Global Warming...Yay or Nay?

Question

Do you believe in global warming being a direct cause of human activities? If so, please write why. If not, please write why. Now is your chance to persuade a couple of people either way. 10 points for best answer.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818013602AAhmFxL

Answer 1

I tend to be swayed by facts obtained by the scientific method. At the moment, the preponderance of research, experiment and tests overwhelmingly points to man-made global warming hence this is what I believe.

When, and if, credible scientific facts point the other direction, I will change my mind.

What I won't do, however, is confuse myself like Bob does:

"Biggest hoax ever played on mankind" - this is a common statement by deniers that is never supported by evidence.

The deniers also never explain how a global conspiracy of disparate interest groups involving millions of people in countries as varied as Antigua, Angola, Antilles...Yemen, Zambia & Zimbabwe some of whom are at war with each other - could possibly have been put together in just a few years.

"do you really think the world never has weather changes?"

Another common mistake by deniers. The issue at hand is CLIMATE change, not WEATHER change. The deniers often confuse the two. I have news for them: There are two different words because they describe two different things. They are related as much as a cat and a dog are both mammals. But confusing weather for climate is the same as confusing a cat for a dog.

Poor education or deliberate confusion and lies?

"follow the money trail"

OK. And where does it lead? To many governments, astute business people (many quite conservative) and international organisations (including non-governmental ones) all saying that AGW is going to cost us a lot more if we don't wake up and do something about it!

"Gore a Democrat started all this"

And this is the most tedious of confusions that the deniers bring up.

Gore didn't start this - AGW started back in the 18th C when we started to burn coal in large amounts! Gore is an American (hello, "America" is not the "Globe"!) politician and populist, not a researcher nor climate scientist.

So what if Gore believes in AGW and is an advocate of higher taxes? Decaprio believes in AGW and is an actor? Can we then say that watching movies causes higher taxes or if you go to the movies you are a liberal or that you want to live in a cave?

More confusion and self-delusion: Many deniers cannot understand how to construct a proper cause-and-effect logic train thus end up drawing the most ludicruous consclusions.

Answer 2

The whole point here is that we’re told that man made emissions of CO2 are causing global warming.

The effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well known and well documented. (here’s a good document describing how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas http://brneurosci.org/co2.html)... but it’s only a minor greenhouse gas having perhaps 5% to 15% of the overall greenhouse effect.  Only 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is CO2. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 96% is natural, and 4% is man made (anthropogenic).

We are told that man made CO2 is causing global warming; the global temperatures are rising,  the sea levels are rising, the poles are melting, and all manner of catastrophes are coming to us.

Please go and check the data. These are all authoritative sources... please check their provenance and graph the data for yourself.

Are CO2 levels rising?... Yes. (Source Scripps).  http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/mlo.html  

Are Global Temperature rising? Not for the last 10 years. (Source 'Hadley' British Meteorological office)

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

Are the Oceans warming?. Not for the last 10 years (Source NOAA). http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCD...

Are Sea Levels rising? No, dropping  for the last 5 years (Source Colorado University)

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_...

For the last 10 years the climate has stopped warming while CO2 levels rise. From the 1940’s to the 1970’s temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose. In 1421 the Chinese circumnavigated the North Pole. In 1959 the American nuclear submarine USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole in “open water”

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/085... But it looks pretty frozen today (North Pole web cam, Washington University)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/...

I am not convinced that man made CO2 has changed our climate at all. There is no doubt that we are doing all manner of bad things to the world that we should do better, but controlling CO2 is not a good place to apply our taxpayer dollars.

Answer 3

Of course it true!!

Humans = factories/cars = CO2 emissions, pollution, cutting down trees.

Besides, how else would you explain the ice at the North Pole melting??!

We really should try to stop it. But, hey... who wouldn't want to live under smoggy skies?  

Answer 4

Apparenty scientists argue that the earth has been much warmer before now and the ice caps a lot smaller, I do however think that our Co2 output is adding to how fast it is happening this time.

