Wow, You Guys In This Section Really Do Believe Global Warming Is A Man-made Phenomenom...?

Question

...don't you? Well, that's great. Unfortunately I don't. So how can you convince me I'm wrong?

Answer 1

I really hate to get involved in trying to convince a person who is already convinced one way or another. Sometimes, the only way to convince a person that a tornado is about to strike their area is to just stand back and let it happen. Maybe you just wanted to stir the pot, so to speak and arouse some interest.



The entire question misses the most critical point. Several folks really hit the jackpot. Pollution, lack of proper government incentives in the right places, overpopulation and a general lack of "thinking" by the sleeping giant are so much more important to debate than whether or not we are causing global warming. I doubt humans are causing all the warming but clearly some of it is worse because of us and I suspect the planet is going to change whether or not we do our part to clean up but when asked how could humans do so much damage in 100 years ... well ... wake up and look around. You'd have to be semi- or unconscious to think we have not significantly increased every conceivable type of pollution from crowding to smelly gases to garbage and radioactive wastes. And the contribution of humans to pollution is going to far worse very soon.



So hey, watch out for that truck coming your way. Oooops ... sorry ... should have mentioned it earlier but then ... you wouldn't have believed me anyhow.

Answer 2

In adding so much stuff to our atmosphere, I find it incredible that someone suggests that there is no impact. Each fossil fuel that is burned does not go into the ground, it goes into the atmosphere. The gases (mostly CO2) that are being added to the atmosphere are not the same as the mix of gases already there, the CO2 increase over the past century has been directly measured. The CO2 is increasing. So the question is: Can the increase in CO2 cause more of the suns energy to be trapped in the atmosphere? I believe the answer is yes and that the result is already being measured and experienced now.



Now here is a bit of a stretch. What happens if at some point in the future the global warming runs away and the earth become uninhabitable? How likely would that be? Would we see it coming? Would we be able to stop it and save our world? These are the ideas that might be more difficult to believe. The idea that the earth is getting warmer in my opinion is not only plausible, but it is happening now. How much it will increase is the real question. I don't believe we know the answer to that with any precision.



Timothy D.

West Melbourne, FL

Answer 3

No reasoning person would say that GW is exclusively caused by human activity. Nor would anyone aware of the science assert that we are not contributing.



What we have to face however is that we will run out of cheap fossil fuels whether or not we caused most GW. Time to start conserving fossil fuels for another day even if we can not stop global warming.



The urgency of dealing with GW now, rather than later has to do with GW theory itself. GW itself is known to be a major contributor to global warming... it is a self-driving phenomenon that we will not be able to stop if we let it proceed too far.



We can not clearly state that we know whether we may have waited too long. We would know that only if we discontinue fossil fuel usage, wait 50 years, and note that GW has stopped.



Of course, if it is still going, we would have a reserve of fossil fuel available to blow on one big bonfire.

Answer 4

Yes, many of us here in the GW section do accept that the current warming is anthropogenic. As to how I can convince you of this, I don't know. But I'm an optimistic guy, so I'll give it the old college try anyway.



First, we know the planet in warming. We have very accurate and reliable records of Earth's temperature dating back hundreds of years (nearly 600 years in the British Isles), as well as fairly reliable reconstructions of temperatures based on proxy measurements that stretch back for millenia.



We also know that the current warming is unusual. The planet hasn't been this warm since at least the mid 14th century, and likely the past 6-10,000 years. And this is only the beginning, scientists have estimated that the planet could warm as much as 3ºC in the next century. More importantly, the rate of warming has been unprecedented throughout all of human history.



This warming bears all the signs of an enhanced greenhouse effect. For instance, the planet is warming more during night time hours than daylight hours, which doesn't make sense if the warming is resulting from, say, an increase in solar output. The warming has also resulted in cooling in the stratosphere, which can only result from an enhanced greenhouse effect.



Evidence strongly suggests that this enhanced greenhouse effect is a result of human activities. There are certain gases which are transparent to shortwave radiation and opaque to longwave radiation. Some of these gases are present in small amounts in our atmosphere (water vapor being chief among them). And we know that humans have been pumping massive amounts of these "greenhouse gases" (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) into the atmosphere for the past century and a half. In fact, we've increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (a gas which comprises 9-36% of the overall greenhouse effect–the range being due to spectral overlaps with the other absorbers) from 280 to 380 parts per million- about a 30% increase.



