Global warming? Is it real?

Question

Is their any "real" evidence that the global warming earth is experiencing (no matter how minor it may be) is caused by man? I am so far unconvinced that man has started the destruction of the earth through the warming of the earth. What say you?

Answer 1

I say (from my real education, NOT the movies):

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 2

In the end what matter to me is doing the right thing. What is wrong with trying to be better? To help more and hurt less. For me it is not hard to use canvas bags or ride a bike when the weather permits. Anyone can change a light bulb or recycle. I think it is out of laziness that a lot of people won't accept the research. Do we need to be driving excursions and polluting the planet? The answer is no.

I think even a child can see that we are not treating the world properly. So even if you don't want to believe in global warming, you should still think about your habits and what you are contributing.

Kalel make an great point. Follow the money. Who looses by going green? Do you really believe this is propaganda from people who sell hemp t-shirts? I mean come on. It is always big business.
(I meant "you" as in people. Not necessarily you.)

Answer 3

Thank you for stating the question calmly. That's rare.

I prefer the term "Human-accelerated global warming," or HAGW, to remove ambiguities.

I'm convinced that laymen have no business debating the science, because it is equivalent with discussing quantum theory or black hole theory. Weather is a fantastically complex subject, as complex as any other branch of science, if not more so. Proper predictions require countless accurate measurements across the globe, and the chaos-math is beyond all but our best minds, and maybe beyond them, as well. Plotting a trend, like HAGW, may be a bit easier, but still extremely sophisticated. I am unqualified to debate the specifics. If you have degrees in math, physics and climatology, it may be different for you.

That said, we are still faced with the following analogy. Say you are the father of a 7 year old girl. The hospital doesn't want to give her the brain surgery that might restore her to a normal life. They claim she doesn't need it, that she'll be fine anyway. You discover they would lose a quarter of a million dollars on the operation, but the board denies that is a factor. A neurosurgeon who works for that hospital tells you that the operation will cripple or kill your daughter. The decision rests with you, the non-specialist.

Eleven neursurgeons who don't work for the hospital tell you that the operation is her only chance and they think it will work. One other independent agrees with the hospital.

Who do you listen to?

I dislike putting all my trust in others, but this is a case where we must, I think, defer to specialists, and we must also carefully consider the financial interests of the HAGW deniers. The word of a climatologist with 40 published papers on his subject, respected in his field, is just not in the same league with the opinions of Oprah's audience, or of scientifically-illiterate columnists, or the National Review. The word of the established scientist should prevail.

The scientific community is not perfect, they acknowledge this. There is the possibility of error, but it is a small one. In the 1950s, they discussed the chances of a new Ice Age. Some papers were published. There was never a consensus. It was talk, and theorizing. They do that, you know.

Now there is a consensus. Propaganda should not blind you to that fact. Follow the money, see whose financial interests are hurt if we take steps to control greenhouse gases, and weight the opposing views accordingly.

HAGW is real.

Answer 4

There is evidence to suggest that the globe is warming and that mankind is a major cause. Most of the research however is computer modelling. "Scientist" input perticular adta streams and get certain data out. The output is dependent upon the input. If you ask a computer a question like, "If glaciers melt at 6 miles per day, will this be a problem? the likely answer will be ,"Yes, this will result in a meltdown of 12 miles every two days, 14 miles per week, and a whopping 60 miles in just a month." That, at least sounds like a problem. The computer has no way of determining if, in fact such a melting rate is occurring and if it will be consistent. It seems to me odd that the earth should suddenly be heating up after 5oo years. In fact 500 years ago there was a lot of polution pouring into the air from coal and wood fires. Maybe it is the sheer number of people on the earth.

Answer 5

Don't think some thing you learn and simplest a million/two of what you spot. Of path, Global warming is truly. The final Ice age has long gone away, has it now not? So, we have to have international warming. Do persons give a contribution to international warming? Probably a few small quantity, in any case we ARE Warm and we breath in oxygen and breath out CO2, we have to be aspect of the predicament. What is Al Gore going to do approximately it? Kill a entire lot of persons? Invariably that's what Socialists do once they take manipulate of a nation. Is that bigger than destroying their economic system and inflicting hundreds of thousands to starve to dying?

Answer 6

Regardless of the cause, the earth seems to be warming. It is evident in our retreating glaciers, erratic weather, floods and droughts. This is not about the destruction of the earth, this is about the current global weather and sea currents changing and how it will effect OUR environment.

If the weather patterns change, rainfall in some areas could be diminished so that they could not support their usual local crops. If the ocean currents change, Europe's weather would be more like northern Canada's. If the oceans rise, we could lose many coastal cities, islands, and rivers could back up inland. A good example of this would be the Mississippi backing up to flood the great plains, that would be a big mess.

The planet will be fine, we need to worry about what will happen if 6 to 8 billion people can't get enough to eat.

Answer 7

Climate change is a very real phenomena that occurs all throughout the earth's geological history. The earth's temperature increases causing ice to melt. This ice goes into the worlds oceans which decreases the temperature of the oceans. (Remember, its easy to heat a little bit of water then it is to heat a gallon of water). This decrease in ocean temperatures cause a decrease in global climate, etc. Check out some geology books, its really interesting.

Anyway, there is no real evidence that climate change is a result of human activity. There is currently a theory that climate change is actually caused by the sun because of changes in the levels of radiation it emits. Check out "Global Warming Swindle".

Answer 8

Climate change is occurring, it has been going on for Millions of years, and will continue.

The self centered thought process that leads people to believe that we are the source of the evil is something that in the future will have an -ism added to it and be taught in sociology classes.

You will notice that the 'Religion' no longer uses the term Global Warming because they concede there is no proof, it is now 'Climate Change' and they talk of gas particles and such so the arguments are more obtuse.

Answer 9

There are decades of research by thousands of scientists that global climate change is a real process.

Nobody really argues that any more -- at least not from a scientific perspective.

The current debate is whether it's exclusively part of a natural heating/cooling cycle, or whether the activities of the human race over the past 500 years could possible have had some impact on the environment.

Answer 10

i am unconvinced that is is due to man. the earth naturally heats and cools. the other planets are also heating up. but it is possible since the industrial revolution that process is speeding up.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/#02

NASA says over the past 50 years the increase in greenhouse gases has thrown the natural cycle off.

so this link is your evidence. are you willing to accept it could be true?