If global warming is such a clear and present danger how?

Question

is there a debate as to if its real or not? shouldnt it be so easy to tell its real you would have to be crazy to say its not real? yet about 50% of scientists say it not being caused by humans and some say its not real at all! the weather on earth is so complex we still have little understanding of you things really work but we know global warming is going to kill us. in the 70s people were worried a new ice age was about to start. is it all bunk? if its real why cant scientists prove that its real?

Answer 1

It is not possible to prove something is GOING TO BE REAL. I can say it's going to rain tomorrow, but I can't PROVE IT, but nor can you prove it will NOT rain. Only tomorrow will prove it.

But if we're on about something we can influence, and if it did happen it would be a huge disaster, we'd be very silly not to try preventing it. The total data on it now is more than enough to be convincing that  we CAN do things to prevent it, or reduce the worst outcomes to something we can live with.

"Live with" is the basic issue here: the planet will do fine, warming or not. It's been through a lot worse and survived. That's the planet. What we worry about now is how PEOPLE will survive those changes.

The 70's talk about ice age (I was around then so remember it first hand, were you?) was painted with a broader brush. It was partly based on average gaps between ice ages in "recent" times, and in observations of some changes that seemed to have also preceded earlier ice ages that there is data about.

Doubting scientists jumped in and tried to prove the opposite (this see-sawing until knowledge is refined to a pin-point is a normal way for science to work). This led to discoveries and observations, as well as putting together previously separate studies, which now make up the Global Warming case.

This has now placed an Ice Age firmly back onto the agenda: warming can lead to melting ice, higher sea levels, changing wind and ocean current directions, different surface reflectivity, which in combination can cause an ice age. The mechanism is, that warm currents and suitable winds are all that are NOW stopping the polar caps, especially the Arctic, from encroaching down to the tropic of capricorn, which is roughly their last ice age line.

(Last time nobody lived there, now it is some 20% of the world's population and 60% of the "first word").Well, a few did live near the edges, but they  had somewhere (also sparsely occupied) to move south to, as it got colder year by year. Where will tens of millions of city dwellers move? how to take their cities with them? their industries and jobs without which their society no longer exists?

It's not all about warmer summers. It's about global political disaster/wars nobody even wants to think about seriously, in the hope that fixing the weather can avert the necessitiy.

How can melting ice lead to more ice? ice reflect sunlight and warmth; dark patches of ocean suck in warmth. A warm surface layer interferes with the turning of north-bound tropical currents; this in turn messes up wind patterns in the rest of the world. There end up being no warm winds to keep the ice caps in check, as there is more and more evaporation from the warmed waters nearby to condense into ice.

This scenario is what is implied by the "tipping point" they talk about. Ice is mentioned as melting, not as an ice AGE, because it is very confusing as it is, to see how hot can produce cold. But all it comes down to is, by messing up winds and currents, all the cold ends up in one place and all the hot in another. That is a very short and simple explanation and I don't guarantee my statistics. But do believe me, it is serious. Too serious to do nothing and hope it turns out to be a mistake.

Answer 2

What is global warming exactly?

It is the deterioration of the ozone, correct? And that results in the earth becoming warmer. Right?

I'm not totally clear on this stuff, but I'm trying

I think the reason some say it is not real is because this has happened before in history, and it could just be a phase the earth goes through. I also think that the reason that people can not prove it is real is because nobody is totally clear on global warming.

It is the globe warming...and yeah, that is about all it is. So, yes, the globe is warming. But these scientist charters have to go into depth on everything they do, meaning global warming must be about much more than just the globe getting warmer.

Answer 3

AGW supporters have the biggest scam going.  The have managed to convince the populations that the science of AGW is so sound, that there is no decent.  But yet when challenged to a debate the always refuse, because they know their case is so weak.

Excerpt:

    ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœFor this fall,” Mr. Katz wrote in his e-mail to Mr. Hansen, “we are hoping to host a debate on global climate change and its implications. Patrick Michaels has agreed to come, and my organization would like you to come and debate Dr. Michaels in Williamsburg. The date is very flexible, and we can tailor the day of the debate completely to your schedule. We will be able to pay for your travel expenses and offer you an honorarium for your time. Please let me know if you would be interested.”

