Global cooling or global warming which scientist are telling the truth about this debate?

Question

I believe in global warming but global cooling? i find this some how impossible unless the world ocean currents stops and freezes up the earth to a snow ball.

But i believe that global warming is for real because of all of toxic we release into the air in which we humans are responsible for it.

I am not really sure and i am confused on whose right.

Global warming or Global cooling which 1 do u think is happening now?

Answer 1

It was hard to not believe in global warming when the temp was still increasing, but that did end in 1998 and that's still the record hottest year, despite our pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't argue with the science, CO2 will block some infrared radiation that comes in from the sun or is produced by the Earth, trapping it for a time in the atmosphere. But it's such a tiny portion of the atmosphere at .04% and there are many more potent and abundant greenhouse gases that it's odd they picked out CO2 as the boogeyman. It can't possibly reach the temps they predict unless you assume the Earth is a giant laboratory. It's not, it's huge and chaotic and very very resilient. CO2 levels were far higher than they are now during an ice age so it's not at all likely we'll suddenly reach 140F degrees.

Global cooling doesn't require a snowball Earth, that only happens in very unique circumstances that are very unlikely today. We have a lot of liquid water on Earth now, and the CO2 will help prevent it from happening. Cooling in the form of an ice age is much more likely and in fact we're slightly overdue for the onset of the return of the ice age.

If an ice age does begin again, we'd better hope that any reduction in CO2 we've made is reversible since we may want to use it to prevent the advance of glaciers throughout most of both hemispheres. Otherwise most of the world's population will die, a far worse result than would happen with any probably amount of warming.

You can argue we should stop using oil and I'll agree. If you try to tell me that I should let the UN decide where to set my thermostat and whether I should drive or walk 10 miles to work, I'll question your sanity. We need to find a middle road that leads away from fossil fuels to renewable sources without bankrupting the Western economies and turning over sovereignty to the UN.

Answer 2

Here in Montana it is colder.

Answer 3

I am very hot

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 4

The answer lies in where you begin your search.  The earth is over 4.3 billion years old, and a lot of the data we see from both sides of the global warming debate is far too little to reach any real conclusions.  Anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts like to start around 1850, while those saying the globe is cooling likes to start at around 1998 in which it has cooled mildly.  Neither is more than a mere fraction of the earth's age.  400,000 years is a good start and you'll see a trend of every 100,000 years an ice age.  The only question is does AGW, if it is real, pose enough warming to escape the likelihood of global cooling? My guess is no, but I don't think that process has started quite yet.

Answer 5

The very simple answer to your question is to simply look at the data.  Not from any one location like the Bronx, but at the global data as a whole, which is collected from thousands of temperature stations all across the planet (and confirmed by satellite data).  Here's what it looks like:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Quite clearly, we're in a period of global warming.  Here's an explanation of how we know humans are causing it, and that it's not just a natural cycle:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Answer 6

When people talk about global warming they always seem to mention about a hole in the ozone.  The truth is, the ozone has always been thinner over the Poles.  You mention that humans release toxins into the air, and this is responsible for damage to the planet.  Every time a volcano erupts, toxic gases are released in the atmosphere.  In fact, more toxic and noxious gases than every can of aerosol humans have ever sprayed are released.  The planet earth is a lot less fragile than most enviroments would like us to realize.  We couldn't damage this planet if we tried.  Also, consider all of the other natural disasters, like forest fires, that the planet Earth shakes off like it's nothing.  The big Al Gore enviromental disaster scare tactic is just another way to governmentally regulate personal behavior.  If you think I'm wrong, try to get all of the enviromentalists together and try to destroy the planet.  It is a lot more resiliant than people realize.

Answer 7

The earth has been warming and cooling since God made the earth. We just had a very cold winter (world wide) with record snows and cold temperatures. Greenland was once very green, long before SUVs and now the earth has cycled to a cooling trend and now Greenland is cover with snow and ice. This just more proof we have nothing to do with global warming or cooling.

Answer 8

All climate modelers must build their models based upon our current understanding of how the climate system works. Therefore, if there is some important - but as yet poorly understood - process that they are missing, they will all tend to make the same error. Past evidence for this is the tendency for climate models to drift away from a realistic climate over time. This suggests that it takes a higher level of understanding to capture the intricate processes that stabilize the climate system.

The most important example of this lack of understanding is, in my view, how precipitation systems control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, over 90% of which is due to water vapor and clouds. The Earth's total greenhouse effect is not some passive quantity that can be easily modified by mankind adding a little carbon dioxide -- it is instead being constantly limited by precipitation systems, which remove water vapor and adjust cloud amounts to keep the total greenhouse effect consistent with the amount of available sunlight. Our understanding of this limiting process is still quite poor, and likely not represented in climate models.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not climate modelers, and they will tend to go along with what the modelers say. After all, it is the modelers who are supposed to gather all of the specialized knowledge of how weather processes operate, and then represent them in a computer program (model) of how the whole climate system behaves. Thus, there is an element of "group think" that keeps scientific biases entrenched in the research community as a whole.

Answer 9

Not every place in the world is warming at the same rate, or even warming at all—in fact, some parts of the world cooled over the 20th century. For this reason, many scientists use the term climate change rather than global warming. However, taking all of the local measurements together, the world is warming significantly, and many more places are warming than are cooling.

Answer 10

You really can't tell which is true, by only looking at short term temperatures in one area.  Global warming is about a global (worldwide) average increase in temperature over a long period of time (e.g. 30 years and continuing).  There will still be winters, cold days, summers, etc., but the long term average is showing an increase in the temperatures.

The scientists to trust would be those with the most research experience in climate science (you wouldn't listen to your Dentist about brain surgery) and who work for reputable scientific organizations (not people who work for political advocacy groups).

I'd suggest NASA (they have more climate scientists than any organization in the world) or NOAA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...