Global Warming questions?

Question

I have to ask this question, how can you still believe we are doomed? Im truly not bashing anybody who believes the planet is in danger, but Im so confused.

Its obvious both sides of the debate are influenced by other entities.. could we agree on that? There is a lot of money at stake for both side... I think we all agree on that also. So I ask you, with all the Climategates, the Monnets, the hide the declines and all the examples of things I forgot or havent heard of yet... why do you think the planet is on the verge?

Sure, every example I give has already been torn apart by an AGW believer, just like every argument you give is torn apart by a skeptic... every scientist you have is funded by Big Environmental, just like every scientist we have is funded by Big Oil. All the arguments on each side are the exact same thing, and every rebuttal could be used be either side. Sure, humans believed the Earth was flat, that argument could be used for either side.

Has the climate warmed? some say yes, some say it stopped 10 years ago. Lets assume it is still warming. The question is, are we causing it. So, with all the examples I gave you, how could you truly say, with 100% certainty, we are causing the climate to warm? Think about it, had the AGW skeptics been in force 20 years ago when the Climate Change movement started, the movement would not be as strong as it is today... more funding would have gone in to researching the skeptics side and the scientists would have most likely come to a true consensus in favor or against the theory... not an imaginary consensus like we have today. With what I said above, and using logic, could we all agree that there really isnt a consensus today?

I want to close this by saying I believe a Green world is obviously the way to go, but I also think we are being forced fed things that arent necessary (curly cue lightbulbs).

Answer 1

I would not say we are doomed, but if we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere we will cause ourselves enormous problems. The "skeptics" were not in force 20 years ago because for the most part they don't follow science with any great interest--they became skeptics when people told them (rightly or wrongly) that they would be taxed. The evidence that AGW is real and happening now has been piling up over that 20 year period that you talk about.



As a word of friendly advice, you should look up what the phrase "...hide the decline" actually refers to if you're going to use it as an example. Whenever I hear people use that phrase out of context it's a tip-off that they're not really informed on the issue.

Answer 2

If all the arguments and rebuttals can be used by either side, where do we find quantum theory according to deniers? Where do we find commercial records of fossil fuel output that support the deniers? Where's their historical data on atmospheric CO2 concentration? What rebuttal do they have on Greenland ice loss?



Edit:



"Also, I want you guys to think real clearly and stay open minded... a few hundred years ago, scientists believed the Earth was flat."



You're flat wrong here. Scientists have never believed the earth was flat, neither have seafarers. The diameter of the earth was calculated with fair accuracy over 2000 years ago. The meme that scientists thought the earth was flat has come from people who were projecting their own ignorance.



You're wrong about Big-Bang theory as well. Consensus has never been resolved beyond observable evidence, which so far overwhelmingly supports "big bang". Most newer speculation is about events in a larger-scale univers that would look like a big bang from our perspective.

Answer 3

Yes, photovoltaic cell and wind turbine manufacturers, uranium miners and carbon traders stand to make money from people believing in AGW, but the financial resources of these groups is not in the same league as the financial resources of big oil. Some people claim that AGW was invented as

an excuse to raise taxes. However, scientists have been saying that humans would warm the Earth at least since 1896.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Yet Cap and trade was not implemented as a strategy to reduce CO2 until 2005.

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



So, we are supposed to believe that a conspiracy to raise taxes was kept alive for 109 years without seeing any of the taxes which AGW is supposedly all about. I don't think so. That is why denialists talk about Al Gore as if he invented global warming rather than talk about Svante Arrhenius.







Because of some hacked emails we are supposed to drive monster trucks which get 3 miles per gallon and release plant food into our pants every time the toilets back up at a nuclear power plant. Perhaps some of the emails say that not all "pro-AGW" scientists are very nice. Perhaps that would be relevant if people were asking you to share a drink with them. But, what do the emails say about



1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html

2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo.htm

3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

5. The Earth's temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm









Oh! Is there a skeptical counterpart to

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php







Why do we need 100% certainty? Would you get in a car with a drunk driver because you have a chance of making it home alive? Would you touch an exposed electrical wire because you are not 100% certain that it is live.







