Global Warming Question?

Question

WHY when there are No Global = i.e. WORLDWIDE = Temperature Monitoring Stations, do THEY call it Global Warming?

WHY, when the EARTH is covered by 75% water, and there are No GLOBAL = Water TEMPERATURE Monitoring Stations, do THEY call it Global Warming?

WHY when it takes One BTU to raise 1 CC of water 1 Degree C and the OCEANS contain GAZILLION TIMES GAZILLIONS of CC of water, do THEY call it Global Warming?

COULD it be, that THEY, are Not Really Scientific BUT Political? ? ?

WHY = Tell Me WHY? ? ?

Thanks, RR

Answer 1

You are right it is political. Environmentalists have figured out that all you have to do is manipulate the media and say "all of the scientists agree", "the evidence is overwhelming", "there is no doubt", and people will start believing in global warming because the "experts" believe in it. What is more, they will not question the science behind it. Who are they to question the experts.

Patrick Moore is an environmentalist, co-founder of Greenpeace. You can say he is the father of the environmentalist movement. He called the present day environmentalist in ways "anti human" for their zeal in pressing with their agenda with no regards to the suffering and economic hardships it may induce.

I am questioning the science. The are certain assumptions to global warming and they have not been proved

1)CO2 drives temperature. The ice core sample show the opposite, temperature drives co2. Temperature goes up/down co2 levels go up or down. The computer models do not account for this. They are therefore, flawed. Those same ice core samples show co2 at points in our history at twice the levels of today with temperatures lower than today.

2) The hockey stick curve used by the computer models does not take into account the little ice age and medieval warm period. There is ample evidence and studies to show they occurred all over the world. Putting those in, will give the different results. The predictions are again flawed.

3)Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. There is no proof that they have been rising at an alarming rate.

4)The theory holds air temperature will rise at a faster rate than ground temperature. The opposite is occurring.

5)The theory also says that increase in temperatures will lead to more precipitation. So why do they say it will increase droughts?

6)The theory states that temperatures at the poles will rise faster than the rest of the world. Temperatures in Antarctica are lower than 50 years ago.

There is the theory of global warming and the theory of climate change. The first theory states the temperatures will rise. The second one states it will increase extreme weather. There are many experts who support the first, but not the second. Listening to them you will think that all of them support the climate change theory. Few do. Especially when it comes to hurricanes and tornadoes.

Answer 2

There's a very simple reason it's called global warming - because it's global and it's warming.

What the earth being covered by 75% water has to do with it I've no idea - thermometers do work in water. Plus, I guess you may not have heard of weather balloons, weather ships, weather planes or even satellites.

Every second of every day temperatures across the globe are being monitored. Literally billions of readings have been taken, climatologists and meteorologists use some of the world's biggest and most powerful computers to process the vast quantities of data.

As for it being political of scientific. Scientists first became aware of global warming in 1811 (not a typing error), the mechanics have been understood since 1896 when links between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and climate change were established. It's taken politicians the best part of 100 years to accept what's happening. Just because politicians have now got involved doesn't change a thing.

Answer 3

First of all, there is a network of WORLDWIDE Temperature Monitoring Stations all over the World that measure the temp from different regions of the world and record it. They are all sharing their info with each other. That is one reason why they call it Global Warming.
Second, there are people (I mean scientists) that measure ocean temperature and record it from all over the world and they have been doing it for years, therefore they can compare these temperatures from at least 20-30 years ago and determine if water temperature has changed or not (which it has). Another reason to call it Global Warming.

Could it be that you are just plain ignorant if you don't consider it global warming?

Why = Tell Me WHY you are closing your eyes to all the facts around you?

Thanks, S.

Answer 4

Back in 1970s Newsweek ran a cover story called "The Cooling World" and everyone was afraid of another ice age. The truth is that global temperatures run in cycles. The majority of scientists do not believe the global warming theory. It is completely political.

Answer 5

Does there really HAVE to be a reason to get better energy and oil resources that don't harm the environment as much? Let's see.. no! Whether you believe in the theory of global warming or not, there's not anything wrong with using sources like ethanol for fuel and finding more alternatives aside from fossil fuels, etc.

Answer 6

I hate to answer a question with a question,but how can you see your keyboard with your head in the sand?The ocean has thermal layers,you only need to raise the surface temp to directly affect weather,such as hurricanes in the Gulf accelerated by warm water...