    Mr. Hansen’s response was, simply, “not interested.”

    His reply — devoid of any salutation, punctuation, capitalization or signature — came an hour after Mr. Katz sent his original e-mail.

Answer 4

I think the earth itself is heating up and that CO2 is a red herring. If I am right the deep oceans will be heating up at a faster rate than

would be likely if only the atmosphere was involved. A small amount of heat will boil a kettle quicker than a much larger amount of heat held over it. Why the earth should be going through such a phase I do not know but I suspect it is due to the sun. If the distance between the earth and sum decreased by one kilommetre I suspect the consequences would be serious.

Answer 5

Can't PROVE anything yet, global warming is real?  These people are out of their minds...  GLOBAL WARMING IS A CULT!  That within itself proves it...  There is no concensus and most of the doubting scientists use to work within the IPCC....  It is such a joke beyond any scam that has ever occurred before.

Answer 6

First of all, it IS easy understand how and why anthropogenic (man made) global warming is occurring.

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% since the time of industrialization, from about 280 ppm[1] to 385 ppm[2]. This increase is fully the fault of mankind.[3]

Other greenhouse gases have likewise increased due to man's activities. Anthropogenic sources of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases include FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION, land use changes, and deforestation.

Two hundred years of scientific understanding[4] says that greenhouse gases trap energy/heat (in the form of infrared radiation) close to Earth's surface. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases increase global temperatures.

Second, the vast majority of scientists[5] say that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and only a handful of scientists believe otherwise.[6]

Third, that “in the 70s people were worried a new ice age was about to start” is a hoax brought to you by deniers. Please tell them that this disinformation is an insult to our intelligence.

"The scientific consensus in the 1970s about 'global cooling' is a beloved argument of global-warming skeptics -- and [nothing more. So] says a survey of scientific literature between 1965 and 1979. During that time period, seven peer-reviewed articles supported global cooling, while 44 predicted global warming. 'There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age,' says coauthor Thomas Peterson. 'A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.'"[7]

Answer 7

You have quite a few assumptions in your statement that are either false or unproven - no wonder you are confused!

1) Yes, there is debate - there is still debate over whether the Earth is flat (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonsk... this doesn't mean that facts, reality, truth don't exist until humans resolve the debate!

2) It is largely accepted that cigarettes are a (potentially fatal) helath risk yet there are still people who make and consume them - yes, you would have to be crazy; but who says humans are always rational?

3) I have no idea where you get that "50% of scientists" say GW is not caused by warming - do you have a source?

The large majority of people on this planet believe it is caused by humans (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/p... http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a... and scientists are part of that population...

4) In the 70s, SOME people (a minority) were indeed worried about global cooling (http://environment.newscientist.com/chan... maybe about the same number who think GW isn't happening and/or isn't man-made. The minority in the 70s were wrong, the minority today are wrong - AGW is real and happening today.

5) And how do we "prove" that its real - I've read on these pages that 90% certainty isn't enough (h*ll, if someone told me I had a 90% chance of winning the lottery, I'd be buying tickets) or that until the north pole is completely free of ice all year round then they'll believe it's melting...

Science 'proves' things by observing, hypothesising and then testing by creating experiments that test the hypothesis. These experiments must be duplicateable by other scientists with identical results.

Trouble is, the experiment in this case is planet-wide; we don't have a number of planets that we can try different variables on or leave one as a control hence the scientific method is not practical in this case.

What they can do, and have, is do as much research, modelling and careful study as possible to be able to conclude that there is a more than 90% chance that GW is happening and is caused by man (http://www.ipcc.ch/)...

The non-crazy citizens of this planet use their common sense and say, "OK, so what can I do about it?"

The flat-earth believing, cigarette smoking, leave-my-fridge open-overnight, minority (yes, Cindy, you know who I mean!) well... let's see if we can just lock them in a padded room.

Of course, there are people in the middle - David and Nancy, for example, are trying but don't seem to understand the theory, facts or science completely (e.g. ozone depletion and GW are different, non-related issues).

Keep reading guys and keep a tight grip on your common sense!