Scientists have been carefully monitoring the sun in recent decades. And there have been no trends in solar output sufficient to have produced the bulk of 20th century warming. As you can see in the below graph of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) for the past century and a half, while the trend from 1850- ≈1970 is in good agreement with temperatures, during the 1975-present period (the period when scientists believe human influence began to dominate the climate change), TSI levels off while temperature continues to rise:



http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/solar3.JPG



Of course, all this is only a brief overview of a tiny portion of the mountain of evidence supporting AGW theory. For more info, I recommend reading the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, which you can read online for free at the link below:



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

Answer 5

Tomcat: interesting link it looks like a real scientific paper, until you do a search on "International Conference on Climate Change" and discover that it is sponsered by the Heartland Institute "link below" to find out who they are follow the second link

If you read the second paragraph on the conference link "next to mr taylors pic" and then the wiki page on the heartland institwat it really does start to sound like some sort of oil company con job! i'm sure if you could get a list of attendees it would be John Christie, Fred Singer et al

Answer 6

I can't think of a good reason to waste the time. What difference could convincing you you're wrong possibly make, anyway...would you talk to people about global warming while you're delivering their pizzas or something?

Answer 7

Yes, Global Warming is a Man-Made Phenomenon. The man who made it is named Al Gore. The entire globe is not heating up, Antarctica is getting colder and other parts are not heating at the same rate. Oddly enough, the monitoring stations that show the most heating are the ones closest to secondary heat sources such as cities, asphalt, buildings or industry. I don't think they've corrected adequately for this because it doesn't serve their purpose to do so.



Alternative theories for warming that attribute it to solar or gamma ray activity are rejected almost off-handedly. Because there is definitely a political agenda driving this issue, all you need to do is see who gets funded. 95% of the money goes to those who adopt the theory, the rest is for those 'crazy' enough to want to study the issue to be sure.



"This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming." The fact that a lot of political organizations, and the national academies indirectly answerable to them have all signed on doesn't make this statement true. The voices crying from the wilderness that man-made warming is incorrect are the poor scientists who've had funding pulled or their reputation smeared for daring to be heretics. Who sounds more like a fanatic eager to burn a dissenter? Skeptics want the answers. AGW enthusiasts want to end any debate by claiming the 'consensus' proves it's happening.



I've said it before. Einstein's theories were ridiculed by every 'leading scientist' when he promulgated them. Yet they were true. At the end of the 19th century, 'leading scientists' were convinced every major discovery in science had alread been made. They were wrong. Up until the latter half of the 20th century, 'the consensus' of scientists was that sub-atomic chaos theory was not possible. They too were wrong. The majority has been wrong countless times and it just doesn't matter to the facts, which continue to be facts regardless.

Answer 8

Global warming or natural climate change... I really don't believe that any scientist can prove it either way... it is just not possible. It is possible that humans are contributing to global warming, but it can never be blamed on that alone... we've had the ages of ice and fire before, so how come its suddenly all our fault now? There is a hell of a lot of scaremongering going on, but you can also find plenty of evidence which refutes it if you look - for example, check out the environment section on www.spiked-online.com.



Pollution is a huge issue and needs to be dealt with, but all this carbon footprint nonsense is distracting us from the fact that the various governments involved in the major decision making, and the multi national corporations who influence them are going to make decisions on the basis of money, and not the good of the environment. It is big business which causes most of the pollution, but there is no way that the government will provide funding to equip evey house and business with solar panels etc etc... if the funding was used with any consideration for the planet, it would be used to build pipes and water purifying facilities to provide water to the arid areas of the world, to find alternatives to using fossil fuels, and to provide safe, clean energy for every home in the world.... but it is not going to happen under current neo-liberal agenda.

Answer 9

Not everyone in this section believes it is man made, nor do we believe that the warming is unprecedented. The GISS surface temperature record is completely unreliable as a metric for evaluating the climate. Careful averaging of rural surface stations shows a clear correlation of the US temperature and solar variability over the last century. At least in the US the current observations and predictions of solar output should cause a major cooling trend that is already underway.



http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf



"The end of the Holocene will be a brutal time for humanity."

.

.

Answer 10

I just read a article where the London Express reports ice levels are almost back to normal and Antarctica has three times the ice as normal. Also the Polar bear population is soaring. In fact this winter has seen some of the heaviest snowfall in decades.



