Our Doctor Said that Global Warming Would Happen with Absence or Presence of Mankind?

Question

We were talking about global warming. He started asking what is the main reason for global warming and students started to say that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was the main reason and the ever increasing rate of co2 in the air and all.

He started laughing and said its nonsense, because co2 is a gas, and co2 would dissolve eventually in the oceans. And the global warming is majorly related to the earth's precession. And he says that's why we had Ice age thousands of years ago, and we didn't have anything to do with the ice age.

Answer 1

No, CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warmig.It is bcoz of CFC's(Chloro Flouro Corbon) mainly produced from aerosols,refrigerators,Air conditioners ,power generators and Vehicles.These CFCs are very volatile and stable ,reaches the Ozone layer.Ozone layer protects the earth by regulating temperature by preventing harmful rays.

Each CFC can destroy hundreds of Ozone molecules.Now direct rays are affecting earth.Ice melts.(Day After Tomorrow).As Earth is heated up trees are dying and over pollution causes imbalance in ratio of Oxygen(O2) and Corbondioxide(CO2).But it is not too big.CO2 is only 3% of the total gases.

Answer 2

yes global warming would happen even in the absence of man like it happens on venus it is the hottest planet of our solar system  but on earth it would happen at a very slow rate in absence of man

mother nature won't

- cut down hundreds of trees

- won't burn the coal

- won't create nuclear waste

- build cement blocks

- clear the jungles

mother nature won't harm the environment in any form

we greed and most dangerous thing earth would burn our own house just to produce light so that we can see in darkness but when we would be able to see we won't have anything to see except ashes of what we have burnt

  

Answer 3

Your doctor is right to laugh at global warming, but his logic and reasoning are wrong.  He has no idea what he is talking about.

If anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming, it will not go away simply because it is water soluble.  CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of 5 to 10 years.  If CO2 emissions are not reduced, the level of CO2 will never be reduced.  If oceans heat up, it will cause even more CO2 to be out-gassed into the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 is reduced as temperatures increase.

Long term climate change such as ice ages are related to 100,000 year and 400,000 year Milankovich cycles.  The current warming trend is not related to the earth's orbital properties, it is related to an very active solar cycle.  We were hotter in the 1930's than we are now, with minimal CO2 emissions compared to today.  It was hotter in the Medieval warm period than it is today without any anthropogenic CO2.

AWG is a joke, but your doctor knows about as much as Leonardo DiCaprio on the subject.

Answer 4

The main problem is they used some very old temperature readings to calculate the global warming . The cities are not well dispersed ,there are more in the warm zone than in the cold zone. The thermometers of that time was lucky to be plus or minus 2 deg.F.

   Very little CO2 is in the ocean. Salt water and CO2 does not mix The a soda and put in a tea spoon of salt . The CO2 comes out very quick.  

Answer 5

He is right, Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas, it is what you exhale.

Have you noticed that A L L of the solutions to the so called problem of Global Warming / Global Climate Change are to grow government, raise taxes, eliminate perosonal liberty, and increase regulation on everyday life?

I was doing a little opposition research and found the official magazine of the Socialist Workers Party and they were trumpeting the virtues of the Big Government Solutions as a way to curtail capitalism and individual freedoms in a way that Karl Marx envisioned.

If there weren't any form of Global Warming Minnesota, where I live would still be covered under glaciers and would be uninhabitable.

Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis. This is to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material to produce cellulose for plant growth. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers.

Global warming is a trojan horse to get the sheeple to accept a One World Socialist Government.

HEAT OF THE MOMENT

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

--------------------------------------...

By Bob Unruh

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply becau

Answer 6

It is true that the Earth is and has been warming over the centuries.  However, in more recent decades, that warming has accelerated, and this is directly related to human activities - from burning fossil fuels and adding other pollutants to the atmosphere to cutting down forests (naturally, plants clean the air through photosynthesis).

