Do you think WE should be worried about GLOBAL WARMING?

Question

I think we should go into action to help the ice not warm anymore and we should use less of the bad stuff that is helping melt the glaciers!

Answer 1

Definetley something to be concerned about...but there is no direct scientific evidence that it is human induced.  It is possible, but there is no real research here that can prove this.  Global warming and cooling has been occuring for millions of years naturally and has been effected by large scale events such as solar cycles, volcanoes and ocean temperatures.  Human production of CO2 is barely a scratch when compared to these events.

Answer 2

That the planet is warming seems incontrovertible. Whether this natural process is being accelerated by human activity and how much that activity is contributing is the controversy.

It is irrelevant, the earth is warming and the consequences will need to be dealt with. Humans can reduce their contribution to the process but it will not stop the process, perhaps slow it down, perhaps not.

Humans would need to quit breeding, using fossil fuels, using petrochemical products and fossil fuels, stop generating electricity with anything other than solar, wind or water power. Etc. Do you really think that will happen?

It is not a reversable process, the only thing humanity can do is prepare to adapt to a continuingly changing environment. Actually this is something every living thing on earth has had to do since life's inception on the planet.

The core of evolutionary science:

Adapt or die.

Answer 3

I agree.

This is science.  The data is what's important and the scientific data says global warming is happening and it's mostly caused by us.

Very short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

The best summary of the data available:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Scientists have seen much stranger things than global warming (like Einstein's relativity or quantum mechanics) proved to be true by data.  So the data, not "logical" arguments, is what they go by.  The data is why why the vast majority of scientists agree that it's real and mostly caused by us.  Data about that here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

If you want to know more, here's the best website (warning - it's very big) with lots of data:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 4

I personally think that we should worry about global warming, but i don't think we should make the oil or gas companies (or what ever pollutes the enviroment) change what they are doing. Come on, be honest with yourself. Are you going to be more mad about the fact that you have no heat or air conditioning or are you going to be more mad that the glaciers are melting?

Answer 5

Yes, we should. watch an Inconvienient Truth.

Answer 6

Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths

Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

1. It’s hot in here!

In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

Answer 7

Here is a web site that proves that temperatures in the past were so warm that people actually were living in Greenland.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/featur...

Historically, not only did we survive, but that period is associated with riches.

Answer 8

I dont think global warming is real. the glaciers are melting in some parts yes but that happens annually anyway. plus in antartica some parts are becoming even colder. so I dont think we have a problem with global warming. plus let me ask you this. if global warming is real then why is the state of arizona getting cooler temperatures this time of year then it normally does. I currently live in arizona and the temperatures this time of year are usually about 5 degrees higher. hello wake up were not having a global warming problem, the planet is having a global cooling stage. it happens every few million years. plus in global warming wouldnt there be less carbon dioxide then there is now? and I dont think people should be forced to do things such as only buy hybrid cars (note: right now regular gasoline cars work better then hybrid cars. hybrid cars are good but they still have a few problems to be worked out) or not buy power from coal and oil power companies. however I do think more research should be done in solar power and hydro power. and I think recycling is a good idea but do not try to force everyone to do these things.

Answer 9

No, for two reasons.  Firstly, we don't know that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing it -- there is some reason to believe that it is the other way around: warming causes increased level of CO2  (There are various possible mechanisms for this, including reduced solubility of CO2 in warm ocean water.  The ocean has fifty times as much CO2 in it as the air does.)  Secondly, any possible "fix" would be almost unbelievably expensive; the UN has proposed a program with a price tag of $557,000,000,000,000 -- far more than the total value of every asset on the planet.

Answer 10

YES!!!! I lived in Iceland for 4 years and just within those 4 years, i saw a dramtic change in weather and the environment directly due to global warming. The first year i got there, there was tons of snow on the glaciers and Waterfalls everywhere. the third year there, it reached up to 82 degrees in the summer time ( a record there) and most of the waterfalls flowed quite heavily due to glaciers melting. Until there was nothing coming out of them at all. ( a rare site to see there) At this rate if no one does anything to help prevent global wamring, Florida will no longer be a state, california, and a lot of costal places will be under water! Not only that but the great deal of harm it will do to the environment. Just think, that if you want to see your kids, ur grand kids, and perhaps ur great grandkids to grow up, then you should start doing things to help prevent global warming.

