Nicolas Cooley: Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, which are increasing in the atmosphere at an exponential rate. Carbon dioxide is increasing because we human beings are burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.Reply to Mc:I have investigated the evidence (much better than you, to judge from the "evidence" you cite), nor have I remained purposely ignorant. Yet I can state categorically that you are dead wrong on all counts.1. While the effect you cite does happen (warming oceans release CO2 into the air), the time lag between warming and CO2 release is on the order of 800 years. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) Since the earth has been warming only in the last century, this is too soon to account for the 35% increase in CO2 since 1800. Further, the current level of CO2 is now 30% higher than at any time of previous maximum oceanic CO2 release -- so clearly something else must be causing it. 2. Your data is flat-out wron! g. Human activities release about 25 gigatons of CO2 into the air each year, not 6. (Are you confusing CO2 with Carbon? Could an expert like you make such a high-school mistake?) Animal contributions are balanced by plant consumption; it is human fossil fuel buring which throws the carbon budget out of balance. And your wonderful superduper science link is broken. How long ago did you do your "research"?3. The troposphere IS getting warmer. Your website data (seven years old!) is derived from satellite MSU observations which were shown (YEARS ago) to be artifacts of incorrect calibration of the MSU instruments. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005... If you are an honest person, I would expect you to stop citing this data. And I'll be watching.4. Nobody denies that the Sun influences temperatures on Earth. But long-term trends indicate that solar activity peaked in the late 1950's and has been about steady since then -- the exact time when global warming was i! ncreasing the fastest. Did you even read your own links? From ! YOUR LINK http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar... : "there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects ...The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present. 'During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures,' Usoskin explained. He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." From YOUR LINK http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/04080... :"researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years."! 5. Glaciers are melting, this is not a "false claim." http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.h...6. Once again you're using old data. There is greater scientific concensus on global warming than almost any other scientific topic today. Regarding the petition project you cite (a) it was started in 1997, at a time when the science was not nearly as certain as it is today. When (in 2005) Scientific American tried to contact a sample of climate scientists who signed the petition, they found that over half of them didn't remember signing, or had died, or wouldn't talk about it, or wouldn't sign the same petition today. http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&arti... Meanwhile, in 2004 a survey of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers found that NOT ONE paper doubted the consensus position of human caused global warming. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...7. The IPCC most certainly did NOT ignore natural sources of CO2. Next time, read for compreh! ension. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/099.htm http://www.gri! da.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/100.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/104.htm8. There has never been any scientific concensus on global cooling, in the 1970's nor at any other time. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/...Show more
Javier Holsonback: If you desire to obtain supply cash for local weather study, do you suppose that you can get a cheque for those who say," I want the supply, as I suppose that I can turn out that the figures that the present paradigm is founded upon are fallacious" ? The fine environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There continues to be no confirmed causative hyperlink among the volume of Co2 within the surroundings, and an develop in worldwide temperatures. The WWWF graphics of the polar bears swimming had been taken within the Arctic summer season; while the ice cap in part melts, as they could not rise up to photo within the iciness. The ice used to be too thick! The East-Anglian uni study fig! ures. "Oh! The figures do not fit our expectancies. Oh good. Keep quiet. Because we all know that we're proper." When the notion, and the religion is extra major than squarely dealing with the respectable doubts of plenty of non supply-supported scientists, technological know-how has been superceded through devout zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully stated." I pray thee, within the bowels of Christ, bear in mind that thou mayest be fallacious."...Show more
Serita Hefferon: Here's a nice graph of the various factors. The data is verified and peer reviewed:http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...The sun is about 10% of it. Man is the other 90%.The swindle movie (and its' "science") is wrong."The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy." http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/st...I'll spare you several more similar references. But the fact is that even Channel 4 doesn't ! believe that movie. On their web page for the movie, they say "Confuse! d now? Ask an expert." The question goes to a respected mainstream scientist who says the cause is mostly us....Show more
Adan Stribble: A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out†is an apt analogy. This entire world has been continually decaying since the fall.Global warming “facts†are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estima! tes, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even among the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:• Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.• Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.• Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to ! determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor lev! els.• Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.• Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.• Ice Age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!• Computer simulations used to “predict†or “demonstrate†global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predicti! ve nor repeatable.• Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.• In the 1970s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling†concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.• The “consensus†claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.• This “consensus,†as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious! to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.•! The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence†of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic†global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently fl! awed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.For further research on global warming, we recommend the following articles:http://www.icr.org/article/3233/http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_age...http://www.xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.ht...http://www.newsmax.c! om/archives/articles/2002/5/14...http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/Glob! alCarbonCycl...http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.ht...Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warming.html#ix......Show more