People have been challenging AGW all along.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Saturation.html

Knut Ångström's rebuttal to Svant Arrhenius was so effective that prominent scientists from the first half of the 20th century, such as Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein hardly ever mentioned AGW. The reason why there is distention rather than "a true consensus" is due to politics and wishful thinking, rather than doubts about global warming.







People have died in Russia and Pakistan in killer heat waves.(I was not able to provide links because YA only allows 10 links per answer. Sorry!



While it is wrong to blame every weather event on global warming, and that Russia's and Pakistan's summers were only slightly hotter than they would have otherwise been, when temperatures get to such levels, every degree will make the heat wave more lethal. And don't tell me that global warming was not a factor in these heat waves.

Answer 4

The problem you have and the vast majority of people have in here is the concept of belief built around climate change.



Climate change is a scientific fact that you can choose to believe or not to believe but its still a fact. Natural climate change has been going on since the earth first developed a climate. The whole arguement centres around how much of an affect we have had. Well we have had quite a big effect seeing as we have pushed CO2 levels far beyond what they should be naturally and we have cut down rainforests, changed the hydrological cycle, changed the earths Albido in huge areas of land etc etc. We have had a massive effect on our planet and its not all just rising CO2 its a combination of many other factors too.



People also simply do not know the difference between climate and weather. Climate is the long term statistical changes in meterological factors, Weather is the short term variations in them. They are not the same thing. You can live in a warm arid climate and it can still rain and you can live in a cold wet climate and it can still be warm dry and sunny.



The climate has warmed over the last ten years it has just taken the last year to become statistically significant (which I can't be bothered explaining look it up if you like).



Also there is a true consensus 99.99% of climate scientists say that global climate change exists and the same 99.99% say that AGW exists. Other non climate scientists may deny it and other very smart but NOT climate scientists may deny it too. The reason that the AGW skeptics can't get funding is because to get funding you have to come up with an idea that you can back up scientifically before you get the funding. So you need a theory and you need pilot data to prove your theory is probably correct. That how it works you apply for funding saying what you think you will find and say why you think you will find it and then prove one way or the other. There is a scientific consensus between climate scientists that the earth is in a warming trend there is no political consensus. There is a big difference between the science of global climate change and the politics.



From an economic point of view there is far far far far far more money in denying climate change than there is saying it exists (i.e oil companies have unbelievably large amounts of money).



Even if AGW doesn't exist climate change is STILL going to happen and we are STILL going to have to learn how to adapt.



edit: We also need to move away from using the term global warming. Global climate change is the correct scientific term. Too many people focus on the warming part of global warming and not enough on the global. The usual OMG WE HAD THE COLDEST WINTER IN 130 YEARS GLOBAL WARMING IS RUBBISH! People always forget the global part of climate change its a global problem. The weather outside your house does not equal global climate.



@jeffrey cole. Your petition proves exactly the problem. 50,000 "scientists" when only around 9000 (I think you said in a previous article) have PhD's. How many of these "scientists" are climate scientists from the looks of it none. Sorry but urologists, medical doctors, dentists etc are not climate scientists.



also the first name on your list Dr Earl M. Aagaard is an intelligent design "scientist" shows the quality of the signers.

Answer 5

definite, it exists. the super question seems to be whether or no longer human interest (in particular the manufacturing of greenhouse gases which includes carbon dioxide) is coming up the issue, accelerating a organic cycle, or if the substitute in international climate is easily organic. To me, this appears like arguing approximately whether or no longer the hearth on your homestead replaced into intentionally set or an accident quite than rather handling the hearth. organic or guy-made, we are going to be merely as ineffective. i'm thinking that's properly previous time all of us started rather making plans for what we are going to do while glaciers and ice caps soften, raising ocean tiers and inundating the particularly populous coastal cities we've long gone and built all over the map. We additionally could prefer to take a seem at what outcomes it could have on crop manufacturing, fishery shares and different climate based procedures that we use to feed ourselves. What precisely can we do if droughts and heat climate reason international mess united statesof rice and wheat plant life 3 years in a row? illness proliferation is yet another considerable issue. Malaria replaced into as quickly as uncomplicated each and each of how up the Ohio river valley and up into Canada. It won't take a lot to permit it to unfold north back, merely a 2 day extension of the form season which will enable the Plasmodium parasite to triumph over North united states of america back. different ailments could additionally somewhat unfold with warmer climates. specific, it rather is a sturdy thought to cut back down on our greenhouse gas emissions. i do no longer think of all and sundry rational can probable argue that their rather doing all and sundry or something any sturdy. although, i think of that's greater significant that we initiate making plans on what we are gonna do if issues somewhat start to warmth up.

