Global Warming

=] asked:


what’s the difference between global warming and the greenhouse effect?
they all seem the same!
thanks.

Carlton

James William Smith asked:


In 2008, scientists from all over the world are jumping off the man-made global warming bandwagon. This is due to the fact that environmental study after study concludes that the behavior of man is not the cause of significant global warming.

In a recently released Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presented data showing that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over and that we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades.

He also suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.

Meanwhile, David Douglass and John Christy, in a paper just accepted for publication and now available on the internet, have come to the conclusion that natural changes in global water temperature are responsible for an increase in global temperature. Here is their scientific conclusion:

“El Nino and La Nina effects in the tropics have a more significant affect on global temperature anomalies than carbon dioxide, in particular it was an El Nino event that drove the 1998 global temperature maximum”.

At NASA, Dr. Roy Spencer, believes natural cycles account for most of last century’s warming, with carbon dioxide increases contributing only a modest amount.

His new research, which was submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for publication, shows that climate models overstate the positive feedback from an increase in carbon dioxide, and therefore grossly overstate the projected warming during the next century

In addition, two new studies (article in Science Magazine) point to wind-induced circulation changes in the ocean as the dominant cause of the recent ice losses through the glaciers draining both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, not ‘global warming.’

In June, Dr. David Evans, an architect of Australia’s Kyoto compliance, and for years a noted climate change alarmist, became the latest man-made global warming doubter. Evans outlines the four main reasons why 2008 has become the year of the global warming skeptic and why he recently jumped off of the global warming bandwagon.

1.The missing “greenhouse signature”, which would be a hot zone about 10 km up in the atmosphere. It’s been sought for years - hundreds of measurements using radiosondes (a sort of temperature measuring weather balloon). It would constitute the smoking gun . Hundreds of tests have returned the same answer - it’s not there. It is statistically impossible that the hundreds of tests missed the spot. The existing models on greenhouse warming do not work without this hot zone.

2. “There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming” says Evans. “None”. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations” constituting evidence that carbon emissions are a significant driver in warming trends.

3. Satellites measuring the world’s temperature uniformly show that the warming trend stopped in 2001 and that in the past year the temperature actually returned to 1980 levels. Satellite measurements are the only truly reliable method for capturing the data as land-based measurements are vulnerable to encroachments of expanding cities and “urban heat island effect.”

4.”The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.”

As global temperatures continue to cool and research against man-made global warming continues to pile up, as scientists abandon the man-made global warming bandwagon, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. The cause of global climate change should be based on facts and evidence and not just our fear.



Carolyn

ALy asked:


I am doing a project on global warming. I need something that tells what people can do to stop global warming and I need to know how overpopulation plays into global warming.

Aubrey

Amelie Mag asked:


There has been a lot of talk on the subject of global warming. Specialists believe that human activities in the past 50 years have given a negative boost to climate change. After a long series of tests and chart observations, it seems that the primary culprit for global warming is the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). These gases have altered the composition of the atmosphere and raised the planet’s temperature with almost 1?C since 1950.

The problem is not that these gases exist. They have always been in the atmosphere, but there is a major increase in their concentration. The planet started to heat up and the climate change appeared simultaneously with the beginning of industrial revolution. Then, at the start of a new era, the concentrations of carbon dioxide increased with nearly 30%, methane almost doubled and nitrous oxide with 15% making global warming a serious, even deadly matter.

These figures are truly concerning due to the fact that we rely on fossil fuels to drive, to heat and to power factories not thinking of the harsh reality: burned fossil fuels are the main reason for the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to global warming and accelerating the rate of climate change.

Still, the combustion of fuel is not the only one to blame for global warming. Researchers consider that the development of agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining are also to blame. Each one of them has ‘helped’ induce large, global, abrupt climate change leading to a warmer planet, making it more difficult for us to live.

The statistics in climate change are frightening. Almost 98% of the greenhouses emissions are due to pollution and it is no surprise that the most powerful and rich country (U.S) on the continent is mainly responsible for global warming. 1998 has been declared the warmest year on record and scientistists are concerned that the snow cover in northern hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Do we really pay enough attention to the climate change and do we want the planet to become too warm for us to live in?

We are all threathened by this sudden climate change. Global warming is not a joke and we should start paying more attention to it. Not only wildlife, forests and coastal areas are vulnerable to the climate change that the greenhouse gas may bring, but also water resources, animals and most important our health.

What should we expect from global warming? First of all, a change that will have a major impact on the way we live will be a warmer weather. Climate change will appear in the form of increased precipations worldwide, with acid rainfalls that will damage the natural habitat, with more frequent and intense storms that will build up and result in powerful hurricanes. And this is just the top of the ‘iceberg’ called global warming. The hurricanes will be stronger than usual with greater devastating powers.

The population of the globe should be taught more about these greenhouse gases that are held responsible for climate change and more specific, global warming. Carbon dioxide is realeased into the atmosphere when wood, fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) and solid waste are burned. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of oil, gas and coal, but it also results from decomposition of solid, organic waste. Nitrous oxide is the product of: agricultural and industrial activities, combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. So, do we still have to wonder why these greenhouse gases have such a strong impact on climate change?

