After seeing so many catastrophic storms devastate people’s lives over time I am convinced that the adverse change in our earth’s temperature is to blame for the problem. Many scientists are working diligently to help us understand why we are experience such change in our climate here on earth and little get much recognition for doing so or are kept quiet by the media and the powers that be. There have been scientists and researchers in the past that have received so much recognition for doing a lot less than those who are trying to help us with credible research on how to adapt or at least prevent the heating of our planet.
The argument here is that from one side, you have those who claim that global warming is manmade and that steps need to be taken to prevent this. The other side claims this is just a natural cycle that our earth goes through over time and that there is nothing we can do to prevent what we are experiencing. In this paper I would like to discuss views and research from both sides of the fence and let the reader decide what they believe to be true or false.
For some time now, Global warming has been a hot topic for politicians around the world. From Al Gore and his “An Inconvenient Truth” power point presentation to the politicians blaming every major storm on global warming and passing into law EPA regulations to help cut back on our carbon emissions. Should we believe the evidence that is presented to us? The damages from hurricane sandy, as reported on WRAL. com, is going to cost close to 50 billion dollars in damages and at least 10 billion for insurance companies alone, making Sandy the second most expensive storm for the United States to experience since Hurricane Katrina.
An Inconvenient Truth implies that massive insurance losses are being produced as a result of large hurricanes, tropical storms, and other extreme weather events that are increasing due to global. (*) Here are the facts. Insured losses were lower in 2005(Hurricane Katrina) than they were in 1925, when calculated as a percentage of the population of coastal areas at risk. (**) That being said, it’s easy to understand why politicians have raised so much attention to the issue considering the money it is costing to recover from such catastrophes.
The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Svante Arrhenius was a Swedish scientist, physicist, chemist and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, making the planet warmer. The greenhouse effect is the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades.
They have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. There are measurements confirming that concentrations are rising rapidly. (GlobalChange. gov[->0]) “ Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years”, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online. Most of the observed warming, at least 74 %, is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.
Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0. 5C. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analyzed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth, a new attribution method for understanding the physical causes of climate change. Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming.
The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report. While some politicians take the side of those scientists who believe this problem is manmade, considering all the scientific evidence that backs it up, there are still those that remain skeptics of these claims. Politicians, celebrities and just regular people like you and I have had plenty of reasons to have our doubts on the heating of the planet to be manmade.
The Global Warming movement was born in 1988 as a result of growing concerns that an accelerated increase in global temperatures could negatively impact humans and animals. In 1989, the United Nations Environment Program joined with the World Meteorological Organization to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists previously had attributed changes in the earth’s climate primarily to the activity and effects of the sun. However, global warming scientists started promoting the theory that a gradual increase in temperature was simply a gradual recovery from the cooling of the Little Ice Age.
Instead, climate scientists developed a theory that the earth’s temperature had started rising much more rapidly as a consequence of humanities growing use of fossil fuels. Liberal-socialist political leaders, together with liberal left allies in the scientific community indentified the environments new enemy, carbon dioxide. They argued that manmade production of carbon dioxide, primarily the Industrialized West, was growing to be a threat to the survival of the human race. Climate experts from many nations began assembling official reports on global warming to update world leaders on what the scientists said was verifiable climate change.
Every few years the UN presents these combined scientific findings in a summary to the worlds top political leaders. The IPCC issued comprehensive climate assessments in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. The most recent report, referred to as AR4, looked at the climate change projections of twenty-three computer models. AR4 is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer reviewed scientific studies The IPCC approved computer models promote the theory the earth’s temperature will rise from as little as 2 degrees to as much as 11 degrees between now and 2100. That’s a wide variation. AR4 strongly supported the IN plan to globalize the world’s economy, including privately owned corporations, in an attempt to the reduce the use of fossil fuels in the production of energy and consumer products.
The global warming hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise in direct ratio to the rise of made carbon dioxide added to the earth atmosphere. But this theory has already been contradicted by a gradual decline in global temperatures since 1998(5), while CO2 levels continue to rise. Significantly, not one the two dozen computer models that form the foundation of IPCC’s prevailing theory of man mad global warming predicted the cool that the earth has experienced since 1998. (6) Indeed , there is more than sufficient reason to question public statement of global warming scientists and researchers.
A substantial numbers of the panel of twenty five hundred climate scientists on the IPCC, which created a statement on scientific “unanimity” on ma made global warming, were found to privately maintain serious concerns about the reports conclusions. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded, “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that the climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of anthropogenic effect on climate”.
There has never been on open scientific debate on the Advancement for Global Warming (AGW) theory. The global warming alarmists simply insist that historical temperature data proves that rising levels of CO2 in the air raises global temperatures. The evidence from both sides of this debate can be staggering, making it hard to choose just one side of this debate so securely. Either way, whoever or whatever is heating our planet shouldn’t be the issue as much as it should be to find out what can be done, if anything, to prevent these issues were having with extreme weather escalate.