Global warming fact or fiction ???

Question

Some people believe the earth heating up is a natural process. Some people believe we are doing it to ourselves. What do you think and why?

Answer 1

"There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.

Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other
extensive thermodynamic properties.

Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.

The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted. Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them.

The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible.

It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered." (1)

It appears that mich of the debate is based on a meanigless index. This is a physical science interpretation of the "which baseline should we use" argument, whereby the "correct" value is chosen arbitrarily rather than determined by the system. When the Kyoto Protocol was developed, they CHOSE 1990 as the baseline for CO2 emissions, there was nothing special about 1990. They could have picked 1985, 1992, 1900, or any other year. An arbitrary baseline is meaningless. The baseline can be chosen to make things look as good ar as bad as possible, thus it is an invalid baseline.

There are four premises that underly AGW:

1. That 1990 levels of CO2 are the appropriate baseline.
2. Global temperature is a meaningful statistic.
3. Global temperature and CO2 levels are intimately linked.
4. CO2 drives global temperature.

Outside of any of the arguments regarding the causes of warming (solar variability, cosmic rays, tectonic heating, volcanic emissions, CO2 emissions, CH4 emissions, Milankovitch cycles, etc) I question the underlying premises of global warming itself.

If my interpretations are correct, global warming is hogwash. If my interpretations are incorrect, I am wrong. I don't mind being proven wrong, it is a good way to learn about things that I have overlooked.

Answer 2

Us or a natural process. Who cares?
The fact is that it's changing and we'll have to adapt.

If it's anthropogenic, then there are only 2 ways to stop it:

1. Reverse the global capitalistic system and make the environment a top priority over profits. Never going to happen.

2. Run out of fossil fuels. Not going to happen within the next 200 years, at least.

If it's a natural process then throwing money at it is a waste. The only thing we can do is adapt. And guess what - we humans were going to do that anyway! That's what our species does best.

Global warming isn't a big deal. We'll survive.

Answer 3

My stock Global Warming answer:

First, I suggest you read this article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Anyway, on to specific points:

1. Oceans are heating up. Yes, it does take lots of energy to heat the oceans. If they are heating, think about how much energy we've already poured into the global environment. Also, only a few degrees temperature change can make a HUGE difference. The oceans in the arctic are maybe three degrees warmer than they were this point last century, but the arctic ice cap is melting in ways never seen before. For example, there never used to be open water in the canadian archipelego, even in the summer - now, there are miles and miles of open sea.
On the canadian archipelago: http://newark.cms.udel.edu/~cats/healy_2005/science/index.html
On sea ice generally:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1603667.ece

2. Some people will say that solar activity is increasing as part of an 11-year cycle. Yes, solar activity is increasing, but most scientists believe that the effect on the earth's climate has been negligible.
From a NASA press release: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."
Source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

3. Many skeptics will say that what humans put out in terms of CO2 is far less than volcanoes, fires, or other animals. As for volcanoes, fires, and animals - those have always been there. They should not have any net effect on the planet's climate. The only changing factor among those and humans is humans and our increased activity.

4. If global temperatures increase, then the temperature difference between temperature zones will remain the same. So there will always be extreme weather events like heavy snowfall in Central Park in April. But you can't look at one data point and use it to make a trend - otherwise, you could say that all white people have red hair, because you just saw a white person with red hair. You'd have to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary.

5. One frequent question skeptics ask is "how did the last ice age end?" Well, that's hard to say. Ice ages have been on cycles for hundreds of millions of years, it's true, but the problem is that the last one ended right about the same time that people discovered farming. That might be a coincidence, but it might not - the question then becomes, "Did mankind's increased use of agriculture alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and warm up the earth enough to end the last ice age, or did the end of the last ice age contribute to farming?" It's a tough question, but you should read about the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_anthropocene

6. Finally, and I think this is the most persuasive argument ofr why we should change our behavior as a society: Both sides in the global warming debate have something to gain and something to lose. However, the anti-global warming side has much to gain by continuing to fight change - they have a direct expense that they can expect by having to change the way they do things, and by having to find ways to clean up their acts. Keep in mind that some of the most vocal critics of global warming theory are those who are either industry insiders themselves or who are funded by industry. On the flip side, those who are trying to convice the world of the reality of Global Warming have no direct benefit that they will gain - most do not own, say, environmental cleanup businesses. Their benefit is based entirely off of a belief in doing the right thing.