Answer 8

Well, since Adam said everything I wanted to say and more, I don't have a lot to add.

Science is not debate.  It's learning from what other scientists have done, performing experiments (in this case, modeling), and sharing what you've learned.

Answer 9

It IS easy to tell if it's real. And you DO have to be a little crazy to say it's not.

Whoever told you that "about 50% of scientists say it not being caused by humans" told you a big fat lie. At least 95% of scientists in all fields, and 99% of climate scientists, accept human causes for climate change. There are over 30 scientific societies worldwide who have issued statements in support of anthropogenic global warming, compared to ZERO who have stated that it's all natural.

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.

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...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

2. 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, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

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

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

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

3. 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...

4. 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...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

5. 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 the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

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

6. 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...

So what's left to prove?

Answer 10

First, the "50% of scientists say it is not being caused by humans" is just nonsense.  Among climate scientists I would put the number that believe in it at something like 98%, among scientists in general I'm sure it's over 90%.  Virtually every prestigious scientific organization has issued statements saying that it's a real effect.

As to why there's a debate, here's one reason: climate science is different than say chemistry or physics, in that you can't run an experiment with two Earth's that only differ in their carbon dioxide concentration. If you could, we'd do that and the debate would be over.  Instead we study the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other gases, we run numerical experiments on the computer, we observe the Earth from the ground and satellite, we try to determine the past history of Earth's warming and coolings.  And even though we do that and all signs point to warming caused by humans, there are still people that try to deny it--but many are doing that for economic motives.

Were you alive in the 70's and worrying about a new ice age? I was alive then and paying attention to meteorology, and hardly any scientists thought we were heading for an ice age.  There were actually more worried about global warming caused by CO2.  Some of the people that claim there was an ice age scare back then were the ones promoting it, specifically Nigel Calder, who you'll see in the anti-AGW propaganda piece "The Great Global Warming Swindle."  Before anyone objects to my characterization of that video, let me say that "An Inconvenient Truth" is pro-AGW propaganda, although most of the science is right in it, if a bit one-sided.

Answer 11

Well, the way Science 'proves' things is to test & observe differences.

For  MM Global Warming that would require an identical Earth with humans willing to eliminate their carbon footprint, so we could see if theres a difference.  

The problem with getting a straight answer is the Profound profit motive associated with lying.

Scientist are paid to monitor a problem, but the funding ends if they say there isn't one.

& Global Warming is a GREAT excuse for polititions to raise taxes.  The planet is at risk, hand over your wallet.

Internationally speaking, the BEST way to compete with America is to restrict it's energy supply.

So is Man Made Global Warming Real?    It doesn't look like it.   Global Temperatures haven't changed for the last 10 years, which is a real smack in the face for the runaway greenhouse crowd.  If the typical cycles hold, the temp should drop for the next couple of decades.

But if 20% of the population buys it,  Polititions will respond. And ultimately since the oil supply is finite, well who cares if the call to conserve is semi religious?

So hang onto you wallet & your car if you can.   It's about to get ugly.    Skeptics have become deniers, it's just a matter of time before they are heritics.

Congress voted down the Presidents appeal to relax domestic drilling restrictions.  So, if you are American, HALF your government DOES NOT WANT CHEAP GAS.  And half the world is pissed off that you've ever had it.

It's real that Global Temperature cycles.   It's VERY debatable that humans are responsible for the last warming trend.

Answer 12

AGW  proponents prefer to obfuscate the issue, and use mainly "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem" arguments to promote their "big lie".  Their basic method is to confuse the fact that CO2 is scientifically accepted as a greenhouse gas (lets visible light pass, but restricts SOME of infrareds return to space), and claim that most all scientists agree with the hypothesis that this will cause a disaster.

     Here is my evidence, easily confirmed and understood by anyone. I hope it will motivate some to research the topic, before "just going along with" an idea that will greatly increase the poverty of poor people worldwide:

      Notice that clear nights cool off rapidly, but cloudy or humid nights do not. Think of nights in the desert.  This is because water vapor is about 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 only contributes 4% (1/4 blamed on man).



http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...    

     this  is a good link - it explains the topic in laymans language, quite clear and readable, at some length. you don't have to be a scientist to be skeptical - the true basis of science.

