How do I decide which statistics to trust that prove or disprove global warming? which are the most commonly?

Question

used to support an arguement, sources if possible

Answer 1

NASA,  NOAA, several universities.

look for links to energy.

if you find one, you know it's paid for by the energy industry.

The IPCC is correct.

The Nobel Prize should be a good indication.

don't ya just love it when some idiot says, "Don't trust all those PhD guys who've been studying it for years.  Now I've reasearched it, and I have a theory ....."

you might note that NASA and NOAA typically let their folks have diverging views, so you'll find some on either side.  However, it seems that the scales are not evenly balanced.

You might read  "Censoring Science"  by Mark Bowen.

Seems things have been pretty ugly.

then there the large group of 400 scientists (half with alzheimers) that claim AGW is a huge world wide conspiracy.

Answer 2

Ask the guy (1 of 1 ~ above) whio keeps stating that Mars is getting warmer to provide evidence – with link - for Mercury, Venus, Saturn or Uranus – or our Moon getting warmer. After all solar heating shouldn’t be selective what it heats up, should it?

There have been intensive studies of the sun in relation to global warming, and they found nothing. Two recent ones below.

Two more recent studies show:

The Sun not cause of global warming:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...

Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

So, wild generalisations like his aren’t to be trusted.

Is there a scientific consensus? Ask which scientific bodies do support the AGW/GHG theory? Below are some of the many that do:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics or NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and American Meteorological Organisation - all have endorsed the AGW hypotheisis.

As have the national science academies of the G8 nations that along with the  science academies of Brazil, China and India signed a statement in 2005 on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change had become sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

The Academies of Science for Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden or the United Kingdom – have all issued separate statements supporting  AGW.

George W. commissioned the Federal Climate Change Science Program in 2002. In 2006 this released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is ‘clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).’

This view is shared by the 188 national meteorological organizations that form the membership of the World Meteorological Organization.

It’s also shared by 31 (living) Nobel Prize winning Chemists or 36 (living) Nobel Prize winning physicists who all signed a statement calling for governments to support for the UN Convention on Climate Change. Their opinion is important because they understand the physics and chemistry by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.

It’s a view now also shared by major energy companies.

BP: ‘There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.’

http://www.globeinternational.org/conten...

http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?cate...

Shell:  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€Â˜There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use and deforestation, are the main contributing factors.’

http://www.shell.com/home/content/enviro...

More on the consensus here.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

The IPCC reports are actually quite cautious and conservative and a large number of scientific bodies feed into them. They can be trusted.

If you want to explore how the science works, how a great deal of work is being done on this that slowly builds the bigger picture then become a regular readers of the climate pages on Science Daily.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_c...

Answer 3

dont bother

the big yellowy thing n the sky causes global warming, anyone who tells you otherwise is a .........owl?

Answer 4

I trust my head! I just stuck my head out the door and it's cold as s***! Coldest year since I was a kid in the seventies. So! Nope, no global warming here! d**n I was kinda looking forward to warmer winters. OH WELL! Can't have it all.

Answer 5

Study, learn, teach; this is not hard to figure out, but a lot of work. Will cut some of it short just for you, then you can pick up and run with the ideas:

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve GW. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon - $30 Gal for gas. The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%. But over those 10 years, we have to be building renewable energy and about that time, we can cut an additional 20%. This should get us from importing any oil. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, GW and cleanup) for oil, NG, coal, cigarettes, Cooling Towers, Cars, trains and airplanes. Humans have to put some of this nonrenewable into renewable energy like small hydro-electric dams, concentrating solar power plants, wind and wave machines, nuks, and geothermal. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy your food to send to starving people since our grain is not available. Now what USA Presidential candidate is give you the facts so you can make an educated decision?

Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels. The problem is, the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages. We have to come up with what will take its place. Again we have to cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal. We need 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years if we are to avoid a world wide depression (and right now ethanol does not count)!

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 6

Global warming is not a simple or obvious problem. You will need to work long and hard, learning science and researching actual data and scientific papers and not just reading blogs and Yahoo answers and watching movies and TV. You need to check the actual sources. If someone says ice is melting, check it out. Where is ice melting? When? How much? Who measured it? How did they measure it? Did others measure it and get then same result? If not why not? Do their results make sense? I recall reading that a satellite had used gravity measurements to show that 40% of Antarctic ice had already melted. That is absurd! That much would have caused sea level to go up hundreds of feet, according to EVERY source there is. Later I found a report on the NASA web page that described the project and said ice had been lost, but no where near 40%.

Answer 7

A simple word of advice, do NOT believe "anything" that you hear , see or read from the mass media, they are simply working to an agenda; and that agenda is coloured green.  They will print anything that makes them the most money.  They have absolutely no interest in saving anything, as is indicated quite clearly by the completely contradictory nature of their content.  Some have suggested that as Mars is also experiencing the same atmospheric increases in temperature, then global warming might have something to do with the sun heating up; as it is.

Answer 8

Trust only objective science.  Science of consensus is just a group opinion.

Answer 9

history of the cenozoic

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/...

now you will see the problem with the global warming theory

without having to try to sort through the bulls**t

no pro or con scientist.

no the end of the earth theories

no raving tree huggers

just data the global warming people can not counter.

i will even throw in a free cleaning of you computer screen

http://www.linein.org/media/screen_clean...

Answer 10

YAHOO! ANSWERS is my truth

Answer 11

Well, you have to examine how the data that the stats were derived from were collected, whether you trust the entities that collected the data and whether the results can be independently verified.