Does any body know about the truth of global warming?

Question

Does any body know about the truth of global warming?

Answer 1

Yes, his name is Steve and for some reason he laughs and/or cries a lot.

Answer 2

I made up my mind after reading many many statements similar to these. The debate is over, We have a consensus, anyone who is skeptical of the AGW theory is akin to a halocaust denier, It should be a criminal offense to deny it, only a couple dozen scientists remain skeptical etc. etc. etc.

Answer 3

Well, No one knows for sure, and likely no one will ever know. It's turned into a huge political football, with both sides claiming to have absolute concrete proof of THEIR findings, be it that AGW is false or true. Both sides claim that EVERYONE is on their side. I'm way more inclined to believe that AGW is real though, simply out of plain logic.

With billions of cars on the roads spewing CO2 and thousands of huge industries with their emissions, it's obvious that all that pollution is going to do something. Sure technology and coal were way filthier back in the 19th century, but the population was also 1/100th the size it is today. and who has more to lose? the environnmentalists if AGW is wrong? or the oil profiteers who stands to lose billions of AGW is true?

Personally I am not waiting for some scientific consensus to "prove" to me how much pollution is where. I already conserve as much as I can. I don't drive, I don't use hardly any electricity and i don't wear fur. Thats what everyone should be doing. forget the debates and the "proof" and the agendas. If you actually care about the planet at all, then you should already be doing something to help

Even if the planet was in spectacular condition would I still be green and conserving

Answer 4

If you mean is it occurring, and is it largely due to man's activities the answer is yes, lots of people know the answer.  If you mean does anybody know precisely how much temperatures will increase in the coming decades and how other climatic factors such as rainfall and storm frequency will vary at various at various locations or how much sea levels will rise the answer is no, although some people, all climate scientists understand the factors involved better than others.

Answer 5

yes, I know the truth.

Answer 6

Only people who are arogant.

Answer 7

These people know.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0...    The Cold Truth about Global Warming  by Joseph Romm

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_peti...   dispells the myth about 17,000 scientists who are skeptics on AGW

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

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

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

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

Answer 8

It's happening.

If you go and look at the Sahara that hasn't had rain in a very long period, snow on mountains are melting, they found polar bears drowning, because the poles are melting and they couldn't swim anymore...

Greenpeace isn't doing what their doing, just because they got bored, they saw what was happening and decided to fight it.

People might say global warming is a myth, but global warming basically is a greenhouse effect.

Prove the greenhouse effect wrong, and I'll believe that gllobal warming is a myth...

Heat is good, to much is h**l.

People are soooooooo ignorant and it pisses me off, why not try to change for the better?

Answer 9

I like it warm.........

Answer 10

Yes. It is a myth conjured to further a political agenda. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the late 19th century when most of the civilized world ran on coal.

Answer 11

Birdog: precisely!  There is no doubt it's a skinhead agenda using skinhead tactics.  Here's a link to one of the main guys who started the whole DENIER/skeptic thing.  He's a self-declared expert on climate, race, politics, Middle-East politics in particular (he's a garden-variety meteorologist, like Katie Horner here in Kansas City).  When you hear the poor souls who say "They" predicted an ice age in the 1970's, actually "They" was only this guy.  Up until the 1990's he pointedly referred to Climate science as the work of "Jewish Scientists"  He often cites Carl Sagan and Paul  Erlich as examples.  He's gone back and edited his past posts in a lot of places, but he also makes it clear he's proud of his antisemitism.  Did you know for example that the person responsible for the rising oil prices, and all the violence in the Middle-East is Jimmy Carter?  Why neither did I, until I read a number of his posts on the topic.  It seems the monster Carter persuaded Egypt to sign an agreement with Israel that recognized Israel's right to exist.  With that kind of thing allowed to go on, it's no wonder all the world's scientists have engaged in a conspiracy to hoodwink Mr. Ponte and his followers, is it?

You will note that he does acknowledge that Global Warming has been around a long long time, and is not a recent invention of Al Gore's.  He may be an asocial bigot, but he is not a complete idiot!

Answer 12

What is truth? Truth is what the media wants to show us, everyone is biased, don't trust anyone.

In my opinion, you can agree or disagree, we are coming out of an ice age. The Earth has been warming and cooling since its creation, and quite frankly we are overdue for a warming period, and when I say "warming" I mean tropic weather from pole to pole.

I think that people need to stop trying to stop global warming, they're trying to stop it because the Earth is losing what they knew as children.  Well the Earth changed before humans, the Earth will change after humans, and I, for one, will not mess with Mother Nature.

Answer 13

I think the global warning is absolutely true and it is given a curse to many countries, such as China, England, US, Australia, India and Parkistan and, particularly the most polluted city in this world-Hong Kong.

The scientists are d**n right by saying that the global temperature is rising one half to one degree C each year. You and I are feeling the same. We are getting warmer each day. According to the Canadian TV program of the "Nature of Things" with host of David Susuki did mention once if we continued not to take care of our environment it would end up with the followings. Hot and warm spots will getting snowfall (Peru got snow last year), wetlands will getting drought (many cultivating lands were getting drought in China last year), floodings in China, India, central America, Mexico, England and US. One city in Australia was debating whether to recycle drainage water as drinking water. It was televised in TV and article published in the Hong Kong South China Morning Post last year.

