Global warming? I don't get it...?

Question

I don't believe in global warming, because I don't think humans are this powerful to change the globe's temperature. Can you tell me why you believe in it?

Everything we make on earth is from the Earth, just in a different combination, I don't see how that sooo draaasticalllyyy changes the Earth. Also, Earth goes through different cycles... There was an Ice age, There were droughts, and this is probably one of Earths natural cycles that it goes through.

If you can explain to me why you think it's real, I might start believing. Thanks!

Answer 1

If you dont think humans can effect the world, look at something a little more easy to see than global warming, like over fishing.  People used to thing that we cannot make a dent in the fish population but, look what we've done

Answer 2

It is real, and you said it your self as to why.  In the past we know that there has been at least one Ice Age.  Well, it's not here now, is it?  Why?  Because it is warmer than it was then.  The whole globe has gotten warmer.  Global warming!  I personally do not believe that global warming is a "man-made" phenomenon.  It is simply a natural cycle that the earth goes through.  Again the globe has been warming since the commencement of the coldest part of the most recent ice age.  

How can anyone be so arrogant to think that man is so powerful?

Answer 3

full essay and "Yes There is Global Warming":

http://globalwarmingessay.googlepages.co...

There is No Global Warming Believers:

Many voices in the world strongly believe that Global Warming is not a real happening, but just a theory. There are facts that go against the theory of Global Warming. 95% of the greenhouse gases are actually water vapor, so only 5% can be other gases, such as carbon dioxide. In physics, ice gets smaller when it melts. Because a lot of the ice-bergs are already in the water, it would not rise at all, or rise approximately 0.008 inches a year. In many cases, it is carbon monoxide that creates carbon dioxide. Once the carbon monoxide is in the atmosphere, it gradually oxidizes into carbon dioxide. According to several ice core samples, it is temperature that is guiding CO2, not CO2 guiding temperature. An ice core sample is a cylinder-shaped section of ice that is from ice and snow that has compressed together. This tells the history of the gases in the air. In the world, climatologists only have 100 years of recorded temperature, which is not enough to prove that a global temperature is changing.

There is very good evidence that Global Warming, indeed, is happening. Seeing the polar ice caps and permanently frozen soil melting is one piece of proof that Global Warming is happening. Hurricane Katrina was another reason. It was a Category 5 Hurricane, the strongest of all. Hotter years and the bleaching of coral reefs is yet another large piece of evidence.

Most people think that Global Warming is a crisis. The severe effects scare the wits out of people and then believe in Global Warming. These are known as scare tactics, because they are ways of convincing people with the negative effects.  Many strong leaders use forms of propaganda, like using cute pictures or terrifying scenes.

I have no opinion, but I am kind of on the "No Global Warming Side"...

Answer 4

Global warming is a myth perpetrated on an unsophisticated, gullible society by people who are pursuing personal gain.

The climate is in a constant state of change. Ever hear the saying, "If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes and it will change". You could also say wait five hours, five days, five years, five decades, five centuries...

Did you know that Vikings settled in Greenland beginning around 1000AD, and grazed sheep on vast fields of lush green grass (hence the name Greenland). Over the next couple of centuries, the climate changed bringing cooler weather, more snow and eventually ending the sheep grazing business. Archaeologist, studying the bones and remains of the Vikings buried there have confirmed that over the decades that the Vikings inhabited Greenland, their diet gradually changed from the meat and veggies provided by good farming, to seafood. Eventually, the Viking settlers died out or returned to Scandinavia.

And BTW, during this warm period, the coastal areas of the world were no inundated with water!

What's Greenland like today? There still isn't much sheep and cattle grazing going on! The place is mostly ice pack and glacier. It was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago than it is now.

Global warming is not man made, it's not unnatural, and it's not going to stop because you installed fluorescent lights.

Answer 5

They'll try to tell you that CO2 has increased 37% because of humans and sure that sounds like a big scary number but what they neglect to tell you is just how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere compared to other GHG such as water vapor. Additionally, how little of that is contributed by humans. The link below gives you some numbers as to just how much CO2 is part of the atmosphere and it should make you wonder if we really are causing such a "catastrophic" change.  

Answer 6

The Earth is flat...

Man landed on the moon in 69'...

Global Warming...

Wisdom of man...False.

Answer 7

1. Ice ages, and inter-glacial periods, are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles (by astronomers), or "orbital forcing" (by climatologists). Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, and is slowly cooling the planet right now. Here's the science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

Except for orbital forcing, nearly all other natural climate change is caused by changes in the Sun's output. So we must ask, is the current warming due to the Sun? Or are we humans causing it by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

It's an easy question to answer.

2. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

3. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, nighttime temps have risen about twice as fast as daytime temps during the last 100 years. Here's the data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealte...

... and as a result, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 385 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's a graph showing the last 10,000 years of CO2 data:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2615...

