Do you think global warming is natural or human caused?

Question

Anyone ever heard of Dr. William Gray from Colorado Sate University? According to his presentation, it is completely natural. You know carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more effective as a heat-trapping gas than is carbon dioxide. EVERY SINGLE DAY, the amount of water vapor that goes into our atmosphere is many times greater than the TOTAL of ALL the carbon dioxide we have put there since the industrial revolution. So I believe that we are not having any measurable effect on the global warming trend. So what do you think? And how about some information to back up your beliefs?

Answer 1

All the good little liberal sheep will tell you that it is man made because they think with their hearts and not their brains.

Anyone with half a mind will tell you that it is natural but we can all do things to make the earth a better place to live in.

Humans put more CO2 into the environment by breathing than industry in the entire world.

Wake up sheep and quit putting your guilt on the rest of us.

Answer 2

Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess

By PATRICK MICHAELS

April 18, 2008; Page A17

President George W. Bush has just announced his goal to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. To get there, he proposes new fuel-economy standards for autos, and lower emissions from power plants built in the next 10 to 15 years.

Pending legislation in the Senate from Joe Lieberman and John Warner would cut emissions even further – by 66% by 2050. No one has a clue how to do this. Because there is no substitute technology to achieve these massive reductions, we'll just have to get by with less energy.

[Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess]

Getty Images

Disko Bay, Greenland: Temperatures on the island are no warmer than they were in the mid-20th century.

Compared to a year ago, gasoline consumption has dropped only 0.5% at current prices. So imagine how expensive it would be to reduce overall emissions by 66%.

The earth's paltry warming trend, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the mid-1970s, isn't enough to scare people into poverty. And even that 0.31 degree figure is suspect.

For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming.

These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records. They are the surface record from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the satellite-sensed temperatures originally published by University of Alabama's John Christy, and the weather-balloon records originally published by James Angell of the U.S. Commerce Department.

The two revisions of the IPCC surface record each successively lowered temperatures in the 1950s and the 1960s. The result? Obviously more warming – from largely the same data.

The balloon temperatures got a similar treatment. While these originally showed no warming since the late 1970s, inclusion of all the data beginning in 1958 resulted in a slight warming trend. In 2003, some tropical balloon data, largely from poor countries, were removed because their records seemed to vary too much from year to year. This change also resulted in an increased warming trend. Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate.

Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don't last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Frank Wentz, a consulting atmospheric scientist from California, discovered that the satellites also drift a bit in their orbits, which induces additional bias in their readings. The net result? A warming trend appears where before there was none.

There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction. So it's like flipping a coin six times and getting tails each time. The chance of that occurring is 0.016, or less than one in 50. That doesn't mean that these revisions are all hooey, but the probability that they would all go in one direction on the merits is pretty darned small.

The removal of weather-balloon data because poor nations don't do a good job of minding their weather instruments deserves more investigation, which is precisely what University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick and I did. Last year we published our results in the Journal of Geophysical Research, showing that "non-climatic" effects in land-surface temperatures – GDP per capita, among other things – exert a significant influence on the data. For example, weather stations are supposed to be a standard white color. If they darken from lack of maintenance, temperatures read higher than they actually are. After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.'s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth's surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend.

Another interesting thing happens to the U.N.'s data when it's adjusted for the non-climatic factors. The frequency of very warm months is lowered, to the point at which it matches the satellite data, which show fewer very hot months. That's a pretty good sign that there are fundamental problems with the surface temperature history. At any rate, our findings have not been incorporated into the IPCC's history, and they probably never will be.

The fear of a sudden loss of ice from Greenland also makes a lot of news. A year ago, radio and television were ablaze with the discovery of "Warming Island," a piece of land thought to be part of Greenland. But when the ice receded in the last few years, it turned out that there was open water. Hence Warming Island, which some said hadn't been uncovered for thousands of years. CNN, ABC and the BBC made field trips to the island.

But every climatologist must know that Greenland's last decade was no warmer than several decades in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, the period from 1970-1995 was the coldest one since the late 19th century, meaning that Greenland's ice anomalously expanded right about the time climate change scientists decided to look at it.

Warming Island has a very distinctive shape, and it lies off of Carlsbad Fjord, in eastern Greenland. My colleague Chip Knappenberger found an inconvenient book, "Arctic Riviera," published in 1957 (near the end of the previous warm period) by aerial photographer Ernst Hofer. Hofer did reconnaissance for expeditions and was surprised by how pleasant the summers had become. There's a map in his book: It shows Warming Island.

The mechanism for the Greenland disaster is that summer warming creates rivers, called moulins, that descend into the ice cap, lubricating a rapid collapse and raising sea levels by 20 feet in the next 90 years. In Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," there's a wonderful picture of a moulin on page 193, with the text stating "These photographs from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes now happening on the ice there."

Really? There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice – we should be talking about reality.

Mr. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia.

Answer 3

are you stupid or something?! what do you mean water vapor is more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide?! that is the most retarted thing i have EVER heard!carbon dioxide is one of the major heat-trapping gases on earth!water vapor does not trap heat!!! the water evaporates from different places forming clouds, then it rains! the water that evaporates does not stay in the atmosphere! have you ever thought about WHERE...RAIN...COMES...FROM!!!!!!!!!???? we do have a huge effect on global warming even though the earth has natrual cycles, cutting down trees is an example of global warming because it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then heat from the sun is trapped in the atmosphere, warming the earth! a 5th grader knows this kind of stuff! people who dont beleive in global warming really tick me off!

