Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
See http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Believe-In-Global-Warming/2166218 for details of an example of such trickery in the form of a story called "Duped", posted by experienceproject member shannonymous, in which a man believed by her grandfather to be a scientist made use of "a lot of graphs and information" in an attempt to trick her grandfather and others at a Rotary Club meeting into believing that global warming "was not caused by CO2".
m108rfd m108rfd 51-55, M 14 Answers Apr 23 in Politics

Your Response

Cancel

As far as i'm concerned the whole argument is stupid. <br />
<br />
If people were forced to live each day ba<x>sed on a weathermans predictions, how would we live at all?? Climate science is not a finite science. Its about predictability... not addition/subtraction or even common sense. <br />
<br />
Humans do not "own" the planet. We live here but it doesn't belong to us. So why does it matter who's right or wrong? LESS pollution is always better than more. That's the only thing that has been proven accurate.

Best Answer

All deniers are driven by hidden agendas.

Best Answer

It's not so "hidden". I would venture to most deniers are profit driven. Environmental science and protections reduce profits. Or, just political pundits. The party claims its not true, so it must not be true.

Best Answer

I suspect that some global warming denialists are driven by honorarium fees for their speaking engagements. "Follow the money trail", as the saying goes. If a money trail leads to a fossil fuel industry entity such as an oil company or a coal company or a petro-dictator (a dictator of an oil exporting country), then the hidden agenda is pretty much going to be what one would expect: namely, the hidden agenda of getting people to keep using more and more oil and coal.

Best Answer

What do you suppose ended the last six ice ages?

Best Answer

Increases in the amount of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere or in both hemispheres led the way out of the previous glaciations in the Quaternary Period in the last 2 1/2 million years. These increases in sunlight were due to "Milankovic" cycles. More sunlight meant that warming took place, which meant more water vapour.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so even more warming took place.
The increase in temperature meant that organic materials decomposed into CO2, which meant even more warming. Ocean currents changed because of the temperature increases, dredging up CO2-rich water from places in the deep ocean which had previously been almost stagnant. The CO2 from this water entered the atmosphere and caused even more warming. This warming caused even more water vapour to enter the atmosphere, which caused even more warming.
This sequence of events explains the complexity of the true nature of the argument of whether CO2 leads or follows global warming. In reality, a rise in CO2 followed the initial warming from an increased amount of sunlight, and this rise in CO2 then went on to cause an additional amount of warming.

Best Answer

So, natural forces. Yet this time it requires more tax money to resolve? Just what is the correct temperature for the earth and how does anyone know? What would be wrong with a warmer earth?

Best Answer

Mars is warming too. And Jupiter and Pluto...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Best Answer

what caused the last six ice ages?

Best Answer

The correct actual temperature for Earth in 2014 is about 287.80 Kelvin, or 14.65 Celsius. The temperature is from readings from weather stations and oceanic buoys. There is scientific quibbling over how to average in the temperatures at a data gap in the Arctic Ocean, but 14.65 Celsius is a close enough for most purposes.
As far as what would be wrong with a warmer Earth, I see typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines as the first true 21st Century global warming superstorm, with a Dvorak number of more than 8.0 for a time. With a warmer ocean and a colder atmosphere at the 15 kilometer altitude, there will be more convection in 21st Century tropical storms than in the 20th Century tropical storms. In other words, typhoon Haiyan was merely the first of its kind in the 21st Century. As the temperature difference between sea level and the 15 kilometer altitude gets greater, the cap on how strong a storm can get will likewise get greater. This cap on storm strength will get greater for another reason as well. Storm strength is partly a matter of how much water vapour is in the storm region. A warmer ocean means more water vapour. This is true not only in the tropics but in the Arctic Ocean as well, where central pressures that would be considered unusually low in the 20th Century will become more and more common as the Arctic Ocean heats up in the 21st Century. To sum up, a key problem with a warmer Earth in the 21st Century is storm ferocity that will be almost unimaginably high from the point of view of 20th Century standards.

