Will today's news have an impact on global warming skeptics?

Question

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/

Note that the scientific language in the reports that global warming is real and threatens catastrophe was slightly watered down by politicians.

But still, doesn't this now place skeptics about global warming in the same category as people who say NASA filmed the moon landings in a studio?

"There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters."

For those who want data:

Here's a short version:

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

And the best summary available:

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

The idea that this is created by politicians is ridiculous. Politicians watered down the scientists language in today's report, to make it seem global warming was less of a problem.

"Global cooling" is basically a myth perpetrated by global warming deniers in the popular press. It was a few scientists speculations, in no way comparable to the strong consensus in the peer reviewed scientific literature that now exists for global warming.

Here is a climatologists refutation, entitled appropriately "The Global Cooling Myth".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Answer 1

I honestly don't think that a thirty foot rise in sea level would silence skeptics.

Answer 2

There are a number of problems with global warming theory that need to be addressed.

1. What makes the IPCC's particular method for detemining global average temperature correct? There are multiple ways to calculate a global average temperature.

2. How is global temperature even a meaningful number? Temperature is highly dependent upon local conditions. We know (from any physical chemistry text) that temperature is also an intensive property. An intensive property is independent of system size and independent of other systems. Thus, two weather stations are independent of each other, therefore one does not affect the other. If this is the case, then a statistical average (which implies they can affect each other) is impossible since you cannot have thermodynamics at a distance.

To the report itself.

Figure SPM2 shows the various forcings they used to calculate their 1.6 w/m^2 radiative forcing number. Where are the effects of cosmic rays (a relatively new concept in climate forcing) and where are the effects of the Milankovitch cycles? They might be too small, but they are not even mentioned.

Figure SPM3 shows me nothing new. See level has been rising for hundreds of years and it doesn't look like the rate of rise has accelerated in the last 100 or so years. Of course snow cover is lower now than in the 1960's. We were apparently in a period of global cooling until the late 1970's.

Table SPM1 talks about sea level rise from 1960 to the present. 3.1 mm/yr over 100 years is 310 mm (31 mm) that is about 17 inches. Likely not catastrophic, especially if we move from prevention (unlikely to work) to mitigation.

Table SPM4 They state that the models that include anthropogenic forcing suggest greater warming. They then move on to conclude that this means that humans are forcing global warming. The alternative explanation is that the models over-estimate human forcings. Just sayin'.

SPM 5 shows three of their SRES scenarios plus a constant 2000 scenario. Why not show all six scenarios that are listed at the end? I have no idea what they would look like. Not including them makes this graph incomplete.

In the end, they have put out another report, it modulates sea level rise and temperature rise from previous reports. It leaves out some of the newest information regarding cosmic rays and cloud formation, and other physical processes. It relies heavily on models that are complex. Same old, same old, otherwise.

Answer 3

Your question is extremely controversial. you receives different solutions from different human beings. right that's my answer, in preserving with my study. first of all, they used to call it "international Warming" yet now, as you are able to locate in Obama's speech, they call it "climate change." the reason for that's because many scientists do not agree that there is this manner of aspect as international Warming. in reality, the records got here out some months in the past that over the finest ten years the planet's mean temperature has truthfully dropped, somewhat than higher.accordingly, the call change. Many scientists imagine climate change is brought about by increasing CO2 ranges interior the ambience. those increasing ranges, they say, is using fossil gas burning--the oil we burn to run our vehicles and warmth our homes, and so on. notwithstanding, different scientists aspect to the actual shown reality that interior the historic previous of earth, 1000's and 1000's of thousands of years in the past, there is been cases at the same time as CO2 ranges were a lot larger than they're in the present day. for sure vehicles and heated homes weren't round 1000's of thousands of years in the past. the base line is, no man or woman is conscious even if climate change is brought about by human beings. Many scientists have self assurance a lot more suitable study desires to be finished to respond to the question.

Answer 4

This is a typical global warming study, severe lack of science and an extreme excess of broad statements designed to guilt people into believing. Here's a question, why spend money on global warming when you could spend it on the poor countries?

The theory of man-made global warming is false. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. Take a look at this http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
this is the data from NASA’s weather balloons that clearly shows the earth is not warming.
Ice cores are often cited as evidence by pro-global warming scientists but take a look for yourself at the data analyzed here http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Look at this report http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (a side note many global warming activists will claim a scientific consensus that link shows that this claim is a complete lie. The site is a petition against global warming signed by over 17,000 scientists.)
This site http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ has many links to all sorts of scientific evidence that disproves the poles are melting, animals are worse off, and many other arguments that global warming scientists make. Humans put out very small amounts of greenhouse gasses compared to natural processes even the EPA admits that http://www.epa.gov/methane/intlanalyses.html.
Just a brief look at the data shows that global warming is nothing more than a misinterpretation of data. The IPCC’s report is not a credible source, they have used forged data before (the famous hockey stick graph which later had to be retracted after a warming phase during the 1400’s was proven to have been purposely left out due to the fact that the peak high temperature during that period was much higher than today), I have looked at their website and I see no data that proves humans are to cause, they have dozens of graphs showing CO2 emission but where is the proof that this causes global warming. CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere shown here: (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559991/Atmosphere.html). How could something so small have such a big effect? The fact is global warming, if that’s even occurring, is caused mostly by the sun which studies have shown to be hotter now than ever before. Volcanoes and evaporation of surface water put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than we ever could. Unknowing people who have no scientific background are made to believe in global warming because evidence against the theory is repressed. Look at who is supporting global warming: politicians to get votes, scientists to get media time and grants, CEO’s to try to get more business. There is much money to be made off the fear of the general population, by the way whatever happened to the global cooling theory which was brought forth by the same people a decade ago. To anyone who believes in global warming I ask you where does your “scientific” evidence stand after reading the materials in this answer?

Answer 5

The "dire consequences" in the report are no more than a continuation of things that have been going on for a very long time. This is just like the prediction of a 3 degree Celsius temperature increase in the IPCC report. This was also a no brainer since previous global maximums have been about 3 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures.

Answer 6

No. Why do you insist on wanting to believe it? I like my position much better: I don't believe it, it's a political hoax, the scientists have never predicted the weather correctly in the past, it's still hot in the summer and cold in the winter (February & April of this year has broken chill records), and there's not a thing you or I can do about it so why worry?

Answer 7

If global warming is "mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution" what melted previous ice ages?

Do you really think anybody can tell the difference between warming caused by human generated CO2 and natural CO2 or the sun or other natural causes? Are you so simple minded that you can buy into this political dooms day scenario?

Answer 8

in many cases ecologists and scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.

and it explains conflicting reports

Answer 9

So a consensus of scientists who believe in global warming believe in global warming?

I can find a consensus of scientists who do not believe in global warming who do not believe in global warming.

Answer 10

The same people who doubt global warming are the same people who don't care about the poor.