Seems it just a scare tactic

Answer 11

The link below is a good start it covers 26 of the myths related to global warming, the second link goes more directly to your question about 'man-made'

Answer 12

Interesting link.

Answer 13

Global Warming is such a spoof.... How can man do something so drastic in 100 years, when this earth has been around for 5 billion years? no way.

Answer 14

No need to convince any one. The number one problem in the world today is OVERPOPULATION, but not very many people believe that. Because people believe what the news media tells them to believe.

Answer 15

I cannot convince you, and I will not try.



I will only give you the link to what Shell (you know, the oil company) says about it:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/envirosoc-en/environment/climate_change/what_is_climate_change/what_is_climate_change_000407.html

Answer 16

GLobal warming cannot be called a man-mad phenomenon.....though its a natural phenomenon....but we humans have contributed to it.........we contributed to the rising levels of carbon dioxide......so in a way we also are responsible....and moreover....why do we care who caused it?....the point is....its a threat to OUR PLANET..and of course....us......so we have to do something to save our planet from global warming...whether we caused it....or nature....

Answer 17

I'm not sure myself.



I know pollution is an issue, and I think whether or not global warming is our fault or even whether it exists, we should deal with pollution first, instead of trying to figure things out and point fingers. We know for a fact that there is pollution.

Answer 18

why? You are correct sir. We are the end of an ice age.

People buy into what ever the media sells them. Instead of researching it themselves.

Answer 19

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.



For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day. If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence. Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day. Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere. If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071215102828AAxyWW6



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



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



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#The_future

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943



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 20

How to convince you?

Well.... maybe this will make you believe:



http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/qa/



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



Can we afford taking a chance? I don't think so!

Watch this video and decide for yourself:



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



... and pull your head out of the sand! :)

Answer 21

No such thing as global warming.

Answer 22

And more are going to believe real soon, Hot summer days are just about here>

Answer 23

Most people who issue the challenge you are making here are people who want to keep on driving in gas guzzlers (and can afford it), who don't want to bother recycling, who want to keep on wasting electricity, and who don't want to be bothered asking their governments to get involved in reduction of pollution.

I don't know if this is the case with you, but I think you might spend your energy trying to improve a disgusting situation instead of arguing about whether global warming is man-made or not. I think it is probably a combination of natural cycle and man-made phenomenon. A look at what we are doing to our atmosphere convinces me that we are at least contributing to the problem.

Answer 24

Nope just a few deadheads.You can even agree with them on certain subjects and they still argue.I think it's fun stirring up a hornets nest...don't you?Haven't been stung yet,but that's the thrill.

Answer 25

Are you seriously going to defy all the scientist out there that can PROVE that its happening??

Answer 26

I cant convince anyone who wont listen to reason. You know they arrested Gallileo and nearly burned him at the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun? I guess they found it to be a REALLY inconvenient truth.



Darwin didnt exactly get the red carpet rolled out for him either. It doesnt make evolution false though.



People like you have been around for centuries. Oh well.

Answer 27

all you have to do is to look at the statistical coorleation between CO2 emissions, athmosphereic CO2 and average planetary temperature to realize this isn't a natural phenomona.



The rate of increase of CO2 and temperature is increasing exponentially at a rate not seen in the last 10,000 + years.



The coorelation is so obvious, you don't really need a background in statistics to get a feel for it. But those of us who are statisticans and have observed the data realize that the change of global warming NOT being related to man made CO2 is less than 0.01%



I know that the reason some people want to call it a 'natural cycle' is that they are having problems dealing with such a horrific problem and denial is a natural response to anxiety. I wish I could give you some comfort, but the truth is we have done this to ourselves and it's just getting started. we have to deal with this new reality for our very survival.

Answer 28

The first person's answer is interesting in that it works both ways.



Today MOST people believe in global warming. The ones who don't are ones who get burned at the stake.

Answer 29

Sure --here's how: all you have to do is make the effort too learn the science and convince yourself. If you won't, why should we waste time on you?

Answer 30

Actually, since you're the one with an extraordinary claim, you should be the one providing an extraordinary amount of evidence to support your position.



Virtually every (if not every) government scientific research organization in the world that has taken a position on this issue disagrees with you.



The National Academies of Science from these 21 countries:

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Caribbean, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States agreed to this joint statement:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."



