How many around here denies these two claims?

Question

"Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. "

"The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."

I'll give you the source to these two quotes later.

Answer 1

Honestly I'm a bit surprised that even the deniers are disputing these statements.

Increasing GHG concentrations by definition warms the planet.  That's why they're called 'greenhouse gases'!  If they didn't, the planet would be 33°C colder than it is.  This is just basic physics, proven by a simple blackbody calculation.

http://www.mit.edu/people/goodmanj/terra...

That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans burning fossil fuels has been verified by analyzing isotopic ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8...

I agree with the EPA - these statements are both virtually certain, and both very basic.  If deniers can't even accept these basic facts, they're in no position to dispute AGW.

Answer 2

I agree with both of those claims.  Greenhouse gases have an undeniable warming effect.  Without them the Earth would be too cold to live on, with too many (like Venus) the planet would be too hot.  We live in a delicate balance with them.  The increase of greenhouse gases since the industrial age began is unquestionably due to burning fossil fuels.  That can be shown with simple accounting.

I don't agree with some of the other answers, like the one that said

"Have you taken into consideration the billions of tons of c02 that are released each and every year for the fires in CA, NM AZ that could have been stopped if radical environmentalist had keep their mouths shut?"

I can't speak for the fires in New Mexico and Arizona, but I have lived through two huge fires in California in the past 5 years and they had nothing to do with radical environmentalists.  They were both human-caused and both were exacerbated by decreased rainfall in recent years that my be due to global warming. Fires are definitely part of the problem, especially the man-made ones.

That stuff about volcanoes producing more greenhouse gases is nonsense, as you pointed out.

Dr. Jello wants calculations of how much warming to expect from increased CO2, but of course when scientists provide that for him he ignores them.  Dr. Jello, try looking at "Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis" by the IPCC and you'll get your answers.

Mikira doesn't know what she's talking about in so many different ways, but perhaps the most laughable is claiming that  environmental lobbyists control the EPA! That's some sort of fantasy world that you live in, Mikira.   Perhaps you don't realize that California and fourteen other states filed a lawsuit against the EPA because they want to put limits on greenhouse gases in automobile exhaust and the EPA won't let them.

Answer 3

Have  you taken into consideration the billions of tons of c02 that  are released each and every year for the fires in CA, NM AZ that could have been stopped if radical environmentalist had keep their mouths shut?

But that don't count does it?

Answer 4

Fear that human beings are destroying the planet is the new "Danger" facing us today!  Around 25 years ago the "danger" was the "Cold War!"  Danger sells on TV - human beings destroying the world is the new danger!   Going green means more money for certain companies (like GE for instance) who stand to make billions off this new "danger!"

There are as many scientists that say a warmer earth means longer growing seasons and less starvation in the world!  Cow farts contribute to more problems with our air than burning fossil fuels.  If a person is so involved in blaming human beings for "Global Warming" then they should also become vegetarians and not eat meat!  The production of "meat" pollutes the air more than cars!

The earth gets warmer and it gets cooler - it's normal!   In the U.S. we have more forests now than 1000 years ago - believe it or not!

Answer 5

Don't think you can deny observable facts!  Most scientific state these facts, but some people put their head in the sand and claim it is all political and the scientist are only after research money.  Their are lots of questions that get research money and global warming does not get much now.  Most questions (the easy ones) have been answered enough to help decide policy actions needed.

Answer 6

If the statements is true, then it should be easy to prove those rascally deniers wrong by telling everybody how much warmer it's going to be in the future.

We know how much co2 is increasing, so it should be a no brainer to calculate how much warmer the planet will be in 6 month, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years from now.

Please tell us how warm it will be at these intervals and show your work to how you came to these conclusions.

Somehow I doubt you can do this.  The best you can do is say that it "may" or "probably" get warmer in the future because that's just what I "believe" or what my "faith" tells me what will happen.

That's hardly scientific proof.

Answer 7

"Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. "  It should theoretically lead to moderate warming with by far most of the warming on the coldest night and winter temperatures.  In other words it acts to moderate the temperature.

"The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."  Obviously most greenhouse gases are natural.  Of the 400 parts per million by vollume of CO2 in the atmosphere, only the wildest estimate would put human contribution at more than a 100 parts per million in the hundreds of years since the Industrial Revolution began.  Clearly the trend was upwards anyway so in my opinion 50 ppm is more realistic to human contribution. If people weren't so eager to believe the worst, they would realize that is a relatively minor problem that has been exaggerated by some for various reasons.

Answer 8

"Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. "

well it could also cool the planet also, it should be global climate change instead of people calling it global warming.  So I will deny this claim.