Answer 4

Al Gore caused it.

Answer 5

God

Answer 6

Our planet depends on a greenhouse effect to keep us warm. We've always had greenhouse warming and hopefully always will. Water vapor is a key contributor to this warming. We've had a relatively stable balance of greenhouse gases for at least 10,000 years since the last ice age.

Consensus is that in the past 250 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we've set things out of balance. By creating a new source of greenhouse gases - by burning fossil fuels - and destroying existing sinks for these gases - by deforestation. As a result of this imbalance, we've seen an increase in temperature.

Interestingly, the increase in temperature allows the atmosphere to store more water vapor which further accelerates the warming - a postive feedback loop.

Answer 7

please don't waste space in places where people have serious questions... don't be immature

Answer 8

It is a natural phenomenum which is being accelerated by human activity.

Dr. William Gray has put forward a number of views on why it is mostly natural and nothing to worry about BUT he has yet to formulate a cogent hypothesis and substantiate it with models which can then be peer reviewed - I wonder why? He has stated that he is prepared to bet that he is right but so far he has declined to accept several offers to take up his wager. Similarly Pat Michaels offered a wager on his predictions in World Climate Report in 1998 but withdrew the wager when taken up on it. This seems to indicate a certain unwillingness to face financial loss and does not show any great conviction in their beliefs!

I realise that George S is trying to be sarcastic but has he considered that Richard Branson, hardly famous for being a  socialist, has committed all of the profits from his travel businesses to finding solutions to rising CO2 levels. Also that China, a socialist state with a capitalist economy, will dedicate more of it's GDP to reducing carbon emmissions by 2020 than the USA. This problem is not "everyone versus the capitalist economy" nor "socialists versus the rest" it is not that simplistic!

Answer 9

I tend to feel that it's a little of both.  I believe evolution is an adaptation process and I think that global warming may be a side effect of our planet's continuing evolutionary process.

Answer 10

I know and beleive that global warming is definitly caused by humans that person you were talking about well.. hes full of **** he dosent know whats hes talking about it hapens because of electrity garbage plastic buring gas dude did you no learn anything in grade8 okay heres my anser dont go to that guy and go to someone who knows what hes talkinh about and global warnig is ssooooooooooo cause by humans

Answer 11

both but mustly natural....humans bearly affect it

Answer 12

I think its abit of both i think the worlds climate is always slowly changing but we are speeding up the change abit. But i could be wrong but i thought not so long ago scientists were telling us we were soon headed for another ice age lol now were going the other direction so think we do have something to do with the earth heating up

Answer 13

It's natural, but humans are speeding up the process. Many scientist say the same thing.If you watched An Inconvenient Truth it would explain alot. You Should look up things on the internet, that might help you decide some things.

Answer 14

on of the causes of the causes for global warming are from cows. Cud-chewing animals like cows and sheep, along with other agricultural animals and processes, release enough methane to double the natural concentration in the atmosphere.

Answer 15

Centralia Pennsylvania, 24 Million Tons of Anthracite coal  in the earth set on fire by a fire in a dump on the edge of town fired a seam of coal in 1962 It was estimated that the underground coal  and carbon dioxide produced could burn for a thousand years. Nature or man started??**

Volcanoes erupt all around the world  Mother Nature.

Answer 16

Mostly human caused.

99+% of all scientists agree about that.  The number of "skeptics" such as Dr. Gray (whose specialty is predicting hurricanes, not climatology) is TINY.

Water vapor CANNOT cause global warming.  Excess water vapor falls out of the air immediately as precipitation, while excess CO2 stays there for years.   Even the skeptical scientists  don't think water vapor has anything to do with it.  The science on that is elementary.  More here.

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 17

Al "The Blimp" Gore dreamed it up to give him some income.

Answer 18

Mostly natural but some man made.  It is entirely beneficial though.

Answer 19

Its humans. They cause pollution which makes the atmosphere thicker which traps heat and icebergs melt.

Answer 20

The evil, monstrous capitalist wizards cast their spells on the earth and make it cold sometimes to fool people into thinking the pollution they make doesn't cause global warming.

But we are too smart to fall for that, aren't we?  We know that they are greedy, war-mongering, running dog capitalists just as they always have been.  They are responsible for all the evil in this world and we are going to prove it if that is the last thing we ever do.

They must pay for their exploitation of the working classes.  They must suffer for spoiling our world and everything in it.  We must tear them down, no matter what it takes.  Who cares whether global warming is actually true or not?  Our cause is far more important than that.  Capitalism must die!

Answer 21

WELL IT DOES FOLLOW A CYCLE, BUT WE SHOULD BE COOLING DOWN ALLREADY ACCORDING TO THAT CYCLE, BUT WE'RE BURNING SOOOO MUCH FOSSIL FUELS THAT ITS FILLING THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, AND TRAPPING WARMTH FROM THE SUN...DEFINETELY US!

Answer 22

i think it's both. obviously, natural contributors are a large part of it, but at the same time we contribute to it way too much. i mean we use hairspray, pollute, we release all these harmful gasses into the enviornment, yet act like we aren't at fault?! it's going to happen eventually, but we can deffinately slow down the process if everyone just helps out and not contribute to it ourselves.

Answer 23

We're the cause of it and you know it. We're the ones that waste energy. We're the ones that don't even try to reuse. We'e the ones that don't care about riding a bike on a sunny day, we're too lazy. It's us! We're not trying hard enough to reduce global warming! Sometimes it looks as if we're actually trying to induce global warming!