How many of you really think this global warming thing is happening?

Question

I respect all opinions---I don't think its happening as they (the media, misinformed scienctists, hippies, Al Gore, etc) say though.

Answer 1

FACT OR FICTION

FICTION

for many North Americans ,but they are used to fiction and feel more comfortable with fairytales instead of the truth,

Many blindly believe that our fate is in Gods hands ,and their focus is on the beautifull heaven that awaits ,they are not to concerned with the world their children will inherrit

whilst others wish to enjoy an Earthly paradise ,with out having to die first,they care what happens here and want to help the planet

there may come a time that for the sake of our survival the two views will be seperated in to Enemies and friends of the planet

World leaders are not concerned with the well being of the masses ,on the contrary .it was stated at a conference in Copenhagen,in 1998,by Kissinger, that the Agenda demanded a decrease in the world population of 60%,and you cannot achieve this if you start saving everybody.

scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.for political and economic reasons

HOWEVER CLIMATE CHANGE IS FACT FOR MILLIONS

Global warming is a very complex collection of many effects

this text only covers some aspects of global warming mainly man made desertification

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities ,is another story

there are natural cycles in the planets life

but mans existance has its effects,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year

and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were very few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,

and there are less and less farmers to do it..

and there are 70 million more peole every year that have to eat and drink and wash

who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers

who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,

because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

if forrest are being exchanged for ashalt,concrete and desserts

what is gonna keep this planet habitable for us

We as humanity can behave in a less stressful manner as far as the Environment is concerned ,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen, Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has

come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,

his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into many languages and won the best book award in 2003

Answer 2

It's real.  This is science, and what counts is the data (cites below).  The (relatively few) skeptics have theories, but they're not supported by the data.

Because of the data 99+% of scientists around the world believe global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  And any number of very distinguished people, too.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of data that convinced Admiral Truly, short and long.

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

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point.  You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, Ph.D., NOAA

And here are a few people who are about as far away from hippies as you can get.  They don't get their science from Al Gore, they get it from the best scientists in the world.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.



"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

"I'm trying to learn [about greenhouse gases and global warming]. The more I learn, the bigger believer I become."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 3

CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.

Look at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.

(see links below)

How's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.

There has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.

Yes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up.

Just to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.

HI CO2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467...

HOCKEY STICK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109...

General climate stuff:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897...

Answer 4

If you tke the increase in temperature for the last three years into consideration you will be convinced.

Answer 5

There have been many reports on television documenting global warming. Among the most convincing were those that showed the disappearance of glaciers by comparing old photographs with more recent ones. Reports of changes in migratory patterns of many animals also point to global warming, and have been convincingly documented--along with many other phenomena. To me, the evidence seems overwhelming. Why do you choose not to believe it?

Answer 6

In that the last major climatic event that happened was an Ice Age, it's reasonable to believe we are going thru a period of major global warming, unless you believe we are either in steady state or going back to another Major Ice Age.  Best estimates put the earth's age at 4.5billion years, in that time it is believed there have been 4 Major ice ages, that is points where glaciers reached their maximum extension from the poles in the direction of the equator before beginning their retreat back in the direction of the poles.  These 4 major ice ages are projected to have hit 2.5 - 2.75billion years ago, 600million years ago, 275million years ago, and the 4th & most recent began 2million years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago.  Which means there have been 4 periods of major global warming, 3 prior to the one we have been in for the past 10,000 years.  

Discussions going back 2,000 years or even 650,000 years seem to me to be lacking in sufficient data.  Lets ignore the first 1.75billion years of the earth's existance and look just at the most recent 2.75billion years since the start of the 1st of the 4 major ice ages.  If you broke that 2.75billion years into 2,000 year segments you would have 1.375million segments of 2000 years each.  If we charted the distribution of these 1.375million segments, we would likely get something resembling a bell curve or some sort of normalized distribution.  What percentile of the distribution would the current 2000 year period reside in, would it be among the hottest, how about rate of heating, would it be in a percentile showing the most rapid rate of temperature increase.  And what about percentile based on CO2 or methane concentration or rate of change in those concentrations.  

And how about Sheryl Crow's friend Laurie David, after the two of them went to talk to Karl Rove at the press dinner.  Her statement went back 650,000 years regarding CO2 &/or methane concentration.  That only takes you back to the most recent of the 4 major ice ages, what about the other 3.  Again, if you break the most recent 2.75billion years since the 1st of the 4 major ice ages into 650,000 year segments you get 4,230 segments, again what percentile does the current 650,000 year segment fall into for all the above measurements.  

And of course the problem with breaking out these segments is the metrology changes dramatically both with in segments and segment to segment in terms on how these measurements are taken and the margin of error on the measurements or estimates.  