I am scared to watch the TV in Hong Kong every morning by seeing the foggy sky of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Air pollution index (API) is around 60 to 120 on a daily basis which is far from the WHO (world Health Organization) standard of 30. Many times Hong Kong has recorded API exceeded 150 in Causeway Bay and Mongkong last and this month. Due to the foul air of Hong Kong, there are more than 1.5 million Hong Kong residents are currently contracted with asthma, heart and lung diseases.

http://theissue.com/issue/5386.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG...

Answer 14

The Feb 27 article at this link provides a good overview.  This is just a portion of the article:

The cold truth about climate change

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0...

The scientific consensus most people are familiar with is the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" reports. But those aren't a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism -- the Bush administration -- get to veto anything they don't like. The deniers call this "politicized science," suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watered-down document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is "minority rules."

Last April, in an article titled "Conservative Climate," Scientific American noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, "The difference is really a factor of 10."

How decent of the IPCC not to smash the last hope of deniers like Fred Thompson, whose irrational sun worshiping allows them to ignore the overwhelming evidence that human emissions are the dominant cause of climate change.

How else does the IPCC lowball future impacts? The 2007 report projects sea level rise this century of 7 to 23 inches. Yet the IPCC itself stated that "models [of sea level rise] used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effect of changes in ice sheet flow."

That is, since no existing climate models fully account for the kinds of feedbacks we are now witnessing in Greenland and Antarctica, such as dynamic acceleration of ice sheet disintegration or greenhouse gases released by melting tundra, the IPCC is forced to ignore those realities. The result is that compared to the "consensus" of the IPCC, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking "100 years ahead of schedule," as Penn State climatologist Richard Alley put it in March 2006

According to both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, neither Greenland nor Antarctica should lose significant mass by 2100. They both already are. Here again, the conservative nature of the IPCC process puts it at odds with observed empirical realities that are the basis of all science.

It's no surprise then that three scientific studies released in the past year -- too late for inclusion by the IPCC -- argue that based on historical data and recent observations, sea level rise this century will be much higher than the IPCC reports, up to 5 feet or more. Even scarier, the rate of sea level rise in 2100 might be greater than 6 inches a decade!

And it's no surprise at all that sea-level rise from 1993 and 2006 -- 1.3 inches per decade as measured by satellites -- has been higher than the IPCC climate models predicted.

The deniers are simply wrong when they claim that the IPCC has overestimated either current or future warming impacts. As many other recent observations reveal, the IPCC has been underestimating those impacts.

- Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than any IPCC model had projected.

- The temperature rise from 1990 to 2005 -- 0.33°C -- was "near the top end of the range" of IPCC climate model predictions.

- "The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models" -- and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. Since then, the Arctic retreat has stunned scientists by accelerating, losing an area equal to Texas and California just last summer.

- "The unexpectedly rapid expansion of the tropical belt constitutes yet another signal that climate change is occurring sooner than expected," noted one climate researcher in December.

Why are recent observations on the high side of model projections? First, as noted, most climate models used by the IPCC omit key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle. Second, it was widely thought that increased human carbon dioxide emissions would be partly offset by more trees and other vegetation. But increases in droughts and wildfires -- both predicted by global warming theory -- seem to have negated that. Third, the ocean -- one of the largest sinks for carbon dioxide -- seems to be saturating decades earlier than the models had projected.

The result, as a number of studies have shown, is that the sensitivity of the world's climate to human emissions of greenhouse gases is no doubt much higher than the sensitivity used in most IPCC models. NASA's Hansen argued in a paper last year that the climate ultimately has twice the sensitivity used in IPCC models.

The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports.  That's why climate scientists are so desperate. That's why they keep begging for immediate action.

---

Answer 15

although some people may say that we're in a "warming period" we as humans have made it worse. it isn't just some fluke that will fix itself. we have polluted our environment for so long that it was only a matter of time before we would start to see the consequences. because of all the pollution that atmosphere has trapped in the CO2, warming the earth to record levels. the last 10 years are among the top 15 hottest years ever!! if that doesn't say something i don't know what does. we have to figure out a way to reduce our impact on the earth. global warming is real and the consequences could be devastating.

Answer 16

Yes. the truth of the matter is that the weather patterns and climate on earth is changing. it is always changing. and it is influenced by both man and natural cycles.

Answer 17

Larry W - I would suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Your statement DOES NOT BELONG HERE!

Answer 18

Birdog,

A criminal offense to deny global warming? Criminal offense to have a differing opinion? That sounds like a fascist practice if I have ever heard one.

Only a few scientists?

Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all. A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

A 2007 survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists:

Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today. The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet. A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.

Peer-reviewed journals:

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a

survey of research papers on climate change.

Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI

Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she

found a majority supported the "consensus view,"

defined as humans were having at least

some_effect_ on_global_climate_change.

NOTE: "Climate change" but not "Global warming"

Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as

some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its

conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte

recently updated this research. Using the same

database and search terms as Oreskes, he

examined all papers published from 2004 to

February 2007. The results have been submitted

to the journal Energy and Environment. The results are interesting.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%)

gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If

one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the

consensus without explicit statement), the figure

rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%)

reject the consensus outright, the largest category

(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept

or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Consensus? what consensus?

Eric c.,

Arrogance is believing that 100 years of CO2-which is one of the least efficient greenhouse gasses- production is enough to have a drastic effect on our climate. What is the weather supposed to be like anyway?

Wow, Tuba in the Rose seems a little fanatical. Skinheads? Anti-Semitism? Is that really what you think? Geez, I hope not...