Answer 11

Yes I think we should definitely be concerned about it. I *^&!ing  hate the political bull*^*) tied to this issue.

Ask pretty much anybody and they will tell you that they have observed the effects unless they are simple or in denial.

The people who do not want to do anything about the issue are selfish and shortsighted.

Answer 12

I think we should begin to take some serious action. Start bringing in laws to outlaw any cars that are not hybrid. Stop people from building coal burning plants, especially when they can build something else, they just are too lazy.  

Finding a way to use nuclear fusion on Earth would be AWESOME!! Unfortunatly it only works at really really high temps. (10 - 15 million degrees Kelvin)  It is where two atoms collide and produce a HUGE amount of energy. There aren't any nuclear products and it would be much for efficient then other electric generators we have now. There is research going on now for this but don't you think governments should be putting more money into this kind of thing then killing hundreds of innocent people, just to get to oil?

Answer 13

Absolutely, so that future generations can survive.

Answer 14

Everyone seems to forget the impact of the SUN in this debate...... we will NEVER, EVER be able to control the SUN!!  Over one million Earth's could fit inside the SUN.  

And from middle school science class, I do remember that the Sun's FLARES and Sun Spots are a very important factor in our weather.  In my mind, there is no Global Warming crisis whatsoever; there is simply a normal weather pattern, normal for the Earth in its millions-plus year history that is!

"The Sun is the heat engine that drives the circulation of our atmosphere. Although it has long been assumed to be a constant source of energy, recent measurements of this solar constant have shown that the base output of the Sun can vary by up to two tenths of a percent over the 11-year solar cycle. Temporary decreases of up to one-half percent have been observed. Atmospheric scientists say that this variation is significant and that it can modify climate over time. Plant growth has been shown to vary over the 11-year sunspot and 22-year magnetic cycles of the Sun, as evidenced in tree-ring records.

While the solar cycle has been nearly regular during the last 300 years, there was a period of 70 years during the 17th and 18th centuries when very few sunspots were seen (even though telescopes were widely used). This drop in sunspot number coincided with the timing of the little ice age in Europe, implying a Sun- to-climate connection. Recently, a more direct link between climate and solar variability has been speculated. Stratospheric winds near the equator blow in different directions, depending on the time in the solar cycle. Studies are under way to determine how this wind reversal affects global circulation patterns and weather.

During proton events, many more energetic particles reach Earth's middle atmosphere. There they cause molecular ionization, creating chemicals that destroy atmospheric ozone and allow increased amounts of harmful solar ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth's surface. A solar proton event in 1982 resulted in a temporary 70% decrease in ozone densities. "

Instead of seeing naturally ocurring variations in climate as gloom and doom, we should be appreciative of the opportunity we have to develop technology to use the SUN to our advantage.  After all, without the SUN, we would cease to exist.

Answer 15

there are many reasons to hide the truth

scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.for political and economic reasons

Global warming is a very complex collection of many effects

this text only covers some aspects of global warming ,mainly agriculture i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification

water and air polution such as caused by

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,

and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions

there are natural cycles in the planets life

but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

climate change is caused in great parts by desertification ,and most desertification is caused by man

the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions

DEFORESTATION

in the past

the Building of the Spanish Armada deforrested Spain

the Phoenician trading fleet turned Lebanon in a dessert

Ganges Khan put everything to the sword and torch, then filled the wells with sand,

the sun finished of the job and whole countries turned to wastelands.

Today ,

Slash and burn destroys the protective vegetation (which helps to form the soil ),

leaving it open to the Sun ,and then ,wind and, water erosion.

The Plough turns the soil ,killing micro-biotic life (essential to soil building) and accelerates the drying out .

Pressures of the :vehicles, cattle and rain impact brings the salt to the surface.

Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .

Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,Farmers

are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers

and plowing more and more unstable lands going into the jungles and onto mountain slopes

expanding populations and expanding farming ,that has to keep pace with the expanding populations are very strong forces that encroach upon the rainforest's

clearing them for farming and settlement areas .

Rainforest's always are in third world countries and always in third world countries corruption and the need for money s highest

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year

and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up ,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,

and there are less and less farmers to do it..

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter

Global warming could be slowed down to some extent,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where,instead of just some third world countries Source(s) here are a 100 ways to help

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

Answer 16

man caused global warming is really just speculation.

so the global warmers like som eof you think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow warmer due to a "green house" effect.

"Is Global warming a scientific theory or a belief?

There are many claiming to be "climate scientists". What does it mean to be a scientist? I think it is agreed that it takes more than a lab coat and computers.  Science requires experimental controls - something not found in a collection of statistics about an open system.

What is an Open System?

In real science, everything that can possibly be done to eliminate other causes are eliminated.  The earth's atmosphere is an open system - no one knows with any certainty the amount of materials emitted by the earth or even additions from outer space.  An open system is one where we can not control for confounding variables. In the global warming saga, the data collected is fed into a computer model along with many estimates and indirectly theorized numbers.

What good are the Collected Statistics?

Statistics often provides a scientist a good idea for a hypothesis, but statistical correlations do not prove cause and effect.  Here is an example of this clouded reasoning:

There is a the high correlation between the softness of asphalt and infant mortality rates. Some people would come to the conclusion that soft asphalt causes infant death - the better explanation is that both are caused by higher temperatures. "

---so kids, remember, CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

"Elephants and Lightning

An engineer is out walking in the park and sees a wild-eyed man hitting a strangely painted block of wood with a stick. The engineer's curiosity gets the better of him, so he asks the wild-eyed man, "Why are you hitting that block?"

The wild-eyed man replies with a bit of a crazed smile, "The sound keeps the elephants away."

The engineer, now fully intrigued, digs deeper, "But why? There are no elephants here."

As the wild-eyed man continues to make his noise with renewed vigor, he says, "See! It's working."

Science news reports confound correlation with cause and effect. The news media acts if correlation is proof with causes much confusion for the lay public. There seems to be much muddled thinking in climate news reporting."

"So what is science? What is the Scientific Method?

For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable with the scientific method.  

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Real science is humble. Some things are unknowable. It is a human tendency to not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but we really can't know everything.

Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment.  An experiment requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?

Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment.  A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality.  (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source.) Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system)  - these computer models often predict behavior quite different from a real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the expected result it is often to the folly of the engineer.  The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built:REALITY MUS BE TESTED, not a model.

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming

is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded

First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?  

Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is likely responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this a my belief, supported by a lot of data.

Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points  means naught when there is no control or false logic.

Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature.  The idea that we 'know the inferred data' - is simply wrong. We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't know the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory for those who seeking the truth. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

Six, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature trends. There is no way to do this with any meaningful accuracy.

Four of the six above points have serious problems

I remember reading  a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by "scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of man made pollution. Here is a later one. I thought it was true and worried about it for years. I followed every global climate article I got my hands on, until I realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.

Supporters of global warming will say, "I've known of hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) who have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people whose income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of PC (Politically Correct) scientists from the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center of our solar system. While there are quit a few PC scientists today claiming to "know" that man is causing Global warming, there are also other scientists that disagree.

A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. No poll of scientists has anything to do with science.

Supporters will further say, "Many of these scientists are established, world-renowned, tenured professors who do research in numerous areas and whose jobs are certainly not dependent on the existence of global warming".

But let us consider the peers of Copernicus; did their being "established, world-renowned, tenured professors" make them right? Would publication of balanced papers without dire conclusions insure their research grants?

Correlation does not show cause and effect - Limitations on what is knowable

The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have also gone up means nothing.  It is a correlation only in the sense that both variables are headed in the same direction. The odds of this being the case are 50% A similar correlation exists between CO2 and breast cancer. There is no cyclic variable in the global warming studies. If CO2 had gone up and down 4 times and ground temperature had followed - that could be interesting - but would only start to mean something after 10 to 100 cycles. If CO2 had gone up and down several times and global temperatures had followed there would be a meaningful correlation, yet that would still fail to show cause and effect.

