Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Greenhouse gas

2008-12-12T00:28:59Z

Legjoints: Added some more information on carbon dioxide

{{merge|greenhouse effect}}
A '''greenhouse gas''' is any gas which contributes to the [[greenhouse effect]].

The most abundant greenhouse gas is [[water vapor]];<ref>Water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect, though since the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined primarily by the temperature it is not regarded as a climate forcing agent. [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3?mode=all (NASA)] </ref> see [[cloud cover]].
Also important are [[carbon dioxide]], [[methane]], [[nitrous oxide]], and [[ozone]].<ref>http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissions.html</ref>

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 37 percent since the start of industrialization. It is now at its highest level in at least 650,000 years.<ref>[[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06949.html (Nature)]] </ref>

The nature of a greenhouse gas is to pass [[visible light]], i.e., incoming energy from the sun, but to be opaque to the [[infrared]], i.e., heat energy being re-radiated outward from the earth's surface. This functions much like the [[glass]] on a [[man-made]] [[greenhouse]], and serves to trap warmth at the surface and in the lower [[atmosphere]].

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Ecology]]
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Climate agenda

2008-07-03T01:48:41Z

Legjoints: /* Links */

'''Climate change''' is one of the top environmental issues, with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether recent [[global warming]] is more natural or man-made.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s is the argument that we should all work together to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing our emissions of [[greenhouse gases]] and putting an end to the destruction of our forests.

==Science and climate change==

The IPCC in 2007 stated that it was "very likely" that the main cause of climate change was human activity, where by very likely they mean with greater than 90 percent certainty.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

:... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known. [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM]

William Happer wrote:
:The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere. [http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf]

See also:
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 New Scientist - Climate change: A guide for the perplexed]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Climate agenda

2008-07-03T01:45:26Z

Legjoints: /* Environmentalism and climate change */

Climate agenda

2008-07-03T01:44:08Z

Legjoints: /* Environmentalism and climate change */

'''Climate change''' is one of the top environmental issues, with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether recent [[global warming]] is more natural or man-made.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s is the argument that:
#We must all work together to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing our emissions of [[greenhouse gases]] and putting an end to the destruction of our forests.

==Science and climate change==

The IPCC in 2007 stated that it was "very likely" that the main cause of climate change was human activity, where by very likely they mean with greater than 90 percent certainty.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

:... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known. [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM]

William Happer wrote:
:The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere. [http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf]

See also:
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Global Warming Controversy

2008-06-30T22:41:49Z

Legjoints:

The '''controversy over the science of [[global warming]]''' is mainly over the extent of [[human]] contribution to warming, as well as a dispute over predictions of near-future warming and its effect on human beings and the environment.

Among registered U.S. voters, opinion is split neatly down the middle, with 75% of Democrats believing that "the science is settled" in favor of the view of the [[IPCC]], and 73% of Republicans believing that there is no scientific consensus. Both main party candidates have no doubt that the issue is real and urgent.

In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe don't believe climate change is primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, if the reality is that this is the case, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact, and vast amounts of money could be spent in dealing with the consequences of climate change. The Stern Review<ref>[http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2006/press_stern_06.cfm
Stern Review on the economics of climate change]</ref>, commissioned by the UK Government to look into the economic effects of climate change, concluded that if left unchecked climate change would cost 5% of GDP per year. "In contrast, the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."

==Links==
*[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=303 Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions] - public opinion poll by Pew Research Center
*[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Senate Minority Report] lists four hundred (400) scientists who disagree with the current state of climate alarmism

[[Category:Global Warming]]

Anthropogenic global warming theory

2008-06-30T22:21:38Z

Legjoints: /* Assessment of the theories */

'''Anthropogenic global warming''' is any increase in global average air temperature caused by human activities.

An assessment panel created by the [[United Nations]] is 90% sure that most [[global warming]] is caused by human beings.

The idea that human activities such as the combustion of [[fossil fuels]] can significantly warm the earth's atmosphere is called the [[runaway greenhouse effect]].

==Relation to current climate change==

The '''anthropogenic global warming theory''' is one of several explanations for the slight warming of the earth's [[atmosphere]] recorded since the middle of the 19th or 20th centuries.

The theory enjoys broad based political support from Liberals, Greens and the US [[Democratic Party]], and theory supporters frequently assert the existence of a "[[scientific consensus]]" favoring their viewpoint (see [[Politics of global warming]]).

==Assessment of the theories==

President Bush's primary science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger, supports anthropogenic global warming.<ref>BBC: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm "Bush aide says warming man-made"]</ref> A number of key Republicans support taking action to combat global warming as well, including [[President_Bush|George W. Bush]]. <ref>White House; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080416-7.html Fact Sheet: Taking Additional Action to Confront Climate Change]</ref>

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[category:ecology]]

==Scientific evidence==

See:
*[[Global warming controversy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Anthropogenic global warming theory

2008-06-30T22:18:40Z

Legjoints: /* Assessment of the theories */

'''Anthropogenic global warming''' is any increase in global average air temperature caused by human activities.

An assessment panel created by the [[United Nations]] is 90% sure that most [[global warming]] is caused by human beings.

The idea that human activities such as the combustion of [[fossil fuels]] can significantly warm the earth's atmosphere is called the [[runaway greenhouse effect]].

==Relation to current climate change==

The '''anthropogenic global warming theory''' is one of several explanations for the slight warming of the earth's [[atmosphere]] recorded since the middle of the 19th or 20th centuries.

The theory enjoys broad based political support from Liberals, Greens and the US [[Democratic Party]], and theory supporters frequently assert the existence of a "[[scientific consensus]]" favoring their viewpoint (see [[Politics of global warming]]).

==Assessment of the theories==

President Bush's primary science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger, supports anthropogenic global warming.<ref>BBC: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm "Bush aide says warming man-made"]</ref> A number of key Republicans support taking action to combat global warming as well, including President George W. Bush. <ref>White House; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080416-7.html Fact Sheet: Taking Additional Action to Confront Climate Change]</ref>

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[category:ecology]]

==Scientific evidence==

See:
*[[Global warming controversy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Climate agenda

2008-06-30T22:06:39Z

Legjoints:

'''Climate change''' is one of the top environmental issues, with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether recent [[global warming]] is more natural or man-made.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of "[[greenhouse gases]]".

==Science and climate change==

The IPCC in 2007 stated that it was "very likely" that the main cause of climate change was human activity, where by very likely they mean with greater than 90 percent certainty.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

:... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known. [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM]

William Happer wrote:
:The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere. [http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf]

See also:
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]