Global warming?? How about global hysteria?

Question

CO2 IS FORMED WHEN IT GETS HOTTER MEANING THAT CO2 RISES FROM THE SEA SINCE ..... WHATEVER GLOBAL WARMING NO SUCH THING. CONCENTRATE ON POLLUTION INSTEAD.

Answer 1

Let's see... about 2000 leading scientists from all over the world, experts in dozens of related fields, say unanimously in the recent IPCC report that global warming is a serious problem.  Some guy who doesn't know how to turn off his shift key, write a correct sentence, or make a coherent argument disagrees.  Suit yourself, but I'll go with the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Answer 2

You sound really angry.  People don't think very clearly when they are angry because it shuts down their frontal cortex but I think I know what you are getting at so I will do my best (as a researcher and a science journalist) to explain.

You are right that pollution is real and is a problem. A complicated problem.

Just like global climate change.

At the same time global climate change is real. It's as real as the air you breathe. Just because you can't see something or don't understand something does not mean it is not real.

Most people hear the term 'global warming' and they think everywhere will get hot and since this isn't happening it must be a pile of doggy doo.  The term is confusing people but it's a public nickname for what scientists have called global climate change for about 15 years now, at least.

Global climate change.is studied by climatologists and oceanographers and atmospheric scientistrs and allied disciplines.

It is not an easy subject for non-scientists to understand . It's a systems science (like climatology, oceanography, and that kind of thing). And just like those, it's hard to grasp. It's complicated.  These are probably the most complicated sciences because they require knowledge of chemistry, biology, and physics, all at the same time.  Which isn't easy.

The Royal Society, in England, has a section about Global Climate Change. They're the National Academy of Science in the UK and Commonwealth.  Not a bunch of what you probably would see as hysterical treehuggers.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id...

These are brass tacks, take your time to analyze the data, honest people who study how the world is, and why it is that way, and how it all works.  Oh - and what happens if I do this? :-) That's what science is. Understanding the world.

And her is their page on facts and fictions about Global Warming: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=47...

When I was doing my degree 15 years ago the Royal Society of Canada (our science academy) was producing a regular magazine devoted to studying climate change. It's real, even if you don't want to believe it.  Even if people are confused about it. Even if people think taht becasue scientost are arguing taht means they haven't found something eral.

Scientists argue all the time. It's part of science to present evidence and disagree and have verbal dustups till there's enough evidence to show something is happening.

That does not mean that an arguing scientist disputes climate change. they are just disputing how much is caused by what and what, if anything can be done.

What is known and agreed upon is that temperatures will get more extreme. Hotter in some places, colder in others. We are already seeing this.

Why is this a problem?  For a lot of reasons. Here's a big one: sea levels are rising, and most people live on the coast.

Here's another: We need to grow plants to eat or at the very least feed cows and such because they do not eat meat. The whole of the world's species relies on plants - they underlie the foundation of existence.  Plants need a certain set range of temperatures. If the climate where they grow exceeds that range they will die.

Take-home message: food crops will not grow properly.

There are lots of other problems scientosts are seeing that they already predicted form their models. I am not going to list them here - please check the Royal Societies site.

Global warming is something the scientists have been studying for longer than the petrochemical companies have been hiring non-climatologists to argue climate change is not real.

Bjorn Lomborg who is portrayed as being anti-global warming is a statistician, who works in a political science and economics department. He is neither a climatologist, nor a hydrologist, nor a geographer, nor a meteorologist, nor an oceanographer and he is not an ecologist, either.  He is a math geek.  

Lomborg, whom I heard speak when he came to Ottawa,  did not deny climate change - he just thinks we might get more bang for our buck to make the world a better place by investing in things like malaria nets, and micronutrients for developing countries. Certainly those things need attention too.  

But the people in low lying island nations who are facing submergence of their countries would beg to differ that climate change is not important. Here is a piece from PBS about that mess. It's 6 years old.

http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/voice/2001053...  