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

@ Master_Beta: Sorry, but your entire answer betrays your lack of scientific education. Theories are not, as you state, "proven true or false." No theory is EVER proven true, nor ever can be. Theories can, however, be falsified. So in my answer I've falsified two theories: one, the ice age theory, and to the solar theory.

If you have a real link to real science about these alleged "other theories" go ahead and post it. We've been waiting for real science from the denier crowd for, oh, about ten years now. And we're still waiting.

Answer 8

One person alone could never have that much power, but don't discount the power of 6.6 billion people consuming resources at an unprecedented rate.  That population is still increasing too.  Even if you refuse to believe in global warming, you should at least be willing to acknowledge that we have two very real problems we're going to have to face sooner or later:

1) Someday the supply of fossil fuels will run out

2) The pollution is harming the environment in ways that are more visible and immediate than global warming.  All you have to do is look at the cloud of smog over one of the larger cities to see that we have a growing threat to our health.

Another fact that global warming deniers keep disregarding is that the population keeps growing and more and more countries are becoming industrialized.  Even if we haven't had a huge impact on global warming yet, our impact will continue to grow if we don't do something about it.  If we wait until every skeptic in the world is convinced, it will be too late.  We have nothing to lose and much to gain by switching to cleaner, more renewable energy sources.  Our air quality and health will improve, we won't be at the mercy of the wild fluctuations of supply and demand that drive up oil prices, and maybe we'll avert a potential catastrophe.  Even if you don't believe in that catastrophe, the other benefits are worth the effort.

Answer 9

First off, let me say how glad I am to see someone who is actually willing to listen to both sides of an issue. Most people don't want to hear evidence like you and just cover their ears and go LA LA LA LA LA.

Anyway, here's how I can best explain:

You said you don't think we're powerful enough to "draaasticalllyyy" change earth (lol) but in fact we don't have to drastically change it in order to cause some major problems. The huge amounts of pollution we are dumping into the air are allowing less heat to escape.

(video of more detailed explanation of how it works here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XDhuDEWS... )

so basically the very gradual rise in temperature can melt the polar ice caps, which can cause some MAJOR problems such as flooding populated areas like New York and millions of other people's homes.

We're not powerful enough to quickly change the earth, but since we've been polluting ever since cars and factories and cigarettes were invented we've had plenty of time to gradually put enough CO2 in the air to make this a problem.

If you've got any more questions I'd be happy to do my best to answer them.

Answer 10

I can't say for certain, but I think the earth would be going through this warmer period anyway...we are just speeding things up a bit. But, as for this CO2 argument, you know the one, "we are creating to much carbon dioxide, and we will destroy all life on earth...", well, Carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.01% of the atmosphere and I just don't think or believe that the entire human race could change this dramatically, even if we did nothing for the next 200 years. I don't give in to scare tactics from politicians who claim to be scientists on the ipcc panel (or whatever it's called).

People have to realise who is benefiting from all this. (and before anyone becomes all righteous and says ,"the entire human race", ..that is not what I mean. See, it is costing companies and new businesses, a small fortune in ensuring that they conform with new government guidelines on being environmentally friendly. And that's not all, you also have all the government bodies that regulate all this paperwork.....huh, were would they be without global warming?

I too am waiting for proof.  

Answer 11

This entire argument is controlled by the technocrats who have a vested interest in seeing it as a reality.

The point is it's called the global warming THEORY for a reason.

A theory is based on a premise or assumption which is then proven as valid or invalid by empirical evidence.

So the premise was man-made carbon emissions cause the earth to heat up. This is patently false by our observations of temperature fluctuations.

And let's be honest a decent sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than a whole decade's worth of man-made emissions.

Furthermore as was shown in 1816, the year without a summer instead of the world heating up from the huge amounts of carbon released from a volcanic eruption it cooled drastically since the suns rays were reflected.

I'm not saying this is what's happening but its a possibility. Basically the theory of man-made change causing global warming is invalid yet scientists continue to perfect the methodology of a theory that began with a false assumption. Therefore they don't care about alternative causes and won't as long as they believe that its man-made change.

Maybe they have to believe it because then in their arrogance they believe they can also correct it.

@ keith P. Invalidating one theory of climate change does not validate the theory that its man-made change. There is no logical transition so thanks for building that massive straw-man.. there are other possibilities

edit: slip of the fingers keith, valid or invalid is what I meant to say. Furthermore I was unaware that "we" needed to prove anything apart from invalidating your theory. The burden is on you to show it is man-made emissions. We're waiting

Answer 12

your assertions are correct, co2 is a very minor player in climate but is targetted as its attributable to industry, other stronger rising greenhouse gasses not made by man are completely ignored as they are of no political use.

I wish more people had the common sense to sit down and think about the logic behind the theory and ask some questions.

If you want to find out more there are articles for both sides of the argument at the following site:

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

I suggest you keep up to date with both sides of the argument and let the truth guide you, not your heart.

Also below is a link to an excellent document by the NIPCC (a non-goverment based un-funded panel of top scientists) which considers all of the IPCC's assertions and then un-biasly assesses them against all the available evidence:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_f...