http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/...
The debate over whether it's man-made has been settled in the scientific community. The arguments now are over things like just how much sea levels will rise, how fast will temperatures change, when will the permafrost thaw etc.
There is a difference between what scientists have found and what you see in the news. Scientists have to report their work in a scientific journal, and before it's published it has to be checked by anonymous reviewers who look for mistakes. This is called 'peer review'. If there are mistakes in the science then it isn't published, and if mistakes are found afterwards then the paper can be 'retracted' (taken out of the journal). This happened recently when scientists found a mistake in their techniques:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/21/fa...
So published, peer reviewed research papers are the foundations blocks of science. They stop things that are obviously wrong or misleading from being published. Sometimes bad studies get through, but it's a very good filter. This is why, if you look at scientific sources such as the Royal Society, Royal Meteorological Society, NASA, the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union etc, they all say that man-made global warming is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
There is a lot of political disagreement that is spread by journalists, advertisers and bloggers. You will see lots of 'sciencey looking' blogs that claim to prove that man-made global warming isn't a problem, but they prefer to publish on a blog because their science isn't good enough to pass the peer review test. Sometimes you will see 'experts' from groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Heartland Institute etc that go on the TV or to newspapers to say that it's not real. These groups are paid to attack the science of climate change because they are politically opposed to it.
A handful are legitimate climate scientists. Most are other scientists, such as Dr S Fred Singer who also worked for tobacco-industry funded groups in the past to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Thanks to court proceedings we now know that the tobacco industry knew that smoking killed people, but they paid groups to spread doubt. Many of these groups are the same ones that are now spreading doubt about global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall Institute. They have been very effective at confusing the public.
Of course there is a debate. Since it is a political issue between skeptics and AGW alarmists, it stands to reason that the alarmists want to convince you that there is no debate, that the issue has already been decided. That isn't science. They often behave more like a cult. Where have you learned anything is already settled in science? Don't let the people pushing a political agenda affect your learning science. Learn the basics and be skeptical of those who preach they know everything already. They don't. What we know is that the earth's climate has always changed and recent changes are pretty ordinary. Those theorizing our CO2 has caused a rise have to prove it and the models they use don't even work when used for the past when we know what happened.
CO2 is a Greenhouse gas and will cause warming if added into the atmosphere. There is not really any debate about this in the scientific community, so there is little debate as to if man is causing warming.
What is in debate is the amount of warming caused by man. Even amongst the pro-global warming scientists, the models for future warming by 2100 go from 1 degree to 10 degrees. Others claim that the difference is even smaller.
So the debate is whether the warming caused by man is small or large, but when it hits the media it becomes, is it happening or is it not.
There is also the other aspect of the debate. Some of the effects of global warming are bad, while some are good. Mostly people agree that excessive warming is bad, but little to moderate warming? That is another story.
IF you want to delve into the science, we can discuss more, but I think this is the information you are looking for.
"and It turns out that professional scientists are debatin wether or not its our fault-the human race- for global warming and climate change."
Well, no, there's not much argument among professional scientists. Because there is a lot of money involved, the argument is mainly in the political arena. There are a relatively few scientists who have been swayed by the money offered by the fossil fuel industry to spread doubt, but among most scientists, there is no doubt at all. The only question today is, "How bad will it get?"
Just so you know, there are several around here who say global warming isn't a problem.
James, Kano, Raisin Caine, JimZ, sagebrush, and now Mickey Finn, and others.
Their arguments range from, "It's been cooling since 1998", "concern over global warming is a cult", "What about global cooling in the 1970s", "It was much warmer in earth's history", "There have been times when there's much more CO2 in the atmosphere", "Warmer is better, more CO2 is better", "I don't see any change where I live", etc.
On the other side of the argument, I tend to give these folks more credibility than what I see here from some folks.
1. You could look up what universities say. They have a reputation to uphold.
2. You could look up what various scientific organizations say. They also have a reputation to uphold.
Then look at which posters around here seem to agree with the reputable organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
https://www.google.com/#q=scientific+org...
https://www.google.com/#q=universities+g...
http://science.kqed.org/quest/video/heat...
EDIT: It is appropriate to point out that Raisin Caine's post is much more moderate than we usually see. I would disagree with his contention that a small amount of warming is okay. You could check out the last link I posted.
CO2 and greenhouse gasses trap radiation from the sun in the climate. It can't escape back into space and in return the Earth warms up. It's been proved, people who don't believe it just don't want want to do anything about it.
at the start of the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 was 240 ppm . during earths hottest period , the 100 million year carboniferous epoch , when even the artic was tropical , CO2 was as high as 363 ppm .
on 12 21 12 atmospheric CO2 hit 400 ppm . this is passed the point of no return . the earth WILL go into an irreversible , permanent greenhouse effect . we turn into venus - 800 degrees F at noon . it will happen pretty fast . by 2023 , after 5 years of worldwide crop failures , food will be made from people ( shades of soylent green ) . by the 2030s the seas will boil off into space and humanity turns to dust . money won't help , the secret government bunkers won't help . the deniers die too .
see you on the other side .
