Can anybody truly explain Global Warming?????

Question

I don't want any fancy web sites, or what Al Gore says is true and I should read his books, and watch the movies and bla bla bla, I want you to explain in full detail why humans are causing such a mess with this CO2 problem. Not websites and this goes mostly to all of you so called experts (bob, mike,trevor,dana) and anybody else out there, make me a believer if you can lol.....
Because all I here are ideas, which are great to pay the bills of scientists, and the idea that if you don't believe that humans cause Global Warming you obviously are part of the big industries, or support them, or have a religious hang up.... I have non of these problems believe me I'm just a simple college student that hears all these rumors going around with no solid explaination. Because in the end I can come up with a bunch of made crap myself and clam it to be real solid info. But in the end doom and gloom sales and thats all I'm hearing....so good luck and remember I don't want any websites :)

Well I'm glad you Global Warming people can't expalin anything right so I guess in the end I win, because if you can't waste your time on this or even answer the question how can you call yourself an expert, because your logic itself is illogical......
But thank you for not using any sources the hand full of you that did answer it, as for everybody else you all have no idea the way the real world works you get your fancy degrees and you think you know it all, but the sad thing is you know nothing :(

Answer 1

years ago, people solved the problem for the center of the earth core thingie. they can do the same with global warming.

Answer 2

This is a rather illogical request, but I'll pull the links out of my explanation. Who needs scientific evidence anyway, right?

We know from ice core samples that historically when global warming occurred, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations also increased, but not until about 800 years later.

[normally I would illustrate this point with a graph]

Many global warming deniers think this is evidence that CO2 can’t cause global warming. In fact, that’s the very first argument in the terrible Great Global Warming Swindle. On the contrary, this is actually evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are currently causing global warming. Compare the following global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration plots from 1960-Present:

[normally I would illustrate this point with two graphs]

As you could see if the graphs were there, they’re both rising – not with an 800 year delay, but at the same time. If CO2 wasn’t causing global warming as was the case in the past, then why is there no 800 year delay?

This only proves a correlation between CO2 and global warming and not a causality. The reason we’ve concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming (or more accurately, accelerating it) is because natural causes can’t account for the increase in global warming over the past 40-50 years. They account for most of the warming prior to that, but climate models have determined that greenhouse gases are responsible for about 80-90% of the recent global warming:

[normally I would illustrate this point with a climate model graph]

The very first inputs into climate models were solar, volcanic, and sunspot contributions, but they simply couldn’t account for the recent acceleration in global warming. Thus climate scientists have concluded that humans are the primary cause.

Answer 3

I can't prove global warming to you in a Yahoo answer. That's like saying, prove the Theory of Quantum Mechanics in 500 words or less.

The proof is in the data. Which is not possible to show without websites.

But here are some of the reasons why the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real and mostly man made, using some facts you probably know to be correct.

CO2 levels are rising. Carbon has various isotopes like C12, C13, C14. By measuring the ratio of isotopes in the CO2 in the air, they can show that the increase in CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.

Using physics it is possible to calculate how much heat CO2 can hold in. That amount of warming we're seeing is consistent with that calculation. Other factors come into play, so the match is not exact if you only consider CO2. But....

Scientists can use a variety of models to try to model how the temperature has warmed in the last 100 years. The models that only use natural factors like the Sun cannot be made to match the observed temperature rise in the last 40 years, no matter what model you use or how you manipulate them. When you add in man made greenhouse gases, several different models do match the data. The increase in warming due to CO2 is so powerful it always is shown to be the major factor, no matter what model is used or how the factors in it are adjusted. And the numbers work.

If you don't like computer models you'd better not fly in an airplane. That's how they design them these days.

Other explanations simply don't work. Solar radiation is measured all the time by many people. It cannot possibly explain the recent warming.

Volcanoes emit much less greenhouse gases than Man.

Mars may be warming but most of the planets aren't. Which pretty much rules out the Sun (as do many other things).

Just because climate changed naturally in the past is no reason why man is not changing it now.

Historically CO2 levels lagged temperature rise. That's because temperatures rose for natural reasons, and CO2 went up later as it was released from warming oceans. This time CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature, because it's what's (mostly) causing the warming.

Al Gore's personal life has nothing to do with any of this.

Of course you can choose not to believe me. And the real proof is in the data, which I cannot show you without websites.

But the fact is that there are only a few skeptics in the scientific community. That's because, when you do look at the data and do the calculations, global warming is proven to be mostly (80-90%) man made. That's what scientists do, measure data and do calculations.

You said no websites, but you didn't say I couldn't quote people. Note especially the word "quantitative" in this quote, which is the key. Man made global warming fits the data, other explanations don't.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

But making your decision based on anything but actually looking at the data is imperfect. Here's a distinguished former astronaut, a guy who knows the importance of listening to the data. You don't get to the Moon by "logic".

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Finally, this is not some invention of "liberals". Thoughtful conservatives know it's real, too.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

You can choose not to believe in man made global warming. You can come up with "logical" reasons why you're right. But you can't make the numbers work. It's much like believing the Earth is 6000 years old. To do so you have to ignore the data and reject science.

Which is why the few skeptics are not making converts in the scientific community. They can't make the numbers work. And the vast majority who say that global warming is mostly man made, can.

Answer 4

Look at the documentary "Global Dimming" on PBS. It explained to me that scientists are having trouble quantifying AGW because of the complex opposing forces that the largest and most sudden concentration of powerful heat trapping co2 gas in 600,000 years is having worldwide. ie glaciers for one of many examples. Whether we can define it quickly is not as important as Erring on the side of caution. I would think Republicans would embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of helping new green businesses in the energy sector to take off into the new century before we kill off all the wildlife and drink all the water because we are stuck to using inefficient OIL till it's gone or what ever.

You must understand that the main apposing force is pollution, specially from the 80's and 90's(& to a lessor degree Mt. Pinatubo). This has caused "evaporation pans" to have held 10% more water in them in the last ten years and that observations of the cloud albedo levels and their affect on daily temperature averages worldwide, showing an increase in reflectivity, is an indication that the sunlight reaching the ground is weaker now than previously thought. The pan evaporation's slower rate is due to pollution causing the water vapor in the puffy white clouds to be on more and more smaller particles. This raises the reflectivity of the clouds, cooling the planet.
This led one scientist to postulate in the documentary that this has caused science so far to underestimate the warming affect of the co2 allready having an affect raising the alarm that it might be stronger than previously believed. That is bad news. The good news is it's not solid science yet. The consensus is there, but the actual theories and remedies are lagging behind a little.

Plausable theory;
As we clean the atmosphere further we may set off a "double whammy" of letting the CO2 get going in an aggressive manner later this century, shooting up the world mean temperature even faster than predicted. Reducing the reflectivity of clouds by cleaning up the particulate pollution, yet still dumping 2.2% more co2 into the atmosphere each year, SPELLS TROUBLE ACT NOW! better safe than sorry. Now where did that lake in Chile go again?

The solution is to try to scrub out and reduce the amount of co2 in the air as fast as possible at the same time as letting China and India pollute a little longer, in order to stabilize the world mean temperature now.. before it's too late.

Answer 5

This a link to a question asked a while back. The question was looking for peer reviewed skeptically documents. The best answer provided a skeptical paper that was internally cited. What really disappointed me was that while most of the document is cited, the author makes some pretty substantial claims without citation. So this has led me to believe that the paper is propaganda. Edit: I got to thinking providing a link to a link is kind of lame so here are both links the question and the document containing skeptical peer reviewed citations. Keep in mind the document is not peer reviewed only the citations. Also if you go to the question I provided a list which was given by another answerer of peer reviewed documents in favor of global warming. Edit: The follow section previously contained a lewd comparision now deleted because of thumbs down, obviously someone has a big car.

Answer 6

1. Humans burn fossil fuel, releasing carbon into the air that has been "missing" from the environment for millions of years.
2. CO2 in the air has risen to levels not seen in millions of years.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it's transparent to visible light, where most of the Sun's energy is, but absorbs infrared light, which is emitted by all objects at normal temperatures. The Sun's light passes through, warms the earth, which radiates away the excess energy in the infrared -- unless the exess is re-absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule in the air. More greenhouse gas in the air means more re-absorbtion, meaning the surface of the earth gets warmer.
4. CO2 stays in the air for hundreds of years. The gasoline you burn today will continue to cause warming long after you're dead.
5. The real problem is not the warmth we're seeing today. The problem is the trend. CO2 in the air is rising exponentially with no end in sight. Oceans are currently absorbing a significant fraction of the CO2 we create, which is good -- but as the oceans get warmer, their capacity to absorb CO2 declines. When the oceans get warm enough, the will stop absorbing CO2 and start re-emitting some of the CO2 they absorbed in the 20th century. This changeover from source to sink is currently predicted to occur sometime around 2100. If we don't have a handle on our CO2 emissions by that time, we're all screwed.

Answer 7

Got any popcorn?

Hold their feet to the fire. Suggestions:
Let's pretend that fossil fuels were buried so far into the Earth that they were NEVER discovered. What would be the projected cooling/warming trend exiting the Little Ice Age?

What is the total amount of global heat provided by the Greenhouse effect..within 1K - more than global temps have risen in the last century.

You know they won't ever admit that water can be a "forcing" factor, so how much of the current temperature increase is due to water vapor feedback? CO2 feedback? CH4 feedback?

How much CO2 originates from the thermohaline currents which have a temperature "memory" and thus, a CO2 memory that can take as much as 1600 years tto cycle to the surface?

Why, if we are all in this together for our lives and the good of the planet, are the climate models not available to the general public, a la Linux OS or Mozilla?

Answer 8

Ok from reading the other anwsers your probaly still like what the H is global warming well dont worry ill break it down easy for u.Ok pollution from cars,nuclear plants,power plants,and exc. Make a blanket of smog like substance in the atmoshphere.ok so when heat from the sun comes to earth it is able to normally bounce off the surface of earth and go back in to space.But now with the smog there it bounces off the smog back to earth and the heat stays and as it builds up and gets hotter and that is what global warrming is.

Answer 9

Global warming is a theory, and therefore cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Free Tibet.

Answer 10

You don't want any websites, references to books or films to get information. You don't want any ideas, or explanations from experts.

You don't care to learn the difference between what scientists say and what non-scientists say--or which is which. And you're supposed to be going to college?

Here's a explanation you might be able to grasp: In college you are suposed to be learning to find answers for yourself--and to think and evaluate those answers.

So--I for one will be glad to answer your question--when you are willing to justify the expenditure of my time and effort by being willing to learn some of those "ideas" you don't think are important.