Hard facts on global warming?!? Need to prove teacher wrong!?

Question

Hard facts on global warming?!? Need to prove teacher wrong!?

Answer 1

I wonder if your teacher isn't baiting you and your fellow students so you'll be challenged to "prove him wrong."



In any case, I'll share 5 of the 50 or so sites I've discovered, each a wealth of information unto its own.



Advice: keep Al out of it, and don't worry about correcting any real or alleged errors with the film. Instead build a foundation of information, based on institutions of higher learning, where some of our best and brightest are striving to achieve solutions that will brighten our future.

Answer 2

Aren't they supposed to find what was wrong in Al Gore's movie? A lot of people take his movie as gospel, and if it is full of errors, isn't that bad?

Just because they only looked for errors, that does not make them biased, it makes them about accuracy.



Edit:

Lets go through a few of Keith P's arguments:



Keith said:

"Then ask him why the diurnal temperature range -- the difference between day and night temperatures -- has been decreasing for decades."



Here is a presentation by John Christy, Alabama state climatologist, on why nighttime temperature increases do not matter (along with many other things): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA



Keith says:

"In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. "

And:

"Ask him why the stratosphere has been cooling for as far back as we have records."



That is exactly the problem: as far back as we have records. 1950's? The stratosphere could have been cooling for the last 250 years, the last 500 years, etc. These seem unlikely, but we just don't know.



Keith says:

"World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics."



No one does disputes that. However, whether or not averaged global surface temperatures are an accurate metric of *global* warming is up for debate. Most would say they're not. How about SSTs? Or the troposphere? Yeah they're all warming, but the SSTs seem to be doing there own thing and could easily be echoing a climatic disturbance that occurred 1000s of years ago--we don't know much about oceanic currents.

And the troposphere is warming as fast as or slower than the surface. That is a big hitch in the AGW theory, which dictates that the troposphere should be warming much faster than the surface.



Keith says:

"If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling."



This is an inaccurate description of greenhouse theory: more heat is supposedly trapped in the troposphere, not the surface. Anyhow, whether or not the stratosphere is cooling doesn't necessarily refute the role of the sun, and it goes like this:

1. The sun's TSI increases (which it did until roughly half through the last century to the highest levels it has been for the last 10,000 years) 2. This warms the earth, though with a lag 3. This invokes a water vapor feedback (a constant with both greenhouse theory and solar influence) 4. The TSI reaches a plateau (which it did) 5. The oceans take time to reach equilibrium (think of a pot of water and a heat source) 6. Meanwhile, the thermal inertia of the oceans causes further warming and more water vapor to enter the atmosphere warming the troposphere 7. The stratosphere already entered equilibrium after the TSI plateaued, and the extra water vapor absorbs more IR before it enters the stratosphere, causing it to cool.



Keith says:

"If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing."



Again, nighttime temperature trends (and winter temperature trends) are not of much relevance, but even if it was, the increase in nighttime temperatures would mostly be due to increased water vapor and land use changes.

One of your sources also says:

"Change in circulation is also a possibility, but it will be difficult to isolate since the patterns of the decreased diurnal temperature range have high field significance throughout much of the year, relatively low spatial coherence, and occur at many stations where individual trends in the maximum and minimum temperature are not statistically significant."



Keith says:

"Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:"



TSI is not the only influence on climate that the sun can have: trends in solar tides and solar winds provide a nice fit (among other things) to global temperature trends.



Keith says:

"Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. "



Your sources hardly refute it. Meanwhile, evidence for the cosmic ray theory (related to solar influence) continues to pile on:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123



Shaviv's rebuttal to Sloan and Wolfendale paper:

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale



Lubo Motl adds in:

http://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=Shaviv



Cloud decrease in U.K. (just an example of how to correctly measure a drop in LLC):

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/77543w3q4mq86417/



Two new studies that came out at the same time the S&W paper did (guess which one the media and warmers picked up):

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2766.pdf



Henrik Svensmark's work:

1998 paper:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf

Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

2003 paper:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0x72u303vv6713x/

2007 papers:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x?journalCode=aag

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/3163g817166673g7/fulltext.pdf



Some more:

https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/2004/acp-4-2273-2004.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000248.shtml

http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_atmtrans.pdf

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf

Looks pretty good, eh?