Based on ice-core samples and records, current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible.

Answer 7

He's wrong.

CO2 has limited solubility in the ocean, and it's essentially saturated with it.  In fact, as oceans warm, they RELEASE CO2, not absorb it.

Yes, there were natural changes before, but the data proves that THIS change is not natural.  EVERY major scientific organization says this warming is mostly caused by us.

You can choose to believe your doctor instead of the vast majority of scientists in the world.  But world leaders won't.

EDIT - "Tom is correct."  No, he isn't.  Tom said:

"We were hotter in the 1930's than we are now, with minimal CO2 emissions compared to today. "

Not remotely true, no matter what you think of the accuracy of the data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Answer 8

I don't see a question here...

I will comment on your comment though:

Your doctor is one man, not trained in the subject, doesn't back his opinion up with any facts or research and who thinks AGW is nonsense.

I am one man, not trained in the subject, and will not, (in this case) back my opinion up with any facts or research and I think AGW is a significant cause for concern. I believe that CO2 may or may not eventually dissolve in the oceans but only after significant changes have been made to the climate and that the 28,000-year cycle of Earth's precession has absolutely nothing to do with short term climate change.

See? Two opinions that contradict each other. How to choose?

Well, one way would be on personal contact or other ways of judging how much you trust or believe one person over the other. However, that is about judging character and has nothing to do with whether GW is man-made, a problem or whether it exists at all.

No, the way to form your own opinion abput the subject is to ignore both me and your doctor and do some research - look into all the many, many studies that say AGW is real and a problem. Look at all the corporations, governments and international bodies that are spending billions of their own money to alleviate the causes and impacts of AGW, etc, etc...

Get the opinion of those who know; then you will have your answer.

Answer 9

Get a second opinion.

You don't say what kind of doctor you're referring to, but it sounds like he's a teacher, too.  A teacher that openly laughs and calls the current situation "nonsense" is not behaving responsibly, first of all, and should have presented his speech as being his own views based on discussion with colleagues, reading, research, etc.  By laughing and being dismissive of human related changes, he is effectively squelching debate and an ongoing dialogue.

The doc sounds a bit out of touch at any rate.  I'd take what he says with a huge grain of salt from now on.

Answer 10

I hope your Doctor is good at medicine as he seems to have no idea about chemistry and climate change.

Answer 11

And your doctor is right, I was born in 1940 near the end of the 1930s warming and have lived through the late 40s and 1950s cooling. The 1960s warming and the 1970s cooling and now the 1990s warming and they are now predicting that we are entering another 10 to 20 years colling spell before it warms up again. It has been happening this way for thousands of years and will continue to happen for many thousands more.

Answer 12

Tom is correct, Bob and Dana are wrong as usual.  CO2 will dissolve in the oceans and worrying about ocean acidity are about as rediculous as worrying about global warming.  The simple truth is that climates have not be driven by CO2 concentrations in the past.  There is too much that we don't understand about climate to make general predictions about the effect of CO2.  One thing is clear, there is a movement in this country to try to convince everyone of the dangers of CO2 in the atmosphere and that movement is a leftist political movement.  When someone claims to know, you can rest assured they are either lying or misguided.  

Answer 13

I guess that's why he went into medicine instead of physical sciences. He has no idea what he's talking about.

The oceans absorb a lot of CO2, that much is true.  But they can't absorb an unlimited amount.  Humans emit more CO2 than oceans and other parts of the natural carbon cycle can absorb, so it accumulates in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and thus causing global warming.

If not for humans, the planet would not be warming right now.  See the link below for details.

Answer 14

Your doctor????    Well my janitor says he's wrong!   The oceans have absorbed billions of tons of CO2, that's why they are becoming so acidic and dissolving coral and shells at a faster rate.   GW has nothing to do with earths procession, we are so close to a circular orbit it makes no difference.   He is right that GW would happen anyway, but not as fast as it is now.