Answer 4

With regards to Global warming, it is both fact and fiction. The fact is that overall there is a slight warming trend the last 40 years. Fiction is that it is caused by carbon dioxide.

While we have been warming overall, right now we are experiencing the coldest April in 113 years. This right after experiencing the warming April on record last year.

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews

Actually, this recent cold spell may be proof that Global Warming isn't caused by carbod dioxide at all.

According to skeptics of the carbon dioxide/global warming theories, the main source of fluctuations in global temperatures is directly due to changes in the sun.

Interestingly we are currently having minimum sunspot activity in the solar cycle, which has particularly just bottomed out over the last week or two, with practically no sunspot activity at all. According to some theories, lack of sunspot activity can cause colder temperatures on Earth, and lots of sunspot activity can cause higher temperatures on Earth.

This is not something Al Gore and the "global warming alarmists" want you to know.

While sunspots cycles usually last about 11 years, they have been increasing overall. However right now, we are in the lowest point of the current cycle, and there have been almost no new sunspots for about 1.5 weeks (as of 4/12/07)

Here is a comparison of sunspot activity in April 2006 (the warmest on record) and this year, the coldest in over a century.

April 2006 (the warmest April ever on record):
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2006/april/indices.html

April 2007 (so far the coldest in over 100 years)

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html

Notice a pattern with regards to sunspot activity between then and now???????

Pretty amazing isn't it.

Sorry Al Gore, this is pretty good evidence that global warming is caused by solar activity not carbon dioxide.

Answer 5

The earth does heat via natural processes, it cools too. These processes are very, very slow - nothing at all like we've seen in the last 200 years (currently temps rising a very minimum of 31.2 times the natural rate).

What do I think? The earth is in a natural warming cycle at the moment so this is contributing but only a small amount, the rest is almost certainly due to human activities.

Why do I think it? 23 years studying it.

Answer 6

I think the debate is well past. It's fact. The earth has always
warmed and cooled, but over very long time frames, tens of thousands of years. The warming we are seeing now is much more rapid. The issue is not immediate, and immediately tangible, except in some extreme climes, but it is terribly cumulative. The CO2 today will be causing problems 30 years on. We need to start putting the brakes on now. Use less electricity. Start making better long term choices with your short-term actions.

Answer 7

you're asking the incorrect question. worldwide warming and worldwide cooling, as properly as worldwide in basic terms top are all info. The question is: Do people reason worldwide warming? the respond to that's no. No evidence so some distance has been found to instruct a connection. there's a brilliant style of propaganda and a brilliant style of money at the back of the hoax. do not fall for it. think of for your self. examine on the priority and you will see in the process the lies.

Answer 8

Fact. I believe both statements are true. Our life style does affect the environment, and the earth a

Answer 9

If the mounting evidence of scientific studies are to be believed, greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are responsible for the warming. If some politicians or industry leaders are to be believed, the whole thing is doubtful and inconclusive.

Do watch Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" if you can. It is brilliantly explained in the film, very interesting, and very convincing.

Answer 10

There's a completely overwhelming amount of scientific data showing that it's real and caused mostly by man.

Short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The best summary of the data:

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

The data is why scientists know it's mostly us and not the sun, volcanoes, etc. The data is why the vast majority of scientists think it's real. Proof.

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

Watch the national news tonight, pick up a paper, or check a major news source on the Net. This truth should now be clear to all:

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona