1.Do you believe in the global warming theory? 2.If yes have you researched it? 3.Did you look at both sides?

Question

The point of these questions is for me to see if anyone thinks the way i do.
I saw the 'global warnings' on the media and elsewhere, and was deeply worried.
I researched into 'global warning' to see what i could do about it.
When researching i found there were two sides, one believing the theory, the other not.
I decided to be as unbiased as i could and so reseached both sides.
I do not believe the theory of 'us' causing global warming, Because of what i have learned from researching both sides of the debate.
However i believe the are clear enviromental issues that do need to be ressolved. The amount of waist we produce, burying it in land fill sites instead of recycling it and deforestation spring to mind.
thankyou for all answers.

My main resouce was the internet, where i heard the views of;
Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.
Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Professor Philip Stott, Department of Biogeography, University of London.
Professor Patrick Micheals, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Arctic Research Centre.
Dr Roy Spencer, Weather satelite team leader NASA and more. All of whom believe human co2 is not to blame for climate change.
My main reasons for not believing the theory is;
1.acording to the theory the increase in the rate of warming will be most present in higher altitude(the troposphere).
Satelite and weather baloon data show the oposite, there is a slight decrease in the rate of warming with higher altitude.
2.i frequently here how its the hottest period recorded. During the Holocene maximum, the temp was much higher for 3000years

And that was 8000 years ago, was that our fault as well.
3. if you look a graph of sun spot activity against temerature veriation, you will find the results intimatly linked, showing it must be the sun driving global warming.
4.the ocean is the major reservoir into which cabon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or where it is readmitted to the atmosphere, if you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emitt carbon dioxide,if you cool the ocean it can dissolve more carbon dioxide. this is why when the temperature goes up the co2 level goes up too,not the other way round. futher proof that it is actually the sun driving the climate change.

Answer 1

Yes, yes and yes. Having researched both sides of the theory is precisely why I have such confidence in it. The arguments given against it are spectacularly weak. I'll go ahead and briefly respond to the objections you've raised, as well as give you some links to do further research into them.


1. The discrepancy between the direct surface measurements and the satellite measurements was primarily due to arithmetic errors and has been reconciled. Here's a statement (taken from the US CCSP report executive summary [1]) from the scientist who made the statements you refer to in the first place:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."



2. Completely false. The holocene was not a globally synchronous event. That is, it didn't happen everywhere at once. It was a series of changes over a 3000 year period. [2]

It also wasn't our "fault". For obvious reasons.


3. Actually, if you look at a graph of sunspot activity (I've looked at many) you'll see no sort of correlation whatsoever. It is only after unscrupulous individuals trying to make a point have selectively smoothed and readjusted the data that any 'correlation' emerges.[3]

4. We know. This is called the carbon dioxide feedback effect. It, along with several other feedback mechanisms, are scientists' primary concerns over climate change. Once these effects kick in, it will result in a sort of 'runaway greenhouse effect'. However, these are called feedbacks for a reason: they need something to kick them off. The CO2 we've been adding to the atmosphere has done just that.[4]

Answer 2

Yes, it's very likely to be a true theory.
I looked at this deeply long before it was popular - like 15 years ago. And even then there was a lot less information and you could pretty much come to the same conclusion. Science and climate models have rapidly improved, mainly finding further justification of the theory overall and clarifying local impacts. Predictions from back then like polar ice melting, highly variable weather, etc and general temp's going up as well as specific model predictions are largely coming true.

1) about CO2 and the oceans- you've got to look at the rates of change - more rapid C02 & temp changes are happening compared to the natural background rates. It's obvious human contributions to CO2 are heavy by the amount of stuff we burn. Besides, it's not just CO2 that's the only GHG.

2) Even if you were 50% unsure if it were true (and most people go with it's true), the consequences are so high and expensive, it make sense to make decisions/policy based on the high risk scenario. Risk is not just based on how sure you are about a consequence, but the level of consequence. For example, if you go rock climbing on an easy, but totally exposed 300 foot cliff, you'd want to use a rope because even though it's not likely you'll fall, if you do fall, yer dead meat. But hey- take your chances if you like. Natural selection works too. Me, I'd be the one safe on top with the rope.
Furthermore, many of the actions needed for slowing climate change also are needed for other very urgent environmental issues such as massive extintion due to habitat loss and chemicals in the env't. Why not be sustainable? There's tons of money to be made anyway. It's just who's making it now and no motivation to change.
On the bright side, billions of dollars are going into alternative energy research and getting in on the ground floor on this one. The question of whether it's happening is already gone by. Big forces are starting to move, but it's getting pretty late.

Answer 3

I do not accept global warming as a valid conclusion to what is presently being promoted. I have not spent a lot of time researching it but have read on both sides. In a practical sense I am very suspicious when the primary spokesman for global warming is a politician! Why wouldn't prominent scientists who specialize in climate be the spokespersons?

Even if we are in a period of warming who is to say that man is the cause of it or that it is not a normal cycle? How long has mankind been keeping these kinds of records? If the global warming community also accepts the evolutionary time periods of millions of years how can they come to a conclusion with data of less than 100 years?

Recently I read where core samples were taken from considerable depth in Greenland and tropical follage was found! This was under hundreds of feet of ice! Again who is to say that a warmer earth would not be better than present climatic conditions?

My conclusion is there is not enough information to arrive at a definitive answer. I have also learned that when there is a political agenda involved then all information is suspect and probably twisted to serve the purposes of those who are hyping the idea.

Answer 4

Do I Believe In The GW Theory
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Yes I do.

Have I Researched It
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Yes, as a climatologist a large part of my work is concerned with global warming. I've been researching it since the late 1980's.

Did I Look At Both Sides
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
As a scientist there is no option but to consider all aspects and it's imperative to remain impartial in all aspects of research. If I failed to do so I would run a very high risk of not being (re)commissioned.

The Sources You Cited
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Dr Tim Ball - Former head of Friends of Science, current head of Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both funded by the energy industry. http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/175673

Prof Ian Clark - A hydrologist not a climatologist. His area of expertise is water. http://www.science.uottawa.ca/est/eng/prof/clark/research.html

Prof Philip Stott - A geographer specialising in Oriental and African studies. http://parliamentofthings.info/

Prof Patrick Michaels - Funded by German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric Institute, Cyprus Minerals Company, Western Fuels Association and Intermountain Rural Electric Association. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1 and others.

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Not a climate change sceptic, he is a geophysicist and expert on the aurora. He has in the past questuioned some aspects of the IPCC reports.

Dr Roy Spencer - The only true expert amongst your list, highly qualified and respected climatologist. Neither refutes nor accepts anthropogenic global warming, says we need to do more research before definite conclusions should be drawn.

The Points Your Raise
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1) The troposphere is warming, it's the stratosphere that's cooling (sort of and in parts). This was predicted quite some time ago as a consequence of global warming and is caused by segregation of ionospheric layers and ozone depletion. It's not a very good argument for a skeptic to use as more than anything it illustrates that solar forcing (an oft used argument by the skeptics) has little consequence.

2) Temps are higher now that at any time during the holocene and are currently about 0.5°C above the baseline. During the Holecene Maximum they peaked at about 0.3°C above the baseline - pretty much the same temps as now but with one very important difference. From trough 9000 years ago to peak 8000 years ago temps rose 0.5°C in 1000 years, temps are currently rising 34 times as fast.

3) Sun spots are cyclical, the cycle being one of approx eleven years. If sunspots had a significant short term impact on our climate then we would see 5 or 6 years of warming followed by 5 or 6 years of cooling. This isn't the case. Further, solar output has been decreasing slightly in recent decades but temps are rising. Also, we have instruments that measure solar output to an accuracy of 6 decimal places, we know to an almost finite degree just how much heat energy is being received from the sun. And also, if the sun were the primary driver then the other solar bodies would be warming, in fact, more are cooling than are warming.

4) Oceans are the second largest player in the carbon cycle (biomass is first) and whilst it's true that temps of the oceans affect uptake and output of CO2 that effect is a slow one occuring over hundreds and thousands of years. The mass of water in the seas and oceans is so huge that even a substantial ambient temperature increase isn't reflected in the water temps for many centuries.

Currently the oceans account for a net reduction of just 2 billion tons of CO2 annually (absorbption = 90 bn tons PA, release = 88 bn tons PA).

Answer 5

I have examined the matter in some detail. (I'm a scientist by trade, and examine almost everything in some detail.) We know that the atmospheric level of CO2 has increased about ten percent in the last forty years. We think that global temperatures are increasing, judging from the retreat of glaciers. We do NOT know whether either of these effects is the cause of the other; all of the study has been done by computer simulations, and anyone who has tried to forecast the weather with a computer is well aware of how well these work (not very). We know that global temperatures have fluctuated throughout history, as have CO2 levels (which were four times as high during the dinosaur's reign as they are now). We know that there are possible greenhouse gases other than CO2, of which water vapor is a particularly important feature because there is so much of it. We also know that any program to try to abate global warming by controlling CO2 will be stupendously expensive; the UN has proposed a program with a price tag of $557,000,000,000,000 -- far more than the total value of every asset on the planet. Bottom line: we don't really know very much at all.

Answer 6

If you look at the times of industrialization and the rates of polar melting years prior and since, then yeah you can see an impact. How about the solar images of the ozone over areas of mass deforestation. Look at migration patterns of animals of separate continents (ex polar bears African penguins, whooping cranes) and although they have shown variations in the past, the erratic and disjointed patterns these animals are exhibiting now is shocking. You might have a better understanding if you consider not just the impact on humans and the environment, but pay close attention to the entities that have a closer bond with the planet itself. The whales, cranes, bears and penguins are all born with an internal compass that helps them survive on this planet but when all of these animals start venturing into unknown and unfamiliar territory, you have to ask is something wrong with all of them or is something wrong with the planet? I don't know how anyone can look at the earth and say that global warming does not exist or humans are not the major contributor to such. We will all see soon though. What a great organism to be the only one that willingly destroys the habitat that supports it. :-)

Answer 7

No, Global warming is not man made, it is a natural cycle of heating and cooling of the planet. It take at least 500 years for the planet to react to any event and affect the climate patterns of the globe. If we are to believe the likes of Al Gore (Who also stated that he invented the internet) There should not have been a warming of the climate in the middle ages in the UK which allowed vineyards to flourish in the north of england and also the onset of the industrial revolution had no effect on the climate. Also if we are to believe the scaremongers and those with a vested interest in the price of fuels (Including the governments) the heaviest and dirtiest period of polution was just after WW2 and yet for 20 years they had a very cold climate including the famous mini Iceage that can be read about in a score of history books.

The doomsayers of apocalyptic climate change refer to vested interest group figures, but there, as we all know is part of the problem. Read a book called "How to lie with statistics" It explains in detail how any set of figures, viewed from a particular angle can be made to give the required results without lying, but by simply reading and quoting them in the way the you think they should to prove your argument. It's the same a me telling you that 16 died on UK roads last week... It sounds terrible and something that should not have happened, but if you see that that figure represents 0.000001% of the total journeys made by road in the same week, you would have to agree that it is much more likely that you will win the lottery than die in a crash. Statistics should never be taken at face value, observation is the only true test... We KNOW that for as long as the earth has been here it has always cooled and heated and cooled again so unless there was someone here during the last ice age driving gas guzzling cars, running fridges and praying their hair with ozone eating aerosols, the planet should never have cooled, and once iced over, should never have heated again.

Answer 8

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. There are no sides. There is science, which isn't bias. All the politics has nothing to do with it.

I saw your additions.
The claim you make that the AGW theory expects stratospheric warming to a greater extent then Tropospheric warming is false. I see the sincerity in your questionn now. But to falsify what others, that you don't happen to agree with, are saying, instead of meeting what they in fact say, is very sneakily done.

"Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere
(about 10–30 km) has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results."
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch03.pdf P. 252.

Answer 9

I believe that anyone that believes there is NO Global Warming is an idiot.

I also believe that anyone that has come to the conclusion that MAN is the only cause of global warming is also a complete idiot.

Furthermore, regardless of what the truth is, the fact of the matter is that liberals like Al Gore are pumping the public with what I have determined to be PURE propaganda. So if it really is true that Man is a major cause for Global Warming, these liberals are not doing the cause any favors because of intelligent thinkers like myself find these liberals to be completely void of credibility.

Answer 10

You should check this website on this new study. They may be able to reverse some of the carbon believed to cause global warming with plankton. It's really a brilliant idea that has seemed to work thus far. More research and tests need to be done but it looks promising.