Best Answer

Its because of the SUV's that they maritians. jupitertarians and plutonians are driving.

Best Answer

# 1. You are aware of the false reports of temp in russia a china? What better way for to damage our economy then by do it our selves?
# 2 Are you aware that the stations in the USA are in heat islands? They were first placed at Fire stations so they could collect the data, sounds like a good idea but what is all around a fire station? Concrete!
yea thats a way to collect untainted data!

Best Answer

Is it going to rain next Thursday? If you know whats going to happen in the philippines why don't you know? BTW, Why are mars, Jupiter and Pluto warming? I still want to know. Why don't you want to know? No taxpayers there?

Best Answer
5 More Responses

Those people are crazy.

Best Answer

I think of such global warming denialists as being greedy, as opposed to crazy. I wonder what the honorarium payment income has been for a typical climate science denial orator who makes speeches at forums where community leaders are present, forums such as Rotary Clubs, and I also wonder just what other types of speeches such an orator has been giving for the right amount of money.

Best Answer

Either they are not really good scientists, or they have a hidden agenda...*as I sit at a power plant auditing a CO2 monitor....

Best Answer

It's all those cow's and other vegetarians, they keep putting to much methane in the air.

Best Answer

It is an interesting point that you raise, about the methane produced by cows. Also, rice paddies produce methane, so vegetarians who eat rice are also somewhat responsible for methane in Earth's atmosphere. Starting long ago around 3000 BCE, rice paddies became much more common, and the amount of methane increased, counteracting what would have been a Milankovic decline in temperature and sea level. As a result, instead of a cooling climate, Earth's temperature and sea level remained unusually stable in the 5000 year period between 3000 BCE and 2000 CE.
Now in 2014, the CO2 from roughly 90 million barrels of petroleum produced every day and some 8 billion metric tons of coal mined every year is overwhelming compared to how much is needed to keep Earth from suffering Milankovic cooling into another glacial period, even in the unlikely scenario where genetic modification allows rice paddies and cattle to stop producing methane. In fact, the melt ponds that are beginning in this 21st Century to seasonally appear atop the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are evidence that the geological Quaternary Period, defined by typically year round ice cover over the North Pole, is about to come to an end. A mostly ice-free September at the North Pole is generally agreed to be less than 20 years in the future, when using the definition of a September average ice cover for the region within 60 nautical miles of the North Pole of no more than 15%, which is a scientific way of saying that at least 85% of the time there will be open water at the North Pole in such a September, while no more than 15% of the time there will be an iceberg floating at the North Pole in such a September. When such a September comes due to global warming during this 21st Century, the Quaternary Period will by definition be at an end, and the Anthropogene Period then begins.

Best Answer

I'd like to know what the Scientists have to say about scientists first

Best Answer

RoadWarrior3928 put it rather well regarding scientists who deny that global warming comes from CO2: "Either they are not really good scientists, or they have a hidden agenda...*as I sit at a power plant auditing a CO2 monitor...."

Best Answer

CO2 would be just one of the causes, as far as I've heard/read/seen

Best Answer

Do they do that, exactly what do they deny. I think this is where people screw up, they should just concentrate on one thing at a time. Does co2 cause the green house effect don't go any further till that argument is settled.

Best Answer

More than 100 years ago, Royal Society of London member Svante Arrhenius enumerated the effect of CO2 on a planet's greenhouse effect in 1896 April in a scientific journal called "Philosophical Magazine". For a modern version of Arrhenius's formulation with adjustments for the rules of "optical thickness" and for satellite observations of Mars and Earth and Venus, see http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Concerned-About-The-Future-Of-Earth/3246583 for details that you can follow along with at home with a calculator. The argument of whether CO2 causes a greenhouse effect was settled by scientists long ago in the 19th Century. As a result of satellite measurements of the planet Venus, a planet cloaked in CO2, the modern scientific argument regards the precise numerical amount of greenhouse effect, and is over the third decimal place in the exponent for CO2 concentration.

