What Are The Main Arguments For/Against Global Warming?

Question

I want to know what the main arguments are for this and against this. Ten points for the best, original work answer. I, for one, think Global Warming is real, but this is not about me or my decisions. This is not about opinions either. I want a clear, concise, objective evaluation of the topic. Anything less, will not be chosen.

Answer 1

Arguments For:

Basically we know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming. What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming. This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming. They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles. They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes. Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions. We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

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

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels. We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%). You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

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

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Arguments Against:

*It's been this warm before.
*Climate has changed in the past without human intervention. *The climate models are just models on a computer screen and not reliable.

Basically the arguments against man-made global warming boil down to the fact that we're not 100% sure that humans are the primary cause. Some will argue that the Sun is more responsible or that it's just part of a natural cycle, but scientific studies have disproven these theories.

Just a brief correction to one of the manny errors in Jello's answer - a CO2 increase from 280 to 387ppm (the current atmospheric concentration) is a 38% increase. His math is intentionally wrong (either that or he flunked grade school math). That's really the only way to make an argument that humans aren't causing the current warming - to intentionally fudge the numbers.

Answer 2

Arguments For Global Warming

Answer 3

Global Warming Arguments

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What Are The Main Arguments For/Against Global Warming?
I want to know what the main arguments are for this and against this. Ten points for the best, original work answer. I, for one, think Global Warming is real, but this is not about me or my decisions. This is not about opinions either. I want a clear, concise, objective evaluation of the topic....

Answer 5

The argument "for/against" global warming isn't the proper way to ask the question. The FCCC (part of the UN) defined global warming as man made. So if you think there is warming, but the cause is from the sun, then by definition, you don't believe in "global warming".

Over short periods of time, it is reasonable to say the climate is getting warmer. There is no such thing as a static climate.

But what is the cause? Some think that co2 causes warming, man produces co2, therefore, all warming is caused by man.

Some find this overly simplistic. If co2 causes warming, then how much warmer would it be if co2 concentrations doubled? No one can tell you. There is no relationship.

Many other factors contribute to the energy of the climate. The largest influence is the Sun. The Sun's output has changes 0.1% in the last 100 years. Co2 has gone from 280ppm to 360ppm, or a 80ppm increase, or just a scant 0.008% increase. The Sun's output increased more than 100 times the rise of co2. What is reasonable to conclude?

Answer 6

For. The scientific data. It's an enormous database, so I have no other choice but to list links. And even they are just three nice summaries with secondary references.

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
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png

All other proof flows from the data.

In words: The temperature of the planet has been generally rising for about 100 years, with an increase in the trend after 1975.

CO2 levels are rising simultaneously. That's different from any other warming in history, because in previous warmings CO2 lagged behind. That was because CO2 was not the primary cause, but mostly an effect. Basic science shows it can be both.

Against - The 26 main arguments against are listed here on 26 linked pages. Along with scientific data and analysis which explains why they're wrong. The "It's the Sun" fallacy is dealt with, of course.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Because of the data and the lack of viable arguments against mostly man made global warming, there's a scientific consensus which is very powerful.

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

If I'm disqualified because I used links, so be it. There's a huge amount of information here. Anyone who doesn't spend hours researching it is too uninformed to make a decision.

Answer 7

Good video YO. And if anyone claims that the scientists in that video were paid by the government to scare people, that video was from 2007. Their boss was George Dubya Bush, who had taken the U. S. out of Kyoto. If he had been paying scientists to lie, he would have paid them to say that global warming is not a problem.