At least learn what scientists already know. You may have your own questions and want to do more research, but you can easily learn what those who study climate have learned.
The National Academy of Sciences is the association of America's greatest scientists. The Royal Society is UK's national science academy. Together they have compiled a Q/A
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
"Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.
-- National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society
Climate has changed on earth for a variety of natural reasons. But never before has it changed in ways it is now changing, and never as rapidly.
all scientists agree that a doubling of CO2 (by about the year 2050) will cause an increase in warming of 3.7 watts per sq meter, which is about 1 degree centigrade warmer (hardly a problem) but some argue this will cause positive feedbacks that will cause further warming, others dispute the positive feedbacks.
Me I dispute the positive feedbacks, why? well because any warming (CO2 or not) would cause these positive feedbacks, and it hasn't happened yet even though our earth has got warmer and colder before.
So my belief is that more CO2 will make our world a tiny bit warmer, but not enough to notice.
OK here is the definitive scientific answer. No, CO2 does not control Earth's temperature, like Al Gore displays in his movie.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
This shows that over the last decade + that the Earth has cooled. Yet at this same time the CO2 level of the Earth has increased. Scientifically, there is your proof positive.
Top scientists have had consistent conclusions for over twenty years that the unusually rapid global climate change of the past century has been mostly human-caused, and for the past 10 years nearly all indications are that this is likely to have significantly negative long term consequences for the global economy. Fossil Fuel companies have often denied this science and Republican politicians in the U.S. have been adamant lately in espousing such anti-science denial. A range of anti-science con artists, pretending to be the "other side" of a scientific "debate" on whether anthropogenic climate change is a serious long term issue, are prevalent on-line. At Yahoo Answers there is no penalty for giving deliberately false answers, and this site is loaded with deniers-in-training trying to copy-paste such deception. Indeed half the "top ten" contributors in the category "global warming" are hard-core anti-science serial liars.It is advisable to do your own homework on this subject. Here are some links:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
MORE ABOUT ANTI-SCIENCE DENIAL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
I mean im only askin this because I was in chem class today and we were discovering the earth layers and natural earth gases like co2 nd what not, and Mrs Silvestry-my teacher- asked us if CO2 produced by human activity, like drivin cars nd ****, is the actual cause of global warming, so im thinking yes, but others said No! and It turns out that professional scientists are debatin wether or not its our fault-the human race- for global warming and climate change. Someone please help me because I do understand this but I just need to know the definite answer for my question, for most scientists question really. thnx guys this would really help push up my grade #ThumbsUp to you all, that will answer this, for even botherin for answerin. :D
yes, will the general thought at the moment is that when co2 is released into the atmosphere, it creates almost a blanket around the atmosphere. when the sun radiates heat to the earth, and it re-radiants back from the ground to escape our atmosphere, the co2 is blocking it from escaping... so it's gradually heating up the earn.
No. CO2 is only 4 parts per 1000. Despite all the mass hysteria regarding CO2 it is not a significant factor in earth's climate change. CO2 has an lifespan in the atmosphere of only 5 to 12 years and plants are a major negative feedback of CO2 and they are increasing that negative feedback as CO2 increases. The sun, AMO and PDO currents, and even cosmic radiation are more significant factors than CO2 regarding climate change. Water vapor is the number 1 greenhouse gas. It has both positive and negative feedback qualities so the AGW cultists do not like to regard its significance in any way. Besides historically it has been proven that increased atmospheric CO2 is an effect of global warming and not a cause. In fact it has never been proven that CO2 has caused any of the past global warming periods.
Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing during the past 17.5 years but there has been no global warming. There has been an increase in global vegetation density which means more food for animals.
The best evidence that AGW is false is to look at every AGW projection and prediction. None of them have come to fruition. Not a single one. In fact, AGW cultist elites have been scrambling to concoct excuses as to why their predictions, projections, et al have failed. 95% of all computer climate models are wrong. And it has been proven that AGW 'researchers' have been manipulating and adjusting data to conform to their their theory. Perhaps this alone explains the failure of their predictions and projections.
Eco-alarmists since the 60s have a horrendous track record regarding their alarmist predictions and projections coming to fruition. I give the AGW cultists no credibility whatsoever because there is absolutely no objectivity in their science or research. One should not have to file freedom of information requests or sue in a court to acquire details on a process or procedure that AGW cultists used to determine their results. Science is all about being able to replicate processes and procedures in an attempt to duplicate the results and verify a theory. AGW researchers have done all they can to hide their methods, processes, and procedures from other objective scientists while telling them that they should just trust their results. This is where AGW 'science' completely fails. If the AGW researchers and scientists feel that they are 100% certain about the results of their work they would have no issue whatsoever about making their entire research public for independent verification. But they want to pull off crap like eliminating widely accepted and documented historical events like the medieval warm period and the little ice age while they 'use Mann's trick to hide the decline.'
No The man made kind is a wealth redistribution scam
Yes and actual climate scientists do not debate this. The only debate is in business and public.
