If you believe in man made global warming, how would you explain...?

Question

1.) If carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing temperatures on earth, how do you explain the observed temperature increases on Mars where there are no automobiles, airplanes, or industrial plants emitting CO2?
2.) If man made carbon emissions are responsible for global warming, why did the temperature actually increase during the beginning of the 20th century prior to the greatest increase in carbon emissions after 1940? And why did the temperature actually decrease from 1940 to 1970 during the greatest increase in carbon emissions?

Karl- so in other words your 110% clueless and have no answer or should I await a good one from you?

Cattledog- I dont completely disagree with that answer.

Mark- You missed the point. Liberals parrot the man made global warming crock but cant answer two simple questions. Doubts? Look at their answers.

Noah- OK, prove me wrong by giving an explanation to the questions.

Answer 1

my theory on global warming is that there is a huge ball of fire in the middle of our solar system, it gives off heat, it warms the planet. case closed.

Answer 2

1.) "In other words, scientists think that when surface areas darken and expand, relatively more energy from the sun is being absorbed by the surface, which causes temperatures to rise near the surface. This, in turn, produces a less stable atmosphere generating more turbulent eddies and whirling dust devils. The more dust that is redistributed to bright surfaces, the more surfaces darken and expand, which causes more sunlight to be absorbed, increased temperatures, and less stable the atmosphere, say scientists." Also the climate changes are more akin to climate variations on earth, not global warming on earth.

2.) I'm not sure where you got your emission and temperature data. It seems like fluctuations do happen, but that overall the trend is clear and consistent. This is not to say that man made carbon emissions is the *only* thing affecting temperature. That is not it at all. It is that emissions are indeed having a negative impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


yes tinker thinker people have checked and guess what? It's melting!

just get it right: The Dust bowl was caused by storms that whipped up dust that was loose due to erosion, not a heat wave, so i'm not sure why you bring it up as if it were relevant. also 2007 is expected to be the hottest year world wide, not 1922.

Answer 3

It's not a question of 'believing'...it's a question of accepting the massive amount of peer reviewed scientific data that makes the case. The answer to the other points presented are varied. Mars isn't the earth....there is far less data involved, some never evaluated and none of it as accurate or as complex as data recovered from this planet. Also, the question isn't 'global warming' anyway...the question is climate change. Some parts of the earth are growing dryer and cooler and some wetter and warmer.
The problem here is that most of the people in the world live in these climate change parts of the world and even a small change has a large effect. There's also the fact that this climate change isn't a straight line shot....it may well cool in some areas for periods of time, but the trend line 'over time' is clearly in favor of longer and warmer summers and shorter and less cold winters. The climate change deniers are, while possibly well-meaning, simply wrong. Human influence has setup a dynamic that has and will continue to pump heat and particals into the atmosphere...an atmosphere that in contrast to the size of the earth is thinner than the skin on an onion. Opinions on how fast change will occur vary, but a significant part of this change is human activity and that probably won't change.

Answer 4

It's a rare scientist that says man caused the current global warming (that's the politicians). What scientists say is that mankind is significantly affecting the current global warming, ie, it is heating up faster and will end up at a higher average temperature then it would without the pollution. However, since the body of UN scientists reported that if all pollution were immediately stopped that there would be no significant decrease in the rate or the final average temperature, it is logical that we should be focusing our efforts on adapting to this change. It's still a good thing for general health reasons to fight pollution but adaptation planning needs to take priority and FAST.

Answer 5

You're missing the whole point.
Yes there are and always have been natural increases and decreases within climate change. The point is that man-made pollution is adding to these natural changes at a much higher increased rate.

Its doesn't take much of a brain to know that if you pollute the air and take away millions of trees CO2 levels will be affected.

If all the pollution given off by say one jumbo jet was placed into a 10 foot square room would you be game enough to breathe that crap in? Naturally you wouldn't.

Imagine the same thing happening over the whole world by all polluting countries. It’s the same thing but on a larger scale spread throughout our atmosphere level.
Do you really think that it all just disappears and turns into fresh air again?
Do you think that radioactivity just disappears once its let lose? It take hundreds of thousands years to go.

