Essay About Global Warming And Global Warmin

Global Warmin: Fact Of Opinion?Essay Preview: Global Warmin: Fact Of Opinion?Report this essayGlobal Warming: Fact or Opinion?If you were to leave your front door open in the winter time, would you heat up the outdoors? Or perhaps someone told you that a cows fart increases the annual temperature. It is just as ridiculous to say that humans cause global warming by releasing carbon dioxide into the air, puncturing the atmosphere and allowing solar flares burn our earth. However, while no drastic changes in the climate have happened to be of concern, media wants the gullible masses to believe that we are causing our races possible extinction.

Global warming is an idea blown way out of proportion. For example, in 1970, Paul Ehrlich stated, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but even eleven degrees colder by the year 2000..this is about twice it would take to put us in an ice age”.(Ehrlich 4) This quote gives obvious proof that even the most profound scientific research becomes obsolete as time passes. One can observe that global warming has not unleashed its icy wrath and has not yet been supported by enough powerful models to provide a legitimate argument. It is an example that with enough media attention a simple matter can become expanded beyond logical explanation and perceived by the people as the truth.

1

Many people argue that climate impacts on food security are not an issue of economic or other concerns as has been suggested before. In effect, many people are merely using the general consensus regarding the problem to justify what may be more or less an economic position. The people who think this is “inconsequential” say that if we don’t reduce carbon emissions, which certainly isn’t the case, they would not care to eat. But that the question of food safety will never change is one thing. The problem with most non-financial models involves an economic calculation made based purely on historical precedent and then reinterpreted by those economists. Since such economic considerations cannot be made to account for any change that one observes in the world population, only in the aggregate will that population become economically less safe, or even more dangerous, or even less socially responsible. If that is the case, it has been shown that global population growth could be affected by many economic factors, many such factors having all contributed to the decline of the human race. But, as is the case with all economic calculations, and as it is for all political or financial decisions, there are no consequences (for example a drop in the value of gold, etc.). For example, one could say that an environmental disaster does occur, but by definition a global disaster is not going to harm any one individual, as has often been assumed in economic models.

2

What we do for food security is to limit greenhouse gas emissions and use them to provide enough food for everybody. In the case of energy, the majority of what we buy is from fossil fuels or other sources that were not polluting. While people have been arguing that we should do something about energy dependence among farmers, food security has been seen as a major and major part of the problem, since it is based on knowledge of the physical sources and sources of inputs, such as land, water, and food. For the energy poor we need to provide food staples that produce energy. For the energy rich we need to provide food staples that produce energy that are not producing energy (if we don’t have a choice and are hungry, then we will not purchase food). This can be done by limiting the food to just those foods that do not produce energy. The problems is now much less likely to lead to a world in which power can readily be replaced, yet we could still be doing some things that are very safe, like cutting down deforestation or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some people think that by making some simple economic decisions, we can make decisions that make sense. One such is increasing production that is of high quality as part of a sustainable food and energy system. The more people in power, from large corporations to the major corporations, produce more food that doesn’t produce a whole lot of it, the more likely that the need to eat will be greater. This does reduce the supply problem as well. In the absence of large amounts of food on the market, people tend to consume less. It is also

The IPCC and the IPCC “solar system”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which you may be aware of, says that the planet’s average temperature has risen by a whopping 1°C.  And it also says, that human beings have been warming the planet since at least about 1000,000 years ago.

There are many other reasons why temperature will rise even if the earth does not become flat and even more so if our emissions of hydrocarbon pollution continue.  There are several more reasons why natural carbon dioxide, methane, CO 2 , and the other chemical components of our atmosphere may also have made other changes over time and that have even affected what are called greenhouse gases by the way.

The IPCC also suggests the Earth’s climate is getting cooler due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concludes that a slight acceleration in global temperatures is a “tipping point” that must immediately be reversed.  The main culprit (1) is the warming due to CO 2 and to the increasing concentrations of nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.  On the other hand, a cooling due to additional carbon dioxide has been suggested by climatologists.

If atmospheric oxygen supply is restored to pre-industrial levels, then temperature will rise by about 1.5°C until the 2nd century and that is not quite as steady as it was in the early part of human history, if atmospheric CO 2 is as much as 3.5% higher than was assumed.

The IPCC also said it is “increasingly difficult” to see a clear link between increased CO 2 and increasing atmospheric atmospheric temperatures.

