Who do so many people believe the Global Warming Scam?

College Confidential Community
61

<p>I mean 400+ electoral votes. If Obama does well in office and runs against someone like Palin it's definitely possible.</p>

62

<p>I don't believe in global warming and here's why. When I was a wee lass of 10 or 12, the same types of people were pimping recycling programs, carpooling, etc. And do you know what excuse they used to scare us? The next ice age. Yes, in the 1970's the whole world was going to be covered in ice in the next 20 years. As we all know that didn't happen, so it was changed to global warming. Once again the people who care oh so much about the environment come to the American taxpayer with gun in hand looking for billions of dollars, using faulty or incomplete data to show what they want to force on the people is necessary, whether their idea is the best solution or even economically feasible. So let's tax farm animals, turn food into fuel, and charge for carbon emissions all so Al Gore and his buddy's can feel good about themselves for having done something -anything - to help the environment.</p>

63

<p>In the 1970's they didn't have the scientific tools for studying soil samples thousands of years ago showing an obvious upward trend in average global temperatures. They worried about an Ice Age because they were experiencing extrema in low temperatures (high too), this also is explained in warming models. I am not some cheerleader for global warming, that's just the fact of the matter. Read my other posts...if ya want.</p>

64

<p>I like how the arguments of global warming deniers consist of "It's cold outside" and "Al Gore's not a scientist" (he didn't come up with global warming, it's been known about since the 90's and has been happening since the industrial revolution)</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
I like how the arguments of global warming deniers consist of "It's cold outside" and "Al Gore's not a scientist" (he didn't come up with global warming, it's been known about since the 90's and has been happening since the industrial revolution)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. Opposition to global warming seems to stem mainly from petty personal issues and not from any kind of intellectual reasoning.</p>

66

<p>republicans bother me</p>

<p>never listen to anyone that thinks that a man is going to come from the sky and take up all of the "believers"</p>

67

<p>Nobody responded to my earlier post so I’ll ask again. Scientists now say that jupiter and neptune are also experiencing global warming, which would seem to prove the sun-activity theory and totally debunk man-made claims. Thoughts?</p>

68

<p>Scientists say a lot of things? There are loads of theories in either way about global warming, you can’t just pick the one that seems to fit with your pre-ordained conclusion and demand that people justify the alternative hypothesis. Unless, of course, your febrile, childish intellect craves the scrap of self-indulgent smugness you award yourself for thinking that you’ve trumped the ivory-tower’d eggheads, their false god-king Science, and the legions of mouthbreathing troglodytes who follow them. Idiot.</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a very stupid reason to have those beliefs.</p>

70

<p>The O.P is an idiot. Take an English class, moron.</p>

<p>The fact is that most scientist agree that global warming is in fact happening. The thing that most people don’t realize is that does not meant that everywhere in the world will be hotter. What will happen will be that some places will get hotter, some will get colder, and weather as a whole will be more extreme. There will be more hurricanes, floods, etc.</p>

<p>Even if you don’t believe in global warming, don’t you think it is better to be safe than sorry?</p>

71

<p>Global warming, if it exists at all, is not due to human activity, but naturally occurring cycles in the Earth. The liberals blow everything out of proportion.</p>

72

<p>“What will happen will be that some places will get hotter, some will get colder, and weather as a whole will be more extreme. There will be more hurricanes, floods, etc.”</p>

<p>This is all because of rising global ocean temperatures.</p>

<p>“Global warming, if it exists at all, is not due to human activity, but naturally occurring cycles in the Earth. The liberals blow everything out of proportion.”</p>

<p>Again, love how believers use arguments based on science, and deniers use arguments based on politics.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Another fine example of taking a piece of scientific data and completely changing it so that it agrees with one’s biases. What was found isn’t that Jupiter’s and Neptune’s temperatures are ‘globally’ warming, but rather their atmospheres’ reflectivity is increasing. This doesn’t, in anyway prove that the inner atmosphere of the planets are any warmer, in fact it is very difficult (in fact impossible from earth) to measure accurately the temperature of the lower atmospheres’ of these Gas Giants (Jupiter and Neptune don’t have surfaces). </p>

<p>This “solar activity cycle” argument is the next farce in a long line of attempts to explain rising temperatures. The problem with discussing global warming is that it is…difficult. It is covering science that isn’t known or understood to the general public (and politicians), and people don’t accept things they don’t understand. So this latest ‘theory’ is believable to people because it makes intrinsic sense: hotter sun equals hotter earth. The problem: it’s wrong! The “science” looked at several particular locations on the sun’s surface and reviewed them multiple times. Of course if you know anything about the sun, you know there are things known as solar flares, Prominences, and other violent phenomena that occur. On something like 65% percent of the places they looked saw an increase in temperature…hardly persuasive science. Especially sense it is known that the sun goes through 22-year period cycles of increased solar activity and decreased solar activity…and we are in a declining period! The broad surface temp of the sun hasn’t changed. Perhaps the most absurd part of this ‘theory’ is that it doesn’t state anything about the rising CO2 levels (a green house gas), which are responsible for our earth’s warming! </p>

<p>I will write up something explaining the evidence we have for Global Warming via CO2 measurements in our atmosphere. It will take some time and isn’t easy to understand…that’s the problem with this debate, but I’ll do my best so people can get a look at the science themselves instead of listening to political commentators who know nothing about the science. I don’t want to say “Global warming is man-made” or “Global warming is all natural”, but to provide the scientific evidence we have and how it affects our earth, and let you decide.</p>

74

<p>The real problem is that we need to stop looking at this as a political issue and start looking at it as a human issue. Our country never gets anywhere because whenever a party, whether democrat or republican, opens their mouth the other party calls foul.</p>

