Do you believe in global warming?

Question

I'm curious as to why there's such a debate surrounding the topic. Please just answer yes or no, and what evidence it was that made you believe it is happening, or disagree with the theory.

Answer 1

Yes. I conducted research over 4 years in the early 1990s to try to determine if global warming could significantly increase or reduce wood production in the Southern US and cause economic harm. A lot of what is being debated by the public now was debated then by scientists. The public is 15-20 years behind the scientists. Scientists think the threat is real and action should be taken, and of course, research should continue.

The public debate is because responding to solve a problem now for which the magnitude is still somewhat uncertain will potentially reduce the standard of living now, depending on the actions taken. This is a recipe for conflict.

After reviewing what was published about general circulation models, ocean models and influences, the potential regional changes in climate patterns, the positive and negative feedback mechanism, potential plant responses, the potential economic consequences, and the social welfare implications (social welfare refers to things that improve or reduce the well being of people, it doesn't have anything to do with government "welfare" payments to the poor), I am convinced that it is a problem that should be taken seriously. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking prudent steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce land cover conversions (i.e. leave more forest and better plan roads and development to reduce the impact of land cover changes on climate change), and generally just pollute a little less. It is silly not too. To their credit, most business are doing this and taking more action to focus on GW.

I know the science has progressed since then, but everything scientific I've seen supports the idea GW is occurring. Someone posted an excellent link to a paper that suggests the oceans may moderate the warming more than the IPCC projected. If I can find it, I'll repost. The paper uses regression methods, so it is empirical. This means that it is very dangerous to use for predicting future behavior of GW, but it was very well done and seemed very sound. However, looking at the confidence intervals of the warming estimated by the authors as a result of human activity, the projections are in line with the bottom-end projections of the IPCC. The IPCC says it is unlikely that GW will be less than 1.5 degrees C on average. This paper has an upper CI of 1.6 degrees C. To me this suggest there is a possibility that the oceans moderating effect may offset more GW than previously thought, but the paper still supports the hypothesis that human beings are significantly contributing to GW. It is consistent with the theory of GW, just not the magnitude of the change. The findings I'm sure are being scrutinized and reproduced. I hope the change is less than what the IPCC predicts, however, this does not mean the problem doesn't exist. It just means we may have a little more time to respond. It is interesting.

Dr. Jello:

You are right about the belief thing. However, we can only observe this phenomenon as it is occurring. The way science typically works is you make the ASSUMPTION that the phenomenon (AGW) is not occurring (null hypothesis), then test the evidence using statistical techniques to disprove the null hypothesis (note - you can never prove the null using statistics). The problem is that although the climate is changing rapidly in geologic time, it changes slowly in human time. We would need to wait for significant warming to occur and significant impacts before we have the "proof." Then it will be much to late to take small actions to reduce the effects on the human species (and all other life). It does require a leap of faith because waiting for proof positive can be catastrophic.

Answer 2

Yeah I have a history of more than fifty winters and I can see a definite difference from the past.
Falls are longer. Winters are shorter and not so cold, still cold but not like it use to be. Springs are drier, the beaches have changed dramatically in the great lakes. Summers are erratic.
There is a definite change is the wildlife, and the most telling is the Polar Bear. In the last thirty years they have become smaller, they have decreased in population in an area where man has not populated to a detrimental degree yet.
Their food supplies are dwindling and they are losing the ice they need to cross and live on in the winter. Other tell tale signs are the cod. The depletion is more than just overfishing. And the migratory habits of the birds are beginning to show an erratic form. For example: the Canada Geese rarely go south from the lower parts of Ontario anymore. The weather is still conducive to survival through the winter there. That and we feed them a lot more but the weather is definitly more mild.
The Eastern states in America are facing vast shortages of ground water!! It's all drying up down there.
Global warming is have an effect on the life of this planet. I don't think it is a theory anymore, I think the facts are here in front of us and If I had children? Then my grandchildren would be part of the generation to find themselves in war for water!!
Things are not good in Stalingrad darlin!!