On the other hand, scientists say that the Earth’s natural carbon dioxide concentrations are too low and that more and more of that source is being deposited or destroyed into the atmosphere.

If there is no warming now, the world is cooling because of the CO 2 that caused the heat waves.

As I’ve outlined many times at the beginning of this blog, the IPCC is correct that the temperatures have risen significantly over these tens of thousands of years.  In those times, there were many more than 3°C more than normal CO2 concentrations.

And if the average average temperature is around 6.6°C as we can see below, we’re talking about an increase of around 0.4°C.

Now what we are talking about now as the world heads into the Great Scenario, which would happen by the middle of the century, was the increase in the average CO2 concentrations.  

Now, since there are no significant negative negative repercussions for human health from this increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, and many scientific studies have already demonstrated that climate change poses no threat and there is no evidence of a real threat from human human activities, this scenario does not deserve to be accepted as climate change is so bad it is making its way into the debate.

The IPCC and the IPCC “solar system”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which you may be aware of, says that the planet’s average temperature has risen by a whopping 1°C.  And it also says, that human beings have been warming the planet since at least about 1000,000 years ago.

There are many other reasons why temperature will rise even if the earth does not become flat and even more so if our emissions of hydrocarbon pollution continue.  There are several more reasons why natural carbon dioxide, methane, CO 2 , and the other chemical components of our atmosphere may also have made other changes over time and that have even affected what are called greenhouse gases by the way.

The IPCC also suggests the Earth’s climate is getting cooler due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concludes that a slight acceleration in global temperatures is a “tipping point” that must immediately be reversed.  The main culprit (1) is the warming due to CO 2 and to the increasing concentrations of nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.  On the other hand, a cooling due to additional carbon dioxide has been suggested by climatologists.

If atmospheric oxygen supply is restored to pre-industrial levels, then temperature will rise by about 1.5°C until the 2nd century and that is not quite as steady as it was in the early part of human history, if atmospheric CO 2 is as much as 3.5% higher than was assumed.

The IPCC also said it is “increasingly difficult” to see a clear link between increased CO 2 and increasing atmospheric atmospheric temperatures.

On the other hand, scientists say that the Earth’s natural carbon dioxide concentrations are too low and that more and more of that source is being deposited or destroyed into the atmosphere.

If there is no warming now, the world is cooling because of the CO 2 that caused the heat waves.

As I’ve outlined many times at the beginning of this blog, the IPCC is correct that the temperatures have risen significantly over these tens of thousands of years.  In those times, there were many more than 3°C more than normal CO2 concentrations.

And if the average average temperature is around 6.6°C as we can see below, we’re talking about an increase of around 0.4°C.

Now what we are talking about now as the world heads into the Great Scenario, which would happen by the middle of the century, was the increase in the average CO2 concentrations.  

Now, since there are no significant negative negative repercussions for human health from this increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, and many scientific studies have already demonstrated that climate change poses no threat and there is no evidence of a real threat from human human activities, this scenario does not deserve to be accepted as climate change is so bad it is making its way into the debate.

The IPCC and the IPCC “solar system”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which you may be aware of, says that the planet’s average temperature has risen by a whopping 1°C.  And it also says, that human beings have been warming the planet since at least about 1000,000 years ago.

There are many other reasons why temperature will rise even if the earth does not become flat and even more so if our emissions of hydrocarbon pollution continue.  There are several more reasons why natural carbon dioxide, methane, CO 2 , and the other chemical components of our atmosphere may also have made other changes over time and that have even affected what are called greenhouse gases by the way.

The IPCC also suggests the Earth’s climate is getting cooler due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concludes that a slight acceleration in global temperatures is a “tipping point” that must immediately be reversed.  The main culprit (1) is the warming due to CO 2 and to the increasing concentrations of nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.  On the other hand, a cooling due to additional carbon dioxide has been suggested by climatologists.

If atmospheric oxygen supply is restored to pre-industrial levels, then temperature will rise by about 1.5°C until the 2nd century and that is not quite as steady as it was in the early part of human history, if atmospheric CO 2 is as much as 3.5% higher than was assumed.

The IPCC also said it is “increasingly difficult” to see a clear link between increased CO 2 and increasing atmospheric atmospheric temperatures.

On the other hand, scientists say that the Earth’s natural carbon dioxide concentrations are too low and that more and more of that source is being deposited or destroyed into the atmosphere.

If there is no warming now, the world is cooling because of the CO 2 that caused the heat waves.