     After watching the results that NIMBY's and envirofanatics have had with controlling the way the northwest's forests are managed ( the smoke can be seen to chicago, in satellite photos-very little is harvested, instead we import wood) I'd be skeptical if these people were giving away popsicles in h**l.

     BTW - I remember the "ice age scare" of the 70s also. Why are people lying about this?

Answer 13

from my readings and understanding, the earth is actually still comming out of the last ice age, and is entering into a tropical age. Much like what we had during the time of dinosaurs.

Which according to most historians was destroyed by a giant meteor, which caused enough dust to go into the atmospher and blocked the sun, killing most plant life, and dropping the temperature to a point of large scale freezing.

Thus the first Ice age. Now that the dust has settled, the earth is going back to what it was supposed to be, a tropical planet. humans just like to think that every thing is a product of our own evil because we all have a self hate complex. (dont belive me, look in the mirror, my money says you point out a flaw before you find somthing you like.)

some studies have shown large groupings of trees have actually caused localized warming effects, and realize more Co2 than they clean from the air.

I havent studied in depth on it, and dont claim to be 100% right, I could be completely wrong, but this is what I have gathered from random readings on-line.

Answer 14

whatever is going on, the current mainstream ideas about humans causing the small temp increase is slowly being dismissed.

Answer 15

The science of climate change is not a new subject. Indeed, the greenhouse gas concept was put forward as long ago as 1827 by the French mathematician Joseph Fourier, who first worked out that our atmosphere absorbs heat that would otherwise radiate out into space. Were it not for the “greenhouse effect”, life on this planet would not exist as we know it. The average temperature would be –19 degrees Centigrade, rather than the relatively balmy 15C that we experience, and there would be much wider variation between daytime and nighttime temperatures.

An Irish-British scientist, John Tyndall, discovered in 1860 that the greenhouse effect is not due to major constituents of nitrogen and oxygen but to the minority gases in our atmosphere, especially water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane: what came to be known as “greenhouse gases”.

The first global warming calculations were offered in 1896 by the Swedish chemist (and 1903 Nobel prizewinner), Svante August Arrhenius. He estimated that if the human population should burn so much fossil fuel that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere should double, the result would be an average global temperature increase of 5C.

He wasn’t far out. The most recent calculation, based on enormous computer programmes at a number of world centres, including the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, yields global temperature increases of 1.5-6C for a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels.

At the higher end, the impact of such a temperature rise would be immense.

Our current understanding of climate change has long roots. There is inevitably much that remains uncertain in the science, given the enormous complexity of the Earth and climate systems themselves. But equally a good deal of the science is now well-established.

Scientific understanding has been enhanced greatly by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Drawing on the work of around 2,000 scientists worldwide, and with rigorous peer-review processes at its heart, the IPCC represents an unparalleled assessment of the research evidence from leading scientists from across the globe. The work of the IPCC has been vital in underpinning and informing international efforts to tackle climate change, including the Kyoto Treaty.

Nonetheless, it is often reported that scientists themselves cannot agree whether climate change is really happening, whether it is influenced by human activities and whether, even if both things are true, it really matters that much. The bad news is that this is for the most part a pseudo-debate. Tempting as it may be for some to believe that “it’s just the environmentalists doom-saying again”, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of credible scientific opinion is clear on all three points. This includes scientific opinion in the United States as much as elsewhere.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, climate change is happening. Mankind is driving the process mostly through our use of fossil fuels. And it is serious – in my view the most serious and potentially catastrophic problem that we face today.

Unmitigated climate change will both magnify humanity’s existing scourges – poverty, disease, famine – and add to these new ones, such as through increasing climatic extreme events, rising sea levels and flooding on a scale beyond human experience.

So if scientific opinion is so united on these points why does “the debate” on the science continue to be reported?

Part of the answer is in the nature of the media itself, which likes to present two sides of a story. “Scientists agree” is not such a great headline as “scientists at loggerheads”. This applies equally to spheres of science other than climate change.

There is also an issue that some, including some politicians, simply do not want to hear the evidence, regarding the implications as just too unpalatable (and politically unpopular) to be faced.