<p>If one party said the other one was good looking, they would start saying how they need paper bags put over their heads.</p>

75

<p>Greenhouse gases cause the Earth’s temperature to increase. Without getting too in to it, basically these particular types of molecules absorb electromagnetic radiation, and then re-radiate it in a random direction. This differs from non-greenhouse gases where most of the time EM waves pass straight through them. Because of this re-emitting, roughly 50% of radiation emitted from earth’s surface get reflected back. 50% of those waves are reflected back to the surface again, etc etc. So more greenhouse gases equals more reflected waves equals higher temperature.</p>

<p>When CO2 is high, climate is warmer. Now, it’s true that geologic (pre-human) levels of CO2 have exceeded present-day values and have been marked by very warm periods with high sea level. It’s not like we are in completely uncharted rates here. As I’ve said before, the Earth goes through periods of Warming and Cooling, it always has. Specifically, CO2 fluctuations for the past 800million years (note humans in the last 20-30million years) have ranged from 180 to 280 ppmv (parts per million per volume). These values aren’t a complete mystery, they correlate to certain orbital forcing, which I won’t get into. </p>

<p>The point is that CO2 for the 30 million years has been in this level of 180-280 ppmv. We can determine this from deposits in crustal layers, affects in fossilization, etc. Today’s CO2 >380 ppmv. We can tell the CO2 increase is due to the addition of old (fossil) fuels because of the relative lack of the element C14 (carbon-14). C14 is emitted released along with CO2 in things like plant and animal decay (the majority of CO2 Emissions), as well as sulfuric deposits and things like volcanoes and geological vents. So as CO2 levels have increased, the ppmv of C14 has remained the same. Fossil fuels are very distinctive in that they don’t contain C14 (that’s actually one of very definitions of “Fossil Fuel”: the lack of C14 molecules involved).</p>

<p>Also, 96% of fossil fuels are burned in the northern hemisphere. Mixing time between the hemispheres is ~1 year. We can track the increase in the hemispheric gradient in atmospehric CO2 which is significantly larger in northern hemisphere than southern, correlated to the fact above. This goes against natural CO2 emissions because the majority of plant and animal life is in the southern hemisphere (note: it’s not a large majority, but certainly measurable). </p>

<p>When we talk about global warming we are talking about increases beyond 280ppmv. Now, if you increase CO2 from 200-400 ppmv, the ADDITIONAL forcing is 3 W/m2. From 400-600 ppmv, another 1.5 W/m2 (these units are Energy per unit Area, so higher W/m2 is warming). The asymptotic behavior has been used by many physicists - CO2 absorption lines being saturated – hence no worry. The physics is that there is plenty of absorption in the wings, even when the center of the absorption lines saturate. The important message is that we are already seeing changes from 2-3 W/m2 since the predustrial (CO2 + CH4+ CFC etc minus aerosols ).</p>

<p>A useful number to keep in mind is the Equilibrium climate sensitivity value 0.75K/(w/m2), deduced from the 800 million years of record in the ice (pre-human). (K is units of Kelvin, a temperature scale, can be viewed as “warming”) So for the CO2 and other GHG that is already in the air, i.e. a forcing of 2-3 W/2, we expect an eqm warming of 1.5K to 2.4K. What we have experienced today is less than that, because of the delay in the ocean’s warming. i.e. warming already in the pipe, committed warming etc.</p>

<p>Now it seems like we are dealing with pretty small energy increases, especially considering that human CO2 emissions are only around 5% of total global emissions. 2-3 W/m2 is small compared to 40 W/m2 (co2 from 0-200 ppmv) - so is 1K compared to 288K (predustrial climate - all GHG gases, all feedbacks operating). My analogy is my body temperature 37C. A fever of 1K is enough to worry about. 2K is dangerous. So small temperature changes do inflict serious consequences. </p>

<p>So as I stated before, the science for man-based GHG increase is large. The problem is that it’s not easy for the general public to understand: certainly requiring more than the 30 sec news clips allow for. This idea that we aren’t contributing anything is totally wrong. But similarly, the left pushes this “war”, as if we can stop global warming. Frankly, we can’t. Not in the foreseeable short term. Species will die because of shrinking ice caps, it’s sad, but species always die out, it’s not like it’s some new phenomena. Feel free to ask any questions (reply or PM me). I’m just tired of politicians (on both sides) speaking about things they don’t know or understand anything about.</p>

76

<p><a href=“http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over
each continent (except Antarctica)”</p>

<p>Most scientists are firmly in the camp of “global warming exists, and it has been exacerbated greatly by human influences”.</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>Google “Philip Cooney” moron.</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>. . . meh</p>

79

<p>^ what is that suppose to mean? You just won’t accept it because it goes against your political leanings? Listen, I don’t want people to blindly accept anything, Global Warming or not, but you’re not presenting any evidence to support you claim you’re just not accepting the science of what I wrote. There is a difference between not accepting the science and not understanding it.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>I agreeeeeee!</p>

<p>The vast majority of scientists (I read a statistic once that said it’s about 98%) agree that global warming is caused (though not necessarily exclusively) by humans. The 2% that think otherwise are the ones funded by big business and big oil, whose interests in the matter is purely fiscal. (God forbid the government should prohibit excessive pollution!) </p>

<p>Politics only comes into this because those who have political interests in this (NOT the 2% of scientists, but the corporate officials funding them) are predominately conservative. Then, all the sheep say “OMGZ my peeps be h8n on dis global warming!” and all of a sudden its a partisan issue.</p>

<p>Regardless of politics, the science is practically unequivocal.</p>