will it balance out by itself?
4) What is the cause?
5) Is corrective action required?
6) What are our choices?
7) What is the cost vs. return?
8) If there is nothing we can do, how do we cope with the situation?

Answer 3

In response to ‘Lemon Twist’ (above)…

It does not matter how loudly you shout it, the debate is *not* over.

Only a few weeks ago *you* were quoting the IPCC’s 2001 report and telling us that its conclusions were *fact* and that therefore the debate was over.

Isn’t it a good thing that the debate wasn’t over, because the IPCC’s latest (2007) report shows that the 2001 report was wrong! They have cut some of their previous predictions in *half*! Will the next report do the same again or, perhaps, admit that there is no problem at all? Without further debate, how will we ever know?

The debate *will* continue until the predictions actually match, or at the very least come close to, what we observe in the real world. So far they are *not* - this is why the IPCC’s predictions have changed.

And I am immoral, am I? Since when has seeking the truth become immoral?

Your last comment is…

“LAWS NEED TO BE PASSED TO MAKE YOU SUFFER FOR YOUR CRIMES”

(Apologies to all for the capitals. They are his, not mine.)

Excuse me? Are you serious? There is a reason why freedom of speech is so cherished in this (and other) countries. It is to ensure that the truth always has an opportunity to be heard and to stop people such as yourself from concealing it.

You, sir, are a very dangerous man. I hope you never achieve a position of power.

Answer 4

This is the standard "greenhouse effect" calculation. It requires two pieces of information: the first is the solar irradiance, P, and the second is the mean absoptivity, a, of the planet. The product of the two is the solar energy absorbed by the planet, i.e.,

Ein=a*(pi*r^2)*P.

The absorptivity is usually determined by the earth's albedo, or the amount of solar energy that is scattered/reflected from the earth. This has been measured since the early 1900's by observations of the illuminated and dark sides of the moon in a particular phase. The result is is to commonly use 0.31 as the absorptivity of the planet. The mean solar irradiance at the earth's orbit distance from the sun (1.0au) is 1366 W/m^2. The pi*r^2 factor is the projected area of the planet (with a radius r) that is struck by incident solar radiation.

The conservation of energy assumption is that the earth reradiates the same amount of energy into space as it absorbs. This is calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law which quantifies the energy radiated from a body at temperature T as the product of the body's emissivity, e, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, s, and the body's temperature to the fourth power, i.e.:

Eout(T)=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^4

s has a value of 5.7*10^-8 W/m^2. The 4*pi*r^2 factor is the surface area of the planet (since it radiates in all directions unlike its absorption profile).

Here is where the "greenhouse effect" theory becomes contrived. The emissivity of a body is, physically, identical to its absorptivity. So, in the variables stated above, e=a. However, the "greenhouse effect" theory, although content with using the mean, albedo-derived absorptivity, postulates a different emissivity that varies with atmospheric composition. This is the real "inconvenient truth" since it violates the generalization of Newton's third law.

If one performs the calculation properly,

Ein=Eout, or
a*(pi*r^2)*P=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^... or since e=a
T=(P/(4*s))^0.25, or, quantitatively, using the values above
T=278K (5C)

The "greenhouse effect" theory uses the (unphysical) different values for emissivity and absorptivity

a=0.31 and
e=0.5 to get a value
(a/e)^0.25=0.89, or 89% of the proper calculation.

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory states that the temperature of the planet "should be" 248K (-25C). Then, after making the erroneous calculation, it identifies the atmospheric absorption as the magical reason that the measured global mean temperature is warmer than the flawed value obtained.

The value obtained from the proper calculation falls within the margin of error of the "measured" value of global mean temperature when such a mean includes the entire range from the earth's surface to the upper atmosphere properly weighted by density. This means that the only atmosphere-related terms in the calculation, i.e., absorptivity and emissivity, cancel in the proper calculation and therefore have no effect!

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory discredited, there is no "greenhouse effect" and, therefore, the atmospheric constituency cannot affect global mean temperatures.

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration cannot raise the earth's global mean temperature--final answer.

Answer 5

There is a very small minority of scientists who say global warming is not real. If we remove those scientists who are paid by firms with an interest in global warming not existing, the number diminishes to almost zero. Global warming is real, is proven by all scientific bodies and should be handled immediately.

So what do you do about it? I have a hybird, I use the most energy efficient bulbs possible, try as hard as possible to limit my energy use and be as efficient as possible. If your community doesn't recycle then call your representatives and make sure they know it is an issue. Fill your yard with plants. Anything that grows higher than grass is more efficient at drawing pollution out of the air, creating new oxygen, and preventing water loss from the ground. Also be efficient with your travel. Plan out your trips to limit the number of times you need you retrace steps and create carpools with your childrens' friends and their teammates. This will limit how much travel you have to do and will get you more involved with other people. Lastly make your home more efficient. Houses create more pollution than any vehicle can be made efficient with little expense and tax rewards.