If you think that pollution wont hurt you suck on an exhaust pipe for a while and see how you go. Everyone knows that pollution isn’t a good thing and hiding one’s head in the sand won’t make it go away.

The world is just one big room and in the end we have to recognise the damage we're all doing to that room.

Answer 6

CO2 is going up. ok, that's a minor contributor to the greenhouse result, and human beings are a minor contributor to the CO2. That organic equipment is balanced for a definite volume of water vapor, CO2 and different parts. Now human beings come alongside and placed somewhat extra suitable CO2 into the equipment. in the previous, there have been a hundred contraptions of CO2 released and a hundred contraptions absorbed each and each 365 days, now there are one hundred and one contraptions released and a hundred absorbed. that's a equipment out of stability. The result's small, yet no longer 0. So the only question is, how plenty result will it have. in case you study the climate technology comments, the extreme scientific comments and not the click releases or the maximum recent weblog, and you will see that there is especially solid data for a foot or 2 sea point upward push in a hundred years and a pair levels temperature upward push in a hundred years. i individually do no longer evaluate that subject rather well worth the cost that is suffered by the cutbacks that is mandatory to shrink CO2 emissions as much as 3 are asserting we could. yet because of the fact coal and oil WILL run out some day, I help all efforts to locate option power materials.

Answer 7

Why can't it be possible that man contributes to global warming with natural caused warming? Why can't this be a combination.

Why does it have to be black and white? Why does one side have to be right and the other wrong? Especiallly when the majority of people fighting over this aren't even scientists or experts in environmental issues.

The way I look at this is simple. A lot of this global warming stuff sounds like a bunch of crap to me but some sounds possible. I take the side of caution, I am willing to make sacrafices to my own disbelief (some disbelief, I believe some of it) in case I am wrong. Either way I win because I don't care if I'm wrong on this issue... its worth it to be wrong and make the sacrafices to protect my children in case the doom and gloom people are right.

Oh and if anyone says that I am stupid for spending time and possibly money on this issue... well, I gotta a lot of money and time to burn.

Answer 8

Just to let you know, there's a global warming sub-section in the Environment section of Y!A. This is because global warming is a scientific issue, not a political one.

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AgLEdAid8Prb8gSQajzmSsIFxgt.;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=2115500306

To answer your questions...

1) Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than Earth. Most likely it's due to dust storms darkening its surface:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html

The only way warming on Earth and Mars would be related is if it were due to the Sun, but if that were the case then every planet in our solar system would be warming, rather than just a few. Additionally scientists have directly measured solar activity and found that it's decreased in recent years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

2) Climate models have explained global temperature changes over the past century very accurately. Early 20th century temperature increases were due to both increased solar activity and human greenhouse gas emissions. 1940-1970 cooling was due to increased volcanic and human aerosol emissions blocking sunlight causing short-term global dimming and thus global cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 9

I know that Global warming is not true but in response to Jays answer that 99% of scientists agree, that is total BULL CRAP,
come to think of it if there is global warming it may be because of bull crap.

Fact: the hottest year in the US was 1922,
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/08/yikes-hottest-year-in-history-icebergs.html

ask your Parents/Grandparents about the dust bowl in 1934

Yet despite this global warming alarmists quote 1998
http://www.globalcoral.org/Policy%20Implications%20of%20Global%20Warming%20for%20Coral%20Reefs%20and%20Fisheries%20of%20Small%20Island%20States.htm
(see para 4)

Fact (this one is for you Jay) less that 50% of the published scientists agree with the global warming theory (Jay you missed it by at least 50% yourself)

Edit: Note to sbcalif

The reason that I brought up the dust bowl (and it is relevant) is because of the 3 years of drought and current scientists stating that 1998 was the hottest year, aside from the global warming issue, do a search on the Dust Bowl, there are some
amazing pictures (if not outright scary).

Answer 10

1) The Mars lander must have added millions of tons of CO2.
2) Al Gore wasn't heating his homes and flying his private jets then.

All the love that was pumped into the atmosphere from Gore's Live Earth Concert will probably start a cooling trend. I suppose you will try to use that to disprove global warming, too?

Answer 11

Funny liberals think the THEORY of global warming means it is a fact.

30 years ago these same people said it was global cooling.