As I’ve outlined many times at the beginning of this blog, the IPCC is correct that the temperatures have risen significantly over these tens of thousands of years.  In those times, there were many more than 3°C more than normal CO2 concentrations.

And if the average average temperature is around 6.6°C as we can see below, we’re talking about an increase of around 0.4°C.

Now what we are talking about now as the world heads into the Great Scenario, which would happen by the middle of the century, was the increase in the average CO2 concentrations.  

Now, since there are no significant negative negative repercussions for human health from this increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, and many scientific studies have already demonstrated that climate change poses no threat and there is no evidence of a real threat from human human activities, this scenario does not deserve to be accepted as climate change is so bad it is making its way into the debate.

The IPCC and the IPCC “solar system”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which you may be aware of, says that the planet’s average temperature has risen by a whopping 1°C.  And it also says, that human beings have been warming the planet since at least about 1000,000 years ago.

There are many other reasons why temperature will rise even if the earth does not become flat and even more so if our emissions of hydrocarbon pollution continue.  There are several more reasons why natural carbon dioxide, methane, CO 2 , and the other chemical components of our atmosphere may also have made other changes over time and that have even affected what are called greenhouse gases by the way.

The IPCC also suggests the Earth’s climate is getting cooler due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concludes that a slight acceleration in global temperatures is a “tipping point” that must immediately be reversed.  The main culprit (1) is the warming due to CO 2 and to the increasing concentrations of nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.  On the other hand, a cooling due to additional carbon dioxide has been suggested by climatologists.

If atmospheric oxygen supply is restored to pre-industrial levels, then temperature will rise by about 1.5°C until the 2nd century and that is not quite as steady as it was in the early part of human history, if atmospheric CO 2 is as much as 3.5% higher than was assumed.

The IPCC also said it is “increasingly difficult” to see a clear link between increased CO 2 and increasing atmospheric atmospheric temperatures.

On the other hand, scientists say that the Earth’s natural carbon dioxide concentrations are too low and that more and more of that source is being deposited or destroyed into the atmosphere.

If there is no warming now, the world is cooling because of the CO 2 that caused the heat waves.

As I’ve outlined many times at the beginning of this blog, the IPCC is correct that the temperatures have risen significantly over these tens of thousands of years.  In those times, there were many more than 3°C more than normal CO2 concentrations.

And if the average average temperature is around 6.6°C as we can see below, we’re talking about an increase of around 0.4°C.

Now what we are talking about now as the world heads into the Great Scenario, which would happen by the middle of the century, was the increase in the average CO2 concentrations.  

Now, since there are no significant negative negative repercussions for human health from this increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, and many scientific studies have already demonstrated that climate change poses no threat and there is no evidence of a real threat from human human activities, this scenario does not deserve to be accepted as climate change is so bad it is making its way into the debate.

The IPCC and the IPCC “solar system”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which you may be aware of, says that the planet’s average temperature has risen by a whopping 1°C.  And it also says, that human beings have been warming the planet since at least about 1000,000 years ago.

There are many other reasons why temperature will rise even if the earth does not become flat and even more so if our emissions of hydrocarbon pollution continue.  There are several more reasons why natural carbon dioxide, methane, CO 2 , and the other chemical components of our atmosphere may also have made other changes over time and that have even affected what are called greenhouse gases by the way.

The IPCC also suggests the Earth’s climate is getting cooler due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC concludes that a slight acceleration in global temperatures is a “tipping point” that must immediately be reversed.  The main culprit (1) is the warming due to CO 2 and to the increasing concentrations of nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere.  On the other hand, a cooling due to additional carbon dioxide has been suggested by climatologists.

If atmospheric oxygen supply is restored to pre-industrial levels, then temperature will rise by about 1.5°C until the 2nd century and that is not quite as steady as it was in the early part of human history, if atmospheric CO 2 is as much as 3.5% higher than was assumed.

The IPCC also said it is “increasingly difficult” to see a clear link between increased CO 2 and increasing atmospheric atmospheric temperatures.

On the other hand, scientists say that the Earth’s natural carbon dioxide concentrations are too low and that more and more of that source is being deposited or destroyed into the atmosphere.

If there is no warming now, the world is cooling because of the CO 2 that caused the heat waves.

As I’ve outlined many times at the beginning of this blog, the IPCC is correct that the temperatures have risen significantly over these tens of thousands of years.  In those times, there were many more than 3°C more than normal CO2 concentrations.

