Global warming, yes or no?

No to 2012 wrote:

Actually, manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities.

No matter how many times you say this, it is still FALSE.

"Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times:"

Volcanic emissions of CO2 are approximately 1% that of anthropogenic emissions:

"volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources:"

...and there are about a hundred other cites as well.....

Back in the 70s they were concerned about global cooling. Check out the link to the Newsweek article from 1975. There was talk about melting the polar ice cap with soot to compensate for the global COOLING.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

I'm gonna just stick my head in the sand and wait it out ...

No use convincing such intellects as we have on this board.

everyone is right without a doubt. I have never read a post here where someone has been shown facts and then changed their minds.

I also believe the earth is fat .. just look at a map!

oops ... flat!

ummm a five percent change in the total DOES matter... especially when its not part of the natural cycle. yes there was an ice age followed by a warming trend, but it wasn't because humans polluted the atmosphere. when we force a change that isnt natural we get consequences that arent natural, and a five percent add in carbon dioxide may not seem like a lot but when youre talking about it on a large scale it is, especially when it only takes one degree to move from being frozen to melting.

No

I don't believe everything the media sell me.

The worlds temps always fluctuated. How do we know what the optimal temp for the planet is anyways?

Yes, and for those who say no...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

Also, it is interesting to note the vast majority of scientific articles argue that global warming does exist, whereas the majority of popular articles(non-scientific) say it may or may not be.

yep, the media has created this controversy

scientist all agree

and scientist are the only people whose opinion on the subject actually matters

so i'd say everyone (especially those saying no) on here are wasting their time

komat b tomat wrote:

yep, the media has created this controversy

scientist all agree

and scientist are the only people whose opinion on the subject actually matters

so i'd say everyone (especially those saying no) on here are wasting their time

Actually others opinions do matter. If it does exist and noone believes it then policy will not be changed. This is a serious problem the media is creating, contradicting scientific evidence, that has serious ramifications.

komat b tomat wrote:

yep, the media has created this controversy

scientist all agree

and scientist are the only people whose opinion on the subject actually matters

so i'd say everyone (especially those saying no) on here are wasting their time

agreed. i am not a climate scientist. therefore, i respect the fact that climate scientists know more than me on this subject. so when there is a consensus among scientists on the issue, i listen to them.

i would not defer to a scientist to answer political or pop culture questions, so why are we deferring to politicians to answer scientific questions?

(and although i am not a climate scientist, i have studied the topic quite a bit. the "global cooling" you were referring to in the 70s was a result of nitrous oxides, which do, in fact, cool the earth. they also contribute to acid rain, which is why they became regulated. so the artificial coolant was taken away. that's why there are some proposals now to inject the upper atmosphere with nitrous oxides to artificially cool the earth. just an fyi. not that i'd expect you naysayers to listen to scientists for actual answers on this one.)

Not sure (if global warming is human caused)

But even if it is just a cycle of nature and not human caused, we shouldn't ignore it. If my doctor told me I had heart disease due to my genetics, I certainly wouldn't eat at McDonalds. It'd be foolish to make a bad situation worse even if it is was primarily caused by nature not my bad decisions.

i'm surprised at how many don't believe in global warming, although I probably shouldn't be. in an analysis of published scientific studies, 100% said that humans are contributing to global warming, whereas 53% of articles published by popular media cast doubt onto whether or not it is caused by humans. who are you going to trust? a scientist or a journalist? the journalist really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to this stuff.

we can determine atmospheric co2 and temperature levels from the last 650,000 years and the current levels are twice what we have seen in all of that time and heading up at a rapid rate. graphing co2 and temperature levels show a direct correlation between the two and we have witnessed this first hand in the last 10 years.

i can understand that people don't want to believe in global warming, however, in 50 years when sea levels have risen 40 ft. because the polar ice caps are gone and we continue to collect data on c02 and corresponding temperature change we will all believe it, unfortunately it will be too late.

so, to answer your question... yes!

Nature didn't create paving & tarmac. Just fly into Phoenix Sky Harbor airport to see the extent of it in this hellhole. Urban heat islands are very real. 20 years ago the average July overnight low was approx 75; now it is approx 85. Please explain that to me, skeptics.

Carbon increase due to nature vs carbon increase due to humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

joton wrote:

How do we know what the optimal temp for the planet is anyways?

I can't believe that this little piece of the oil companies' PR campaign is actually catching on.

Google: Little Ice Age 17th century

The problem with posting a graph like that is, despite having all the data sources cited and made available for download, naysayers can just write it off saying, "Oh, the contributor is just another climatologist who's out of touch with ordinary Americans. Oh wait, he's just a PhD student at Berkeley. Great!"

And what the hell is an ordinary American? Please define the stereotype for me. I thought the pursuit of an education and academic knowledge was part of the foundation for a healthy, robust society. Surely ordinary Americans share those ideals.

Start with:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Some folks have taken to claiming that any increase in global temps is because we are coming out of the "little ice age". We find, however, that the little ice age was far more regional in effect.

In any case, as some have already stated, individual opinions on this do not matter as far as its truth is concerned. It does, however, matter when it comes to policy. This is not a case of "belief". I can *believe* that electric lights work by a form of luminescent fungus, but that doesn't mean that they do.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Google: Little Ice Age 17th century

Wow--you've heard of the Little Ice Age! You must be an expert.