The evidence is considerable but the main points are that we have observed a rise in CO2 levels since the 1950s, when measurements started to be taken. By comparing recent levels to those trapped in air bubbles in Antarctic ice, we have established that the CO2 levels are about 30% higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years. Furthermore, we know that humans are primarily responsible for that rise for two reasons. Firstly, we observe a decrease in O2 levels which is the result of atmospheric oxygen binding to carbon when we burn fossil fuels. Secondly, we see changes in the isotope ratios of carbon in the atmosphere and in plants that is consistent with the sudden release of carbon that was locked away for millions of years.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that prevents heat escaping into space. We've known this since the 1860s and the mechanism has been understood since the 1930s when people developed quantum mechanics. We see temperature rises in the oceans and lower atmosphere which is consistent with that mechanism. We see drops in temperature at higher altitudes due to the fact that less heat reaches the upper atmosphere due to the CO2 at lower levels. We also measure acidity changes of the ocean caused by absorption of that additional CO2, and we see increases in sea level measured by multiple techniques.
A scientific theory is based on a model of reality. The models we have created for climate do a good job of replicating past climate events but fail after the 1970s unless CO2 and other greenhouse gases are taken into account. To date, no one has been able to show a mechanism by which our adding CO2 does not cause a temperature rise. No one has been able to show that an alternative mechanism matches the data since the 1970s but does not require our emission of CO2 to be factored in. No one has been able to show that the data can be explained by the sun, water vapor, cyclical changes in the earth's orbit, or any number of suggestions that are routinely made.
The consequences are increased pressure on ecological systems, rising sea levels, redistribution of rainfall, and potentially, an increased frequency of extreme weather events. Most insurance companies and economists now accept that the cost of doing nothing about global warming will be greater than trying to reduce our CO2 emissions.
Global solutions are carbon taxes, making people effectively pay for the damage they cause. It also forces companies to manage emissions better, hence the rapid adoption of cleaner chimney systems, 'clean coal', and other recent advances. Increased energy efficiency targets, green energy production, nuclear power, and various other techniques are also global solutions, along with international interconnects to wire national and international distribution grids together.
Individual solutions ... realistically there aren't any. But I suspect the usual things like reducing energy consumption, insulating homes, etc are the type of stuff your teacher is looking for.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming exists. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulatory agency, which upheld complaints of misrepresentation made by David King.
The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." Its original working title was "Apocalypse my ****", but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as an allusion to the 1980 mockumentary The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle about British punk band the Sex Pistols.
The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide.
Alexa, go to the National Academy of Sciences. This is the academy of America's greatest scientists. It is the most credible association of scientists in the world. They have published a pamphlet just for you.
You can go here to download the pamplet as a pdf. You can also find the video series here, but that is harder to turn into a report.
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatecho...
Have you tried
1. G
2. O
3. O
4. G
5. L
6. E
?
Don't write an academic paper based on Yahoo answers about this subject unless you are researching the psychological disposition of AGW cultists and the AGW dissenters.
Any point of view you adopt whether pro and against AGW make sure you include both sides of the issue for reference and argue or support your bias. If it comes across as too one sided then your lack of objectivity may damage your credibility. That is the point I make about using opinions from Yahoo answers. Most here are so set into their ideological beliefs that there is little to no objectivity.
this is a good website that explains the myths and the science of climate change
and it's easy to use...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
You need to search the web so you can do your own schoolwork Have an adult help you and read your text
Search the questions you need in google. ;)
Its a power grab
Can someone please explain to me what is global warming?
I have to do a 5 page research paper and I have to answer these questions I can't figure out about.
1. what is global warming
2. what is the evidence
3. what are the consequences
4. global solutions
5. individual solutions