Keith:

"CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data..."



Maybe. Some are starting to think that the CO2 in the ice cores leach and react with air above the ice (being that it is not a closed system) creating an artificial stability in CO2 concentrations.



Keith:

"We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen."



It is not so simple--d13C is supposed to decrease because fossil CO2 - from oil, coal, natural gas - are depleted of C13 (d13C=-26/1000) compared to natural CO2 (-7/1000). So by measuring d13C, one *should* be able to know what percentage fossil CO2 accounts for the concentration increase.
 Then using a simple mixing law, if you suppose concentration increase is due integrally to human emission (ie fossil CO2), you should observe a d13C = -13.3/1000. The problem, a big one, is that the real value you find is just -9/1000 that is just 30% of the target from the hypothesis & theory above.



Keith:

"So what's left to prove?"



You tell me.

Answer 3

An Inconvenient Truth was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted "nine scientific errors":



The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation

It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"

Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"

Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established

The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"

Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"

Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"

The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult

The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"

Source: The Guardian



Answer



"What the science says...



"It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics."



What Al got right

"Retreating Himalayan Glaciers

Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule."



Greenland gaining ice

"Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements."



More snowfall means more precipitation, not necessarilly colder temps.







Antartica cooling and gaining ice

"Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years."



Hurricanes

"The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity." IPCC scientists predicted stronger hurricanes, not more of them.



What Al got wrong:



Mount Kilimanjaro

"Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."



Dr Thompson's thermometer

"Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions."



http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm



And ccseg200, where in the world did you get the idea that most scientists are learning that man made global warming isn't real?



Are you kidding? About 99.9% say you are wrong.

And the number of skeptics is decreasing.

The evidence is overwhelming in support of AGW.



The IPCC report is the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history.



It says with 95% certainty that AGW is real.



The sources below are real scientists, not mass media, or propaganda mills.

Answer 4

Please tell me he isn't your science teacher. Regardless of whether he accepts the theory or not, he shouldn't be pushing his political views on his students in a science class.



Anyway, I'm guessing this is the article he gave you?



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



First, some of what Monckton says in this piece is true. There are several errors in Gore's film. But it's important to remember that whether there are some errors in a popular documentary has no bearing on whether or global warming is real. All that matters is what the evidence shows.



Second, several of Gore's purported errors aren't errors at all. For example, Monckton tries to argue that increasingly acidic ocean waters are not having an effect on calcifying organisms. This is completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the literature on the subject is enough to show that Monckton is wrong here. Here are just a couple papers I found in a two minute search:



http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf



http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314



Third, even the information in the article which is true is presented in a highly misleading way. For instance, Monckton correctly points out that, historically, a rise in temperature has preceded a rise in CO2. The reason for this is simply that CO2 wasn't the cause of those previous warmings, unlike today. However, Monckton insinuates that the lag means that carbon dioxide doesn't drive temperature, which is false. Carbon dioxide always acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Physics dictates it.



Lastly, point out to him that not once, in the entire century and a half history of global warming theory, has any skeptic managed to present a scientifically valid alternative theory. Often, it isn't sufficient to merely show that one theory is wrong, you must have a better theory to replace it. The skeptics have consistently failed to do this. In fact, the skeptics don't seem to much care *what* the cause of global warming is, just so long as humans aren't causing it. That isn't skepticism, it's denial.



A good source for refuting any of your teacher's other arguments is here:



http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html



The site contains a fairly comprehensive list of common AGW skeptic arguments, and provides a short refutation for each. Odds are any argument your teachers throws at you is dealt with here.



Of course, if you'd like a more authoritative source than an internet Blog, you can't do much better than the IPCC. Just ask your teacher if he's read through the entire report, and ask him to provide a comprehensive refutation of the evidence presented in it. If you feel like being nice to the poor guy, just give him the Frequently Asked Questions section. You can read the report for free online here:



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html



Anyway, hope this helps, and good luck!



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

Edit: Netidol, your answer to B's question was thought provoking and well argued. I don't get why it wasn't chosen as best answer. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. Kudos.