Unfortunately, there are not many options to reduce the effects of global warming. Lately, in order to predict climate change, specialists have put up what is called an emission inventory which registers the quantity of air pollutants in the atmosphere. It also establishes the identity of the polluting agent (chemical/physical), the geographic area covered, the time period over which emissions are appreciated and the type of activities that cause the emissions. This way, the scientific community is making an effort to reduce the serious consequences of global warming.

Another solution for the problem of global warming is recycling. It started years ago in powerful and well developed states and it is a novelty for poor, undergoing tranzition states that are struggling to survive. But, slowly, people all over the world are learning about the strong effects of recycling newspapers, plastic, glass, metal. It is a healthy action that makes the world a better place. By recycling, we not only help ourselves, but also the forests, crop yields and water supplies which are severely affected by climate change. We also keep in mind the animals and the ecosystems – another sector badly damaged by climate change. We make the difference.

Global warming affects everybody. That is why we must fight against our self destruction and life’s in general. Fight for your planet, don’t let the climate change affect the environment in an irrecoverable manner, keep in mind that Earth’s eco systems are sensitive and must be treated with care, and you will have a future!



Travis

I like to know asked:


We all know about global warming, and how it is causing the ice to melt, the earth getting polluted, and all the other things happening to the earth, like rising temperatures and such, but when is it really going to come into effect? When will we experience everything? In 5 or 10 years? In 100 years? In 1000 years? in 10 000 years?
Is there a definite answer? Or will the earth just suddenly ‘die out’ one day?

Conchita

James William Smith asked:


The problem with the true believer is that an issue becomes black and white. There is no room for discussion. The true believer is right and if you do not agree with him/her, you are dead wrong. The fact is the true believer is not satisfied just with the knowledge that they are right. They need you to acknowledge that they are right as well. They need to convert you. There can be no dissension. There can be no discourse. Facts do not really matter if they do not fit into the true believer’s argument.

In extreme and violent terms we have seen this behavior manifest itself throughout history. The Crusades and the misguided horrors of Nazi Germany in the Second World War are examples. Today the violent true believer mentality can be seen in the extreme elements of Islam.The true believer mentality also exists in less dramatic and more subtle ways throughout our society. It can be seen in ethnic, racial or gender discrimination. It can be seen in religious intolerance. Unfortunately, it was also be seen in the United Nations sponsored climate change event in Bali in December 2007.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said: Climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet,” and the effects are “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do.

In fact, the United Nations reports that global warming is “unequivocal”. It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia’s largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “I expect the world’s policy makers to do the same.”

According to the United Nations true believers, global warming is “unequivocal” and the world scientists “have spoken clearly and with one voice”. There is no discussion. There is no dissent. All knowledgeable people now have been converted to this crusade. The reality, of course, is that global warming consensus is not the case in the scientific community.

Indeed for the Nobel winning United Nations panel (IPCC) and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, fundamental problems with their global warming argument have already started to appear. As true believers in their global warming crusade, they will probably rationalize or ignore all facts that do not advance the cause. For the rest of us, as objective observers of the issue of global warming, the following facts should be carefully considered.

Global warming was supposed to cause frequent and violent hurricanes. The fact is that neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S..

Since the mid 19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly now for the last nine years.

In fact , 2007 provides anecdotal evidence that the Earth is, in effect, cooling. Antarctica is getting colder. Snow fell for the first time in Buenos Aires since 1918. Australia had the coldest June in its history this year. It snowed in South Africa for the first time in 15 years. South America experienced one of its coldest winters in the last three decades.

The truth is that the entire southern hemisphere experienced bitter cold weather in 2007. In addition, the Canadian government has just warned that this winter is likely to be its coldest in at least 15 years. Already, this winter has been very cold in many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere as well.

We have heard about global warming causing the rapidly melting Arctic Ice Cap in the last several years. In fact, advocates of man made global warming point to the rapidly melting Arctic ice as a sign that global warming is occurring even faster than expected.

However, the facts as reported by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California last month indicate a quite different conclusion. The melting of the Arctic sea ice in this study has nothing to do with global warming. It was a natural phenomenon caused by unusual winds and atmospheric pressure.

The project studied trends in Arctic Sea Ice using satellite data , computer models and buoy observations of sea ice drift. The conclusion of the study was as follows: “The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century”.

Global warming proponents have pointed out that records showed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the United States. Several of the years surrounding 1998 were very warm and near the record as well. It certainly appeared that the climate was warming due to these historical records. However, it has just been discovered that the records were erroneous. A Canadian blogger named Steve McIntyre audited the NASA records and found errors. When he reported his findings to NASA scientists, they conducted a review that showed he was correct.

