global warming? Those against say 'no definite proof'. Is there? and where is it?

Question

surely enough people around the are reacting to this that there has to be something in it. they can't all be idiots.

proof or no proof?

I live with common sense and use moderate workable solutions that don't cost me to much time or money. I think that sensible. Do you?

Answer 1

Well, you're quite right, there is no definite proof. All we have are a collection of theories that are so riddled with holes and underhand techniques, that it's far too early to consider taking drastic action based on them.

There are basically only two real facts regarding global warming...

1) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the rise. It has risen by slightly more than one third since the start of the Industrial Revolution and mankind is probably the cause of most of this rise.

And...

2) Global temperatures have risen by approximately 0.6C in the the last century.

The problem is, despite what the Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) would like you to believe, there is no conclusive proof that the former is causing the latter. In fact, we're not even sure by how much the temperature has changed. Some say it's as little as 0.3C others like the IPCC are quoting the much higher figure (typical of them) of 0.6C. The problem is that the error range on these figures is +/-0.5C. While this means that the rise could be as high as 1.1C, it could just as easily be -0.2C i.e. a temperature *fall*. We just don't know for sure.

A few comments on some of the answers above...

Acorn Cutie says, "why is it warmer than ever hmmmmm". Well, it's probably worth pointing out that the temperature rise we have experienced over the last century is so small that there is simply no way any human could possibly have noticed the tiny rise spread over the many decades of our lives. Anyone who believes that they have actually noticed a change is just deluding themselves - they have been brain-washed into thinking this by the preaching of the GWAs.

Wesley says, "...consider the rising record temperatures..." Well, it all depends on when you set the start date for the temperature record. If you put the start at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age, then yes, it does seem to be slightly warmer. But, if you compare temperatures to how they were during the Medieval Warm Period, when it was up to 3C warmer than it is today, then I think you'll find that our current temperatures are nothing to write home about. Some people will try to tell you that the Medieval Warm Period never actually happened, but these people are just GWAs who are attempting to pervert science to further their own agenda. Don't believe me? Well read this...

In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

Also, there are a lot of "smoke and mirrors" techniques going on regarding these record temperatures. For example, a few years ago the GWAs were screaming that 1998 was the "hottest year ever", but that was only true because of the big El Nino that year. Now, we are being told that 2006 is the "hottest year ever", but, hang on, 2006 wasn't as hot as 1998! Oh, say the GWAs, when you take off the effects of the El Nino in 1998, then 2006 is hotter. Now that's called having your cake and eating it too, isn't it? By the way, at the end of last winter, I remember the BBC weather girl telling us it was the warmest winter since 1914. So, it was warmer in 1914 then was it? Hmmmm?

Milezpergallon says "The variations in CO2 and temperature increase are happening faster than ever before. What normally took 10,000 years has happened in 30 years." This is simply nonsence; typical GWA scaremongering. It was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, and colder during the Little Ice Age, and the time between the two was a few hundred years, not 10,000 years. Anyone who says that what we're experiencing today is unusual, is just wrong, plain and simple.

lizmsuart says "The constant severe weather in the past few years should be an indicator that *something* is off." What constant severe weather? Again, we are being brain-washed. The weather is no more severe than it's ever been. The usual example used to prove this point is Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, but that only happened because New Orleans is below sea level and the flood defences were only ever desinged to withstand a category 3 hurricane (Katrina was category 4 when it hit). Katrina was only the *third* biggest hurricane of 2005. By the way, New Orleans was devestated by hrricanes three times in the 1800s, long before global warming started. What happened in New Orleans was simply caused by bad planning and bad luck, not global warming.

stuart81262 says "Right now the earth is WARMER than it ever has been in the last 650,000 years." Again, just not true. Medieval Warm Period, anyone?

russ m says "The overall effect is bad for plants, animals and humans." Rubbish! Think about this; where is there more life? The Amazon? Or Antarctica? Generally speaking, warmer is better as far as life is concerned. Warmer means longer growing seasons so plants do better. More plants means animals that live off them do better, etc, etc. The unusual hot weather in mainland Europe killed 3,000 elderly Frenchmen a couple of years ago. Like so many other events, it was blamed on global warming but was not caused by manmade climate change. It arose from natural climate variability. The most recent cold snap in the UK killed 25,000 people.

russ m also says "Once the CO2 is released from the ocean by the initial warming, it contributes to a further 4000 years of warming, due to positive feedback." This is in answer to the sceptics' question "Why does CO2 lag 800 years behind temperature in ice cores?" Yes, the GWAs answer is that, while it's true that temperatures do start rising before CO2, once the CO2 *does* start rising, it *is* the CO2 that causes further rises in temperature. Oh really? Then explain why the temperatures start falling again 800+ years *before* CO2 starts falling. I'll say this again, because it's important. At the end of historical warm periods, when the temperature starts to fall, CO2 *continues to rise* for 800+ years. Clearly, temperature is completely ignoring CO2. And the GWAs answer to this point? They haven't got one.