Best Answer

But what are the politicians in Washington denying, do they refuse to believe that co2 will create a green house effect, that c02 is rising exactly what is it that they are denying other than the general statement that we are the cause of global warming.

Best Answer

Some politicians and lobbyist organisations in the USA in the 2014 congressional mid-term elections still attempt to trick voters into believing that global warming is a myth or that CO2 does not cause a greenhouse effect.
One important aspect of global warming is that the hemispheric warming of the Northern Hemisphere is greater than that of the Southern Hemisphere. There are 3 reasons for this difference.
1. The Northern Hemisphere has more CO2 because the Northern Hemisphere has about 90% of the fossil fuel use.
2. The Northern Hemisphere has most of the land area, and land heats up more easily than ocean.
3. The Northern Hemisphere's ice sheet in Greenland is smaller than the Southern Hemisphere's ice sheet in Antarctica, and due to this smaller size the Northern Hemisphere's ice sheet is less effective at keeping the Northern Hemisphere cool than the Antarctic ice sheet in the Southern Hemisphere is at keeping the Southern Hemisphere cool.
The practical effect of this difference in the rate of warming is that the cooler air in the Southern Hemisphere is pushing climate zones hundreds of kilometers northward, including the Northern Hemisphere desert zone, the zone that includes the Sahara Desert and the Great American desert. As such, the American states of South Dakota can expect to be sitting in the Great American desert in less than 100 years, even though in the 20th Century the Great American desert was much further south in the American states of Arizona and New Mexico. In Europe in less than 100 years, the Sahara Desert will complete its shift northward and desertify the vineyard regions of southern France, and the moderately warm wine growing region now in France will continue to shift further north in Europe making Germany a good wine region, even though back in the 20th Century almost all of Germany was too cold for the growing of wine grapes.
Of course, if voters of desertifying regions are convinced that climate change is a myth, they will not believe the projections of shifting climate zones, and will not vote for the irrigation infrastructure that is needed in order to prevent farms from turning into dust. The Asian country of Syria, even though it borders the Mediterranean Sea, suffered just such a disaster not long after the beginning of the 21st Century as the Arabian Desert migrated northward. In the Mediterranean region, Turkey and Spain are next in line to suffer being overrun by a desert zone that once sat to the south. On the North American continent, many American states such as Texas and Oklahoma are next in line to suffer a similar fate. Technologically, such disasters are unnecessary. Desalination techniques, using solar power in order to provide the most water at the time of the year when potable water is most needed, can from a technological point of view alleviate a drought disaster. With much less electricity if an adequate river is within 1,000 kilometers, potable water can be delivered by pumping techniques. For much of the western USA, that river with an adequate water supply is the Mississippi River, with 6 times as much flow as the flow of the Nile River into Egypt.
In China, in contrast to what is happening in the USA, China's main river, the Yangtze River, is being used as a source of water for the wheat growing province of Shandong roughly 1,000 kilometers to the north. A second 1000-kilometer irrigation route is now in the testing stage in China. A third 1000-kilometer irrigation route is in the surveying stage, and is for the time being projected for completion around the year 2050, since no decree has been issued yet for construction to begin on that third route. Still, politicians or lobbying organisations in the USA claim that long-distance irrigation technology is science fiction, even though it has already happened.
To sum up, much has been denied or hidden by American politicians or lobbyists from American voters regarding the climate change issue. It is sometimes denied that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. It is sometimes denied that climate change exists. It is hidden that the Northern Hemisphere subtropical desert zones are shifting northward. Also, it is hidden from the voters that modern irrigation technology can fight the northward advance of the sub-tropical desert sufficiently to avoid farms turning into dust. Farms do not turn to dust if they have enough irrigation water.

Best Answer

I can understand now how nothing is being done, that was a complex answer to a simple question. Not that is a question I need to ask you but a question people need to ask politicians. It is not real complicated, you start with asking them does increasing c02 levels cause the greenhouse effect make them say yes or no and back it up.

