Who here has bought into Gorbal Warming?

Question

I have been doing some internet research on global warming and have found some interesting facts. CO2 has increased about 50 parts per million in the last 50 years. CO2 is a trace gas less then 400 parts per million.

Can this small amount actualy change the climate?

The only long term CO2 measurements available are taken from a NOAA weather station on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii since the 1950's.

Major question?

How does the continuous erruption of kilauea since 1983 less then 50 miles from Mauna Loa corrupt the CO2 measurements?

I have my doughts about GW, what other environmental crisis has it's own movie????

What are Al Gore's credentials that make him the guru on this issue????

me thinks I smell a rat.

Answer 1

My god.. ONLY 50 PARTS PER MILLION INCREASE? THAT'S SUCH A SMALL NUMBER, I AM SO COMPLETELY SHOCKED AND STUFF!

Dude.. 1 Part per Million of Plutonium is enough to kill you.

The CO2 measurements taken that are presented in 'An Inconvient Truth' are taken from the middle of the Pacific. West and South of Kilauea. The oppisite of the Jet Stream. Not from Manuah Loa. 'Long Term' is an abstract term.

I am answering you in the 'Long Term' in that I am comparing my answer to a nanosecond.

Me thinks I smell a guy who doesn't want to admit his SUV is killing everyone.

Again, if a billion people die.. we deserved it.

And what are Al Gore's credentials?

**** man! At least he can spell freaking 'GLOBAL'.

Answer 2

be patient we are all gonna be in it soon ,

not just the people around the equator

Answer 3

The theory of man-made global warming is false, it is based on falsified or incomplete data.  Lets take a look at what the global warming crowd claims, they say that the human output of CO2 is causing the greenhouse effect which is warming the planet.  To see how outrageous this claim is try to guess how much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2, the correct answer is 0.03% of our atmosphere, almost nothing.  How can such a small part of our atmosphere have such an effect on our entire planet, correct answer it can’t.  Greenhouse gases exist naturally and have always been in our atmosphere.  Greenhouse gases such as CH4 (methane), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), and water vapor are all put out into the atmosphere naturally in far greater concentrations than humans could ever match.  Let’s take a look at water vapor, water vapor makes up between 1-4% of the atmosphere far more than CO2.  Water vapor is given off into the atmosphere due to evaporation, so evaporation causes much more global warming than humans ever could.  Other natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and the decomposition of plant and animal matter also put far more greenhouse gases than humans ever could.  

So what is causing global warming?  Well first of all the earth may not even be warming.  http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature...  This is a collection of global temperatures collected by NASA that shows a general cooling trend especially around the polar ice caps.  So assuming the earth is warming what could be causing it, the sun.  Look at this graph also put out by NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/... it shows that the intensity of the sun is directly correlated to global temperatures and recent studies have shown that the sun is now warming than ever before, coincidence? I think not.  Also consider that the other planets in our solar system, Mars in particular, are also warming: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

You have to keep in mind that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, take for example the ice age and later warming of the earth enough to melt the ice.

Advocates of global warming will try and post evidence but the fact is most evidence for global warming comes in the form of general statements like “think of your children/grandchildren” that try to guilt you into agreeing with them.  These ads are devoid of scientific proof and seek to toy with your conscience.  Every once in a while you will see a graph submitted as evidence mostly from http://www.ipcc.ch/.  Take a look for yourself, I search in vain for proof of global warming on this site, sure there are dozens of graphs showing the same data: CO2 rising along with global temperatures but where are the graphs for other greenhouse gases that make up a greater percentage of our atmosphere and are put out naturally, or graphs showing the percentage of greenhouse gases put out by humans verses the gases put out by natural sources.  These graphs are not included because they disprove the theory of man made global warming.  The IPCC has had a questionable past, it has published a deliberately falsified graph, the so called hockey stick graph, which left out a period of warming during the 1400’s.  This warming period in the 1400’s was more dramatic than what we are seeing today, and it took place long before humans industrialized.  This falsification was proven and a reprint of the graph appeared in the journal Nature.  You may have seen claims that there is a scientific consensus on global warming like this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu... this is an absolute lie, do you need proof? Here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm the signatures of over 17,000 scientists who disagree with the theory of man made global warming (check out the report on this site it does an excellent job of disproving global warming).  You may have also seen reports about ice cores supposedly proving global warming, this is not true.  Here is the truth about ice cores http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm.

You may have the question why anyone would support this obviously false theory, the answer is money.  Average people with no scientific background are being converted to the global warming crowd by the dozens due to the repression of evidence against global warming.  This mass of people is the reason why notable people are jumping on the global warming bandwagon.  Politicians are supporting global warming for votes, scientists are joining for media time and grants, and CEO’s are pledging their allegiance to gain customers who want to shop where the environment is being supported.

You may also wonder why I care, you may think we can only help the environment if we agree with global warming what’s wrong with that?  I want to distinguish between global warming and helping the environment.  I have no problem with environmentalist causes, in fact I support them, but global warming is taking this idea to the  extreme.  If you were to follow the guidelines set forth by people like Al Gore your lifestyle would be, these people want to tell you what light bulbs to use.  The main reason however is money, why waste millions on studying global warming when we could be rebuilding third world countries and helping the poor.  Global warming is a fear tactic used to get your money and your vote by unscrupulous members of society.  Hopefully this will just fade away like the global cooling scare which was brought upon us in the 1970’s by the same sort of people using the same tactics.  A last link  http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ possibly the best resource for answering many of the questions raised by global warming.  I urge anyone who believes in man-made global warming to look into some of the resources I have presented.  Do not sacrifice your money, time, vote, and conscience to the greedy members of society who are blinding you to the truth for their own greed.