Answer 6

There is a consensus among scientists - not the public.You don't understand how science works. I was a researcher in this 20-25 years ago. EVERYBODY was skeptical. Science is set up to give more weight to the skeptical argument. Scientist immediately assume global warming (man induced or natural) was not occurring until the found other wise. It take repeated experimentation and evidence to reject the skeptical argument (the null hypothesis - climate change is NOT occurring). More research has only re-enforced the connection. Fact is, 97-98% of climatologist think is is a real man-made problem. The mean global temperature of the earth has risen by 0.7 c (1.2-1.3F) over the past 150 years and this is significant. This is also an average, so it "hides" the extremes. The "cooling" is a lie formed by the denialist and there has been no significant cooling, only a significant warming trend.



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/10/26/statisticians-reject-global-cooling-earth-heating/





http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full





The skeptical argument was funded mostly by Exxon when they realized the science was finding that Global warming and climate change was man-made. Te make 10 time more in 3 months than has spent on all global warming research since it started. That is whay they obstruct the truth - the make billions ever month they can delay action.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf



Profits first 3 months of 2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/us-exxonmobil-idUSTRE73R35O20110428





Don't be fooled by denialist lies meant to confuse you. The are made specifically to confuse you. The are very Paliness in their appeal and stupidity if you look into them at all.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Answer 7

If you get five of you friends together and all agree on something whether it is true or not, then there is a consensus. Mr. Gore used ideological environmentalist magazine articles to derive his consensus.



More than 55,000 scientists world wide, 31,478 from the US alone, say that CO2 is not causing any climate change. http://www.petitionproject.org



If you want to know what the real science is, here are a few publications of summaries widely accepted by the global science communities. If you read only the first one, you will see that 90,000 measurements of CO2 levels were done from 1812 to 1960, when they began to use satellites to measure atmospheric CO2 levels.



In about 1813, CO2 levels were measured to be 550 parts per million, about 50% higher than today's levels. With that said, there are dozens of flaws in presenting anthropogenic (man made) CO2 is causing or going to cause temperatures to rise.



WInd turbines have many flaws and in England and Germany, they are paying the wind farms to shut down during certain times, which defeats the purpose of having wind powered turbines. They also aren't so cheap - they cost as much as $2.40 per KWH, when we only pay $0.10 or so per KWH for electricity.



Read these articles and you will understand that Global Warming caused by human CO2 emissions doesn't exist. Humans produce 30 billion tons per year, but naturally it is 1.28 trillion tons per year. Humans only contribute to about 2.75% of all CO2 emissions. Do we then tax and regulate volcanoes and under water thermal vents?? THat's where most of the CO2 is coming from. One of the articles has the charts to show the CO2 levels and volcanic activity.

Answer 8

I think its funny how every one wrote a long page, when really the problem is over population. that is where the problem will stay and remain. Think about it. The more people you have the more resources are going to be used, the more oil will be polluting the world. Also more people will go hungry each and every day, this world can only hold so many people.

Answer 9

I do not believe it because I gave Global warming a chance and I was able to disprove every "fact" (that I have heard) about it.





P.S. The heat wave this summer was caused by a sunspot :P google it!

Answer 10

Yes the planet is not doomed but yes we are doomed if we continue to live a world of mind manipulation and media brainwashing.