Answer 7

The whole "global warming" scam was thought up by the environmentalist groups as a means of fundraising. They not only get millions from private donations but also from the federal and state governments to do "studys". There is a novel that explains all of this-"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Give it a read. Has lots of sources listed in a 20 page bibliography at the end of the book.

Answer 8

Assumption 1: Temperature may differ in certain areas of the world. Although still remain to have the same ratio of differences from one area to another.

Conclusion to Assumption 1: If temperature rises and falls in one area of the world throughout the year, generally the same happens worldwide.

Assumption 2: As a good reference point, temperature data is taken in one location and temperature changes are measured over time. Since this is one location, they get to measure the temperature in one location to come up with a baseline measurement.

Conclusion to Assumption 2: You get consistent data.

Fact 1: Temperature and age can be determined from isotope data based on radioactive decay.

Fact 2: (Not related to the question, but related to fact 1) Ice core drilling in arctic regions could give you the amount of dissolved CO2. This can be done with gas chromatography. Along with temperature and age. Scientist get to graph out CO2 and temperature relationships over time.

Fact 3: Global temperature can be measured with satellite data. In the same way probes are able to give range of temperatures for other planets, satellites and stars. Mainly this is under the topic of waves and optics. But just to try and explain this is a simply way. Our eyes can only see within certain wavelengths and this is called the visible region. Using cameras that can see beyond the visible region like in infrared or ultraviolet, or any other wavelength is was designed to "see", heat signatures could actually be see and measured to a very significant level of accuracy. If you need more details about this, you can ask a separate question on: How the temperature of planets are measured.

I love your 3rd question. Because it is kind of related to the 4th question.

Let me start with the 4th question:

> COULD it be, that THEY, are Not Really Scientific BUT Political? ? ?

Probably. I will not get into the details here. This this is a very long story. I suggest to have more specific questions instead. You have 4 questions in 1 Yahoo Answers entry. Answers can be quite long. But here is one small thing I will mention.

Al Gore presents to people the relation of global temperature with the amount of CO2 in the air.
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-2565436963450479963&esrc=gvpl&ev=v&q=global+warming&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-2565436963450479963%26q%3Dglobal%2Bwarming&usg=AL29H23rhWa0p77MAcS2UMaQFU-FNWAB4A

Al Gore has data based from the ice core drilling from East Antartica Russian Vostok Station which is a collaborative drilling project with France and the US
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

From the data, with isotope analysis's and chemical analysis, you get age, temperature and CO2 amount could be extracted as well. He shows two graphs that present over time, temperature and amount of CO2 that time are directly proportional. Showing graphs when CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. When CO2 goes down, temperature goes down. Thus he says CO2 production should be decreased as much as possible to avoid global warming.

Now to your number 3 question:

> WHY when it takes One BTU to raise 1 CC of water 1 Degree C and the OCEANS contain GAZILLION TIMES GAZILLIONS of CC of water, do THEY call it Global Warming?

Actually it does take long to heat up. So long that... if the temperature rises, it will take a long time to heat up the ocean. So long that, the correlation of CO2 and Temperature are not presented well. increase in global temperature due to the sun heats up oceans. And when oceans are heated up, they release dissolved CO2 gas in the atmosphere and since the ocean is so big it takes about 800 years before you see the CO2 increase. So as global temperature increases, CO2 increases and not the other way around.
http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html

Thus pointing out in your 4th question, yes, it may be political in nature.
http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-awareness2007-video.html

Answer 9

in case you elect for to get carry of grant money for climate examine, do you think of which you will get a cheque in case you're saying," i want the provision, as i think of that i will instruct that the figures that the present paradigm relies upon are incorrect" ? the large environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. there remains no shown causative link between the quantity of Co2 interior the ambience, and a upward thrust in international temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming have been taken interior the Arctic summer season; whilst the ice cap partly melts, as they could no longer arise to photograph interior the wintry climate. The ice replaced into too thick! The East-Anglian uni examine figures. "Oh! The figures do no longer experience our expectancies. Oh properly. save quiet. via fact all of us comprehend that we are good." whilst the perception, and the religion is extra significant than squarely dealing with the valid doubts of assorted non grant-supported scientists, technology has been superceded via religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully reported." I pray thee, interior the bowels of Christ, evaluate that thou mayest be incorrect."

Answer 10

its meant to be called Climate Change now