Answer 5

You'll find many scientific answers to his bogus arguments here:



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



And you should read this court decision. It found that a number of minor details were "unproven", but that Gore was definitely right about 4 things; global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and capable of being solved by us.



http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html



But the ultimate argument is this. Al Gore is not a scientist. What he says or does doesn't affect the science. The National Academy of Sciences says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us. Here's a useful article from them (you'll need Acrobat Reader, a free download).



http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

Answer 6

I just want to say, to netidol, I was really impressed with that, not sure what Bob was talking about, definitely A for effort and a C+ for the 'best answer' guy, at least he's been bumped up to 6% best answers for that, so I guess he needed it.



Anyway, I checked out some of those links and was amazed, that's good stuff. Especially the youube link you gave for debating the sckeptics, they got their butts kicked! And that guy that made that Swindle warming film, I had a hard time not laughing just looking at that guy, what a character. anyway.... good job, anyone wanting to learn a thing or two about global warming need only read your one comment. I'm adding you to my contacts!

Answer 7

Hmmm well you could focus on the species extinctions and the effects. I'm currently writing a paper on global warming (both sides included) and I haven't found too many good responses against some of the events that are now occurring. ESPECIALLY in species extinctions (think bird migrations, monarch butterflies, cold-blooded creatures, hmmmm not polar bears hehe)





Good luck!

Answer 8

Ask him why the stratosphere has been cooling for as far back as we have records.



Then ask him why the diurnal temperature range -- the difference between day and night temperatures -- has been decreasing for decades.



Then ask him why these two things are related. If he doesn't know the answer, you can tell him: both are due to increasing greenhouse effect.



Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.



1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/



As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.



If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.



In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_global_mean.txt

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html



2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.



In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf



3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html



4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

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

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf



5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html



6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74



So what's left to prove?

Answer 9

Just going to ignore the lies that Gore told everyone?

All global warming scare tactics are just that, scare tactics.

There is no proof of Global warming, only theory.

Answer 10

I just spent 6 hours trying to nip this in the bud on one of Bob's last questions (consider it a post Earth Day project I somehow got immersed in)...



I've provided over a dozen source links. If I had time, I would write a book because the evidence is really ovewhelming. But in any event... I'm sure you'll find a few points you're looking for in that response which will prepare you. See for yourself at least. But either way, don't expect to win, AGW skeptics are very stubborn and usually always, brainwashed to the point that they can only comprehend information which supports their dillusions about Global Warming and our role with it (or lack of rather). The link... https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20080422105731AAfHTv4&r=w#NbUvWze9WDeQd5uc34Vb







---------







[EDIT] *NEW* (Friday Apr. 25)



(sigh), is your teacher anything like this P.R?



'aceking52'... no need to get so personal with me on here...



But to respond to the three 'lies' you alleged Al Gore made in his film (it would have helped if you had actually 'read' and researched the sources I provided in my other response which I talked about and provided the link for)...



This mini-debate should help P.R. as well...





1) Drying up of Lake Chad - "This example is used to illustrate what the models are predicting which is the shift in rainfall across the Sahel region of Africa. As in the previous example, there are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad and again, human-induced climate change can and will make this situation even worse." - Gore Response



2) CO2/Temperature connections in the ice core record - "Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. There is a much longer explanation. Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of www.realclimate.org."- Gore Response





...Both of those responses came directly from Al Gore's team, but I explained much of this in my other comment which I provided the link for and I did provide a link to each of Gore's responses to the alleged 'lies' (source link # 15).



It is a known fact, aceking52, there is no debate that CO2 is an important green house gas (GHG) and the higher the concentration, the warmer it WILL be, if you don't believe this, go to Venus. It is an absolute fact.



Not only that, we are aware of other times CO2 has driven temperature other than NOW, which is something else I explained and provided proof of in my other comment (source links # 4 and 5).



To extend on that... (per your lag comment) again (and though I explained that before, but just for you)... true, there does appear to be that lag but less important than the lag, is how both the CO2 and temperature levels have gone up and down together (what is meant by 'correlation') for the entire 650,000 year record we gathered from ice core historic atmospheric records... EXCEPT until NOW.



Now, my friend, what Al Gore was pointing out... is that not only have temps risen and are continuing to rise, but CO2 has broken ranks and shot well above any level in the record, and only in the past 150 years has this happened which is why we are clear that it is because of humans, we can make the connections.