You are wrong on one point though,what you are not considering is who owns the oil companies.

do some research and you will see that there is not the imagined competition in the world between companies that you perceive.Eight to thirteen families run this world,they control the governments ,central banks,educational and legal systems of the majority of countries.Global warming is their baby and serves their purpose,lets face it would you really be concerned about a few less oil profits if you already owned everything.



DISCLAIMER I understand that what is written above will fall outside the core belief system of the average warmer so just let your eyes skim over it and please don't try to think about it ,don't panic all is well,please go back to american idol on your tv cause your missing it.

Answer 11

20 years ago? Knowledge of CO2s effect in the atmosphere has been around since roughly 1896 with Svante Arrhenius.



The Greenhouse Effect

--------------------------------



The greenhouse effect is largely dependent on solar variation. The energy, or radiation, that the Sun sends to the Earth is in the ultraviolet, visible and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Solar energy, or energy below 4 micrometers, is collectively known as shortwave radiation while energy above this wavelength is collectively known as longwave radiation. That radiation that strikes Earth's surface is absorbed and re-emitted according to Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation, which states that any object at some non-zero temperature radiates electromagnetic energy. According to Planck's Radiation Law the emitted radiation varies in frequency and wavelength dependent on the temperature of the object. While the Sun emits 99% of it's radiation below 4 micrometers, the Earth, being much cooler than the Sun, emits radiation at a longer wavelength.



Greenhouse gases have the ability to absorb energy at these longer wavelengths. Specifically between 4 micrometers and 100 micrometers. Though absorption of higher energy modes is possible it is largely inconsequential to the greenhouse effect as those frequencies are not emitted by the Earth's surface. When this electromagnetic radiation strikes a molecule with an uneven distribution of electric charges, called an electric dipole, and a matching absorption frequency it causes the molecule to oscillate or vibrate which in turn either re-emits the energy or converts it into kinetic energy. This increase in kinetic energy is what we perceive as an increase in temperature. If a collision with another molecule occurs the energy is again converted into vibrational energy which can then be re-emitted. This interconverting between vibrational energy, kinetic energy and infrared light continues until it can escape into space unimpeded.





Global Warming

-----------------------



There are many lines of evidence showing that the current warming is attributable to an increase of greenhouse gases. Specifically CO2 and methane though other lesser greenhouse gases, such as Ozone and various CFCs, play small roles. CO2 absorbs at a small band centered at 15 micrometers. That is where most of the warming attributable to CO2 is coming from.



You can see the effects global warming has by such things as ecological responses to a warming climate ( http://web4.cns.utexas.edu/communications/File/AnnRev_CCimpacts2006.pdf ) glacial mass balance ( http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/7076.pdf ) and poleward movement of disease vectors ( http://aquaticpath.phhp.ufl.edu/waterbiology/handouts/McMichael_2006.pdf )



Global warming via an increased greenhouse effect is also a reality giving that measurements show that there is more longwave radiation, mainly at CO2 absorption wavelengths, within the troposphere/hydrosphere ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1 | http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml ) and upper atmospheric cooling combined with lower atmospheric warming ( http://www.ann-geophys.net/16/1501/1998/angeo-16-1501-1998.pdf ) as well as the rate at which both nights and days are warming ( http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/2005jd0062903.pdf )



And we know that the increase in CO2 would not occur without anthropogenic emissions present due to the fact that atmospheric increase, at roughly 15gt per annum, is less than estimated anthropogenic emissions, at roughly 30gt per annum, as well as the 13C to 12C atmospheric ratio ( http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/sioref4_2001.pdf ) and O2 atmospheric decrease ( https://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/manning/ManningandKeeling2006.pdf ) on top of that we have ocean decrease in pH during a warming period ( http://www.bu-eh.org/uploads/Main/doney_ann_rev_proof.pdf )

Answer 12

If it wasn't for global warming Chicago would still be under a mile of ice.



Cro Magnon people learned to make fire and the smoke from their campsites melted the glaciers.

Answer 13

You're confused, so why should I trust your perceptions? I'm right, you're wrong, live with it