Answer 3

i'm nonetheless slightly sceptical, even however i actually care approximately our wild places. I do inspite of the undeniable fact that think of that we could consistently take the possibility heavily. The info proves that organic cycles of climate happen on a grand scale. there have been as quickly as lions, hippos and elephants wandering the united kingdom nation-state, approximately one hundred twenty,000 years in the past. That substitute into an interglacial heat spell. the component that may not disputed, is that those issues take place of course, inspite of each and every thing the Scottish nation-state is done of glacial advantageous factors. inspite of the undeniable fact that, the info potential that our extra contribution to international warming is making it take place at a swifter fee than life can manage. we are speaking approximately climate substitute happening in many years, rather than spanning centuries or 1000's of years. organic international has coped with climate substitute extremely nicely interior the previous. woodlands and grasslands can flow at their snails %., to maintain track of the circumstances that experience them. these days there are extra themes. we've our organic international trapped in wallet that are surrounded by potential of farmland. The organic "corridors" are long previous. organic international charities are doing their suitable to make our wild places greater joined up. If climate substitute maintains because it rather is and there is no area for issues to flow, then we are able to lose lots. besides, i think of my considerable difficulty is that i don't elect it to be real.

Answer 4

I'm pretty sure that we've observed global warming since the last ice age around 10,000 years ago... with a mini ice age about a thousand years ago...

I don't think anybody is debating whether the earth is getting warmer. I think the debate is mostly whether or not we are to blame.

Unfortunately for the proponents of the theory that we are at fault, the size of systems involved significantly impede their ability to measure our impact, and "prove" that we are to blame. Not to mention the time factors involved in any experiment that would show any conclusive evidence.

It isn't that I don't believe that we are contributing, its that I know that the earth goes through natural cycles - this one being a heating cycle. I remain skeptical of the magnitude to which some say we responsible. I'd go so far as to say that Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Michael Moore, haven't got a clue, and they are using public fear about NATURAL disasters to increase their popularity and bank accounts.

Answer 5

Yes.

There's a vast amount of proof, from a lot of angles, so this will be long. And the real proof is in the links. First read the first link, and the second of the last group of four.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"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

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

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

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"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

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

I do believe in Global Warming---we are the problem and all of the responses about not eating meat will greatly increase our probability of helping the situation is a bunch of what the cows leave behind. Do you think for one minute that people will ever stop eating meat??? Grow up, this will not happen.
Let's concentrate on car emissions, factories, coal and other avenues that will impact global warming first. Let's think green, but let us do it intelligently.

Answer 7

What do you mean by global warming?

The data is emotionally impressive, but insufficient.

There have been articles since the 1970's about the advance of an ice age and global warming?

Earth meteorologist can barely predict weather in a particular location accurately. Predicting weather for the entire planet is even more difficult. The Earth planet is over 4 billion years old and Human technological meteorology is maybe 100 years old. Most of the technological advances in this field have been in the last few decades.

How do we know that we are witnessing the natural maturation of the planet? That is to say in geologic time the Earth could be in its toddler stage, puberty, adolescence, middle age, old age or just on life support, for all we know.

Most Humans have squandered their time and effort instead of learning. As a result, they easily fall prey to the scams and flim-flams of con-men with spin.

If global warming was all so important, then bombs would not be detonated daily on the planet.

Answer 8

Reality is no accident-Deforestation + CO2 emissions= A bad equation.I live in Buffalo NY there has been a noticeable change in weather patterns in the last 10 years.Also,the bible predicted a "RUINATION" of the earth in the end times.Extinct species is also a fact.What plant or animal do you think will be next?

Answer 9

Do I believe...YES

Do I think man is responsible...only in the sense that dropping a small stone in a swimming pool while it is raining does raise the water level, but not nearly as much as the rainfall does.

I think it is vain of man to think that we have that much influence. But, it is by no means an excuse to continue polluting.

I also worry about the preponderance of opportunists that are cashing in on what may be a natural cyclical phenomenon.

Answer 10

global warming is a very big issue these days
yes i believe in global warming
there r many evidences like-
the hole in the ozone layer
the rising temperature
the melting of glaciers
the temperature getting very low
and the rest u can check at----
www.googlearth.com
www.globalwarming.com