This led NASA to recently revise the data published on its website. The errors change the historical facts concerning the global warming argument. The hottest year in the United States is no longer 1998, but 1934. 2001 is no longer in the Top Ten. Instead, four of the top ten hottest years are in the 1930s.

Global warming is an issue that needs to be looked at objectively. It is an issue for rational discourse concerning science and facts. However, it has become a crusade for environmental true believers. Despite the United Nations rhetoric, scientists do not speak with “one voice” and man-made global warming is not “unequivocal”.

The danger in blindly following the United Nations global warming crusaders is that we become far removed from the facts of the issue. Indeed, these same United Nations true believers could one day be wearing winter coats in tropical Bali asking Gaia, (the goddess of nature), for increased global warming. Such perversity happens when an issue becomes a crusade.



Emanuel

Steve C asked:


Its like these people don’t want to state the main reason for Global warming, the massive overpopulation of the Earth? How can we solve this situation if we won’t admit what the real problem is?

Lucas

Oswald J. Eppers asked:


In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their Fourth Assessment Report that human actions are “very likely” (i.e. with 90% or greater probability) the cause of global warming, indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. This statement is the result of very tough discussions on a worldwide scale between thousands of climate researchers whether human activity is the main cause of global warming. The results of this discussion were presented to the public in many publications, for instance in Martin Durkin´s documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, presented in March 2007 at UK´s Channel 4. The main message of this production was that man-made global warming is “a lie” and “the biggest scam of modern times.” Martin Durkin and coworkers argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is the product of “a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media”. The documentary showcases scientists, politicians, economists, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming. Some of the scientists, opposing the main stream of greenhouse gas theories, simply argue that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming or if there are other natural variations responsible for this phenomenon like increased solar activity, cosmic rays or variations in natural climatic cycles. There is also a series of scientists questioning the temperature records used in the databases as temperature differences attributed to the greenhouse effect are reasonable small (fractions of a ºC). The so-called “urban heat island” effect leads to a local warming in more populated areas, showing slightly higher temperatures due to to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise. Anyhow, this argument was confuted by the IPPC, indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.

Other facts presented by the film were shown to be incorrect or misinterpreted. The film asserts for instance that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. Anyhow, it is well recognized that this cooling was driven mostly by aerosols (i.e. pollution) in the atmosphere. There is nothing contradictory about this cooling when all sources of radiation changes are considered. A second argument that easily can be invalidated is the impact of the so-called “solar variation theory” on global warming. According to the authors, solar activity (and involving cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation) is currently at an extremely high level and directly linked to changes in global temperature. The film argues that solar activity is far more influential on global warming than any other anthropogenic or natural activity on Earth. What the film does not mention is that solar activity has declined over the last 30 years - at the same time as the major spike in global temperature.

But there are some statements related to the influence of the oceanic mass and water vapour on climate change which are more difficult to confute. Water vapour makes up about 98% of the greenhouse gases by volume and provides something between 40 to 80 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. It probably has the largest impact on the planet’s temperature and climatic conditions, much larger than CO2. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. This argument probably is correct and it is well recognized that water vapor is responsible for the natural warming up of the surface temperature to approximately 30-35ºC. Anthropogenic greenhouse effect, according to the film’s argumentation, is only about 2% of the total “natural” greenhouse effect, which corresponds to a 0.6-0.7 ºC increase in temperature. This estimate is somewhat smaller compared to the results of much more sophisticated simulations (0.9 – 2.7ºC), but there is undoubtedly an anthropogenic effect of CO2 increasing the average surface temperature.

One example of the complexity of climatic simulations is the prediction of future storm events considering global warming effects. According to a recently published study, published online by research meteorologist Tom Knutson in the journal Nature Geoscience and resumed in the New York Times (May 18, 2008), global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic. The study predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic. And Knutson is not alone with this view. Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, also say there is no link between global warming and hurricane frequency. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle. According to the prediction, the number of hurricanes touching land in the US and its neighbors will drop by about 30 percent because of wind factors. However, the biggest storms, those with winds of more than 110 mph, would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. The biggest decrease is forecasted for storms with winds between 39 and 73 mph (normal tropical storms), who would decrease by 27 percent.

It’s not all good news from Knutson’s study, however. His computer model also forecasts that “hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent”, Knutson’s study says.

There are already critical reactions on this new publication. MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel claims that the computer model used by Knutson is not adequate enough to look at storms and according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., Knutson’s computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and ”fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity.” It also does not considering well enough the intensity, duration and size of the storm events, as not only the number of hurricanes is important to evaluate.

Positive feedback comes from NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea , who wasn’t part of this study, praised Knutson’s work as ”very consistent with what’s being said all along.” ”I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny,” Landsea said.



Felipe

Sloth asked:


Why are liberals accepting the idea of global warming, and conservatives dismissing it? How did this become a political issue? Isn’t the real issue above partisan politics?

Daniel

J asked:


Is global warming a serious problem? Would you be willing to make personal sacrifices to address the issue? California has taken the lead in addressing the problem of global warming. Should Texas follow suit?

Destiny