And of course as you are looking at all this keep in mind that the world population didn't hit 100mill people until about 2500 years ago, 1billion about 200 years ago, 4billion about 30 years ago, and 6billion about 7 years ago.  So unless this 4th major global warming event, which started 10,000 years ago is not tracking with the first three, then it's hard to attribute primary responsibility to people.  And I also haven't seen any reports on what the first 3 major global warming episodes were like.  

I'm am willing to believe that global warming exists and we are the primary driver, but so far either the scientists have yet to produce the data, or the reports in the media have been so condensed that this data hasn't made it into publication.  

The problem I have w/ the current arguments that the present state of this 4th major global warming is primarily driven by man, is that it is based on an assumption that what we are experiencing is abnormal, but if you can't look back at the last 3 periods of major global warming and tell me what is normal, how can you tell me what is abnormal.  

In other words, if what we are currently experiencing is natural, then efforts to reverse it are essentially efforts to fight a naturally occuring situation, which is often impossible to do, to draw an analogy, would anyone like to fight the oceans' tides.

Answer 7

al gore is taking advantage of "an untruthful convenience"

join the heresy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 8

I believe it!

Answer 9

The media, Al Gore and the hippies can only rely on the information that's made available through detailed scientific studies - none of them have actually conducted any real research themselves.

We have to go by what the scientists are showing us and what we can see with our own eyes.  In this case the evidence is incontrovertible.  To date no scientific study has indicated that the world is not suffering from global warming even though there have been numerous studies that have set out with this implicit objective.

In short, there isn't a single scientific study that's been able to disprove global warming but there are literally thousands that prove it.  These reports come from a wide range of scientific disciplines and they approach their studies from many different angles - that of the geologist, botanist, oceanographer, astro-physicist etc etc.  Despite these different approaches and objectives there is one unanimous conclusion - that humans are having an impact on the climate.

You refer to 'misinformed scientists', by definition this isn't a possibility - no-one is informing the scientists, it's them that's informing us.

As for me and what I think: Yes I believe humans have made a significant contribution to the current global warming trend.  I'm a scientist with 23 years experience examining all aspects of global warming and climate change.  And before anyone says it, no I haven't received a single penny in funding, in fact, I'd have made a great deal more money by concentrating in the areas where the real money is to be made - medicine, pharmacuticals, petrochemicals etc.

-------------

Re Your Additional Details.

The Earth goes through a series of cyclical changes, some are quite simple, others are quite complex.  The ones that have a bearing on climate change are eccentricity, precession, obliquity and orbital inclination.

Eccenticity refers to the eliptical orbit of the earth around the sun.  The orbit changes from a near circle to a stretched out circle (elipse).  This change in orbital path is the result of the gravitational pull of other solar bodies - most npotably Jupiter and Saturn.  The primary variation has a 413,000 year cycle.

Precession describes the gyroscopic movement of the earth -It's caused by the gravitational forces exerted by the sun and moon on our tides taken in conjunction with the oblate spehoidal shape of the earth.  These cycles occur at intervals of between 20 and 26,000 years.

Obliquity (axial tilt).  The earth is tilted at an angle of 23 degrees 27 minutes, because the earth's rotation 'wobbles' the angle of tilt changes.  The variation range is 2.4 degrees and we're currently close to the mean variation.  This cycle repeats at 41,000 year intervals.

Orbital inclination is what I beleive you may be refering to.  It's a bit complicated to describe, it relates to something called the Invariable Plane which is the representation of the angular momentum of the solar system.  This occurs on a 100,000 year cycle and has been linked with glacial retreat and advance (the coming and going of ice ages).  The reasons for this aren't clearly understood.

Generically these cycles are called Milankovitch Cycles.

Another natural variation is caused by the sun.  To explain this in detail would be lengthy as there are more solar cycles than earthly ones.  Suffice to say that the difference between maximum and minumim solar output (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) is very small, less than 0.1% and more precisely a maximum variation of 1.3 Watts per metre squared per year from a mean of 1366 W/m2/yr.

These natural cycles do have an impact on our climate but over long periods of time, the changes from one year to the next are very small, much smaller than the changes we're currently experiencing

Answer 10

I agree . It is a plot by the left to cripple this country and they are doing it. This will severely hurt the poor so when it comes to voting don't vote for these scam artiest.

Answer 11

There is ample evidence that Earth's climate changes all the time. Earth has had ice ages and really warm times many times in its 4 million year history. We know for sure that the climate was much warmer in the 900s than now, that it cooled dramatically in the 1400s and that it has been warming ever since. We also know for sure that CO2 in the air has fluctuated with the ice age cycle without any help from people, and that people have DRAMATICALLY upset the CO2 balance in the last 200 years or so. I cannot say that the man made CO2 has been proved to be causing most of the warming of the last 200 years, but it is at least a possibility. But people like Al Gore are positive that man made CO2 is the MAIN cause of the warming of the last 200 years and if we don't do something the warming WILL get out of hand. I most definitely do not agree with that!

