Facts about Global Warming?

Sabra Roers: Sorry to disappoint you but man-made Global Warming is a scam. You sound like you are in love with the theory so you will probably just dismiss what I've said, but you should not dismiss what these top climate scientists have to say about it.The Great Global Warming Swindlehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

Leora Klingelhoets: you really think it's just a conspiracy?71% of the planet earth is covered in waterdo the math, if those icebergs in south/north pole melt, we'll drown

Sherri Drakos: global warming is happening but there is disbute as to why it is happening. Some say pollution, some say it is natural. So evidence of global warming is the high increase in temperatures, the growth of our deserts and the shrinking of our lakes and ponds check out Africa and Australia as case studies. The rise in sea levels, and the fast melting of our polar ice caps.

Clementina Collelo: Global warming is merely the warming of the globe. Anthropog! enic global warming, which is probably what you are talking about, needs to be differentiated from global warming because many who deny that those changes are occurring because of humans often muddle the argument by claiming that people who accept the reality of it are being disingenuous with regards to the differences between the two. So now that that is out of the way we can discuss the reality of anthropogenic global warming.Anthropogenic global warming is a consequence of human interaction with their environment and the emissions of greenhouse gases as a consequence of that increasing the amount of longwave energy retention, or that energy that is re-emitted from the colder Earth after the shortwave solar energy from the warmer Sun has been absorbed by the surface, within the troposphere and hydrosphere. Certain gases with an uneven distribution of electric charges, called an electric dipole, and more than one atom per molecule have the ability to absorb radiation at th! ese longer wavelengths.As you increase the amount of these gas! es in the atmosphere the amount of radiation at those specific wavelengths leaving the atmosphere decreases. Satellite measurements show this to be occurring and the wavelengths, which are attributable to specific greenhouse gases, it is occurring at (1, 2). As you can see more radiation associated with frequencies related to CO2, methane, water vapour, ozone, and various other gases are the frequencies that are being retained by the atmosphere more. If you look at the data in those specific studies you also see how much of an effect each gasses increasing concentration has. The major greenhouse gasses being water vapour, a feedback relating to temperature and not a forcing, CO2, the most concentrated possible forcing gas associated with human emissions with concentrations over 390 parts per million (ppm) and the most widely emitted gas by human interaction with their environment, methane, another growing greenhouse gas that has concentrations over 1.5ppm and growing, and o! zone, tropospheric ozone emissions are the result of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.The major forcing gas associated with the current warming is CO2. CO2 goes through two different cycles on different time periods. One known as the biological carbon cycle where carbon is cycled through the atmosphere, the biosphere and the hydrosphere. The other is the geological carbon cycle where carbon is often formed into rocks such as limestone and fossil fuels such as oil, lignite and coal. The problem with human usage of fossil fuels is that humans are adding more carbon into the biological carbon cycle that would not be there due to the slow turnover of carbon in the geological carbon cycle. This is reflected in the increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration, which is increasing at a rate of roughly 2ppm or 15.8gt annually (3), the increasing amount of carbon with 12 isotopes as opposed to that with 13 isotopes as plant-based matter, or that which most fossils fuels are mos! t likely comprised, has a bias for 12C (4), and declining atmospheric o! xygen concentration as that oxygen is now incorporated into CO2 molecules (5). We can also look at how annual human emissions, at over 30gt, compare to the atmospheric increase mentioned above (6).The reality of it is is that humans are increasing the temperature within the troposphere by adding greenhouse gases that would not be there naturally and are throwing the natural carbon cycle, or that cycle where the natural emissions of CO2 are generally offset by natural carbon sinks, out of wack. Several lines of additional evidence corroborate this including decreasing sea surface pH during a warming period where, naturally, the opposite would occur, due to increased CO2 uptake (7) as well as, perhaps, increased oceanic dead zones due to weakening upwelling caused by changes in trade wind activity (8).Note: Caliservative has been shown more proof time and time again yet he continues to state it is based on correlation not causation. If he wants to talk about fallacious argume! nts there's one right there....Show more

Florencio Dingle: No--there are no facts that indicate any significant warming, and especially none that prove any of the supposed warming is caused by the actions of man. Sorry.No "proof" exists. The "global warming theory" is just that--a theory. If there were facts that proved it, (which there will never be because the conditions of the Earth's atmosphere cannot be reliably duplicated for experimentation), it would no longer be a theory....Show more