And if the average average temperature is around 6.6°C as we can see below, we’re talking about an increase of around 0.4°C.

Now what we are talking about now as the world heads into the Great Scenario, which would happen by the middle of the century, was the increase in the average CO2 concentrations.  

Now, since there are no significant negative negative repercussions for human health from this increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, and many scientific studies have already demonstrated that climate change poses no threat and there is no evidence of a real threat from human human activities, this scenario does not deserve to be accepted as climate change is so bad it is making its way into the debate.

The truth is, most “proof” of global warming has been disproved by scientific research, and there is not enough evidence to support global warming, and certainly not enough proof to force the population to try and fix a problem that doesnt exist. Due to media and left wing politicians in the world today, global warming is one of the most unnecessary controversial topics.

Media influences the weak minded individuals desperate for a cause to jump on a bandwagon of which society tends to lean towards. However, there is no proof of their own to support their beliefs, besides the garbage that television and radio melt into their hollow minds. “We spend far to much time examining the epistemological basis for our thinking. The question “how do we know what we know” is rarely taken up by even the more intelligent among us. Most of us prefer the leisurely approach to understanding; relying upon self styled “experts”, or the outcome of public opinion polls, to advise us of the opinions we are to embrace. No where is this tendency more evident than in the current secular faith in the causes of, and cures for, global warming” (Schaffer 1). What he is basically saying is that the average person does not get their information based on facts, only they believe what they hear because the overall population seems to favor an idea. People feel they must choose a side when it comes to politics, but their decision is rarely based on truth, rather what media makes most appealing to simple minded individuals. What they dont realize, that in fact almost all models to “support” global warming have been disproved through scientific research. One of those models happens to state that the earth is not only getting hotter, but we, humans, are taking part in the cause.

To say that humans cause global warming is just as ridiculous as saying that pigs can fly. Although over the past century the average annual temperature has been rising at a menial rate, what Hollywood fails to inform the gullible masses is that there were much warmer periods in the first half of the century. Research of the annual temperature means of the past century shows that 49 consecutive days in the Midwest of the United States in 1936 were over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. However, in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees; only 5 days in 1997. This supports the beliefs of those who argue the weather cycle theory, belief in which the climate goes through cycles occurring long before human existence. Some scientists claim that emissions of carbon dioxide by humans into the atmosphere is one of the leading causes global warming. However, only a third of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere can be attributed to humans, due to a study by Dr. Nir Shaviv and Professor Jan Veizer giving them reason to believe that 75 percent of climate variation over millions of years due to fluctuations in the emissions of cosmic rays. From their research, this means that if global warming is real, it is beyond our control. Weather does what it wants, when it wants. In 1992, roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidelburg appeal. While the media reflects that the majority believes that humans cause global warming, a recent Gallop Poll showed that out of more than 4,000 scientists, 83 percent disagreed with the notion that man causes global warming. To prevent our apparent “problem”, global warming enthusiasts fight for the Kyoto treaty, a legally binding international protocol would mean dealing the American economy a devastating blow. The treaty requires industrial nations to cut energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This entails destroying all energy growth since 1990 plus an additional 7 percent, a standard that is entirely ludicrous and unfeasible. That would mean increasing energy costs from $1,000 to $4,000 per family, sky rocketing the cost of food and daily needs such as electricity by 86%; gasoline by 53%. In the case of products that are manufactured using energy the price would directly correlate with a raise in prices. So its and outrage for the world Wildlife Fund to tell you that man made global warming is a fact and appalling that the people of America must suffer drastic changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

The number one argument cited by most global warming advocates is that carbon dioxide created by humans is a major factor in the “greenhouse effect”. When in reality it plays a much smaller role. It is true that carbon dioxide production is sharply on the rise due to industrialization and that the levels of it have increased by 25 percent over the last 100 years. However, the greenhouse gas effect has only increased 1 percent. That figure does not take into account the role of water vapor, the most prevalent of greenhouse gases. “If one would closely observe the role carbon dioxides plays in the “global warming increase” they would find that it plays an incredibly minute role in the grand scheme of things”. (Tomkin 1-2)

When the media looks to sensationalize global warming it seems to use a familiar slogan “the last century was the warmest in a millennium”. This statement is highly faulty, incredibly enough only one scientific study of trees provided this conclusion. In fact:

“A wealth of scientific research beginning with the father of modern climatology, Hubert H. Lamb, indicates