Answer 5

Yay, to both the fact of natural and man-made causes, and the effects are sheer devestating, well to some. As for one, the ozone layer, there is a large hole around Antartica, which is most likely from the earth naturally carrying it to the south pole. Second, the melting of the ice caps, glaciers, and will be making most floods, and distabilizing the natural force of regular salt and fresh water balance, making the weather force, this is a theory, for now. That's one reason I believe in global warming, of its capability. Second was for how now. 2005 was set in record for the hottest year in record, in statements. And how the earth grew 1 degree in the last 100 years, which doesn't look much but compared to the earth's history is a movement. And thirdly, its not hard to believe its not mad-made, think if it, ants are many like us and carry over their size, so if they can do digging ant holes and tunnels at a great "civilization", we humans can impact our planet with the industrial revolution, supply and demand, and population growth. But if anybody thinks it isnt man-made, can we at least take care of the only planet that cared for us, its like hurting your own family that raised you, in a way.

Answer 6

NAY

http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signat...

31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming.........

Answer 7

Biggest hoax ever played on mankind, do you really think the world never has weather changes?

Always follow the money trail, Gore a Democrat started all this and what is their number 1 agenda always-  TAXES!

Answer 8

Nay - Dave put together some good information as a starting point.  The problem with the global warming theory is that there is not overwhelming evidence that it is man-made.  The only evidence that it is man made is that it has warmed over the last 150 years or so since the advent of the industrial revolution and mankind burning increasing amounts of hydro-carbons for energy.  

Those who believe always cite consensus rather than real evidence that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 has caused an increase in temperature.  Yes, there are a lot of well respected scientists who believe global warming is real.  That does lend support to the case for AGW, but it is not evidence that it exists.  

It has been warmer in the past, and it has been colder in the past without the assistance of human industry.  That does not preclude human activity from being the cause of the recent warming, but it does show that the warming could have other causes.

There is a historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature - when temps are higher so is the CO2 concentration.  Historically the increased CO2 concentration lagged the increase in temperature by a few centuries.  Again, this does not preclude man-made CO2 from being the cause of the current warming, but it does not lend any support to it either. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Inf...

The Earth's climate has historically been affected by solar activity, Milankovitch Cycles (involving the Earth's orbit) and volcanic activity.  Over the last 1000 years, solar activity has matched global temperature anomolies very well.  The Mideaval Maximum was a time of increased sun spot activity that corresponded to the Mideaval Warming period.  During the Maunder Minimum there were almost no sunspots observed, and we encountered a period refered to as the Little Ice Age.   We are currently at the end of a very busy solar cycle called the Modern Maximum.  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-00...  This article in Nature 2004 states the the sun has been exceptionally active for the past 70 years, and in fact has not been this active for over 8 millenia. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/natu...  Belivers claim that the sun has been proven not to be the cause of global warming, and I understand that this claim has been peer reviewed, but I have a problem with it.  If increased solar activity caused warming in the past, and decreased solar activity caused cooling in the past, why is it that a hyper-active sun is not causing warming now?

The above are the foundation of my disbelief, but there is much more.  

Someone at GISS added an extra .15 degrees to recent temperature measurements which NASA has now removed.  Dr. Hansen, the father of AGW works at GISS.

There are questions as to the accuracy of the CO2 record which is mainly taken from ice cores.  http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten...

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjm...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/19/12...

Thermometers have only been in widespread use since the mid-19th century - the beginning of global warming.

Computer models that predict future climate are not accurate.  They do not accurately predict the present, giving them little or no utility for predicting the future.  http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publ...

Because the models are not accurate, all of the dooms day rhetoric about the negative effects of global warming is purely made up.

I can go on, but this is probably more than you wanted to hear!

Answer 9

Please do not get suckered into believing this hoax. Look, the United Nations is the main means of this information that these politicians and advocates of global warming are spitting out at us. Look it up the United Nations does not have one scientist... much less a climatologist..so why should we listen to these people again? Oh, that's right to scare us to giving more money and paying higher taxes to fix a problem that doesn't exist.  It has been proven by actual scientists using weather technology like weather balloons and the such, that the temperature of the Earth has gone down in the past ten years on average.  It is all about politics to make the Republican party look like they don't care about the environment because they actually know the truth.  Political tactics like this has always been used to scare the people to vote for them and also for their own personal agendas. The Democratic party wants to raise taxes we all know that.  Not saying raising taxes is a bad thing. I am not saying that. This is the best way to get around all the people who do not want to raise taxes. By scaring them. I have a climatologist at my University and I have talked to him about this subject. He told me when he first started his research the big question was global cooling, now it is global warming. It is a cycle people it happens all the time.  

Answer 10

Like the temperature, this question only gets hotter. It is becoming a cliche! Global Warming is a scientifically proven theory, not a fairy tale written by Al Gore.