The problem of shifting temperatures cannot be wished away, no matter how much you want to believe the 'tame' scientists' who oil is using because they fear losing profit share,. :-(

If temperatures shift outside of the normal ranges needed for particular critters (plants, animals, even stuff like bacteria and algae - especially plants and algae since they make all our oxygen) we are all in BIG BIG trouble.

That is why people are worried - food supplies and air supplies and water supplies which evaporate in higher temperatures.

Now retired military leaders in the US have released a report on how global climate change is a security threat:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Also the UN's Security Council just had a meeting about global warming being a security threat.

http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...

It's real. It's a problem. It is not some mass delusion.

What can we do? Lots but the main thing is the same tactic as for pollution. Buy less stuff, consume less.  STOP WASTING EVERYTHING. It won't wreck the economy. It will save landfill space.

Answer 3

Hey idiot...pollution is the problem. All of the junk that we are sending into the atmospere is burning away the ozone layer. You want some proof? Go outside after a rainstorm. You know that smell that everyone seems to love? Thats ozone. Look it up. Do your research before you make stupid half- thought out announcements.

Answer 4

Global warming theory states that CO2 is responisble for global warming. It is one of a few greenhouse gases (others are CH4 and H2O). It is also well known that CO2 is less soluble in warm water, as compared to cold water. The molecules considered to be pollution (NOx,SOx, Soot, etc) are actually net coolers because they reflect incident sunlight. Therefore your statement regarding pollution being the cause of global warming is flat out wrong. Please learn to differentiate the difference between global warming, pollution, and even ozone depletion.

As to the question at hand, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that man made global warming is overstated. It can be found in the scientific journals. Thus, trying to curb an overstated problem is less than cost effective. Mitigating pollution is far more effective than trying to prevent global warming.

Answer 5

Ravenclaw:

Global warming theory states that CO2 is responisble for global warming.  It is one of a few greenhouse gases (others are CH4 and H2O).  It is also well known that CO2 is less soluble in warm water, as compared to cold water.  The molecules considered to be pollution (NOx,SOx, Soot, etc) are actually net coolers because they reflect incident sunlight.  Therefore your statement regarding pollution being the cause of global warming is flat out wrong.  Please learn to differentiate the difference between global warming, pollution, and even ozone depletion.

As to the question at hand, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that man made global warming is overstated.  It can be found in the scientific journals.  Thus, trying to curb an overstated problem is less than cost effective.  Mitigating pollution is far more effective than trying to prevent global warming.

Answer 6

do you have any idea what you're talking about???  You're reasoning resembles that of a half educated 8 year old...not to be harsh

Answer 7

The global warming is part of a cycle we just have to ride it out. Note heard this April is the coldest on record. Go back in history and it will tell us that the earth goes though periods of warming and cooling. The ones that are putting out the B.S. are the ones that are taking most scientist out of context. And forgot to take history in school they must of took basket weaving, protesting and dumb as-, and letting parents pay to keep them away.

Answer 8

I think this quotes answers you question the best:

Scientist’s need “to get some broader based

support, to capture the public’s imagination...that,

of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make

simplified dramatic statements, and make little

mention of any doubts we may have…each of us

has to decide what the right balance is between

being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider, Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of

the Institute for International Studie, and Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Discover Magazine.

Answer 9

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not one single intelligent scientist out there denies this simple fact. I assume you got this rubbish from The Great Global Warming Swindle, since everybody seems to be talking about it these days.

But don't worry, the argument was smashed before the film was even released. A rise in temperature will cause in increase in evaporation over oceans, which in turn will cause more carbon dioxide to be released, driving the temperature up even farther.

The simple fact that past climate changes weren't triggered by CO2 does not mean that it didn't play an important role. Most changes were started by variations in Earth's orbit (we aren't in one now) called milankovitch cycles, then taken over by CO2 once enough was released.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...