Why are opinions so divided on global warming (man made or solar radiation)?

Question

Why are opinions so divided on global warming (man made or solar radiation)?

Answer 1

Between scientists, opinions aren't divided. Over 19,000 have signed a petition saying that GW is not man made: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm and also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Answer 2

I believe because that global warming as being the result of human action calls--screams--for individual responsibility and you know how popular that concept is with a growing number of folks. So blame it on the sun. So many of us (humans) are spoiled by having had 'everything' (clean running water at the turn of a faucet, food whenever we felt hungry, a secure home, warm bed, medical attention by punching three buttons on the telephone, etc.). Altering our comfy and so often wasteful habits might be inconvenient. Or cut into the budget initially (though pay back handsomely in the near and far future). It's probably easier for older folks to accept the fact because we've already seen significant signs of distress in/on/under the earth: weather, water table, contamination of the entire plant with industrial and manufacturing toxic waste. Oh, boy; that just made me think of a question perfect for this "Environment" site...

Answer 3

It will be forever an on-going debate.  I believe that far more CO2 is generated by the oceans and volcanic activity but man is helping the process.

Answer 4

I studied science and it's quite an obvious fact that burning Carbon Dioxide from the earth's resources is upsetting the natural balance. I'm a bit tired to go into details now.

Answer 5

Because some people are so driven by hate for Bush ... and other "establishment" types.

Answer 6

duck

One problem with global warming is that the concept is so vague in the minds of the people. The critical interpretation is basically how it’s explained in school and the news. However most of the public see global warming connected with the ozone and pollutants which cause harmful greenhouse gasses, etc. therefore investigating and fighting for things like alternative energy (ie. Solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, etc)

Greenhouse gases are real and do contribute to global warming. Think of the different gas layers like ozone (o3) that circumference the globe as the clear plastic on a greenhouse. Longer rays of light from the Sun go in and reflect off different thermal masses bouncing back and creating shorter lengths of energy that cannot exist the plastic barrier. These beams then just continue to bounce around inside the green house until they’re finally absorbed completely (some do escape but very few), thereby warming the greenhouse greatly even in cold temperatures.

Basically there are 2 ways that this reaction (or lack of) affects the planet. Global warming and global cooling.

1. as we add to the gases in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is (Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc), we add to the plastic of the greenhouse, trapping more short wave length energy and heating the earth more.

2. as we deplete the ozone (with chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs), we allow more long wave length energy, which bounces back out to space without heating any thermal masses on earth, thereby cooling the planet.

It’s pretty easy to see the results..

Melting ice sheets & glaciers

Floods & droughts

Great hurricanes & cyclones

Seasonal extremes

Seasonal phenomena’s

Species extinction

New & resurgent diseases

There are many ways to stop both global warming and cooling from accruing or at least slow them down until we can discover a way to reverse it, but Stop burning fossil fuels is the biggest.

I currently own 2 converted h2 vehicles which run on 100% hydrogen and 1 EV (electric vehicle), not to mention our home is completely off the grid, using alternative energy (solar, wind, etc)

If you interested I offer several DIY alternative guides to walk you step by step threw Greener living, how to run your car on alternative fuels and being self-sufficient, at agua-luna com or

www agua-luna com

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www AGUA-LUNA com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!

Answer 7

Why doesn't everybody believe that 'global warming ' is a fact of life. I wont be hear,  but it worries about my Grand children and Great-Grand children.

Answer 8

prolly cos theres billions of em so theyre not all gonna agree are they

Answer 9

hmmmm....it seems to be divided between those who wish to force their views on others (and their hands in others' wallets) and those who refuse to allow it.

It's less a debate as it is a home invasion.

Answer 10

They aren't necessarily so divided.

Some scientists have done work showing that CO2 causes warming. Still others have done work showing changes in solar output cause changes in the Earth's temperature. That's because both are true.

So if you want to show people evidence of one you can, or if you want to show evidence of the other you can.

The thing is, that both are important. So it all comes down to the relative importance of each. Just because the sun controls climate, doesn't mean that increasing greenhouse gases wont warm the Earth.

Also, if it were possible to show that CO2 wasn't important in the past, it doesn't mean it isn't today.

Answer 11

Well because putting a pause on human activities that cause it would cost money and would need a lot of reasearch. It is better to think we have nothing to do with it.

In any case, whatever it is that offset it we could do things to slow it down if not reverse it and that requires changes.

Answer 12

It's like religion one group interpret the data in a way that suits them and others use it to show the opposite.

Pick a view, any view, and it'll have changed in a week or so.

Answer 13

Because, despite what people want you to believe, the science of global warming is new, in the 80's the believed in global cooling, it takes hundreds of years to make valid scientific discoveries, and these pseudo scientists want you to believe that they know everything there is to know about it within 10 to 20 years, and actually less than that.

Answer 14

Opinion in the scientific community is hardly divided at all. There are a few (mainly members of the public) who that don’t understand the mechanisms by which the greenhouse effect operates and grasp at any possible alternative for global warming. (The same happens in the evolution debate where all kinds of strange arguments are put forward to support the idea that Earth is only 6,000 yrs old.)

The Sun has been intensively studied for centuries, after all it is the most obvious feature in the sky, and much is now known about its mechanisms (11 yr &22 yr cycles etc etc.).

The main problem for those that propose that the sun is ‘getting warmer’ in some way is that the evidence doesn’t support this.

There have been a number of studies looking at whether solar activity is responsible for global warming, including two major recent solar studies.

One by the National Centre for Atmospheric Research et al (Sept. 2006): “Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today’s rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing.”

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/w...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

The other is by Heliophysics & the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics  (Sept. 2006) that concluded: “Sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present.”

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

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

It’s worth thinking of the charge made by sceptics that scientists produce the results that will increase their funding. In that case the solar observatories would find it in their interest to produce results that pointed towards the sun being the main agent of change, after all they need funding too. But this isn’t the case; over and over again they are ruling it out. Honest science.

S. Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, has gone on record several times to say: “We point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”

More on this here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/20...

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/aktuelles/press...

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPE...