Question:
Global Warming?
anonymous
2007-10-13 10:34:27 UTC
What FACTS can you give me to show that global warming does infact exist? When I say facts, I dont mean copy and paste some big thing or claim that scientist have proven it. I want actual FACTUAL DATA that proves global warming is man made, not the Earth's weather cycle that has been going on for millions of years.

I didnt ask this question to start a debate like every other question on here, I just want to see if anyone can actually source me data instead of just claiming the ice caps are melting and scientist have proven that it exists, because these same scientist were the ones that were POSITIVE another Ice Age was upon us in the 70s.
Fourteen answers:
ULTRA150
2007-10-13 10:45:54 UTC
Yes the earth is warmer but you can look to the sun for that, in the past few years our sun has been over active but now it is getting back to it's normal state. This also accounts for the warming on Mars also. Just one of the facts that Gore and others tend to leave out when they preach their global warming to the people.



Yes we are killing the planet with our .300 of 1% ccontribution to the atmosphere of global warming gas. Try reading the full study from the scientist that did the study not the short report that was made up from just parts of the study, maybe then you will see the lies Gore and his followers have been feeding you.
Dax
2007-10-13 11:42:02 UTC
Firstly, they are not the same scientists, as in the 70s. Back then the science of paleoclimatology was not yet evolved to include so many other scientific research techniques. Back then some thought the swing in climate WAS toward an 'ice age', but since have learned better. That's just what science does. Adjusts theory through facts, data, and experiment via observations. What you're talking about was known by a Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). Alot of science has happened since.



One reason 99% of the knowledgeable and respected scientists believe the cause of 'Global Warming' is man-made. is that it's been nearly 100 million years since SO much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The fact that this all started at the same time as the 'Industrial Revolution' is mere coincidence to some, but to none that know the sciences. It may be that we are entering a warming phase at this time, as well, so all the more reason to shut down the continuous out-pouring of CO2.



Too many won't believe all of this until it's too late, and then what? Remember, 'Global Warming' does not mean where you are WILL be warmer, necessarily. It does mean we will have greater swings in weather patterns. Wanna move to Europe and prove them wrong?
wider scope
2007-10-13 10:55:49 UTC
I'm sorry, but I think this newsclip concerning a UK court ruling provides solid evidence of the truth behind Al Gore's brand of Global Warming in particular -



* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.



* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.



* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.



* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.



* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.



* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.



* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.



* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.



* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.



* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.



* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.



"In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that



1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.



2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.



3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth



Why do libs continually refuse to acknowledge the real TRUTH?
?
2016-05-22 09:51:26 UTC
If you wish to receive grant money for climate research, do you think that you'll get a cheque if you say," I need the grant, as I think that I can prove that the figures that the current paradigm is based upon are wrong" ? The great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There is still no proven causative link between the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and an increase in global temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming were taken in the Arctic summer; when the ice cap partially melts, as they couldn't get up to photograph in the winter. The ice was too thick! The East-Anglian uni research figures. "Oh! The figures don't match our expectations. Oh well. Keep quiet. Because we know that we are right." When the belief, and the faith is more important than squarely facing the legitimate doubts of a lot of non grant-supported scientists, science has been superceded by religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully said." I pray thee, in the bowels of Christ, consider that thou mayest be wrong."
anonymous
2007-10-13 10:49:43 UTC
It exists the only debate is whether or not it is man made or a normal cycle.....

In your town on a day that's really really hot stand outside for awhile.....Then go into a neighborhood near by that has just dirt roads but the houses are about the same distance apart.... Feel the temp difference..... The temp will be lower standing on a yard on the dirt road then on the paved... So is it green house gases or all the paved roads and buildings acting like warming stones for a pet lizard...........Houses are also being built really close together creating a microwave effect, and huge estates dry up their wetlands and create ponds instead... Well the wetlands serve a purpose...So yes we do impact our environment but the warming that is going on now seems more a part of a cycle that's been around since the iceage.. Does this mean stop conservation ...no......and cities need to rethink their building codes....
katjha2005
2007-10-13 10:52:37 UTC
without quoting or copying or pasting..... I'm not a scientist by the way.. I can only go by what they say... but here is some common sense for you... yes some of global warming is natural and some is man-made... if you want to talk about C02, it is a gas emitted off naturally(which also makes it possible for the earth to sustain life) and also by man.. it is a known fact that more is put off naturally- however when I was in school I learned about photosynthesis.. C02 goes in, O2 comes out- the earth always took care of itself.. so the C02 that was put off naturally was absorbed by trees and plants.. to date.. how many trees do you imagine we have cut down.. how few more plants there are that would absorb this excess C02- so do I think alot of it is man made... yes.. we have made contributions to it, even if we aren't putting off the majority of the C02
dgrhm
2007-10-13 10:45:15 UTC
Read the IPCC report on global warming. There isn't enough space or time to put all the data in this forum.



From there, check out NASA's reports on global warming, the NOAA reports on global warming, ask anyone who studies climate, biology, geology, meteorology, or other earth science what they're data and research shows.



Bottom line, from the available data, humans are the primary cause of global warming. We're also the cause for a lot of other ecological damage.



That doesn't make us bad, just ignorant of our actions.



Do you really think people think about where their manufactured goods come from, or what impact the manufacture has on the environment?



If we don't change our behavior, we'll be extinct.



Enjoy.
anonymous
2007-10-13 10:42:44 UTC
"these same scientists were the ones that were positive another ice age was upon us in the 70s"



very very few scientists in the 70s believed that. there was definitely no consensus.



as for your links, just go to the environment --> global warming section on Y!A. i'm sure they can find you tons of links. many of the regular users have degrees in climatology
Middleclassandnotquiet
2007-10-13 10:44:46 UTC
Even if you rather not believe the many scientists about Global warming, it would seem you could agree that cleaner air, and water and greater use of alternative energies is good for all of us.
stupidcaucasian
2007-10-13 10:52:06 UTC
Is man responsible for the Martian ice caps also receding, or it because the SUN is burning hotter?
anonymous
2007-10-13 10:37:55 UTC
you need to distinguish global warming

from MAN MADE global warming. That is where the debate rises.



facts that support the world is warming



1 The earth was ocvered with ice

not it has less ice

Heat melts ice

there fore the earth has heated.



More information about made made global warming.

the eath has warmed about 0.6 degrees in the last 120 years.

45% of that is due to greene house gass

about 30% of green house gass is CO2

about 15% of CO2 is from emmission.

you do the math.
Sordenhiemer
2007-10-13 10:37:05 UTC
Put this in the Global Warming section. Not the Politics section.
Big Paesano
2007-10-13 10:43:05 UTC
Why would he put this in the section where it belongs when the Republican party has completely politicized the crap out of the whole topic?
Think 1st
2007-10-13 10:39:55 UTC
"Causes of Global Warming"







“As human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground, we need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run." (Ed Ayres, editor of Worldwatch magazine, Nov/Dec 2001)



Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants

In 2002 about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Executive Summary p. 10



Coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil. Natural gas gives off 50% of the carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, released by coal and 25% less carbon dioxide than oil, for the same amount of energy produced. Coal contains about 80 percent more carbon per unit of energy than gas does, and oil contains about 40 percent more. For the typical U.S. household, a metric ton of carbon equals about 10,000 miles of driving at 25 miles per gallon of gasoline or about one year of home heating using a natural gas-fired furnace or about four months of electricity from coal-fired generation.



Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars

About 20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).US Emissions Inventory 2004 Vehicles with poor gas mileage contribute the most to global warming. For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air. [21] A new Honda Insight that gets 61 miles to the gallon will only emit about 161 pounds of carbon dioxide over the same distance of 500 city miles. Sports utility vehicles were built for rough terrain, off road driving in mountains and deserts. When they are used for city driving, they are so much overkill to the environment. If one has to have a large vehicle for their family, station wagons are an intelligent choice for city driving, especially since their price is about half that of a sports utility. Inasmuch as SUV's have a narrow wheel base in respect to their higher silhouette, they are four times as likely as cars to rollover in an accident. [33]



The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day. In his debate with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "If we can get 3 miles more per gallon from our cars, we'll save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the (Arctic National Wildlife) Refuge at its best in Alaska would produce."



If car manufacturers were to increase their fleets' average gas mileage about 3 miles per gallon, this country could save a million barrels of oil every day, while US drivers would save $25 billion in fuel costs annually.



Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation causes 3.5 percent of global warming, and that the figure could rise to 15 percent by 2050.



Carbon Dioxide from Buildings

Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emissions.



Methane

While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important. According to the IPCC, Methane is more than 20 times as

effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years. [18] Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Most of the world’s rice, and all of the rice in the United States, is grown on flooded fields. When fields are flooded, anaerobic conditions develop and the organic matter in the soil decomposes, releasing CH4 to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice plants. US Emissions Inventory 2004



Nitrous oxide

Another greenhouse gas is Nitrous oxide (N2O), a colourless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odour, commonly known as "laughing gas", and sometimes used as an anaesthetic. Nitrous oxide is naturally produced by oceans and rainforests. Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is broken down in the atmosphere by chemical reactions that involve sunlight.



