Can I DISPUTE..... The False Notion of Global Warming with REASON?
Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!"
Where are the Millions of Monitoring Stations to cover the Entire EARTH?
It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!
The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!
HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"
HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?
DO THE MATH!
And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!
Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!
- DarwinLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
The theory of man-made global warming is 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.
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.
CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes 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 is 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.
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.
The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.
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.htm
Second, 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.
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 agencies 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 solar 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.htm
And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm
Quotes 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 precautionary 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 global 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.
- 1 decade ago
If the notion is false then what justifies disputing it. Could it be that its 92 degrees outside my home right now in spring? Who knows. However, Global Warming is an actual scientific term created far before Neo-Conservatives took control of the country. Didn't you ever watch captain planet as a kid? In all honesty, to deny its existence or even the need to care for the planet is enormously naive. People need to stop looking at science as witchcraft and start working together to preserve the planet for generations to come....P.S. do some research kid.Source(s): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html www.ucsusa.org/global_warming www.globalwarming.net www.climatecrisis.net
- 1 decade ago
It's astonishing that anyone with no awareness of sattelite measurement technology should be so definitive in their 'knowldege' of what is and is not measured on a global scale.
Perhaps of you looked at the global ocean observing system website you might learn something. 106,000 reported observations from just under 3,000 stations in just the last 2 days. That's around 18 million observations a year.
Global warming is real, and none of your tantrums will change that simple fact.
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
You are correct in your skepticism. The vast majority of climate models and information comes from North America, and some is from Europe. It is at best Northern Hemishere warming but even that would be misleading. Clearly we have fortunately came out of the little ice age and seem to be heading for warmer times ahead. Global warming should be refered to as global moderation since that is a major effect of greenhouse gases. It moderates the temperatures and increases the lows much more than the highs. As an example, have you ever noticed that a cloudy night is often much warmer. It is because of the effect of water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Keith PLv 71 decade ago
For where the millions of temperature records on GW come from, see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm .
Basic science (which you seem to have missed): it takes 1 Calorie (not BTU) to raise 1 ml of water by 1°C. How much energy would it take to raise the temperature of the earth by 1 degree C? About 250 terawatts, continuously. That's about a tenth of 1% of what we receive from the Sun. I've done the math. Have you?
Ocean temperatures are indeed rising. See http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/055.htm .
And polar temperatures are rising too. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001EOSTr..82....1K .
Reply to Mc:
I have investigated the evidence, 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 wrong. 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 increasing 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 comprehension. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/099.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/100.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/104.htm
8. 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/
- 1 decade ago
This is why people now use the term climate change.
- ?Lv 44 years ago
properly ......that "thought" makes a lots experience and any of the others ....... .....yet ...enable 'em "Come on Down" ......i could choose to have a undergo pores and skin rug ..... and ...i could be doing the "eco-friendly ingredient" ....and my area in battling "international warming" .... ....alongside with Alice ......who's clearly retaining ...recommendations interest ......
- 1 decade ago
One way to keep cool is to bury your head in the sand.