We've been told that "The atmospheric levels of CO2  have risen 30% since the Industrial Revolution (~1780) and 18% since 1959". Yes, CO2 has increased, and probably from man, but even that can not be shown conclusively. In an open system It is entirely possible that other variations of natural CO2 sources and sinks may be more responsible. There could be natural sources of CO2 that have not been identified. In an open system, there is no control of other variables, thus what we can know is quite limited.

Water vapor ACOUNTS FOR ABOUT 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.

Water vapor, a potent green house gas, averages 25,000ppm of the lower atmosphere compared to CO2   which is only about 360 ppm. The Atmospheric CO2 change is only about +60 ppm. Realize that we are talking about a change in CO2 from 0.030% to 0.036% or a 0.006% change as a percentage of the atmosphere. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead 'warmers' say it increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased several percent and could be a change of  25,000ppm to 26,250ppm or 2.5% to 2.6% or a  0.1% change. This change in water vapor (possibly due to irrigation?) is about 16 times larger than CO2 near the ground. (remember in the stratosphere there is cooling and very little water vapor).   see:

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

Both CO2  and water vapor have similar emissivity so that any change in greenhouse effect due to CO2  would seem to be swamped by the effect of water vapor. This would also seem to explain the change at lower altitudes with out effecting the upper atmosphere. But I'm just speculating - I don't see how anyone can draw any responsible conclusions based on the available data.

Atmospheric CO2  may have an effect, but there is no proof that man's contribution as a source of CO2  (ESTIMATED at about 4% of all sources) is the reason it is going up. It is entirely possible that it is going up due to natural variation more than mans contribution - probably not - but the point is that even this is not a scientific fact. I think it is probable. (BTW I think we should be taxing oil imports (in place of income taxes) for other reasons.)

Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically out of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this time and into the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being unknowable is the heart of the problem with "climate science".

Clouds

The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't really accurately model clouds, and for good reasons. Clouds are extremely complicated to simulate. Water vapor tends to condense into water droplets at nucleation sites. These sites can be a spec of dust, but are also caused by cosmic rays, nuetrenos, and even agitation of air. Nuetrenos and cosmic rays are not constant, they vary with solar storms and the position of solar storms on the sun.  They are also non linear. The lack of clouds in the model reduces this to a political campaign - one that is misleading the public about what is known.

Cosmic Rays

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. But is this a truth? How can he know any better than the warmers? Looking at system with numerous confounding variables greatly limits what is knowable.  Once again, I hope people will realize that true wisdom is knowing what we don't know.

Are the Climate Papers Properly Peer Reviewed?

I think some of the papers are honestly presented and don't overstate their claims, but some are not. The famous "Hockey-Stick graph" is an example of a bigger problem.

Steve McIntyre now of  Climate Audit difinatively  showed that the Hockey-Stick effect is an artifact of a math filter.  Peer review of many of these papers is lacking in general skepticism. Source data and information about published papers is withheld - something that stops a real scientist breath short - real science needs to be open. McIntyre has had to resort to graphics programs to re create the data sets used in some of these papers.Some typical examples

http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2006/12/...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1240

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1235

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1175

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1134

http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2007/02/...

http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2007/02/...

His requests for datasets and other information to check on the validity of published papers is routinely  subjected to runarounds, incomplete responses about methods of data smoothing.  The public seems to know nothing of the IPCC's GISS Model E adjustments and fudge factors - something a real science paper takes pains to "bend-over-backwards" to provide in extreme detail.

At this time, it is hard to see that adequate peer review is being practiced in several of the journals involved and there is no excuse for not making data sets available in this day of computers and the Internet. The lack of disclaimers about computer-models vs experiments  also degrades the credibility of  these papers. The public does not understand that all computer models have fudges in them to get convergence.  The public does not know that there are compromises in resolution in space and time in these models due to practical concerns. and Here I quote Dan Hughes:

"The AOLGCM codes are known to not be capable of attaining calculated results that are independent of the sizes of the discrete increments used in the numerical integration of the model equations. So far as I can determine, there is no attempt at all to demonstrate that the numerical solutions converge to the solutions of the continuous equations."

