http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
But what are the repercussions. Are they serious?
Is it a serious problem?
That would depend very much on who you are and where you are.
In many parts of the world climate change needn’t be a major problem. The developed world has, for example, the resources to mitigate against some of the effects and the capacity to deal with many of the consequences.
For example, increased droughts, heatwaves and flooding is destroying a greater proportion of our crops, but we can offset this by planting more or different crops, importing to make up for shortfalls or, as is becoming increasingly common, leasing and buying land in Africa and Asia to grow our own food on.
In this respect it’s fair to say that climate change is impacting us but we’re getting around it.
Contrast this scenario with those who live by subsistence agriculture in some of the more marginal parts of the world, especially in Tropical Asia and Africa. These people do not have the means of compensating for climate change and it’s often these very people who are hit the hardest.
When crops fail in the less developed countries the results are often catastrophic and unfortunately this is happening more and more. On top of crop failure, millions of people in these parts of the world no longer have a potable water supply and millions more have seen their land turn to desert.
Another problem that is difficult to overcome is the spread of diseases and disease vectors. These are often temperature sensitive and as the world warms up there is a corresponding expansion of affected areas. There’s a whole host of diseases where climate change appears to be the dominant factor in why they have spread, these diseases include chagas disease, dracunculiasis, lymphatic filariasis, dengue fever, schistosomiasis, leptospirosis, strongyloidiasis, cholera, neurocysticercosis, trichuriasis, hantavirus, viral encephalitis and malaria. A good book on the subject is “Introducing Medical Anthropology” by Dr Merrill Singer and Dr Hans Baer: http://books.google.com/books?id=DvYXPGM...
The issue of rising sea-levels is another cause for concern and again, it’s often the poorer regions that are bearing the brunt of this. In the developed world we have the ability to construct sea defences that go some way to mitigating against higher seas but in other parts of the world there is little that can be done.
In Bangladesh for example some half a million people have been forced from Bhola Island in the Ganges Delta as half the land is now inundated with sea-water. Kiribati is currently in the process of being evacuated and other low lying island groups and coastlines are vulnerable.
Even major cities such as London are at risk. In the 1980’s a barrier was constructed that could be raised to cut London off from the sea, it was expected to have lasted for 100 years. Rising sea-levels mean that plans are now being drawn up for an even bigger barrier. In it’s first 10 years of operation in was raised 11 times, in the last 10 years it’s been raised 70 times.
In a previous question I listed some of the other effects that global warming has:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Yes it is a problem. The greenhouse effect is when the suns rays enter the earth's atmosphere, and the heat is unable to escape do to certain gases in the atmosphere. Methane, water vapor, etc. are all "green house gases." They act like insulation trapping this heat in the earths atmosphere (not an upper atmospheric layer). That is the green house effect. Global warming is the acceleration in the increase of temperature due to the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere. The more green house gases we release into the atmosphere the more heat that is trapped.
Global Warming and the Green House Effect are two completely different things. The green house effect explains why the earth's temperature has changed through out it's life time, while global warming just explains how we human beings are making it happen at a quicker pace than usual.
And people who are saying CO2 isn't a pollutant are wrong. Yes it does have benefits, but it is still considered a pollutant. Ozone protects us from radiation, but when ozone is in the tropospheric layer of the atmosphere it is considered a pollutant due to the fact that it causes problems with breathing. Everything on this planet has benefits and down falls. Oxygen is slowly decreasing our lifespan but we need it to survive.
"Thanks kano, but could you link me to some scientific papers or articles about that. Preferably in reputable periodicals like Scientific American or New Scientist
Umm, neiither Scientific American nor New Science contain "scientific papers". And New Science isn't even verry good.
You've taken the "peer review" fetish to a new level of absurdity.
Forget about a belief in man-made Global Warming because it's advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:
1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.
2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:
3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.
4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.
5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2013 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.
6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.
7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)
8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.
9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.
See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.
Polar Bears are doing fine:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...
Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...
Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)
http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...
Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...
Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...
Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...