619 of the top climate scientists (not politicians, diplomats, economists, or TV weathermen) from all over the world, working as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of the state of peer reviewed scientific research over the past few years and concluded with a report on the physical science of climate change:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

"From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming infl uence on climate since 1750."



The largest geophysical scientific organization in the world (the American Geophysical Union) recently released a position statement:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

"With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society."



I could go on and on, with similar scientific research organizations (there's no need to quote environmentalist groups, who are obviously biased). The "best" you'll find disagreeing with this position will be a few lists of scientists (mostly with no climate related training or research) put out by clearly policy driven non-scientific organizations (e.g. Senator Inhofe, the oil man from Oklahoma).



So, I challenge you, the one making the extraordinary claim, to provide evidence to support your position and provide a hypothesis for why all the scientific organizations and scientists referenced above are wrong.

Answer 31

Only a select few believe it is man. The more reasonable and informed realize a natural cycle when we see it.

Answer 32

No-one's claiming that it doesn't happen naturally. The problem is the rate of change, which we do appear to be accelerating.

Answer 33

It's not these sheepeople are idiots and will follow Al Gore off the cliff.

Answer 34

Simple !!!!

Tell me one thing where the goverment has told the truth !!!!





See Ya Cant lol!!!

Answer 35

never, ever, in earth's history has the climate warmed as rapidly as it is now... ever.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302204_warming02.html

and alot of other stuff... just google it.

an international panel released a report in early 2007 stating that humans WERE causing global warming. that's pretty strong, if a majority of scientists world wide though so.

Answer 36

Wow, you don't? Understanding the science behind the change is as easy as 1-2-3:



1. Climate change has happened before due to CO2, with disasterous effects on life at the time:



http://www.killerinourmidst.com/P-T%20boundary.html

"As a greenhouse gas, it warms the atmosphere, changing ecological conditions. (Deccan Traps volcanism, coming before the end of the Cretaceous, is estimated to have warmed the world by 3° to 5°C, or 5.4° to 9°F; Ravizza and Peucker-Ehrenbrink, 2003.) And because it combines chemically to form carbonic acid, it also produces mildly acidic rain. Acid rain can dissolve calcium carbonate shells, particularly those at or near the ocean surface. Additionally, acid rain leaches vital nutrients from the soil, resulting in plant stunting and death."



Climate Model Links Warmer Temperatures to Permian Extinction

http://www.physorg.com/news6003.html



"The CCSM indicated that ocean temperatures warmed significantly at higher latitudes because of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. The warmer temperatures reached a depth of about 10,000 feet (4,000 meters), interfering with the normal circulation process in which colder surface water descends, taking oxygen and nutrients deep into the ocean.



As a result, ocean waters became stratified with little oxygen, proving deadly to marine life. Because marine organisms were no longer removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, that, in turn, accelerated warming temperatures.



"The implication of our study is that elevated [carbon dioxide] is sufficient to lead to inhospitable conditions for marine life and excessively high temperatures over land would contribute to the demise of terrestrial life," the authors conclude.



Climate simulation of the latest Permian: Implications for

mass extinction

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf





2. The timing for current warming is unexpected, contrary to the cooling solar influence of natural Milankovich cycles:



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."





3. We can identify the amount of CO2 that mankind has inserted into today's atmosphere from the ratios of different carbon isotopes:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html





So in summary, climate change has happened due to CO2 before and the results were devastating to life, the timing of the change is not what we'd expect from other explanations such as solar radiation cycles due to orbital changes, and we have measured mankind's increased in atmospheric CO2 levels.



In short, we're causing exactly the type of change that has been devastating to life on this planet in the past.

---

We could still make the argument that "There are no absolutes in science" or ask the questions "How sure are they?" and "What about the skeptical scientists?" Here is what the balance looks like in terms of scientific evidence:



http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.



Counting only peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals is important because they are cross-checked by scientist peers who are also staking their professional reputations on the validity of the paper including its evidence and its conclusions.

---



For more background on the history of the science behind greenhouse gas theory, here's a good summary:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

---



As for convincing you however, that can't be done; you will decide for yourself what you choose to believe. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

---



Edit -



Dan R's response contains good links that handle most of the common skeptical responses to the theory. They're not scientifically sound, but as long as you don't look into the science too deep they make great reasonable-sounding excuses for people to feel good about remaining in denial.

Answer 37

This will help you - I hope

Answer 38

your right..don't loose any more hair over it

Answer 39

You don't need convincing.... Your right.