Deforestation

After carbon emissions caused by humans, deforestation is the second principle cause of atmospheric carbn dioxide. (NASA Web Site) Deforestation is responsible for 25% of all carbon emissions entering the atmosphere, by the burning and cutting of about 34 million acres of trees each year. We are losing millions of acres of rainforests each year, the equivalent in area to the size of Italy. [22] The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. We are also losing temperate forests. The temperate forests of the world account for an absorption rate of 2 billion tons of carbon annually. [3] In the temperate forests of Siberia alone, the earth is losing 10 million acres per year.



City Gridlock

In 1996 according to an annual study by traffic engineers [as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle December 10, 1996] from Texas A and M University, it was found that drivers in Los Angeles and New York City alone wasted 600 million gallons of gas annually while just sitting in traffic. The 600 million gallons of gas translates to about 7.5 million tons of carbon dioxide in just those two cities.



Carbon in Atmosphere and Ocean

The atmosphere contains about 750 billion tons of carbon, while 800 billion tons are dissolved in the surface layers of

the world's oceans. World Resources Institute



Permafrost

Permafrost is a solid structure of frozen soil, extending to depths of 2.200 feet in some areas of the arctic and subarctic regions, containing grasses, roots, sticks, much of it dating back to 30,000 years. About 25% of the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere hold permafrost, which is defined as soil whose temperature has been 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius) for a period of at least 2 years. Permafrost is under 85% of Alaska land surface and much of Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia and holds about 14 per cent of the world's carbon. The hard permafrost on which is built homes and other buildings, can, with rising temperatures, turn into a soft material causing subsidence and damage to buildings, electric generating stations, pipelines and other structures. Ground instability would cause erosion, affect terrain, slopes, roads, foundations and more. [121]





Svein Tveitdal, Managing Director of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID) in Arendal, Norway, a UNEP environmental information center monitoring the thawing of permafrost, told a meeting at the 21st session of the United Nation's Governing Council in Nairobi, Kenya on February 7, 2001: "Permafrost has acted as a carbon sink, locking away carbon and other greenhouse gases like methane, for thousands of year. But there is now evidence that this is no longer the case, and the permafrost in some areas is starting to give back its carbon. This could accelerate the greenhouse effect." (83)





In a December, 2005 study climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that climate change may thaw the permafrost located in the top 10 feet of permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. According to the NCAR press release (December 19, 2005) permafrost may contain 30% of all the carbon found in soil worldwide. In areas to a depth of 11.2 feet climate models (assuming business as usual scenarios) show permafrost presently in an area of 4,000,000 square miles shrinking to 1,000,000 square miles by 2050 and 400,000 square miles by 2100. With a scenario of low emissions (assuming a high degree use of alternative energy sources and conservation) permafrost is still expected to shrink to 1.5 million miles by 2100.........In a USA Today (December 26, 2005) interview David Lawrence says, "If that much near-surface permafrost thaws, it could release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that could amplify global warming," ….."We could be underestimating the rate of global temperature increase."



In a study reported in the journal Science June 16, 2006 (see San Francisco Chronicle article) researchers say that thawing permafrost may add to the buildup in atmospheric greenhouse gases significantly, stating that present climate models do not include releases of Siberian carbon dioxide from permafrost. Dr. Ted Schuur of the University of Florida traveled to Siberia and secured samples of permafrost soil up to 10 feet in length, maintaining it in a frozen state until arriving back in his laboratory, where the thawing soil was attacked by microbes, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. The frightening scenario that scientists, Sergey A. Zimov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ted Schuur and Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, paint is one of hundreds of billions of tons of greenhouse gases entering an already destabilized atmosphere this century, spurring yet more warming in a positive feedback syndrome. Extend this scenario to Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia, where permafrost underlies much of these regions and there's no other way to describe it. We're in trouble.

<>

Tundra

A name very suited to the environs of the arctic and subarctic, tundra means 'treeless plain' in Finnish. The tundra is a biome (a major segment of a particular region having distinctive vegetation, animals and microorganisms adapted to a unique climate), home to about 1700 kinds of plants, including shrubs, mosses, grasses, lichens and 400 kinds of flowers.



About 50 billion tons of carbon are estimated to be held in a frozen state in the tundra, and now the tundra is beginning to become a source of carbon dioxide. In the 1970's University of California biologist Walter Oechel studied carbon dioxide emissions in the tundra, which until this time had been thought of as a carbon sink. Doing further tests in the 1980's, Oechel discovered that this was no longer the case, that warming temperatures had changed the tundra to a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Says Oechel, " We found to our great surprise that the tundra was already losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So that by the start of these experiments, which was in 1982, the tundra had already warmed and dried enough, that its historic role as a carbon sink had reversed and changed. It was now losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That was totally unexpected."


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...