A question about global warming?

Elmo Tervo: what an innocent question !!

Lashawnda Anteby: There is no evidence whatsoever that humans are responsible for the small amount of warming the Earth has experienced over the last several decades. However there is overwhelming evidence that the warming was caused by the Sun. For the best explanation watch the videos below. Some of the world's top climate scientists appear and they can explain it much better than me.The Great Global Warming Swindlehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

Antonia Mogg: its human caused . there are a lot of proofs and research that human is the caused of global warming . YES ! we're not responsible for it but we are-- who will feel the EFFECT of it ! we should act to change this g.w - like those who are doing their best and a way not to totally destroyed the nature ..

Hollis Demasters: Every scientist who says that human beings are not repsonsible for global warming is on the payroll of interested parties, eg.! the gas-oil industry. There is no doubt that human civilization is causing its own demise.

Zora Mazzie: Yes, there's evidence. Google scientific conference on global warming. Many state and even federal agencies actually have created positions dealign with the consequences of global warming. Humans are ruining the earth....Show more

Kristina Brockwell: Sorry, Maxx, your answer is not completely correct. Yes there are warming periods in the paleoclimate records, but those were warmings following by coolings that were off the chart. The planet was inhabitable during those times: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5...Now let's take a close look at the modern climate record: http://entergy.com/global/images/corporate/inline/...The graph clearly indicates a very sharp jump of the global temperature average since the industrial revolution which was a period when people ignorantly dumped a bunch of greenhouse gases and pollutants into the atmosphere, oc! ean, and geosphere. Some might argue against this because of t! he Earth atmospheric composition, but there are more than just anthropogenic carbon dioxide that's warming the planet, there are also methane (ex. heater), nitrous oxide (ex. fertilizer) and many more.Furtheremore, Maxx, your claim about solar activity is not completely true. This graph shows Sunspot activity has actually declined slightly in the last few years but the temperature was still increasing: http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/wp-con...And also, just look at Venus, a planet with the same size of Earth but with much more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which makes it inhabitable or sustain any life form. You may argue its proximity to the Sun, but then just look at Mercury which is much closer to the Sun but much cooler than Venus.MechPebbles is right to some extent, here's an interesting article on that subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/01/......Show more

Rose Krouse: Sure there is evidence if you believe that C02 causes cli! mate change which is of course ridiculous considering that c02 levels and a change in temperature have a lag of about 800 years. The Great Global Warming Swindle watch it. Then watch Al Gores movie...tell me which is more scientific.

Dan Seen: Given the adjective 'scientific', then the answer is 'almost none'.First, 'scientific' requires that the study must be reproducible by others. None of the surface temperature datasets can be reproduced or independently verified, and thus are not products of the scientific method.http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/cru-ncdc-a...Second, the *magnitude* of the warming in the 20th century is in considerable doubt. Statistical analysis of the HadCrut dataset (favorite of the IPCC), indicates that it is contaminated by non-climactic factors, probably the urban heat island effect; the non-climactic factors appear to account for about half the warming shown in the dataset.“Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, noncl! imatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperatu! re trend over land by about half.”McKitrick, R., & Michaels, P. (2007). Quantifying the influence of anthropogenicsurface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/rrm-pjm-1207.pdIf you look at the IPCC reports, or view the video series "To What Degree" on the NSF website, you will see that the case for *anthropogenic* global warming rests on three arguments: 1) the science says so, 2) the CO2 correlates with the temperature record, and 3) 'statistical analysis' (meaning computer models). Taken individually or all together, these fail to meet the standard of the scientific method:1) The Science: the greenhouse effect from CO2 is too small to explain the warming. They postulate a positive feedback, involving water vapor, to magnify the effect of CO2 to explain the warming. This positive feedback has never been proven, and multiple studies indicate it may not exist.2) The Tempe! rature Record: by this they mean correlation, i.e. the rise in CO2 correlates with the rise in temperature. But the correlation is not that good; its r^2 value is only 0.44. There are other factors that have higher correlations. Also, correlation is not causation, even if it is high.3) Statistical Analysis: models are not evidence. They can be made to say anything, depending on the coefficients you choose. For a model to be deemed usable to predict anything, it has to be validated, i.e. shown to predict correctly from real data. Their models have failed every validation test to which they have been subjected.Note: the correlation strength between temperatures and the length of the solar cycle is 0.8911...over double that with CO2.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengthan...Yet, the warmists claim that the AGW effect is 'fact', that the 'science is settled', and that it is 'incontrovertible'.“One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is in! fallibly certain and irrefutable. Claims of infallibility and the deman! d for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience...Pseudoscientists are fond of pointing out the consistency of their theories with the known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything.”http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/ch9.pdf...Show more

