Do you really believe in ''global warming''?

Question

i don't, i have never really seen prove that it's that. but i have seen prove that it just something with the sun,, something called sun spots i think, i don't really remember the name of them.
as fact it has been hotter before.

of course CO2 has a little to do with the heat, like 5-10%

Answer 1

I know it's real and mostly caused by us. Don't take my word for it, the proof is in the links.

We know it's not solar radiation:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Or sunspots:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-sunspots/

It's actually about 75-95% CO2 right now (it's changed over the years).

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 2

The dirty little secret the Man Made Global Warming crowd is trying so desperately to cover up is that while there is some evidence that temperatures on the surface of the earth are some what warmer, the temperatures at altitude are not. Why is this important? Well, for those of you who are not students of weather phenomena I will gladly explain.

The sun does not warm the atmosphere. The sun's radiation passes right through it without warming it. That is why the temperature decreases as you go higher up in altitude. (ever notice snow on top of mountains?) The air aloft is much colder than the air at the surface even though it is much close to the sun.

The sun's radiation only warms the surface both land and sea. The warm air near ground level is actually being warmed by ground and the oceans. This is not subject to interpretation this is scientific fact.

If indeed CO2 levels aloft were creating a "green house effect" it would only warm the air aloft. Now, warmer air aloft my slow the rate of heat loss from the ground but so far the temperatures aloft are not warmer than they usually are or have been since we have been taking readings. That is why the green house gas theory is pure hog wash. It would take thousands of times more CO2 to significantly raise the temperature aloft.

Compare that to the fact that increased Solar radiation will have immediate effect on the surface temperatures. Well what do you know? The Sun is what is causing Global Warming such as it is.

You will not find this explained to you by the MMGW zealots. For those lost souls it has gone far beyond what is factual and what is fantasy. It has become some kind of weird cult like belief system. For them the case is closed and they will not allow something like facts get in the way. It is to the point where they will be disappointed if there is not a world wide disaster.

I appeal to those who refuse to even listen to the skeptics. Please, do not buy into this. It is not real and the scientists who are telling you it is are not bad scientists they are bad people. They all know damn well the carefully crafted half-truths, misleading charts and graphs and fictional projections are not true. It is impossible for any scientist not to know.

The next big shift is already occurring. Very subtly the Global Warming Alarmists are changing their focus because they know the weather is simply not going to cooperate with their scam. The new take they are beginning to introduce is that increased Carbon levels are dangerous whether it becomes hotter or not. The focus is being slowly shifted away from Global Warming and put on to Carbon levels.

I do not ask you to accept my words on face value. But save them and periodically look back on them. You will see how accurate I am in a few years.

Merry Christmas!

.

Answer 3

Since beliefs do not require proof (it doesn't hurt, but its not a requirement)

Then I guess I do belive Global Warming exists.

The issue is what temperature range is comfortable for all of us humans/animals/plants to live in, so that biodiversity can be maintained.

Whilst it is true that human activity only acounts for a tiny percentage of the total CO2 on the planet. The main issue is not how much CO2 we produce, its how much we produce that the earth cannot absorb.

The problem we have today is that we are both increasing our production of CO2 (industrial pollution) and reducing the earths ability to absorb the CO2, by chopping down the trees.

We have started on a path that will force the Earth will have to find a new Equlibrium, one that might not be as comfortable for us Humans to live in.

All the doomsday senarios have one thing in common, far less habitable (comfortable) space for us to all live in.

And we know what man does when he doesn't have what he wants he takes it from someone else.

We have mass migration because people earn a livelihood where they live - since they are foreginers we can treat them like dirt. Should sea levels rise, the migration will we with National boundaries. That would cause massive social problems.

Answer 4

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the CO2 levels increase.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

Answer 5

Every time I think some new skeptical paper might have some credibility, the deeper I dig, the less credibility it has. The oil industry desperately wants us to believe the skeptics, so they're funding the same kind of campaign that delayed action on recognizing cigarettes as addictive (or even admitting that they cause cancer).

You'll make up your own mind of course. On the solar theory, Wikipedia presents both sides of the overall global warming discussion, and I've included the section on solar theories below. The skeptics' theories seem all over the map: inconsistent and inconclusive, while observational evidence seems to consistently measure a very low influence corresponding with solar variations.

Global warming controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Solar variation theory

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Balling, Lindzen, and Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Soon and Baliunas), ocean currents (e.g., Gray), increased solar activity (e.g., Shaviv and Veizer), cosmic rays (e.g., Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Leroux).

A few studies claim that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years. [75] Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."[76] [77]

Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation[78].

Solar physicists Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the claim that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations.[79] Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude that:

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute this in a recent reply[80] arguing that tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. A linear warming trend of about 0.14 K/decade is however left unaccounted for. As of October 2007, this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m² for the net anthropogenic forcing.[81] The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades." [82] The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.

Answer 6

duhhh its hppning take a look around u 1 global warming and gren house effect or totally diff subject 1 we need co2 in our atmospehre but now we have so much it can escape it like a mirror it goes up then comes down

Answer 7

I'll tell you what, here's a plot from the Stanford Solar Center of global temperature, atmospheric CO2, and sunspots. You tell me which you think is most responsible for the warming over the past 30 years.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Here's what the Stanford Solar Center thinks:

"Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most."

Answer 8

Yeah I have kinda been debating the question myself, some climatologists say that its just the earth going through a cycle and thats why the earth is currently warming...I do though at least believe that people are slowly killing the earth and its materials and if we dont slow down the damage would end up being unable to fix

Answer 9

Mans influence on the climate is less than one percent. Nature from it's Earth bound condition has a 20 percent effect. The SUN is GUILTY, with a whopping 80 percent responsibility for having the greatest influence on Earth's Climate. Now how can any-anaul addicted Owl Gore/United Nations Lap DOG believe the B.S. of Global Warming. BOW-WOW

Answer 10

global warming its happening at avery rapid phase sea level are increasing some islands are submerging glaciers are melting at the speed of light
floods are regular tornadoes are getting frequent droughts are coming
seasons are changing like never before