"A nice little loophole has been created, whether implicitly or explicitly I don’t know. The scientific journals associated with the climate-change community will accept papers for publication the basis of which are calculations by computer software that has not been peer-reviewed. So, AOLGCM-based papers get peer-reviewed and published and then cited in the IPCC reports. This is not correct because it bypasses the independent verification and replication processes of the scientific method."

IMHO this does not rise to the level of science.

What is the difference between science and beliefs?

The key to separating scientific knowledge from belief is that science can be demonstrated.  We may never have good enough error bands on the data about global temperature data; thus it is something that is just not knowable.  Opinions on things unknowable are called beliefs. Because of the inapplicability of the scientific method when dealing with open systems, opinions on global warming are beliefs akin to a sort of religious view and not scientific fact.

"Climate science" as reported in the press is not really science. In real sciences the scientists first job is to prove himself wrong - that is to list the numerous way that the results my be in error and how the conclusions are limited. No forthright "bending over backwards" efforts are made by the global warming proponents. Instead, there are efforts to state things in emotional terms and a disturbing pattern of data errors and omissions.   When claims are made dealing with an open system using correlations of data without knowable error bands, it fails to be science.   There is no way to separate out the increased use of irrigation and the resulting increase of low altitude water vapor (very much a green house gas). Could changes of global low altitude humidity be a plausible competing theory?  The correlation of temperature and variations of solar output is ignored.

Open systems, like the stock market are the subject of randomness - and much has been written about the "black swan" effect and the inability of professional stock pickers to come out ahead of amateurs in the long term. To infer a long term trend in what appears to be mostly noise - or randomness is a game of chance at best. All that can possibly be determined are floors of probability in an open system, and even those don't mean that much if one considers "black swan" effects.

I failed to see even an estimate of the amount of error of natural emissions of CO2 in the documentation from the EPA.  The science I know of means you figure the answer and then you do the hard part of calculating the minimum, maximum, and probable errors. It is not possible in this case to even have hard numbers on CO2 venting - thus we are again not looking at science, but only estimates and speculation. Attaching numbers to speculation does not elevate it to science.

We are told that, "Carbon dioxide is measured directly at Mauna Loa in Hawaii", but it is only one place and really an estimate and not a direct measurement (can you imagine a pipe being installed to provide a calibrate-able flow meter?) as are almost all of the numbers used in this "science". How much CO2 is emitted from underseas vents?

Satellite data is extremely important, as it is the best data available and has no micro-climate artifacts. The satellite data is the only data that comes close to measuring anything that could be called global temperature and not effected by micro-climate and would be most difficult to fudge. According to  http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci... the earth as a whole seems to be cooling or warming slightly depending on what level of the atmosphere you look at.

But do you know what I see in that data? (And I'm really good at looking at statistics) - NOTHING! Just some noise - noise that is higher than any possible trend. You could pick selected start and end points to show either cooling or warming. Take the long term temperature trends and track them with solar output and there is a fairly good correlation.  Will the new solar activity of Oct/Nov 2003 change solar output and cause more warming? What are you willing to bet on it? I wouldn't as I am rather certain that I don't know.

To claim as a "fact" something from a trend who's amplitude (and direction) can be changed by changing end points due to the noise involved not science; it is politics.

Are the data and/or computer models tainted due to subconscious intentions?

Everyone has an agenda at some level. I am assuming that you, the reader, is not influenced by the popularity of the idea of Global warming and you have really looked at the raw data yourself and made sure that no one was hand picking start and endpoints of data sets and that non of these people worried (even subconsciously) that if they failed to show the right result they would fail to get new funding.

Let me illustrate: QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) is real science. The theory was put in place and then controlled experiments were run against it - the theory wasn't changed every time someone came out with a new test. This is what real science is about.

With global warming you have a computer model of the largest physical system on earth that has several uncontrolled inputs with huge error bands that can interact in non linear ways. The model is simplified in many ways because of the limits of computer power. You have emotional humans that decide on just what compromises to make - and these choices can greatly skew the results. Just the shear number of terms makes the output dubious at best.