Dexter Dicostanzo: What warming? The 0.2 degrees (see link) that we were above the average of the last century and a half? Without a long-winded answer: yes. Humans cause a small fraction of global warming. How can anything on the planet not have an effect? But the major factor in climate is natual causes. Warmer is good. Did you think cooler is good?

Tijuana Tatsak: Global warming is merely the warming of the globe. Anthropogenic global warming, which is probably what you are talking about, needs to be differentiated from global warming because many who deny that those changes are occurring because of humans often muddle the ! argument by claiming that people who accept the reality of it are being disingenuous with regards to the differences between the two. So now that that is out of the way we can discuss the reality of anthropogenic global warming.Anthropogenic global warming is a consequence of human interaction with their environment and the emissions of greenhouse gases as a consequence of that increasing the amount of longwave energy retention, or that energy that is re-emitted from the colder Earth after the shortwave solar energy from the warmer Sun has been absorbed by the surface, within the troposphere and hydrosphere. Certain gases with an uneven distribution of electric charges, called an electric dipole, and more than one atom per molecule have the ability to absorb radiation at these longer wavelengths.As you increase the amount of these gases in the atmosphere the amount of radiation at those specific wavelengths leaving the atmosphere decreases. Satellite measurements show this ! to be occurring and the wavelengths, which are attributable to specific! greenhouse gases, it is occurring at (1, 2). As you can see more radiation associated with frequencies related to CO2, methane, water vapour, ozone, and various other gases are the frequencies that are being retained by the atmosphere more. If you look at the data in those specific studies you also see how much of an effect each gasses increasing concentration has. The major greenhouse gasses being water vapour, a feedback relating to temperature and not a forcing, CO2, the most concentrated possible forcing gas associated with human emissions with concentrations over 390 parts per million (ppm) and the most widely emitted gas by human interaction with their environment, methane, another growing greenhouse gas that has concentrations over 1.5ppm and growing, and ozone, tropospheric ozone emissions are the result of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.The major forcing gas associated with the current warming is CO2. CO2 goes through two different cycles on different t! ime periods. One known as the biological carbon cycle where carbon is cycled through the atmosphere, the biosphere and the hydrosphere. The other is the geological carbon cycle where carbon is often formed into rocks such as limestone and fossil fuels such as oil, lignite and coal. The problem with human usage of fossil fuels is that humans are adding more carbon into the biological carbon cycle that would not be there due to the slow turnover of carbon in the geological carbon cycle. This is reflected in the increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration, which is increasing at a rate of roughly 2ppm or 15.8gt annually (3), the increasing amount of carbon with 12 isotopes as opposed to that with 13 isotopes as plant-based matter, or that which most fossils fuels are most likely comprised, has a bias for 12C (4), and declining atmospheric oxygen concentration as that oxygen is now incorporated into CO2 molecules (5). We can also look at how annual human emissions, at over 30gt, c! ompare to the atmospheric increase mentioned above (6).The reality of i! t is is that humans are increasing the temperature within the troposphere by adding greenhouse gases that would not be there naturally and are throwing the natural carbon cycle, or that cycle where the natural emissions of CO2 are generally offset by natural carbon sinks, out of wack. Several lines of additional evidence corroborate this including decreasing sea surface pH during a warming period where, naturally, the opposite would occur, due to increased CO2 uptake (7) as well as, perhaps, increased oceanic dead zones due to weakening upwelling caused by changes in trade wind activity (8)....Show more