Sceptics and evidence

A few words are appropriate on the theme of the “climate change sceptics” who overall fall into three camps.

First, there is a very small group of serious scientists who stress the problems of modelling aerosols and cloud cover. They do not reject the greenhouse model, the observed increases in carbon dioxide or the observed increase in global temperature.

Second, there is another small group of scientists who appear at every meeting but are not seriously regarded. These include a Danish scientist who argues, without any proper evidence, that sea levels are not rising at all; a French scientist who claims from a study of records of tea plantation companies in Tanzania that there has been no temperature increase around Kilimanjaro despite the loss of 85% of its ice cap (which has been dated back to the last ice age) over the past 100 years; and a British scientist who says that global warming is happening but is due to increased solar activity (his model has no basis in measurements).

Third, there is a very vocal group of professional lobbyists. Some have had scientific training, but most have not. They manage to make their voice heard as they are articulate and clearly well-funded. They fall into the same category as lobbyists for the tobacco companies who claim that links between smoking and ill-health are still not proven.

In summary, it is quite clear that the balance of international scientific opinion is enormously in support of the conclusion that climate change is a real and present danger, requiring urgent and committed action. It nonetheless remains a significant issue, in terms of gaining wider political and public consensus on the need for action, that the arguments put forward by the sceptics gain publicity and influence far beyond that which can be justified by the standing of the individuals concerned, by the validity of their arguments, and by the scientific credibility of the evidence that they are able to put forward.

Answer 16

"50% of scientists say it not"

Based on what? I work in the field and don't get that from the scientists I talk to.

And don't try the petition line as when I have asked about this the usual reply is, what petition.

And the 70s cooling theory, this is brought up by deniers regularly, the evidence supplied is usually, I remember or my teacher said.

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 17

The problem is that a 'DEBATE' is not being allowed!

It is only a very small, and vocal 'minority' of so called scientists, and the media attention that they receive, which is given any publicity.

If there was a 'debate', this issue would have remained in 'Academia Land' where it belongs!

It is only man's arrogance, which makes us think that we have any influence of any kind on a global scale.

It is also only man's ignorance of basic science which allows them to be so willing to be deceived and 'conned' by a myth which is now the largest money making scam of all time.

I am sure that most people who actually believe this myth are only misguided, and have good intentions.

The problem is that the politicians have now jumped  on this 'Bandwagon'.

Not because they understand any science, or that they are interested in anything other than gaining votes.

It is also a convenient way of increasing the already exorbitant and extortionate taxes.

No proper scientist could, or would, ever claim that man could have any influence of any kind on a global scale, or that CO2 is anything other than the necessary life giving force that it is!

I would like to ask you how, or why, you believe that so-called 'Global Warming' is going to ' KILL US', as you put it!

There are many more important things which we actually can control and make improvements on.

A very good start would be to teach our children how to read and write, to spell properly, use proper grammar and punctuation when trying to construct a sentence or question, etc...

I could continue, but I think I have already wasted enough of my time on a question which never should have been asked originally!

Answer 18

You still believe that there was wide spread concern in the 70's about us going into an iceage.    That was like less than a dozen scientists that came up with that idea who were just very vocal and kept repeating their stance with no credible proof.   Now we have crackpots who continue to spread the lie that the idea was widely accepted and confuse people like you.     GW has been proven, its also been proven humans are adding to the problem.    The question is, how much are we adding to it and is there anything we can do about it?

Answer 19

Because the climate is INSANELY complicated. To understand global warming, you need to take into account ocean currents, wind patterns, melting ice, urbanization, water vapor, methane pockets, rain forest destruction, ocean acidification, the ability of organisms to adapt, pollutants, flooding, solar activity, seasonal changes, past events, etc. And by the time you are done figuring out how all those factors contribute to climate change, you then have to go back and figure out how those factors interact with each other, then figure out how climate change will change the factors themselves. It's not as easy as just recording temperatures. But there's something I'm trying to spread the word about: Ocean acidification. The rise in CO2 emissions is lowering the pH of the oceans, which leads to the death of shelled sea creatures including coral. There the relation is direct and simple. The thing is that almost nobody knows about it yet.