It's also worth mentioning at this point that CO2 is a pretty insignificant greenhouse gas. If you take all the greenhouse gases together, far and away the most important is water vapour. It amounts to over 98% of all greenhouse gas. Compared to water vapour, the effects of CO2 are like farts in a hurricane.

Russ m again... "Is it just a natural cycle? No, natural cycles occur over thousands of years, the earth is warming much too fast for plants and animals to adapt, including us." See above, Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age - bigger change than we've seen in the last century - took only a few centuries - completely natural. Our current warming is well within natural limits.

He then says "If it's getting warmer, and that's causing ecological and economic disaster, we should do something about it" Yes, but it's a very big "if" and currently there are no "ecological and economic disasters", so what's the problem?

As you can see, there are valid counter arguments to all the GWA scare-stories. So, given our current knowledge, there is no reason for us to start falling over ourselves trying to prevent a *potential* problem that may not even exist.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

There is definite proof of global warming. Massive ice sheets don't cover Canada and the upper part of North America like they did during the peak of the last Ice Age.

The idiots are those people who think everything causing the temperature to rise is caused by humans. Are humans causing some of the global warming? Sure. The question is will Mother Nature take care of the situation or is she the cause.

There have been times in Earth's history when CO2 levels were higher then they are now. Mother Nature made changes and took care of the problem. Massive vulcanism, mile wide meteor strikes, and many more things Mother Nature has overcome to get Earth where it is today. Will mankind survive? Who knows. The dinosaurs didn't.

If you really want to do something about CO2 levels. Plant trees. Eliminate all animals. Okay, that last was a little extreme. But 6 billion humans just inhaling and exhaling makes for a pretty big carbon footprint.

Environmentalists don't want me to use fossil fuels, dam a river, or use nuclear energy but the cost of solar and wind power is rediculious in most cases. And I'm sorry I don't want to live in a cave, in the dark, and eat my food raw as long as there is an alternative.

Answer 3

I'm not convinced about this whole global warming thing. I was, but the more I read about it, the more I'm changing my mind.

The Earth has warmed and cooled countless times over millions of years. Continents drift around, species come and go, and every so often we get hit by a really big asteroid. It's the way things are.

Take, for example, Greenland. Doesn't appear to be very green 'cos theres lots of ice but, as it's melting (global warming - Aaaaaaargh!!!!) it's revealing 1500 year old settlements. Turns out that when Norse/Viking writings and myths were explored, Greenland was specifically described as a pleasent, temperate place and excellent farming land - hence "Green land"

We're actually coming out of a mini ice age which has lasted a thousand years or so - the Earth is reverting to it's "normal" temperature.

Having said all that, there needs to be a focus on sensible consumption, fossil fuels etc as our present course is obviously unsustainable, just don't link it to an unrelated topic.

Answer 4

Carbon Monoxide is barely even at fault if you could even claim warming is occurring. Back in the 70's there was hoopla of a Global Cooling, which ended up to be a farse, same as this.

Methane and other gases which, honestly have been around since the earth was created, are much more harmful to the environment.

Volcanoe's and animal emissions do much more harm than human's using oil.

Its actually somewhat funny. Oil in the ground naturally is apparantly "not a pollutant" to people. Oil in water IS a pollutant. And oil in the air (since mass basically can never be destroyed, only changed to different forms) is DEFINITELY pollution.

Its so hilarious, quit complaining about a .5 degree temperature rise. Solar radiation and such have a thousand times more effect on earth's temperature than we could ever hope to produce at this time.

Please people, quit pretending that us human's are more powerful than the Earth, the Sun, and God forbid the solar system. Nature always wins over nurture.

Answer 5

The problem is that global warming and cooling IS a cyclical process. It was illustrated in An Inconvenient Truth. But what is interesting is that the CO2 levels have also increased dramatically since the industrial revolution (when we started burning fossil fuels like never before). The naysayers claim that this increase in temp and the increase in CO2 are mutually exclusive, meaning that the earth is naturally heating up and causing the increase of CO2. Which may be true to an extent, but why is there more *now* than ever, when human’s weren’t existent on this planet yet?

Burning fossil fuels DOES increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have no use for CO2. We even expel it when we exhale. Maybe there’s too many ppl on this planet? Oh, look another human cause! Plants “breathe” it in, but if it’s dirty CO2 they don’t want it!