For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
As some people have pointed out, carbon dioxide is essential for life. But that does not mean that it is not harmful in excess. All essential vitamins and minerals, including iron and zinc are toxic in excess. Warming, whether caused by carbon dioxide or the sun, results in fewer clouds and fewer clouds mean less rain. Plants need water, not just for transpiration, but for photosynthesis. But ther is also such a thing as too much water, as anyone who has ever been in a flood will tell you.
Regarding Kano's answer: It is common knowledge that CO2 is beneficial to the earth's atmosphere. Plant's love it. CO2 is a plant food, not a pollutant. We don't need no stinkin' scientists to tell us what we learned in grade school. Consider this,
Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
So you can see that forty years ago, many of the same scientists who are now touting AGW caused by CO2 are now pushing AGW on us caused by CO2.
When these scientists switched to Global Warming from an imminent Ice Age, the Earth was in a warming trend and CO2 level was rising. Unfortunately, Mother Earth did not continue to cooperate and the earth started to cool while CO2 still climbed. Now these same scientists did not provide this to the public, but went into hiding.
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
Now do you want to waste your time with papers that were written scientists like these, whose main concern is to hide facts from you? That is retarded thinking.
So it comes down to not whether AGW is a serious problem, but whether AGW is real. And the answer to that is simply, there is no credibility to to its truthfulness. So it not only is not a serious problem, it is not a problem at all. And only a retarded thinker would think so.
Now I have called you retarded and I have proven why that is so. You, on the other hand, have called Rich a retard, without merit. You owe him an apology.
Wait! Wait! Wait! I am not basing my whole argument on a non scientist. I do have a life and I do understand a little about science. I don't have to be told by some scientist what is happening, That is your first fallacy. Just because a person has a PHD, does not make him have integrity or even an accurate knowledge. But let me go on.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Here is a bonefide scientist, James Hansen, a high degreed individual from the University of Iowa. He studied under Van Allen. Yet with all that going for him he had no integrity. He finally has retired and is now a full time Communist activist. Do you mean to tell me you would take his word over another person's even when facts don't back him up? Are you telling us all that you are willing to accept the word of a proven corrupt scientist? And you call Rich a retard!? I think you owe him an apology!
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
there is even more.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The true scientist of this site have argued on a level of science, and adhered to that level. But even with your own greenie compatriots there is an admission that it is just politics. Why would the answer to AGW be collecting taxes, a great solution of the green community. That is politics! You also owe Kano an apology!
According to the NASA that just released all the photo's of the ice melting at alarming rates all around the world? What NASA are you talking about? No, your right, all the cars in the world are having no effect on the air, your a genius.
The Scientist had a Consensus that the World was flat , The Sun Orbited the Earth ,
Mice grew from old socks , Pith-down Man , people would die going over 40 miles in a
train. Automobiles would never replace the horse and Rockets would never make it into Space . Germs did not exist .
And that is a partial list of Scientist mistakes through the Century's and many mistakes
and predictions not proved .
I am totally gobsmacked that NASA should say this, I mean NASA is such a prestigious organization they could say black is white and most people would believe them, but to sink to the level of consensus, that's what groups do when they cant stand by their data and are losing the argument, that smacks of politics and propaganda.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is essential for life, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is limited in the amount of warming it can do.
CO2 is greening our planet and deserts are receding, food crops are increasing, and greenhouse owners are now realizing this and are CO2 levels up to 1200ppm to increase crop yield.
google "CO2 logarithmically diminishes as concentrations increase" and find out for yourself.
No one is denying that global warming (and cooling) is taking place. The +problem+ is that there bad decisions being made with information from the hysteria which is being created by the alarmists.
International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses into giving up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control. Wake up, America! He who controls energy controls the world.
As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”
Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.
What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.
The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science..
To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.
Here is truth about global warming:
Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.
Global warming (AKA "climate change")
Humans did not cause it
Humans cannot stop it
Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years. What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.
The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science.
To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, and other so-called green enterprises.
According to NASA, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that it is happening.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
But what are the repercussions. Are they serious?