Best Answer

Although the answer as a whole was complex as far as what Republican Party politicians in the USA have been hiding from American voters with regard to the climate change issue, the utterly important concluding sentence in that answer is laconic: "Farms do not turn to dust if they have enough irrigation water."
Laconic statements make for good campaign slogans. Eventually over the next 10 years, in the drying regions of the western USA, some campaign managers will inevitably decide to use such a statement in order to gain voter percentage for their candidates, perhaps using regional or nationalistic variations such as "IRRIGATION FOR OKLAHOMA!" or "BRING MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TO THE COLORADO RIVER REGION!" or "CATCH UP TO COMMUNIST CHINA IN THE IRRIGATION RACE!".
Everyone knows that the water transfer system in the USA is becoming increasingly out-of-date, independent of the climate change issue. The climate change issue merely accelerates to a time less than 10 years in the future when substantial irrigation infrastructure modernisation must be underway in the USA in order to avoid an agricultural disaster on the North American continent that from a technological point of view is still avertable in 2014. If this matter of irrigation infrastructure modernization waits until the 2016 or 2018 or 2020 congressional election campaigns in the USA, the issue is in doubt regarding whether agricultural disaster can be avoided on the North American continent. If this matter waits until the 2022 congressional election campaign in the USA, a new global warming Dust Bowl becomes almost inevitable in south-western North America. Once aeolian erosion strips off the top soil in vast dust storms that repeat the effects of the "black blizzards" of the 1930's, that top soil will take decades to replace, even if an adequate artificial water supply is introduced.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

because CO2 is a lagging indicator NOT a leading one.

Best Answer

Regardless of what caused initial warming to get out of an ice age the lag in CO2 levels does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

Best Answer

C02 is a lagging indicator. We have had ZERO temperate increase in the past 17 years.

Best Answer

What is the point, I would think it is more important to note whether is is an accurate indicator not the timing of it. If it goes along with global warming it does not matter if its change is faster slower. From a geological standpoint 17 years is not even a bat of the eyelash. As far as temperature goes the atmosphere is huge, so is the ocean and I am not sure what you are basing that on. The oceans hold a great deal of heat, water does that you know, and the temperature varies greatly across the globe and with depth. I do know that we have known for 100 years that greenhouse gas traps heat and scientist have discovered nothing to change that it is a fact of science. You can't destroy heat it is transferred energy. Heat either increases temperature or transforms matter such as changing a solid to a liquid, think ice to water. But forget ice that is not where most of the heat is going , the oceans are acting like a heat sink and it is going to catch up with us is what I think.

Best Answer

Many people call themselves 'scientists'. "Global warming" is a passe phrase. Here, it is 23 April and I am wearing a heavy jacket today. That is hardly "warming".

Best Answer

Don't confusing climate science with meteorology (daily weather). Climate is the study of predictable trends over decades or longer. When you look at THOSE numbers, the earth is most certainly warming. Its been mathematically proven. WHY is the question...not That.

Best Answer

"Global Warming" is what it was originally called in the 1990's. "Climate Change" is what it is called now and better describes the varying effects it is having in different regions of the world.

Best Answer

LOL its called climate change because the masses have caught on to the notion that global warming is BUNK!

Best Answer

The jury still seems to be out on whether increased CO2 levels are the cause or the symptom. We do know that we are near the end of the last true ice age. Other than that, all is pure speculation.

Best Answer

Honestly you do realize that co2 is what plants breath and is needed? It gets in the are when ever a plant dies, the only kind of co2 that is a problem is the one coming from fossil energy sources... Oh and it has been proven that at least the bigger part of the global warming is part of the natural rithm of our planet, it gets warmer till the ice melts rivers in the oceans get stopped and then they stop transporting warmth, that's when the next ice age starts... All that the so called global warming might do is speed up the whole process... You do realize so far can't create elements therefore we can't put anything on the planet it can't deal with... It might alternate it and make it anything but a workable invirement for us but the planet won't really bother...

Best Answer

Those are sciontits, can't tell the difference when they say it on the tv

Best Answer