Is global warning taking place and, is, what is the cause.?

Question

I am new to Yahoo answers but have been surprised at the number of answers which say that global warning is not taking place or if it is it is a natural phenomena.
I think that is mainly caused the uncontrolled release of gases especially carbon dioxide and that it is the biggest threat that the world faces but to solve it will mean high levels of contribution from the developed countries
A good reference is Stern Review on the economics of climate change produced for the UK governmeny especially chapter 1
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Answer 1

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 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually



http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

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.

Answer 2

William Rushner is not to be trusted. Cows do not produce more greenhouse gasses than corporations do. Cows & other livestock account for 100 million tons of methane per year which is 21 times more effective at capturing heat in the upper atmosphere as carbon dioxide. So, this is the same as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide. However, corporations put more than this amount of methane into the atmosphere due to drilling for oil, natural gas leaks, and decaying garbage dumps. Also, human activity accounts for around 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year which is way more than the 2.1 billion comparision amount shown above. Is Willian even a scientist? No, he's a conservative think-tank columnist who definately has a political agenda to further. If you really want to know what causes global warming read what the scientists have to say.

Answer 3

Think the reason for our current situation goes back to the time that people started settling the United States, Australia and other areas of the world that were very underpopulated. There was a reason for this under population. Except for the native indians who thrived living a hunter gatherer existence there were very few people living in the North American continent. This also applies to the Australian continent. These were not parts of the planet that could naturally sustain a large population living a formal settled, agricultural existence as had been done for centuries in the more amenable climates and soils of Europe and Africa. In order to live and thrive in hostile climates and conditions lands had to be conquered, natural fauna and flora eliminated so that the new settlers could live the kind of existence they wanted. From then on more and more abuse was heaped on their new continents. It became very necessary to use fossil fuels with the resultant pollution in order survive there. No wonder the U.S. will not contemplate changing the way they live as this would threaten their very existence on the their continent. It is not the poor of the world who will be the first victims of climate change but people living in places where human existence is not viable without polluting and destroying much of the environment they live in. If this is not the case I challenge the people of the North American continent to make the changes that are increasingly being made on the other side of the Atlantic with very little ill affect. There is a reason you found these empty lands waiting for you but by trying to live in great numbers in areas of the world that are not viable for such population you are destroying the whole planet!

Answer 4

Yes. Mostly (75%-95%) due to us, mostly to burning fossil fuels.



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



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://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

Global warming is occurring. Take a look at these links form NASA-GISS;



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



You can see that the earth has warmed since the 1880s;



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lrg.gif



and that the majority of that warming has been in the northern hemsiphere.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.1999vs2005.gif



There have been model studies that use what we know of the physics of climate to try attribute recent warming.



Here is a good graph of the results with citation;



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



and for more detail here is the wikipedia entry for attribution.



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



As for how much of recent warming is natural the IPCC TAR states:



Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century.



* The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm-2, most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th century. Since the late 1970s, satellite instruments have observed small oscillations due to the 11-year solar cycle. Mechanisms for the amplification of solar effects on climate have been proposed, but currently lack a rigorous theoretical or observational basis.



* Stratospheric aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions lead to negative forcing, which lasts a few years. Several major eruptions occurred in the periods 1880 to 1920 and 1960 to 1991.



* 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.







http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

Answer 6

Global Warming/Climate Change is not as big a problem as some would have you to believe. A recent article in the New York Times has even asked Al Gore to stop all the hype:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin That same article talks about Al Gore's claim that the oceans could rise 20 feet is exaggerated by 18.08 FEET! The latest UN study on the subject says the seas could rise a MAXIMUM of 23 inches. Al was only 18.08 FEET off. That, my freind IS hype...



If you look up any global temperature chart on the net, you'll find the earth's temperature has only increased by about 6/10 of one degree (C) - that's 1.1 degree (F), in the last 125 years. So yes, the globe is warming up, but it's not overheating like some would have you to believe. http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif



The latest research shows that the methane from cows and pigs is a major factor in the increase of "heat trapping gas". It's actually 23 times more potent as a heat trapping gas than is carbon dioxide. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/other_gases According to the newest UN report on Global Warming, "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."



So if Al Gore and all the alarmists really want to do something about climate change, they MUST become vegetarians and shut down cow and pig farms. I mean seriously, if they truly believe that global warming is as disastrous as they are preaching then they need to stop eating meat, period! I doubt that will happen. If not, then they are the hypocrites that some of us already suspect they are.



Also Al Gore preaches to you to conserve, but he does not practice it himself. He uses 20 times more energy in his Nashville mansion than the national average. http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

One thing he has not learned is that you MUST practice what you preach... at some point you will get caught as he has.

Answer 7

Global warming is indeed taking place for a number of reasons:

1.) The Earth is in a nearly circular orbit around the sun. Sometimes the orbit is oval & we have an ice age, but when it is in the present orbit, we have warming.

2.) We have an increase in carbon dioxide & methane levels in our atmosphere. Methane is far more a greenhouse gas than CO2.

A number of solutions have been proposed & one of them is fertilizing the ocean plants (they produce nearly 90% of our oxygen.)

Answer 8

this is a huge debate and there is ongoing research in this field so it's impossible to answer this question. however, there are people who strongly believe that global warming is happening as a result of increased greenhouse gases emissions, on the other hand there are people who believe it is a natural cycle. i, personally am one of the latter, the reason being that the % of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.03%. however i'm not a professional and that's only my opinion. it's a pointless argument which uneducated people shouldn't debate.

however, i do know that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that emissions should be decreased for many reasons including less pollution and better health for people and other animals.

everyone has to make up their own mind and ask themselves, is the reason that global warming has become such an issue lately as a result of new and improved technology which allows us to measure the quantity of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and global temperature?

Answer 9

you are right. it is the main causes of global warming. it is really taking place. i believe global warming causes the imbalance of climate temperature that's why it sometimes said its not true. i know that UN made a treaty to industrial countries that they must lessen gas emissions by 5% or 10% by 2010 or something. i'm just not sure

Answer 10

Sorry to hear that but a preponderance of paperwork does not prove AGW exists.

Answer 11

So Jubbles, all humans and animals give off a pollutant when we exhale? What are they teaching kids in schools these days?

Answer 12

chuck norris got cold and turned the sun up

Answer 13

the cows fart to much causing methane gases

Answer 14

uh duh!!! of course global warming is taking place. and the cause of it, Human Stupiditity. oh and by the way, just in case you havent noticed you put a n in warming