Is global warming a myth? why, or why not?

Question

i dont really know about global warming and ive heard some people say it is a myth, but is it?

Answer 1

I do not believe that Global Warming is a myth. It has been measured that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then ever before and that carbon dioxide has an adverse effect on our protective ozone layer.

The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, glaciers are retreating faster than ever known, and oceans are rising. Something is causing these phenomena, and I believe that the culprit is global warming brought on by the use of fossil fuels.

Answer 2

global warming is not a myth because as pollution builds up co2 also builds up and co2 traps heat from the sun and heats the earth more than it is supposed to be.

Answer 3

Drink. It is a scientific finding supported by the world's top scientific organizations and top climate scientists. There is a very loud and driven group of politically motivated people who insist that it is not real, but few actual climate researchers take these people seriously. The fact that you have asked this question demonstrates how effective these people are at creating confusion.

Answer 4

No. Global warming is real, and cyclical. AGW otoh, is indeed a myth. Percentagewise, human emissions are insignificant beside natural emissions.

Answer 5

The truth is, nobody knows 1000% percent. I'm sure everybody on each side has doubts.

You can't deny:

The earth is warming, the question is "is this warming natural?".

The ice is melting in lots of places of the earth.

Things which scientists say: CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is stronger than  water vapor.

I don't really know what to believe but no, its not a myth. Anthropogenic global warming, without a doubt is possible.

Edit: Why did I get thumbs downs? I didn't say its a hoax or its happening. I just gave simple facts and said its possible.

Answer 6

myth (mth)

n.

1.

a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" Leon Wolff

Yep, fits definition #3 perfectly.

Answer 7

IT'S ALL A MYTH.... Just like the myth BUSH is a good president, high gas prices are a result of low oil reserves, Clinton will make a good president and blonde's are becoming smarter.  For years and years, people have been expressing concerns on what we, as humans are doing to our planet. look at the melting of the ice caps and glaciers, the change in weather patterns alone and tell me something isn't wrong....  But, by the time those that could have done something, pull theirheads out of the sand... or other places we'll be past the reversable stage of the process....  then whats you gon-a-do......

Answer 8

NO, because studies show that greenhouse gasses are making the earth hotter causing the ice caps to melt and making sea level rise.

Answer 9

What you are referring to is AGW. And it's not a myth.

50,000 members here...

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positi...

20,000 members here...

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/inde...

2,100 members here...

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

About the NAS

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. Scientific issues would become even more contentious and complex in the years following the war. To keep pace with the growing roles that science and technology would play in public life, the institution that was founded in 1863 eventually expanded to include the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970. Collectively, the four organizations are known as the National Academies.

Since 1863, the nation's leaders have often turned to the National Academies for advice on the scientific and technological issues that frequently pervade policy decisions. Most of the institution's science policy and technical work is conducted by its operating arm, the National Research Council, created expressly for this purpose. These non-profit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine. They enlist committees of the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts, all of whom volunteer their time to study specific concerns. The results of their deliberations have inspired some of America's most significant and lasting efforts to improve the health, education, and welfare of the population. The Academy's service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.

The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council consisting of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Answer 10

First, don't rely on yahoo answers - there are a lot of people who are just spreading useless propaganda  who think research is spewing far right-wing ideals that have nothing to do with science.  They lack the ability to objectively research anything and flag all scientific research as biased.   These people are true sheep - they follow the sheep in front of them without looking around into the slaughter house and think they are the smart ones for some reason.  I've researched this for years 15 years ago and it's real.  Even more now that evidence is emerging and some of the biggest knowledge gaps have been worked on.

Look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website (goolge it).   It is comprised of experts from every country on Earth including the United States.  They look at the physical science of warming, they have been doing this for the past 20 years.  There is no doubt among scientist this is occurring.  A few still are trying to definitively determine how much warming is controlled by humans and how much is natural, but this is a very small minority (I think ~400 have sent something to congress), but that was because every other major scientific organization has look at the IPCC reports and science behind the reports and have determined it is good.  

The dangers this pose is real and cannot be ignored.  Ignoring means committing to potential changes that could be devastating to many people in the world and will cost us such an incredible amount of money in the future, it makes no sense to pretend it is not happening.  The skeptics are few but trying to sound like a huge number and trying to misdirect policy makers so they can protect their own interest.

The theory has been around for 100 years.  The green house effect keeps the earth temperature at a fairly constant temperature and the roll of CO2 (and other gases including water vapor) are well known and documented. The idea of anthropogenic global warming came from observational data from NASA in the late 1970's early 1980s ( I think James Hansen noted the possibility).  The correlation was so strong between CO2 and temperature, congress and the Regan administration provided funds for scientific investigation.  At the same time, the UN, also concerned about the matter, created a panel comprised of top scientist from every nation to research it.

They consider the earths natural cycles of ice ages and warm periods (DUH!); the fact that plants use CO2 (also emit if rotting), changes in incoming solar radiation (I think the solar constant is 1005 Joules/cubic meter x second (something like that - the units are a little strange for me to remember.  It will reduce to degrees K / square meter x second when combined with other factors I think); the effects of clouds, aerosols, volcanoes, oceans, landscape changes, etc.  Everything the skeptics on Yahoo post are factored in and scientist conclude most of the change is very likely to be caused by people.  You pump BILLIONS tons per year of high radiative forcing gases into the air that were once removed from the system and stored as fossil fuels, what would you expect?  No effect? Is this a reasonable assumption?

Now the some of the predictions made 20 years ago are occurring and are measurable.  Research it and look at the sites where the information comes from.  Look at the organizations that have originated the information.  Look at the sponsors of the sites that give the information. Where does the conspiracy lay?  Is the conspiracy among the organizations who say there is AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or among those who are skeptics?

Actually, a good research paper would to compare and contrast the groups.  I might suggest that to one of my colleagues who deals with physcological issues!

Answer 11

Nope, it's science.

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

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

A recent study concluded:

“the range of  [Northern Hemisphere]-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories…constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C [less than one-third of the total warming].  Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

You can see this in the third graph here, where the dotted lines are just from natural causes, and the full lines are natural + human causes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue...

If that’s not enough to convince you the Sun isn’t responsible, consider the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 12

Half truth is considered a myth, therefore it could be considered a myth.  Climate change is a fact and therefore is science.

Answer 13

Global Warming is definitely an imminent threat. It is as real as anything else. It is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, trapping the sun's heat. This could make the Earth's poles melt if it gets too out of hand. The we would have flooding, hurricanes, and severe weather. The best way to prevent it is to limit your oil and energy consumption

Answer 14

Global warming is not a myth, but it has been happening long before humans were on this planet. It is a natural cycle of the earth, but all the carbon dioxide and emissions that humans put into the air are making the effects worse.

Answer 15

Not a myth.

Answer 16

To clarify, Yes there is Global warming! The evidence is conclusive that the planet has slowly been getting warmer from the last Ice age. But there is ZERO evidence that we are the cause of that warming.

Yes the Glaciers are retreating. But one can use the Mendnehall Glacier as an example. The majority of the amount of retreat was BEFORE 1942.