More about Elephants

There is a famous saying in physics:

``Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag its tail''

(The source of the above quote?? Variants of the statement have been attributed to C.F. Gauss, Niels Bohr, Lord Kelvin, Enrico Fermi.)

When one considers that these models may have parameters that number in the tens to hundreds and are only growing in size, the possibility of generating meaningful computer models is a fantasy.

Are the Global Warmers intellectually honest?

I do believe that there are people writing global warming papers who just don't understand the true nature of scientific induction and deduction and are just honestly wrong. My work with electronic circuits modeled on computers has convinced me that even the most honest scientists are quite susceptible to subconsciously tailoring computer models to provide the results one wants (I've fooled myself), (and electronics models are much simpler and easier to test in the closed system of a test bench). Yet these models are the basis for claims that would completely change the world economy? This "bending over backward" that Feynman talks about is what is missing from the global warming work. Where is the bending-over-backwards in the IPCC report listing the assumptions made and error band analysis?  

I worry that there is a pattern of tweaked data and hyperbolic press releases related to this subject. If this is a real phenomena, so much political polarizing of the issue will prevent any unified action. Were the errors reported in "Energy and Environment" 11/03 the result of fudging the numbers?  I hope not, but they very well could have been from a subconscious hope. A scientist's first job is to prove himself wrong. That isn't the way I see this work being approached.

http://www.climate2003.com shows possibly fudged data. Nice page at http://www.crichton-official.com/speeche...

The much hyped report from the EPA was made by people who's income depends on the continued belief of a CO2 caused warming trend.  What do people who do not depend on there being a "global warming" problem say? The meteorologists I've met (that don't have a political or economic ax-to-grind), say that the only thing they have seen that is close to a proved theory is that global temperature tracks solar output. As scientists, they should be careful  to wait a few more solar cycles before even taking that to heart.

The EPA's reference even lists Santer, who's 1996 Nature article used a data set with fudged endpoints.

To make these claims without real science behind it also raises a moral problem, as the unintended consequences may be harsh on the poor people of non developed countries.   If CO2 could be shown to cause some global warming, will a carbon ban kill more or less than the perceived problem?

More issues are covered at climateaudit.org

I truly wish Richard Feynman was alive to day to comment on the scientific vigor in global warming.  Research can often look like science, yet fail to be real science in the end.

Beware of Regressions - Polynomial and Otherwise: they can fool you

Back when punch cards ran the world they called it dynamic programing, You would vary all the coefficients of an equation via nested loops until the equation would produce the data with some amount of accuracy. It is a useful tool to help tease out hypotheses from data.

Once it works on past history and predicts the set of data it is tempting to think it means something.  To really test it, you have to run it and make predictions to be tested with experiment. If the prediction is complex (ie. wave forms) and matches we can assign a confidence.  Of course if all we have is a trend - there is only a 50:50 chance that it means anything.  The idea that once it predicts the past it will also predict the future is just wrong. If on the other hand, they froze the computer model and collected data over several solar cycles and then ran the model, - over several such runs, we could start to attach a probability of the model's output being predictive.

Emistivity and the so called "greenhouse effect"

The above heading is not yet written - but will talk of the absorption of one frequency and emission of IR and to confusion caused by the misuse of this term. Unfortunately, this is not a easy subject to write about for the lay public.

Relevant Quotes

Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.

True wisdom is knowing how little we know for certain

Answer 17

No, the earth has warmed and cooled many times over during the eons.  40,000 years ago much of North America was covered in ice.  What made the glaciers retreat? Global warming.  Was it a bad thing that all the ice retreated from North America and Europe all those years ago?

Also, 55 million year ago the water temperature at the North Pole was estimated to be over 75 degrees.  What eventually caused the polar ice cap to form? Global cooling.

Don't waste too much energy worrying about something which is largely out of our control.

Answer 18

Yeah, I think we should be worried about global warming. Over here, on the east coast, there was snow in April, which was quite strange. I am guessing that the entire world might face diasterous consequences. For example, it might rain more in India then usual. Winter could be even more severe. And, who knows what would ghappen if oceans rise?! We have got to stop global warming fast or we all will suffer, severly!