global warming advocates?
i'm a skeptic. here's why:
the IPCC and those who agree with them that global warming is real based their conclusion off of about 100 years of recorded measurements, and base the global warming argument off 30 years of temp. increases (see below for source). they have guesses about what the temperature was before then, but those guesses aren't entirely accurate -- they are simply guesses. the earth has been shown to go through cycles, usually lasting much longer than 100 years. while this argument does not negate the possibility of global warming, it does show that global warming hasn't been proved conclusively.
i would go into why so many scientists believe in if it might not be true, but i don't have enough space. message me if you'd like me to explain. basically, it's if the teacher is all for X, and doesn't state the other side of the argument, the student is inclined to agree.
source for IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/richard_lin...
one more thing though: no offense, but please don't give answers like "you're stupid" or "you don't know what you're talking about". please provide real arguments and only answer if you know what you're talking about, and not simply agreeing with what TV tells you.
also, some advocates claim that when the temperature is up 2 degrees from last year, that that serves as proof for global warming. but no, that happens on the earth all the time. each year the mean temp. is a little different from the year before and after it, due to cycles. besides, it's not like we starting pumping CO2 last year, we've been doing it since the industrial revolution. by their calculations temperature should have raised to the point that no life could survive.
also, CO2 only makes up 5% of greenhouse gases. with those measurements, temperature can only raise a few degrees, and no more.
also, the thermometer hundreds of years ago was not entirely accurate. in fact, it could easily be off several degrees and, because global warming advocates base their evidence on such minute scales (a few degrees over stretches of time), the measurements back in those times are insignificant because they are not unequivocably correct.
same thing for CO2 levels -- it's not entirely accurate.
- BobLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The temperature data is not guesses. It's scientific data of known accuracy. See:
Folland, C.K., N.A. Rayner, S.J. Brown, T.M. Smith, S.S.P. Shen, D.E. Parker, I. Macadam, P.D. Jones, R.N. Jones, N. Nicholls and D.M.H. Sexton (2001). "Global temperature change and its uncertainties since 1861". Geophysical Research Letters 28: 2621-2624
whose results are briefly discussed at:
The CO2 data has been replicated all over the world by hundreds of scientists.
It all basically tells the same story as this:
The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.
Nothing in science is ever "proved conclusively". The first draft of the IPCC report by scientists said they were "virtually certain" that global warming was mostly caused by man. Political pressure by the US and China led that to be changed to "highly likely". Not a major change, and in the wrong direction for skeptics who claim global warming science is influenced by politics to be unfairly blamed mostly on man.
- AndersLv 41 decade ago
Seeing as you aren't entirely honest with your skepticism, I won't give answers to your every issue. Instead, I will respond to that you state that you aren't met with scientific responses.
"also, CO2 only makes up 5% of greenhouse gases. with those measurements, temperature can only raise a few degrees, and no more."
You should state what type of percentage you are referring to. But besides that, what are you basing your statement on? I have looked throw your statement and you aren't very clear. There is also the concept of interaction between the forcer's which you seem to totally have ignored. The natural events that lead to previous climate changes such as the ice ages, were minute. They were just something that started a chain reaction which offset the entire climate. Think of CO2 levels rising which leads to increased temperatures. This leads to diminished ice coverage, which leads to increased temperatures. This leads to a number of other factors coming in to play. We are not simply talking about what CO2 does to the climate, we're talking about the total effects. Even so, a few degrees is a lot when it comes to the climate. Check out the difference between modern temperatures, and when we had an ice age.
"it's not like we starting pumping CO2 last year, we've been doing it since the industrial revolution. by their calculations temperature should have raised to the point that no life could survive."
You haven't though of that the emissions are increasing year by year? Also, since CO2 remains in he atmosphere for a long time their is a build up in CO2 levels.
"to the second poster: i can supply it. look at my two questions: "global warming advocates" and "another one for global warming advocates". i usually have few that counter my argument with statements other than "you're stupid" and for those that do post real statements, i message them and tell them why they're wrong. as of yet none have messaged back."
Please, why don't you answer me here instead of in private? - If I understood you correctly.
- 1 decade ago
You have a point that we have not been studying earth's global temperatures for very long. The Earth does run on a schedule of global warming and global cooling. But, we are starting to tilt the global warming side, this is because of the higher amounts of greenhouse gases and the lower amounts of ozone. If we do just keep polluting and spurting out greenhouse gases the ozone will become to thick and we will die from extreme heat. Now, it may just fix itself in the end but why take a chance. I mean its the Earth the only planet we got, if we lose this one, well then we are all in big trouble.
- Anonymous4 years ago
a million. The IPCC based their end that the planet is warming on not in hassle-free terms thirty years of direct assertion, yet dozens of kind and proxy based temperature reconstructions as properly. 2. The temperature replaced into down in those years for various diverse motives. no person thinks that CO2 is the only motive force of climate. in certainty, many scientists have faith that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 weren't severe adequate tochronic the exchange till around 1940. So the warming as much as that element replaced into often pushed by ability of another forcing agent like the sunlight. putting forward that the warming could desire to all be by way of a "organic cycle" is incomprehensible except you provide data of a few variety of lively organic forcing agent. All those cases while the Earth "have been given warmer or cooler", it did so because of the fact something replaced into =making it= get warmer or cooler. The climate merely does not exchange without something forcing it to. 3. little or no in technological know-how is shown. i don't see why it incredibly is suitable. in certainty the entire ingredient to a minimum of one in each of those technological know-how is to supply us progressed warning =earlier= the data grow to be obtrusive to anybody. 4. call one single scientist who has ever lost a supply or their pastime for not accepting worldwide warming theory. i don't care approximately some nut on CNN asserting that scientists who do not settle for the theory have not have been given any credibility. teach me a single occasion of this certainly happening.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Global warming is a natural function of the planet.The government is just trying to use it as another way to increase taxes and control the public.Unfortunately the general public is stupid and falls prey to what ever lies the government is spouting about at any given time. It's really the chicken little effect. They say the sky is falling and all the idiots run for cover.
- aviophageLv 71 decade ago
I'm inclined to agree that you know what you're talking about.