"The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."

I'll accept this one.  Although CO2 is a larger % it doesn't contribute as much as say methane.  There has been times of global cooling when CO2 has been highest.  Now if we look at the shield regions of Canada and Russia, this is the largest CO2 sink in the world, larger than the rainforest's, if we see this disappearing we will more than likely see a more intense global climate change.

Answer 9

I agree with both those statements.  And I agree with people who say other factors are also important.  But you have to look at the numbers (data) to see what's going on right now.

There are other factors that influence climate.  In the past they were more important than man made greenhouse gases, since we weren't making that much of them.

But the data shows that, since the 1970s, that isn't true.  Our huge increase in production of man made greenhouse gases has taken over.  See:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

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

Wild claims about relatively less important things like volcanoes are refuted by the data.  The references above show the relative importance of volcanoes, which more often cause a cooling,effect, because of the dust they throw into the air.

And it's been proven that the Sun is not responsible for the warming we've seen in the past 20 years or so:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

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

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

I hardly think the positive feedbacks of melting ice exposing dark ground, and warming ocean waters releasing CO2, are speculative.  Once again, the data proves they're real, and the idea that scientists are wrong about them is not credible.

Answer 10

I can't fathom the level of brainwashing necessary to deny the statements.

Answer 11

I deny, I deny, I wholeheartedly deny.

Answer 12

But that is not your hypothesis.  Your hypothesis is that co2 buildup will cause catastrophic increases in temperatures, based on suspicious positive feedback hypotheses.

Most people do not realize that increases in co2, without any feedbacks will cause minor temperature increases.  Were most sceptics have  problems is that this minor increase will be amplified many time over.

Answer 13

Your first statement should read:

"Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations CAN warm the planet. In conjunction with increased solar out put."

And the second statement is really false because Scientists are estimating the Volcano eruption in Chile last month put 100 times the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that humans have since the invention of the automobile. So your premise of a buildup doesn't make sense.

Answer 14

I could care less where you got those erroneous quotes from, since they both aren't true. You supposedly live in Sweden and you're going to still believe this BS when the Northern hemisphere just went through a colder winter and spring than last year. Oh and our winter had also proceeded a record cold winter in the Southern hemisphere. Sorry, not buying what you're trying to sell. And I feel you should finally pull your head out of the sand, especially since you live closer to the arctic circle than I do and we are only on the tip of the iceburg as far as a long cooling trend, so get ready to experience extremely cold winters up there.

Edit: Great answer Dr Jello!! I did the calulation once to figure out how fast we'd get to a dangerous CO2 level at the rate we are increasing CO2 levels now and I came up with way over 1000 years. That calculation also didn't take into account all the forces working to suck CO2 from our atmosphere, since there's no way of knowing what things like blue-green algae and a few other things I studied would increase and do the same things they did over a million years ago.

We have a complex ecosystem that people try to claim they know all the answers to all the riddles of how our planet works, but we don't.

Edit: The EPA is a government funded organization that listens to the lobbyists that give them the most money. - Enviromentalists. The only thing I pulled from their site a while ago was their danderous CO2 level, which I think was about 3000 to 5000 PPM. Oh and I'm not uneducated on the subject. It's you who refuses to look at evidence contrary to what you want to believe.

Oh I love this quote directly from the EPA: "Scientists know with virtual certainty that:"

Virtual Certainty huh? You've got to be kidding. Do you know what virtual reality is? It's a false reality.

Dictionary definition of the word: Virtual:

1. Being something in practice - Being something in effect even if not in reality or not conforming to the generally accepted definition of the term

2. Generated by computer - simulated by a computer for reasons of economics, convenience, or performance

3. Hypothetical - physics describes a particle whose existence is suggested to explain observed phenomena, but is not proven or directly observable

Edit: Those statements have not been proven to be true. If they have, explain why this past winter in the Northern Hemisphere was colder than the year before? And dito for Spring? Actually in 2007 the winter in the Southern hemisphere was also colder than their 2006 winter was.

Answer 15

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other.  To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect.  Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters.  And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!  There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose.  Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Answer 16

CO2 has been mainly delt with with plants,not just trees. That includes Algae.

Methane is a lie  as it is lighter than air so it is high up and U Carnot measure it. It is based on what they calculate that they want the answer to be. There is something that they don't know;;; As methane gets higher and higher the sun intensity  is great enough to cause oxidation of the methane, That leaves more CO2 and water vapor. There is not a large lake of methane up there. Or an airplane would of found it.

Answer 17

I deny it.