Lu Tiner: I reside inside running distance of the Pacific Ocean, and I have lived right here whilst the alarmists/leftists have been proclaiming worldwide cooling. Over 30 years in the past they began chanting worldwide warming and expected that wherein I reside could have a significant upward push in ocean stages, flooding lowlands, that could occur inside twenty 12 months or much less. That used to be 25 years in the past and I'm nonetheless ready. Nothing has converte! d, no longer the sea degree, no longer the water temperature. The state! climatologist, George Taylor, uncovered the rip-off, and he's a truly scientist, no longer a political candidate. The state governor learn Taylor's file, and fired him, or attempted to. Taylor wasn't politically proper. Also, I studied Earth Science in tuition as a minor. Also, I'm no longer new to technology; I've spent my reside operating in Science and Technology. All my peers are scientists or technologists. So, do not repeat Al Gore's lies to me. This local weather difference hoax runs alongside leftist political traces, and it's fed through liars and morons. Believe it!...Show more

Hilton Paiva: No.If you look at the IPCC documents, the case for AGW is based on two lines of evidence: the temperature record, and 'statistical analysis'.The first is based on the 'propter hoc' fallacy; it assumes that a correlation (between CO2 and temperature) must mean causation. It doesn't, any more than flies cause garbage. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is about 4! 4%, vs. 56% for solar activity and 85% for ocean temperatures. Ice core records indicate CO2 levels changed 800-3000 years *after* temperature changes at both the beginning and end of the ice ages.The 'statistical analysis' they refer to means computer models. They claim that their models do not replicate modern warming unless the greenhouse effects of CO2 are included. This is an argument from ignorance; it is making the case for CO2 causation based on 'we can't think of what else it could be'. In fact, the models do not agree with each other; their sensitivities vary across a range of 300%. The models fail in every validation attempt to which they have been subjected.CO2 does not have sufficient 'power' to explain modern warming, so they have postulated a large 'positive feedback' involving water vapor that magnifies the effect of CO2. This large positive feedback has never been validated, and multiple peer-reviewed studies suggest it is much smaller than the IPCC has ass! umed.All of the other 'evidence' you are hearing is about effects; glac! iers, sea levels, migrations, etc. These are more 'propter hoc' fallacies, as the studies that establish those effects cannot show a causal link between the event and global temperature change. They are also appeals to fear, which is an attempt to get people *not* to apply critical thinking to the problem.The geologic record indicates that modern warming is not unique; other warming events have induced much larger and faster rates of temperature change, without the aid of CO2 (i.e. the exit from the Younger Dryas cold period, about 8000yr ago). Contrary to claims from the AGW proponents, the rate of change of temperature, and of sea level rise, have been decreasing since then.Science requires the rejection of the null hypothesis; the evidence for AGW is too weak reject the null hypothesis....Show more

Ninfa Aronica: I agree with Jennifer

Phillip Modafferi: If in fact we are emerging from an ice age as we were taught in grade school that means (ignoring for the m! oment all the armloads of printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are WARMING and have been for several thousand years humps and bumps in the charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, definitely not "warming" so we experience variations. The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are causing these Hot/Cold cycles. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. General science has for hundreds of years provided us a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 million years, but now we face dubious arguments based on data going back less than half a million years (the Gore fraud) obscuring the lo! ng term picture exposed by accepted scientific climate research. Earthâ! €™s orbit is not a perfect circle, it varies in a cyclic ellipses over these 100,000 year cycles (Malkovich). Now correct me if I’m wrong but if the earth gets closer then further from the sun wouldn’t the Solar radiant energy reaching Earths surface increase and decrease commensurately? A rational person may even assume a direct relationship? Common sense and basic physics says Earths Climate is going to change with these variations in radiation values....Show more

Jules Ashbach: Global temperature data proves that the world's climate is warming rapidly, which is why the ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers all over the world are in meltdown, why sea level is rising, why climate zones are shifting polewards and uphill, and why we're seeing many thousands of other indications of a warming planet.Numerous studies show beyond any reasonable doubt that for the last half century, human activity is the sole cause of this global warming - primarily because of our enormou! s output of global warming gases such as carbon dioxide and methane....Show more