Answer 6

Not even the scientists are in agreement on this one. we may be going through one of the many climate changes that are a natural feature of our planet. The idea that if we don't sort it in ten years the world will end is beyond ludicrous and is the sort of panic mongering that prevents proper informed debate.I'm also intensely suspicious of the politicians who are jumping onto the bandwagon of global warming. If they are so concerned why haven't they given up their official cars? why did it take them so long to become aware of global warming? how come their only answer seems to be to take more money off us? Can you really trust a politician? Don't get me wrong i think we all have to treat our world with respect and i'm sure human activity has had an effect. i just do not trust any one who uses panic mongering to put across a point and refuses to listen or consider another point of view. I mean windmills to generate electricity??

Answer 7

You state that "as many people say it (global warming) is hpppening as those that do not."

I think you have to take a look at the credentials of those on both sides. On the side of those claiming global warming is a fact are the world's most experienced scientists, all Ph.D's and those who believe in fact based evidence. On the side of those claiming its not happpening are right wing radio talk show hosts and those who mimick them on this site. None of them have any credentials and no experience in the field.

Whether global warming is happening or not is not up to a vote. If we could get actually get rid of the problem by claming it didnt exist, thats what we'd all do. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way.

Answer 8

Maybe all the global warming scientists are wrong. But what if they're not? Should we wait until it's too late?

There are other reasons to do something as well. Oil and coal will NOT last forever. Hopefully the human race will. Should we wait until the oil and coal are gone before we find an alternative? Not to mention all the evils that are done in the name of oil.

Answer 9

Yes, global warming is real, but I don’t think that’s what you really want to know.

What you really want to know is; should we be worried about it?

The answer to that question is; no, probably not.

It is true that mankind is producing large quantities of CO2 and that therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by about a third in the last century.

It is also true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that therefore we should expect the temperature of the atmosphere to rise a bit.

The big problem is, no one really knows how much “a bit” actually is.

The global warming alarmists would like you to believe that it’s as simple as… CO2 goes up, so temperature goes up. But it isn’t that simple. As was mentioned in one of the answers above, between the mid-40s and the 70s, CO2 levels continued to rise, while global temperatures fell. This proves that something else must be going on.

Many scientists have doubts about the global warming “consensus” and most of them are not in the pay of the oil companies; despite what ‘Christopher L’ & ‘Bob’ (above) would like you to believe. Even if they were, should we ignore their opinions? Are Christopher & Bob trying to suggest that any scientist who receives funding from an oil company is automatically an evil liar who should not be trusted? And I suppose any scientist who is funded by Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace is a paragon of truth and enlightenment, are they? Oh, please!

*All* scientists are funded by someone, so all are potentially influenced in their findings by the need to secure renewed funding. The IPCC, for example, would cease to exist the moment they produced a report saying “It’s all ok, there’s nothing at all to worry about on the global warming front”.

That’s why I look for independent sources of opinion, from people who are intelligent enough to carefully research the facts, but do not rely upon the global warming “industry” for their income. See my sources for examples.

A couple of people have mentioned, and provided links to, the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policymakers. I notice however that none of them have mentioned the minor detail that it shows that the previous report had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third. And that they have more than halved their high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. In other words, they’re admitting that they got it completely wrong in the last (2001) report. But we’re supposed to believe that they’ve got it right *this* time, are we?

‘fredrick z’ (above) says…

“If we could get actually get rid of the problem by claming it didnt exist, thats what we'd all do.”

Amusingly, I believe that exactly the opposite of that statement is the true position, i.e. we are creating the problem by claiming it exists. This happens all the time. Here’s a quote from Michael Crichton, from the speech listed in my sources…

“All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

Only once, when on the same day I read that beer was a preservative of heart muscle and also a carcinogen did I begin to sense the bind I was in. But for the most part, I just went along with what I was being told.”

Saying “global warming is real” is meaningless. I want to see proof. So far, no prediction from the global warming alarmists has been accurate. Until they actually start getting their predictions right, I see no reason to go along with their baseless scare-mongering.

Answer 10

I think by the fact that you have asked this question and it has been met by emotional and aggressive denials suggest that perhaps if you want a balanced and informative answer you may have to look elsewhere. I especially enjoyed the answer that cites scientific theory and equations without a source.

I would not get your information from this site but instead refer to the source my girlfriend has provided me with below. She works for a non-politically biased environmental organisation who help governments and organisations lay out their policies with regards to this matter and a number of other environmental ones.

I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere near a theory that discredits the ‘greenhouse effect’ on the basis that it apparently ‘defies Newton’s third law’. Surely a closer look at the day to day methods of heat exchange in, out and around our atmosphere are required?