Cortez Badolato: Its a phase the world goes thru. The bleeding hearts and tree huggers use this natural cycle as a excuse so we increase taxes, do without. Study history it was same 100s years ago. They should be addressing the harm to health but then again the kooks are not known for brains
Jarrod Darnall: SHORT ANSWERGreenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide prevent some heat from leaving the Earth's atmosphere and escaping into space. The build up of atmospheric greenhouse gases in recent years has led to an increase in the amount of heat that is trapped. The term 'Greenhouse Effect' has been coined to describe this phenomenum.--------------------LONG ANSWEROur atmosphere acts like a blanket trapping heat and keeping Earth at a habitable temperature, it’s this retaining of heat that is referred to as the Greenhouse E! ffect. The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases that trap heat from the sun, the more greenhouse gases there are the more heat is retained GREENHOUSE GASES Water vapour (H20) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas and occurs naturally. Some greenhouse gases are both natural and manmade including carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO) and tetraflouromethane (CF4). There are several synthetic gases consisting of carbon and halogens, many of the manmade greenhouse gases are also responsible for ozone depletion. As with temperature, there is a natural cycle in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ice core samples extending back some 650,000 years show the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 to have been around 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and the maximum about 300 ppmv. The worry is that the current levels of CO2 are considerably higher at around 385 ppmv .LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GASExcluding water vapour, carbon dioxide is by far the most prevale! nt of the greenhouse gases accounting for over 99% of all of them. The ! only other gas present in appreciable quantity is methane and this accounts for nearly 0.5% of the greenhouse gases. By comparing levels of greenhouse gases in 2000 with levels in 1750 we can see that there has been a 31% increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, a 16% rise in levels of nitrous oxide and a 149% increase in the levels of methane. Different greenhouse gases are more effective than others at contributing to the greenhouse effect, an effect called the Global Warming Potential (GWP). Although carbon dioxide accounts for 99.4% of the greenhouse gases by volume, the contribution it makes as a total of all the greenhouse gases is considerably lower at just 72.3%; this is because, as greenhouse gases go, it's not very good. Nitrous oxide on the other hand is nearly 300 times as effective and although it occurs in very small amounts when compared to carbon dioxide, it manages to contribute 18.4% towards the total greenhouse effect. The other gases which make sizeable! contributions are methane and dichlorodifluoromethane, respectively these are responsible for nearly 8% and nearly 1% of the contribution to the greenhouse effect.SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASESOne of the primary causes of greenhouse gas emissions for which humans are responsible result from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and much of the remainder results from farming and agricultural activities. Fossil fuels are used in power generation, to heat homes and offices, to power factories, to fuel transport and many more uses. Other manmade causes of greenhouse gases include deforestation, fertilisers, air conditioning units, open fires, fridges and freezers, numerous industrial and chemical processes, fire suppressants, coal mining, effluent, landfill sites, livestock and rice cultivation.There are several natural causes of greenhouse gases including volcanic activity, the seas and oceans, natural decay of plants and animals and the natural melting of ice caps....! Show more
Blythe Noreiga: The theory of man-made global warming i! s false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth†so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022... Another general resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/nineli...CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, mak! es up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming i! s due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , ! but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/. That points to other explanations to our current warming.So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2...http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/04080...http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solc...The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting! and animals will suffer this is another false claim.http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar...http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htmlhttp://www.worldclimatereport.com/The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htmSecond, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_r...The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who ! pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agenci! es that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products. The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of sol! ar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick†graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarming...And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htmAnd another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htmQuotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs. In regards to the precautionar! y principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative! energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at globa! l warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling. In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming....Show more
