How many of you buy into global warming?

Question

Just out of curiosity....

Also, a little fun FACT: Only 4% of carbons created is caused by humans, that includes use of vehicles, electricity, breathing, and yes even omitting natural gases from your behind. Of that 4%, only 25% is being produced from the United States. Which means that we in the US only create 1% of the carbons which are claimed to be increasing the effect of global warming. How can we slow a natural process when the human contribution is so low? I would like to underline the natural process part of the previous sentence. Chew on that for a while...

Facts are not facts until proof or evidence is submitted, (the current weather is not proof as the 40's held far more record highs than any other decade in the past century... another FACT) until then it is simply a hypothesis. You should know this as a teacher. ;)

Answer 1

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle buried them over a very long time. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.

In scientific terms, the response of the carbon cycle to inputs from burning fossil fuels is non-linear. More about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/#more-220

Did you think PhD climatologists don't understand this stuff?

I "buy" global warming because the data overwhelmingly supports it. The best summary of the data is here:

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

The data is why the vast majority of scientists "buy" global warming. Proof here:

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

and why this is true:

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16620307.htm

You can't listen to glib arguments about the sun or natural cycles or volcanoes or natural CO2 and get to the truth about global warming. You need to look at the data. And the data speaks clearly.

Answer 2

i do no longer think of international warming is nonsense. The climate is warming by using fact it particularly is meant to. It did it in the previous numerous circumstances and it particularly is doing it lower back now. while it occurred interior the previous, there have been no automobiles, commercial vegetation, or the rest that guy led to to make it take place. So at the same time as we are pumping all varieties of pollution into the air, the certainty is that no count what we do, whether shall we by some ability do away with all pollution day after today, the cycle is in all probability already began and it does no longer do any sturdy. to no longer point out, there's a probability that shall we get a huge eruption that is going to spew junk interior the ambience which could substitute our climate for a protracted time. That being mentioned, getting all warm and afflicted via our piddly pollution won't relatively make any distinction.

Answer 3

I believe in protecting the environment, but having said that, I still don't know if anyone can conclusively say that human activity is solely responsible for warming. Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Glaciers are in retreat around the world, and the ice sheets at the poles are getting smaller. It is estimated there will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park (in Montana) by later this century, and the Snows of Kilamanjaro will be no more. Alpine ski resorts are in danger of having no snow in the future!

BUT... I'm sure if there could have been scientists among ice age man 10 - 15,000 years ago, they would have said the earth was warming and the Bering land bridge was in danger of becoming submerged!

There are cycles which also cause climate changes, and at this time they are far too long in duration for us to understand.

Yes, we are pumping crap into the atmosphere. And we need to stop doing it. But it needs to be done at a rational pace so we don't disrupt things like crop growing, transportation, commerce, etc. Otherwise, the chaos and wars which may result will be worse than warming.

Answer 4

Excuse me - carbon created? Perhaps this fact is only fun for you because you don't know what you're talking about. All of the carbon we have on the planet was created by the stellar event, whatever that was, that created our entire solar system. All of the other elements were created at that time, too, except for man-made elements, like plutonium. I suspect that you're talking about production of carbon dioxide, rather than carbon. If so, find some real data. Can you come up with the other 96% of worldwide carbon dioxide production from non-combustion sources (excluding forest and grassland fires, of course). Doubtful. Combustion of carbon-containing compounds (eg, fossil fuels, wood, foodstuffs in our bodies) is the only source of CO2 production. And please - learn some science before lecturing anybody on the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Answer 5

Fact: "carbons" aren't "created" by humans or anything else. The carbon was already here, it was just residing in the crust as solid matter (coal, living things), liquid (oil), or gas (natural gas deposits).

Fact: the vast majority (70+%) of the new carbon entering the carbon cycle is anthropogenic, that is caused by combustion or human activities that indirectly release methane (such as ranching).

Fact: you are pretty arrogant for someone who has such a very limited knowledge of the subject. I assume by your authoritative posturing that you believe youself to be more educated on the subject than the 60,000+ climate scientists with doctoral degrees and decades of experience. Here's a tip: when someone with a doctoral degree speaks, stop talking and listen, then read what the literature says before pontificating on high.

That you think the 1940's was the most data rich era in history shows that you are completely uneducated on the subject. We gather more data in 1 day from automated weather stations/buoys, weather balloons, and satellites than all of the data combined from the 1940's in terms of volume of raw data.

You want evidence/proof of global warming. Okay. Open a copy of Science or Science news. Read the paper. Analyze the argument. Try and refute it. Good luck. You are a science illiterate with nothing to back up your argument.

Answer 6

As far as I am concerned there are two theories floating around. There is the theory of global warming, that increases in co2 will cause increases in temperatures, and the theory of climate change, the theory that increases in co2 will cause increase hurricanes and extreme weather.

If left unchecked the theory of global warming is plausible, but I do not think we will see any differences in our lifetime.

The theory of climate change, I do not buy. What these people are doing is selective evidence. Evidence that supports their theory is presented, but evidence that contradicts is ignored.

Some examples:
Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree C since 1950. And the area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." -- Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

"We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry, if applied properly." -- Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden.

"From data published by the Canadian Ice Service, there has been no precipitous drop-off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable overall coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic." -- Dr./Cdr. M.R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, UK

This is what Chris Landsea a supporter of global warming has to say of the extremism:
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.

this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small.

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

Remember the above statements is by someone who supports the theory of global warming.

Answer 7

Deforestation, overpopulation and globalisation are the biggest human caused factors damaging the environment. Global warming is a distraction from these, because you don't have to radically change your lifestyle in order to lessen your 'environmental footprint' with regards to it, and that is good for the people in charge.

Answer 8

Hope you're hungry because you will be eating your words in the near future. This topic shouldn't even provoke an argument because doubters won't be able to ignore effects for long.

It's rather like the situation when I instruct my students to plant 4 seeds per pot. There's always a group that plants about 10 seeds, but I always figure it out when the plants come up!

Facts are facts, whether everyone believes them or not.

Answer 9

CO2 problem is a lie,and the plants through photosynthesis has taken care of the CO2 problem and have it under control.
Methane problem is a joke evidently they don't understand that methane is very light so how did they measure the methane,they didn't it is jurst bad math. There is not a huge lake of methane in our upper atmosphere,if it were the first time one of our high flying jets flew through it u would hear the explosion.

Answer 10

I do not believe it as others do...I feel that what we are seeing is one of the very large cycles that occur on this planet and we are imposing a view/name upon it that may not be accurate. I believe the planet 'self-heals' more than we realize, but we have not reached the tipping point for nature to self-correct...yet.