is global warming true ?

Question

There's been soooo much publicity recently abut CO2 causing global warming - but what if it's down to sunspot activity ? The Stern report mentions this in passing , but seems to ignore it after acknowledging it's importance and accuracy in prediction prior to 1950 . The graph in the article [fig 4?] shows the data . The world is going to spend so much cash ,it's a worry
http://bourabai.georisk.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm

Answer 1

Precisely correct you are.

Reading the popular media can lead a person to conclude that "global warming" is:
o- either a hoax to promote business opportunities, politicians agenda and scientists grant money.....
OR
o- a problem related to overpopulation, industrialization and fossil fuels whose solution options lie in solar power, wind power, geothermal power and nuclear fusion....

However, the correct answer may be altogether different:

NASA has released never-before-seen images that show the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known. The international spacecraft Hinode, formerly known as Solar B, took the images. Hinode was launched Sept. 23 to study the sun's magnetic field and its explosive energy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists said the spacecraft's uninterrupted high-resolution observations of the sun are expected to have an impact on solar physics comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope's impact on astronomy. "For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere," said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophyics Division. "These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system." Hinode is a collaborative mission led by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and includes the European Space Agency and Britain's Particle Physics Astronomy Research
Council. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the development of the Hinode's scientific instrumentation provided by industry and federal agencies.

>>> as regards alternative energy methods, I favor development of the technology for nuclear fusion using lunar Helium 3

Answer 2

No- and one sure way to tell is when a group of 'experts' unanimously agree on anything. Just as we were convinced of "global winter" a generation ago. Temperature trends have corresponded, over time, with known solar activity.

Think for a moment: if these people had actually modelled global climate successfully, they'd be able to predict the weather seven days in advance. They can't, This is scientism, not science, fuelled by billions in tax money that would dry up tomorrow if the people receiving it began admitting that computer modelling of oceans and atmosphere can give no assured predictive results. That they cannot account for trend reversals, even in retrospect, and never could.

Unanimity about global climate warming is the indication not of a scientific activity, but of a political activity. It is a lot of hot air, and the consequences of taking it too seriously will be like the consequences of every other unanimous political judgment. We will do catastrophic damage to ourselves, and to no good purpose.

The mere idea of crimping Western economic activity by a few market-crashing percentage points, while China, India, Russia and the rest of the Third World are allowed to continue gunning up their carbon furnaces on a truly unprecedented scale -- which is the basic idea of Kyoto --

Answer 3

Interesting yes, of course solar variability influences climate and has done for many years- the more heat you get the more warming. But it's also interesting to look at the same data during the 1990s and to now where such link isn't clear. the graph in the paper - Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? Courtillot V. et al in Atmos. env. (if you can get access to journals*) - shows data into the 90s which suggests warming over and above that of solar activity. Also, the 1950s-70s was a time with poor air quality regulation when a lot of sulphates in the atmosphere reflected sunlight and reduced the signal of this extra forcing from CO2. Cash shouldn't be a worry. Our extra climate forcing should be.

Answer 4

Short answer, yes. Yes it's happening, there is much evidence, ice sheets are shrinking and glaciers retreating due to increased temperatures. Even ski resorts are noticing, as some of the lower slops can no longer be used for skiing. That human industrial activity has contributed to this is undoubtable when you measure the rate of change, which is faster than at any other time when planetary warming has taken place. we have successfully doubled the amount of carbon di oxide in the atmosphere over a period of about 200 years, which in geological time is amazing. How big mankind's contribution to this is may be debatable, but each event serves to magnify other events. If ice melts, there is less heat reflected back into space, and more absorbed by bare ground, which in turn makes a contribution to increasing temperatures. The natural cycles have been interrupted by mans activities.

Answer 5

Looks like the majority are saying yes. That's a good sign.

Regarding the solar output vs. earth temperature graphs:

"Well of course there is a correlation between solar output and surface temperature of the planets in the solar system. That does not disprove Global Warming. It is a misdirection, an excuse, an unrelated piece of information being used out of context."

It is a very expensive way of doing absolutely nothing and you're worried about money?
.

Answer 6

I hate to say it but yes it's true, and I believe human contribution is a substantial cause to it.

Consider this- humans have been around for about 2 million years and humans have been industrialized for over a hundred years, there is clear link between the time we've between industrialized and the acceleration between the Earth's temperature. The vast majority of scientists agree on this.

Now one can argue scientific consensus is not the basis of scientific fact rather scientific experiments but I'd like to point out that scientific consensus is due to experiments.

Don't believe the cynics who say it's got nothing to do with human contribution, it's best to assume the worst before it's too late.

Answer 7

"Experts" like Al Gore say so, however, although it is not politically correct at this time, there are a number of scientists who have doubts about what is going on.

For example, the oft-quoted statement that recent years are the warmest of the last millennium is now in serious doubt. Temperature changes observed through the atmosphere (not just at the surface) are clearly different than what has been projected to occur. And disparities between observed precipitation and the simulations of computer models can be off by several hundred percent.

Don't believe "PC garbage" read and judge for yourself...

Answer 8

Global warming is happening, the difficult bit is finding out why.

It certainly also happened in the past, way before industrialisation, which makes me somewhat sceptical of the claims that human activity is to blame.

I would suggest that natural processes involving the sun and earth are mostly the cause, and human intervention or otherwise makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

Answer 9

Yes, it's true. There are a very few scientists who disagree, but the vast majority think it's real. Proof here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

It's not the sun. That's just a weird theory that is wrong according to the scientific data. Increased solar radiation has been carefully measured by many people. It's 0,12 watts per meter squared. Man caused warming is 1.6 watts per meter squared. Page 4 of this report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's not volcanoes. Another weird theory that the data shows is false.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

If you think it's expensive to reduce global warming, the cost of fixing the damage if we don't do anything about it is much, much greater. In terms of dollars in the rich countries and peoples lives in poor countries where many people (not all) will starve to death.

Answer 10

Yes, global warming is true, and it's 90-95% certain that it's caused by humans. I'm not a betting man, but I'd go with that kind of certainty. Read the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers, and if you think it's caused by the sun, have a look at this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

As for the 'what ifs', look at it this way. If a doctor told you there was a 95% possibility of you dying through ill-health, but that you would survive if you started eating healthily and exercising, what would you do? Would you agree to save your life by improving your body, or would you decide not to do anything, because if that 5% chance of you surviving turned out to be right, then you would have made yourself healthy for nothing?