Answer 4

1. "Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature

changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that

the global average temperature dropped about 2C over

the last millennium. This means that we live in the cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the Holocene), and the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01C (of approximately 0.56C (1F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)."

2. "Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2

concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes."

3. "Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the isue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real dta in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both 'warming' and 'cooling' simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed."

4. "The Arctic was as warm as or warmer in the late 1930s than it was at the end of the 20th century. "

5.  "Moreover, according to the data of Borisenkov (1988), in each of 18 deep Maunder-type minima of solar activity, revealed over the span of the last 7500 years, the cooling of climate had been observed, while warming occurred during the periods of high maxima. Thus, the integral radiation has always been essentially higher at the maximum, and it had noticeably decreased at the minima. Therefore, quasi-periodic variations of the solar activity during both the 11-year cycle and 80- and 200-year cycles are accompanied by proportional variations of the integral flux of solar radiation, which result in geophysical effects. The main cause of climate change during the last millennia is the corresponding cyclic variation of the 80- and 200-year component of irradiance correlated with activity. That is why, the contemporary is not anomalous but is ordinary secular global warming (Aguilar 2003; Reid 2000), as well as previous similar cases of warming during the periods of secular activity growth is still mainly connected with an increase of the secular component of solar irradiance variation."

6.  "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased."

There are four premises that underly AGW:

1. That 1990 levels of CO2 are the appropriate baseline.

Why was this year chsoen? Is there some sort of scientific basis for this? Or was it arbitrary?

2. Global temperature is a meaningful statistic.

It could be argued that basing decisions on meaningless numbers is a fools errand.

3. Global temperature and CO2 levels are intimately linked.

It has been argued that they are linked, except that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around.

4. CO2 drives global temperature.

There are two gases that have a stronger greenhouse effect, relatively speaking, than CO2. They are methane and water vapor(not from clouds, which are droplets). These should have a greatet effect than CO2.

Outside of any of the arguments regarding the causes of warming (solar variability, cosmic rays, tectonic heating, volcanic emissions, CO2 emissions, CH4 emissions, Milankovitch cycles, etc) I question these four underlying premises of global warming itself.

If my interpretations are correct, global warming is hogwash. If my interpretations are incorrect, I am wrong. I don't mind being proven wrong, it is a good way to learn about things that I have overlooked.

Answer 5

Well if you take all the political agendas out of the topic of Global Warming and look at it from a scientific perspective, its not debateable at all.  Its a scientific fact that the earth's climate is getting warmer and warmer.  There is a strong consensus among biologists, meterologists and geologist that greenhouse gases, not CO2 alone, is partially if not entirely responsible for the climate changes in the last 50 years.  The earth is getting warmer, period.  Whether is attributeable to gases, or who is pushing the issue isnt even important when you look at that fact.  The earth climate and habitats are very delicate and with perceivable minor changes, these changes can be catastrophic.  If you want more information, visit a nearby college and ask a professor associated in any of the scienific fields mentioned above.  I'll guarantee you won't get them to shut up about it.  

Even when i was in college and grad school in the 90's, Global Warming was quite a topic before receiving the attention it has been lately.  And regarding credentials, as long as sombody can cite specific research which can be later located, credentials are secondary.  As long as the message and the research are scientifically sound, then in the realm of science its acceptable.  Much like a student that does a research project, the student may not have credentials, but its the message and the research done which is most important and his academic standing does not automatically defeeat any of his arguements.  "Argumentum ad hominum" is the term for it i believe.  

So if youre actually interested in the topic, seek out a few scientists who lie on both sides of the issue and gain a greater perspective.  As for me, I'm convinced that the world is getting warmer... it could be quite disasterous or it may not be but its always better to err on the side of caution.  Besides who will complain about less pollution anyways?

Answer 6

Um, you have some of your facts a bit wrong. We have CO2 data from Antarctica, and Greenland as well. In fact the data collected there goes over a million years.

Climate is effected by small things. We can see this repeatedly with ice ages, but honestly we don't fully understand what causes us to warm up. I study this kind of thing and we are currently in a warming trend.

I totally agree with you on the issue of Al Gore though. He is making in much harder to take between parties because he polarizes the issue. He stretches the truth and confuse the public, plus his life style is against everything he preaches. He is making our jobs a scientist to educate the public about how the world really works much harder.

Answer 7

Yes, that small amount can change the climate.  And volcanic eruptions actually decrease global warming a bit, because of the dust.  

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

Also see the data below.  Al Gore has nothing to do with the science.

The Mauna Loa data is used because it's actually the "cleanest" data available.  unaffected by things like volcanic eruptions.  Look at it here.  See any "spikes" from volcanic eruptions in the last 50 years?  And there are other measured locations, which say the same thing.  

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gall...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels (in addition to the shape of the graph, the increase numerically matches the increase in fossil fuel use). The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels (not volcanoes) by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that particular CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.

Answer 8

I smell a Rat too.   So do many of the worlds leading scientists.

Why do they insist on discounting previous earth warmings of much larger scale.

If world politicians are pushing it, then I suspect a major fiddle!

Answer 9

IT all depends on ur point of view ..