Abolishing Global warming.?

Travis Sherrock: In a generic sense it does, but it is not quite correct English outside of titles and headings. "Abolishing Global Warming", can be used as a title or heading if you are writing about actions that are taking place. "The Abolishment of Global Warming" is also a fair title if you are writing about actions that have taken place to abolish global warming. Global warming is the rising running average temperature and geologists are inclined to argue that it has happened before because there are plenty of examples of global warming in the geological record. There is also the argument that the previous "global" warming event was shown by disparite tree ring evidence from Tasmania and Queensland to be not so global (Plimer, 2001). Geologically, global trends in climate may be a phenomenon of low data resolution - and the geographic distribution of dates for temperature peaks certainly gets fuzzier the further back in time you look, because there are less data poin! ts, and the margins for error increase with dating methods appropriate to older rocks and fossils.This is not to say that the mean global temperature taken as a running average is not on the rise. Blaming human activities for rising temperatures is scientifically spurious, because historical reasons for previous rises in mean global temperature are not fully accounted for. The argument that there is no human influence on climate change is equally spurious from a scientist's perspective because once again, the quantification of influence due to historical causes is simply incomplete. Also undermining arguments on both sides of the fence is the fact that we have not identified all processes that contribute to climate change, so we cannot audit the calculation to see if the tally of contributions is equal to their sum or whether we have erred in our estimate of the contributions of one or more systems.This isn't to say we shouldn't apply control measures to check our own poten! tial input into the system. In risk management, you need not p! rove a potential hazard in order to be obliged to impliment reasonable control measures. All that is required is to establish the *possibility* of unacceptable consequences of a hazard in order that reasonable control measures become obligatory. As you can see, there are significant differences between the scientific viewpoint where the agenda is to ask more questions, and the risk management viewpoint where the agenda is to identify and control potential hazards. People who don't understand the trial & error nature of science tend to confuse the scientific and risk management issues. This misunderstanding has a lot to do with the claim that science supports the conclusion that humans are to blame for global warming. In point of fact, science supports the risk management assessment of global warming by confirming that outcomes unacceptable to many human beings are at least a possiblity having occured in the past for different reasons.A suitable analogy would be to picture y! ourself standing on the ice of a frozen lake. As you look around you, you notice a rescue team 200 metres away pulling some poor soul (who shares your bodyweight) out of the freezing water after presumably having fallen through thin ice. It makes sense, does it not, that this is sufficient evidence that the ice is too thin in some places to support your weight and your hypothesis is confirmed when you see the rescue team move to rescue yet another victim of the thin ice. This is the science which does not necessarily suggest on the strength of this evidence that the ice grows thicker or thinner beneath you feet, only that the ice is of variable thickness and therefore you may fall through the ice if you continue your journey or perhaps not. However, it is stupendously obvious that a prudent course of action would be to lightly retrace your footsteps and leave your journey across the ice for anotherr day. After all, the reward of crossing the ice is not worth risking the po! ssibility of falling through it (and perhaps not being found by rescuer! s - an entirely unacceptable consequence, no?). See the difference in perspective? For a conclusion to be scientific, there must be repeatable observations (verifyable evidence) for which that conclusion comprises the simplest explanation without ignoring any other relevant data. However, for a risk management recommendation of control measures to be duly diligent, it need only establish the probability of undesireable consequences or the possibility of unacceptable consequences.I hope this helps......Show more

Sammie Bocanegra: You cannot not "abolish" or stop a natural Earth cycle that has been going on, alternating with global cooling, for 4.55 billion years.

Spencer Heidtbrink: You cannot abolish global warming.People can reduce the effects of global warming by reducing the emissions of CO2, and taking care the biosphere.

Mel Crapo: i dont know whether it make sense or not.But i can provide some information Global warming is the increase in the avera! ge temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement wit! h some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists! working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] The range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]Increasing global temperature will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, trade routes, glacier retreat, species e! xtinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequencesThe Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including variations in its orbit around the Sun (orbital forcing),[13][14][15] volcanic eruptions,[16] and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[17][18] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of th! e industrial era. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 y! ears, for which the most detailed data are available. Some other hypotheses departing from the consensus view have been suggested to explain the temperature increase. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.[19][20][21]None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur...Show more