Isn’t it also interesting that the climate has been seriously wacky recently? People will tell you that the worst hurricane was back in the 1800s…funny wasn’t that the BIRTH of the industrial revolution? The constant severe weather in the past few years should be an indicator that *something* is off. I shouldn’t be able to wear shorts in February (in the N. Hemisphere). I shouldn’t be putting on a sweater in August. It’s off. Why is that? See above.

I applaud you for making conscious decisions to reduce your consumption and waste. I wish more ppl grasped that the things they can do will SAVE them money rather than cost them anything. You don't have to pay more for using less of something.

Answer 6

CO2 only lags warming when the warming is caused by changes to the earth's orbit - the additional CO2 then reinforces the orbital induced warming and causes additional temperature increases. In the current case the CO2 is rising at the same time as the warming (CO2 has increased 37% since the start of the industrial age) and is increasing faster than ever before. Right now the earth is WARMER than it ever has been in the last 650,000 years. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Its funny, but the global warming skeptics always say the current warming is natural and not man-made, but they can never identify what natural factors are causing it. We KNOW AS A FACT that the sun is not causing it because we can measure the sunlight hitting the earth. We KNOW AS A FACT that it isn't changes to earth's orbit becuase we can measure the orbit. That eliminates all the possibilities of the skeptics and only leaves the man made causes.
Yes there was cooling from the 40's through the 70's, but this confirms the validity of the climate models - their was a big increase in stratospheric aresols (due to particulate pollution and other sources) that result in less sunlight reaching the surface - but in the 70's the warming effect started to outpace this cooling effect.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/F_line.gif

Answer 7

I think that is sensible. Those who believe in Global warming remind me of third graders who have learned their first science lesson and now believe they are experts. They refuse to acknowledge how little they know. There is so much deceit in global warming. The vast majority of the warming occurs as warming the coldest places and warming at the low at night and the low in winter. It should be called global moderation. The guy that said we have increased our carbon in the last 30 years so dramatically is living in La La land. The fact is there was a cold period from the 1940s to the 1970s that cannot be explained by his religious belief that CO2 is the end all in determining temperature. In fact a subjective look at the facts shows that CO2 is a lagging indicator to temperature. In other words, the temperature increase causes CO2 levels to increase. As the oceans warm, they cannot hold more CO2 (unlike most chemical solubilities) and the CO2 is given off. It lags by about 800 years because the ocean is so voluminous. The only solution is to ignore those that ignore the facts and try to tell you there is consensus and try to punish those that disagree. If they are unwilling to look at it realistically then they should be ignored and treated with the disdain they deserve.

Answer 8

Yes global warming does exist, it's been happening for hundreds of years.
The current problem is caused by every country in the world knowing that they are all contributing to it but, like you and I, if we drive smaller cars or use the bus, will it really help if no-one else does it? Of course it won't make a big enough difference so why should we bother?
The thing that amazes me is that if we were able to land men on the moon in the '60s with less computer power than we're using in our homes at the moment (I'm not too sure), why on earth can't we produce enough ozone or whatever it is that's needed to fill the hole?

Answer 9

I totally agree with the moderate workable solutions that don't cost me to much time or money. But so many people do not agree. They think I should spend a lot more time and money to do what THEY think is needed. I just won't do that.

Answer 10

in reply to the first answer....australia was never a lush tropical forest....aborigines were never farmers.
they were a nomadic people that killed/took/used only what was needed and they showed respect to the land.

global warming, what does it matter if you believe or not?
recycling can only be good and if it does actually help the planet in more ways then that has to be even better.
warming and cooling of the planet is natural, true records of temparature have only been kep for the past 100 years or so, everything else is down to carbon dating, how accurate this is we can only guess.
stop killing the rain forests, these have a great effect on the worlds climate...first thing learnt in school, plants take in co2 and give out oxygen.
doing nuclear tests and firing rockets/satelites/probes into deep space probably has a damn sight more to do with the ozone layer having a 'hole' in it.
yeh, humans ARE the problem

Answer 11

Wise Owl,

The proof is in the ice core samples from Greenland and Antartica. The variations in CO2 and temperature increase are happening faster than ever before. What normally took 10,000 years has happened in 30 years. This is the huge problem.

It's a shame that people say this is natural. The temperature change IS natural, but never this fast! Because of us, the planet is in runaway warmup mode and won't stop for 100's of years. Unfortunately the people who don't understand global warming won't suffer much. It will be their children and grand children who will suffer.

2000 of the worlds greatest climate scientists as part of the IPCC released a report in Jan 2007 that with 90% certainty, humans are to blame for runaway Global Warming.