Answer 12

Whether global warming is "happening" or not isn't the real issue. Science can prove - or disprove - anything, depending on the data that is used and how it's interpreted.

I believe that the cyclical process of global warming has, indeed, been escalated due to our "industrial revolution" of these past 150 years - something that's never affected the Earth on such a massive scale before.

But - even if you DON'T believe it, WHY shouldn't we still ALL be dedicated to REducing our waste, REusing those products we dispose of so readily, and REcycling virtually everything we use instead of throwing it all in landfills?

Even if you DON'T believe that global warming is a threat to our way of life, WHY should we continue to drive gas-guzzling SUVs that waste precious oil, allow more smoke-belching factories that pollute the air and water, and throw away all kinds of plastic junk that we buy at WalMart for "low prices - everyday" just because we can "afford" it??

Whether it's caused by global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, the end of cheap, easily-accessible oil, or other "natural" disasters, WHY should we go on wasting all of Earth's precious resources just "because we can"?

If you truly believe that's acceptable behavior, then please send me all of your money right now and I promise you I'll squander it as quickly and as recklessly as I possibly can.

Someday almost all of the young people out there who pooh-pooh the idea of global warming will have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of their own. And when those descendants become adults and realize that we KNEW we were wasting Earth's resources and did nothing about it, they are going to ask us, "WHY???"

They are going to be bitter because we chose to ignore the need to protect and preserve the delicate ecological balance between man, plants and animals, necessary to continue life on Earth as we know it.

They're going to be angry at us because they have to wear gas masks to breathe clean air, or can't find fresh water to drink.

They will chastise us for killing off the oceans' supplies of seafood just because WE wanted to dine on $80-a-plate sushi at some five-star restaurant. They will be upset to learn that WE did nothing to protect the rain forests from being leveled at alarming rates, and destroying delicate species that might someday save human lives. They will not be happy to know that WE refused to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles; refused to REduce, REcycle and Reuse styrofoam cups, plastic bags, paper plates, cardboard, newsprint, telephone books, plastics, paper, steel, glass, aluminum, and used cooking oil. All because it was easier for us just to throw it all away. And those people - OUR grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have nothing but disdain for our squander while they try to survive in the squalor we left behind.

So, who cares if global warming is "happening" or not - we were given Dominion over this Earth, which meant that WE, as the superior species, were expected to maintain, replenish, preserve, protect, and conserve all of Earth's bountiful resources. But we didn't. We just used it all up.

-RKO-   05/03/07

Answer 13

Is global warming happening?  Yes.  Is man largely responsible for it.  Until someone  can answer these questions it is not a proved theory for me

co2 lagging temperature.  I am willing to entertain the notion of a positive feedback.  But is it just a theory or has it been proved?  How come the IPCC does not account for it?  It is also very misleading when Gore says it is proof.  If he is lying about that what other issues is he lying about?

The drop in temperatures from 1940-1975 despite rising co2 levels.  I am again willing to entertain the theory of sulphates blocking the sun.  Is there proof?  Is there a chart that shows level of sulphates in the atmosphere during the 20th century with its correlation to temperatures?

The notion that temperatures have risen faster during the 20th century and that the last decade has been the warmest in recorded history.  That is based on a temperature reconstruction by Man et all, the so called hockey stick graph.  That is a flawed graph.  It completely eliminates the Medieval warm period.  Supporters of global warming say that it never existed. One site even says that it is a myth that the Vikings colonized Greenland, and that they gave it this name for propaganda reasons.   The archaeological evidence from Greenland says otherwise.  http://www.archaeology.org/online/featur...

Temperatures were a lot warmer during the times of the Vikings.  What caused those temperatures to rise?

Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas.  Supporters claim that the increase in temperatures is going to increase water vapour, a major greenhouse gas, which will lead to more increases in temperatures.  But increase in water vapour will lead to more clouds and a cooling effect.  The computer models ignore the  clouds  and just concentrate on the water vapour.  

Then there is the question of trust.  I do not trust the global warming, the world is coming to an end, and all of the experts say so  propaganda.  In 1988, Newsweek published an articles that said that global warming is a threat and there is unanimous consensus among the experts.  So a consensus was reached even before the study of climate change even began.

As for the experts in the United Nations report, read this article from Chris Landsea that claims that the decision to say Hurricanes will increase in frequency was a political one and not based on scientific evidence.  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

The house of Lords in England was also highly critical of the United Nations IPCC.  In their report they wrote "We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks" involved.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...