Will probelms from Global warming not materialise, instead summer will just be nicer?

Question

I find that the suggestion that global warming is a myth very dangerous and am wondering how why and where it began!

I apologize the previous questions answerers amongst them big bird hawk0810 - it was not a even a question, but a statement and was poorly drafted due to my amazement that the 'myth of global warming' theory even exists.

If you do believe please tell me where you are from and what made you belive this. I would like to know if it's internet based info or country specific info that leading people to believe this!

I hope we can have a differing opinion!

Answer 1

No educated person will make the claim that global warming is a myth.  What people dispute is the question  does increases in co2 cause temperatures to rise? and if so, by how much?

There is also the belief that it is not humans but the sun that contributed to the earth's warming. Scientists long held this belief and would measure the sunspot activity going back centuries. Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature.

A recent paper by Dr. Jan Veizer of Ottawa, Canada, based on dozens of studies and his own research of 40 years, concluded that solar activity has been the “climate driver” for billions of years. While the climate can be affected by the many factors , it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. Dr Veizer first set out to prove that CO2 was historically what caused changes in climate, but noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

Do you think this person arrived at his conclusion from some blog?  He arrived at his conclusion because he found there is a better correlation between sun spot activity and temperatures than co2 and temperatures.  This is from his own work and scientific journals.

Take the basic premise that increases in co2 will increase temperature.  From the start of this century co2 levels were increasing slowly and then started to shoot up during the late 50's.  So  according to the theory, temperatures should have risen at a slow and constant rate until 1960 and at a faster rate after that.  

In reality temperatures started to increase at around 1910 and rose steadily until 1940.  It then fell until 1975.  It rose until 1998 and has been constant ever since.  According to the co2 theory temperatures should not have risen as fast during the early part of the century and they should not have fallen for three decades during the mid century.

The sun spot theory correlates better up until 1960.  Then temperatures kept  falling but sun spot activity kept rising.  But during the same period of time there were strong La Nina (cold water ocean currents) events that  kept temperatures low, after the La nina events subsided temperatures started to rise again to match the sun spot cycle.  

This theory has its critics.  The evidence is empirical (cause and effect).  It is not just the energy of the sun that changes, but also that it produces solar winds and cosmic ray flux.  The theory holds that when they  interact with the earth's atmosphere it somehow causes temperatures to rise/fall.  How it is still unknown.

But that is the nature of science.  Scientists are by nature sceptical.  You do not prove a theory.  You put it out and others attack it, and if it withstands scrutiny the theory becomes accepted.

But you have to wonder.  In 1988 Newsweek published an article on global warming saying all scientists agree.  That was before the study of climate change even began.  And when scientists started to question the theory, they were immediately attacked and their motives were questioned. Just the notion of unanimity is outrageous.  To say with certainty that co2 causes temperature increases  you have to answer questions like what are the effects of the sun, the oceans (they do not even know what causes, el ninos and la ninas), how much co2 do humans produce.  Global warming theorists say that the cooling in the mid century was due to sulphates, which act as a cooling agent.  Then you have to produce studies that prove sulphates acts as a cooling agent.

Temperatures have fluctuated through out earth's history, what caused those to fluctuate.  So to believe the  notion of unanimity is to  believe that all of these questions were answered in a few years.

The reason why they are claiming unanimity is because they do not want you to question the anomalies like the mid century drop in temperatures.  After all who are you and I to question the consensus of scientists.  If they say it is true it must be true.  But I can assure you, scientists are questioning the science, and you should be also.

How about the United Nations that say co2 causes global warming.  The decisions are more political bases than scientific.  More info here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...  

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story...

Finally if you want more info, here is a good lecture.  It is by a climatologist who says flat out, here is a biased opinion to counter act the biased opinions in the media so you can make up your own mind.  In the past when I have just recommended this link, with no comments what so ever, people have given me the thumbs down.  Apparently they think people are stupid enough that they can not make up their own minds.

http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.p...

Answer 2

I believe that humans causing global warming is a myth.  My beliefs are rooted in the science involved.  Here are 60 very qualified scientists who agree with me.

Answer 3

I personally don't think it exists at all but I'm not complaining. All this media attention does nothing but help people that want to have more efficient and pollution free society...who cares if some lie like global warming needs given to the masses to make it happen. Nothing changes unless it has to anyways in this day and age so scaring people into efficiency does nothing but help people like me that beleive every home should use no more than 500KW/hrs a month and on top of that at least 50% of it should come from solar or wind. That's why I'm in this feild of research to begin with.

Answer 4

How can that "myth" be dangerous? To not care can be a whole lot more dangerous. But, you will probably not find out untill too late. I guess u think it's not "COOL" to care.  Be a dynosaur, if you wish. I'm doing what I can to help our only home. And it's way cooler than you, that's for sure. If you don't respect mother earth, it might be that she will MAKE you respect her. Only, it will be to late for us then.

Answer 5

I don't believe Global Warming to be as caustic as they are suggesting both from the media and political side of things. I personally tend to listen to the science, good science from sources that are not only trusted but respected at large by the scientific community and occasionally the public. For me good science is the ability to collate accurate information of the subject and present the findings in such a way that it leaves in no doubt about the conclusions drawn. Yes in cases, some conclusion are incorrect and yes sometimes they go back and re-analysis to get a more informed and realistic conclusion. This is at the heart and the very nature of science; to find the truth.

I find from my own research (which is mostly internet based although I do purchase Nature and Scientific Journal now and again) that the Global Warming perpetuated by the media to be grossly inaccurate and loosely based on scientific finding. Whats more, recent findings from temperature and CO2 derived data from ice cores suggest the opposite effect will occur with an increased CO2 volume in the atmosphere compared with whats being wildly spread through the media.

In all, I don't know what the truth is, but lets be assured that its best coming from those that spend their lives studying the science rather than the politicians or celebrities giving they're inaccurate two tuppence's worth.

Im based in the UK and currently work as a geologist.

For you own interest I have attached a link to a good website which focuses on all manner of CO2 and climate related studies minus the political influence!