The other point to that which is being made here, though CO2 'normally' may lag temperature by a hundred years or so as you pointed out, increasing the CO2 in a manner which is 'not normal' - can, has and therefore will effect temperature levels as a consequence ...how much more is what we're still trying to find out, or not find out rather, because we want to do something about it by reducing this insane unnatural global rise of CO2.



If you remember the film... Al Gore showed at the end of the historic CO2/Temp graph, where we are today with temperature, which is as high as anyone wants to deal with (even though the trend/projection indicates it will only continue to get warmer) and then he pointed out (using a lift), "and this is where CO2 levels are... today" He left it open as to what that means exactly. But at no point did he lie about this. For any of you trying to find errors in a documentary, don't you know, you can find errors in any film, thesis, report, anything. You have to stop spending time being anal about things like this and pay attention to the MESSAGE.



We have every reason to believe that if we continue to boost GHGs (CO2, Methane, etc.)... there will be a 'water fall' effect with side effects (feedback loops) and natural forces will further accelerate the amplified effects of having such a rise as with the present levels of GHGs that we know we are responsible for, and the consequences will only likely continue to be undesirable and potentially devestating. That is the Warning, and the message is we need to reduce and if possible, eliminate our contributions to GHG levels as all we are doing is amplifying the effects and accelerating global warming which has already taken shape.



According to renowned physicist Stephen Hawking... it may not be too late to do something ...but if we don't do it soon... well... prepare to have grand children living on a new version of planet earth than that what we've been accustomed to, take it for what it's worth. http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n116/BluePhoenix8/global_warning_1b.jpg



As for the other thing you said, "rising sea levels/evacs," etc. I'll again, leave it to the Gore team to answer that for you...





3A) Ice-sheet driven sea level rise - "Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen. We hold our fate in our own hands. If we conclude a strong treaty--or if we pass strong legislation in the US to cut the pollution that causes global warming, it could make a real difference to our future and that of our children. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act." - Gore Response



3B) "Pacific island nations needing to evacuate - On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise. In addition, in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation and the government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders. We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate; however, the potential effects of global warming on human displacement as a broader topic is a matter of critical importance, which we believe warrants the attention of the global community. The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption." - Gore Response



--

Answer 11

global warming is not caused by humans repeated tests have shown that humans are not the cause people have been using more and more co2 since 1980 but there has been no temp change in the climate since 1974 the last major climate change wich was a 2 degree change was in the 1940s global warming is due to different changes the earth undergoes on its own throughout history the earths climate has changed many times probably even during the b.c. period and people werent using fossil-fuels, gas, coal, and other co2 contributers so there is no way humans could be responsible even more humans are so small that there is no way that we could change the climate of the entire planet the government is using this "myth" to get money its not the first time just look at it there was y2k (year two thousand) wich the government used to raise money wich was proven wrong and now its global warming and there have been more "government skams" so if u believe this load of lies then you should spend your time and money buying in to this "myth" because you are as dumb and gullible as any other person who would be led to believe this if you are not sure what to believe about this pleaze to the research i have some would ask if humans are not the cause then what is well research has shown that solar winds have been known to take pieces out of the atmospere which could allow more uv rays to get inside the atmosphere causing the tempiture of the planet to rise not humans if humans were the cause then every time somone drove a car, had a campfire,grilled out, burned some trash, did a controlled burning, or even used a boat, they would be hurting the earth and based on how long and how often people do those things i think the earth would already be dead so there is more proofe humans are not the cause of global warming some of the only things that are capable of that kind damage to the ozone are solar winds, valcanoes, huge nuclear explosions, large astroids as they are passing through the earths atmosphere and if they hit the ground with a big enough impact and none of those are man made so there are just a few facts to prove global warming is not man made so hopefully now you are convinced and you will see that the facts support the answer GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MADE BY MAN

Answer 12

You can't just go off of what Al Gore says. Many of the facts in his video aren't true at all. However, that's not to say that there's no such thing as global warming. Here's everything you need to know:



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/



The link is to the website of the EPA, or, the environmental Prtection Agency, which is a department of the US federal government (so you know it's reliable).



Go first to the category labled "science" you'll get some solid statistics and evidence, then go to US climate policy to show that the government is starting to take the issue seriously.



Just something that I've found particularly useful when I'm arguing against people who think global warming is a hoax (maybe it will help you) is the fact that current temperature rises defy the natural cycle of temperature fluctuation. Most people who don't think we, as humans, have a hand in global warming argue that what we're experiencing now is perfectly natural. However, scientific evidence of the past points out that, although the earth does go through cycles of temperature change every hundred thousand years or so due to its relative location to the sun, at this point in time, it should, actually, be getting colder. Since this is obviously not the case, the only explanation is that it's our fault for polluting the atmosphere and releasing so many green house gasses.



You will also find this on the site. Here's the link:



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html



Hope I helped!

Answer 13

Gore is truly wrong and your hick teacher probably knows enough to realize that .... Gore is not a scientist and he has taken info and with the help of Hollywood has put a really biased report together in his movie...... for starters the last ice age in the northern hemisphere ended about 15 to 20,000 years ago ..... the glacial ice over 5000 feet thick came as far south as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, all the mtn states and then up to Washington and out to sea..... ever since then the ice has been melting because of climatic change ... which is a natural event that has been ongoing since the earth began .... this is documented in Geologic history ....the rate of the ice melting slows down and speeds up .... right now we are in a melting stage which always coincides with sea level rise .... Most real scientists have now realized that man has nothing or very little to do with the melting or the rate of melting but had better think more about seal level rising and what to do about that rather than trying to stop something we did not start .....

Answer 14

Al Gore DID lie in his falseumentary .... Sea levels threatening pacific island nations...nope



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&feature=related



The drying up of lake Chad....nope....lie



Scientits nor comp models can accuratly predict longterm rainfall anywhere on the planet...The idea of that is very misleading



The bigest lie of them all....The relationship between Co2 and temperature....Gore "When there is more Carbon Dioxide , the temperature gets warmer because it traps heat from the sun" . Here he is refering to the ice core records that show the relation between rising temp and Co2 levels. His statement however is WRONG! The ice core records clearly show that any rise in Co2 lags a rise in temp by hundereds of years... and there you have a huge lie by Gore that clearly shows his intention on misleading the public...wich has worked to some degree



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU



Your teacher is right about one thing... Al Gore is a proven lier!!!!



(Eat that for lunch netidol)

Answer 15

Uhhh.....The Earth has been getting COOLER in the for the past 6 YEARS. Oh also Mars has been getting warmer and cooler along with Earth in this time period. Did we do that too?



No, It's called Sun Flares look it up when the sun makes more heat we get hotter...when it makes less we get colder





Check it out and get informed and stop being a SHEEP!



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Answer 16

hes probably right and al gore is a stupid retard trying to get money off saying that are earth is heating up from fossile fuels when every ten thousand years we rotate through ice ages.. its hard clear evidence only 3% of the climate is made by us and in another 30 years we are out of fuel so give it up

Answer 17

"Convenient Untruths" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/



Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: unscientific? http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html



"An 'error' is not the same thing as an error" http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Answer 18

Why don't you do some research on your own before you wind up with egg on your face supporting something that is a political lie?



Scientific Consensus?

One of the main arguments of Al Gore and the Climate Alarmists is that there exists almost irrefutable scientific consensus that man-made CO2 emissions will doom the planet unless dramatic actions are taken. But is there scientific consensus?





What are 19,000 scientists saying about "Global Warming"? 19,000 Scientists signed a petition saying global warming probably is natural and not a crisis. More here



- Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming by U.S. Senator James Inhofe; Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works



- U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007





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



Is Global-Warming Man-Made?



The climate is constantly changing and warming is happening, but only slightly, and not globally. Al Gore and his global warming alarmists attempt to rewrite history as they claim that the Industrial Revolution ignited this global warming and led to this current warming cycle? The truth is that "man-made" global warming is only about .6 degrees F, while the sun contributed another .6 degrees F. Man's contribution is slight and not enough to panic over.



- How Much Global Warming is Man-Made? by Michael J. Oard



-View excerpts from Glenn Beck's Exposed: Climate of Fear



-GlobalWarmingHoax.com provides arguments based on science, news, and common sense.