Green house effect & global warming?

Question

hw help plz.

1. list 3 uncertainties about global warming.

2. help me find 1 article with facts that supports global warming & 1 article that doesnt based on facts.

thanku.

Answer 1

The uncertainties, that most climate scientists are still debating, are about how severe it will be.  How much the sea will rise, how much the temp will increase, how soon the glaciers will all melt, etc.

  While there is still debate about whether man is contributing to global warming, the overwhelming evidence supports the AGW theory.  Anthropegenic Global Warming (or manmade)

**Anti-P  is using a source in his answer that has been debunked by real climate scientists.

  Lets take a look at the source that **Anti-P has offered as evidence.

The Wall St. Journal has an axe to grind. They are ultra conservative and that is the reason for publishing this phony study.

And yes it is phony. The two scientists who wrote the paper which the article is based on are funded by a right wing propaganda machine.

Real climate scientists, who have new findings, present them to other scientists for peer review. No legitimate scientific paper is published until it is studied by other scientists. The paper, that the WSJ used, was just a manuscript, which hadn't been shown to other scientists. It was not reviewed by other scientists. Real scientists do just that, rather than go throught the popular media, with the intention of swaying public opinion with untested theories. It's bunk, as any real scientist will tell you.



Here's the kind of scientific conferences that the skeptics hold.

"Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap. "

"A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:"

"Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:"

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

"So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.) "

"At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper."

" At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)

Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there."

by Amanda Lang

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

Someone else here has used the Heartland Institute as his source, you can see how reliable that source is.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics   has covered just about every topic that people debate about AGW.

also:

The Scientific Basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

The 2008 National Academy of Sciences Summary Brochure on Climate Change

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

  

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

Skeptic argument  There is not a consensus:

"Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action."

"This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about."

Answer:

"Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect."

"No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either."

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?"

Skeptic argument:  The consensus is just collusion.

"More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform."

Answer:

"The growing confluence of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking 'til things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with bette

Answer 2

there are no articles based on FACTS supporting global warming.. its all THEORY..

Answer 3

Uncertainties about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or human-caused warming are:

1. the extent to which CO2 adds to warming

2. the extent of the warming itself

3. the effect of non-human factors such as sunspot activity, etc.

Nearly anything from your newspaper or Time, Newsweek and so on offer facts supporting global warming and greenhouse theory. Note that most people don't dispute global warming, only the AGW aspect that humans are causing it.

Opposing views are on the sites linked below. The last link is nice in that it shows, from ice core data, that CO2 levels have been as much as 19 times higher than they are today without catastrophic warming, and 10 times higher during an ice age.

Answer 4

Fact number 1 is that Global Warming is not a new phenomena, GW has occurred on earth many thousands of times!

Fact number 2 is that anyone who believe that "human beings" are solely responsible for GW is ignoring data that is available on past Global Warmings when there were no human beings or very few humans living on earth.

Fact number 3 is that if there were no human beings on earth - Global Warming would still take place!  (Global Warming is taking place on Mars right now, no Suv's or humans, as far as I know,  are on that planet right now!)

Fact number 4 is that there are individuals who are making lots of money on GL fears!  Gore will rake in over 100 million dollars this year on his "Ponzi Scheme" carbon credit sales.  There are companies like General Electric who are poised to make billions of dollars on GW fixes or gizmos!

I know you asked for 3 so remove the one you don't agree with.

Good luck.

Answer 5

The "best" true, actual and UNBIASED research I have found is a "peer reviewed research paper" at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

If you take the time to read it (it is long) you will see through the c**p that Gore and his pals have lied to us about.  In addition, you will see that this "research" and its findings are supported by more that 19,000 scientists.

On a side note,  Bet you didn't know that Gore's support by "2000 scientists" includes the names of scientists who scientifically disagree w/ him and his buddies.

In addition, I bet you didn't know that Gore, and the IPCC  changed/embellished/altered the data from the original research after the scientists "submitted" it.  Just look up Gore's "Co-winner" of the Nobel prize and see what he has to say about it:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

Answer 6

Where do you live?

EMAIL ME AND TELL ME!

I LIVE IN NH!

Answer 7

The uncertainties are the timeline (how fast it is proceeding).  All the global warming events so far have come earlier than predicted, by decades, and in some cases, centuries.

Its uncertain whether it can be stopped, assuming that action is taken in the near future.

And of coures the methodology to be used is uncertain.  In the absence of new technology it would be necessary to reduce carbon emissions by about 70%, and to reduce the human population to around 10% of its current level.

I'll send you some articles that support global warming with facts.  I've never run across any that contest it that were based on facts.

Answer 8

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------...

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.



Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.