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation. It is not entirly the result of human activity, but the exponential increase is. CO2 has always be produced through many activites both man made and natural.

There has been an influx of human life on earth in the last couple of decades, industrialization, transport increase etc. etc. The natural process of earth is balance, we have disturbed it. So lets try and restore it! Graphically, we have turned a straight line into a right angle of CO2 production.

The government is not making this up, as therefore you are suggesting that scientists can lie about their theories and experiments. Now tell me when this has happened in the past. Never.

The problem with some people is that as soon as they feel inconvenienced or wary of something, they choose to ignore it, especially if they don't understand it.

Now tell me this: why would the governments spend billions of dollars changing our industrialized nations, right when we are thriving? Not to fool their people, but to enable the world to remain as we know it.

Scientists can trace back many millions of years into past periods of warming and cooling. Sure these trends have happened in the past, but never to the extent they are now. You do not have to be a fan of Al Gore to see this much, and its link to carbon dioxide gas emissions.

Like religion and God, it is your choice whether to believe or not. I just hope you don't decide too late.

Hopefully the international community can soon stop debating whether or not it is true, and just do something about it.  

Answer 11

The problem with wrapping a two word phrase around a long chain of reasoning it that it confuses people into believing it is a simple all or nothing proposition.  

Some questions that bear inquiry

1) Are we indeed in a long term warming trend?  While there has been a measurable increase in temperatures over the last 150 years, the most recent decade has shown some cooling.

2) Are current climate patterns an aberration or are they well within normal bounds of climate.  Given that the Holocene Maximum, an very recent era in geological times was warmer than today, and that we suffered what appear to be unusually cool weather for several centuries is not possible that climate is just regressing to the mean?

3) Is the increase in CO2 actually a cause of warming?  Wouldn't warming also contribute to increased CO2 levels?  Could they both be effects of some other cause?  Or are they just co-incidental.  This is not as well known as AGW proponents would have you believe.

4) Could there be other unaccounted factors, such as variability in solar activity.  The previous two decades were periods of increased sun spot activity, the current decade has shown little activity, at a time when temperatures are not rising.

5) Is warming necessarily a bad thing.  Humans have thrived in warming climates, when agriculture was more productive and the weather not so harsh, while cooling periods have been times of shortened life spans and population declines.  We are a tropical animal.

6) Are the doomsday scenarios the only potential outcome?  Are they probable?  Are they even possible.  An average warming of 40 degrees in the interior of Antarctica would leave an environment far below the temperature needed to melt the ice sheet.  

7) Do the people who vigorously advance AGW as truth themselves live as if they believe this.  Are they walking or taking public transport?  Do they own modest dwellings?  Ask people what steps they are personally undertaking?  The answer I generally receive are vague and inspecific, often something nebulous and unproductive like "well I'm researching a carbon neutral lifestyle", which translates to they are doing nothing.

8) Do the proponents have a vested interest in convincing people of AGW?  Are they the head of an organization selling trading credits.  Do they have millions invested in a movie whose expense they need to recoup.  Are they selling a book?  Are they politicians angling for power?  Are they scientists looking for research dollars?  Even the most scrupulous will come to believe that which justifies their existence.

9) Are the proposed remedies more costly than the problem they would solve?  Are they even feasible?  Would it not make more sense to strengthen our technology and increase our wealth so that we may be ready for any number of possibilities. We would look like fools spending a fortune for flood gates, sea walls, and movement of cities away from the ocean, only to watch ocean levels drop.

10) Is there an ongoing effort to better understand and explore all avenues of the climate?  Or do we hear phrases like "we have the answers", "the debate is over", "the science is in"?  Are those the words of scientists seeking knowledge or are they the words of someone looking to squelch inquiry?

I'm not looking to convince you yay or nay so much as plant a healthy skepticism of the people who pursue this agenda as well as the ideas and conclusions they have reached.  

I'm an old dog, I've heard so many disaster in the making stories that never came true.

Answer 12

This global warming deal has been spoon-fed to us for the past 10 or 15 years. I'm certain that the population growth and demand for more fossil fuel has contributed not only to global warming but to the overall destruction of our planet. I am no expert by any means. But I am a concerned person who has an opinion. I think if we don't stop abusing our planet the consequences will be beyond anything we can imagine.

And global warming will be the least of our worries.