* climate has changed before so what is happening now must be natural
* only God can change a climate
* the sun must have changed
* scientists are dirty rotten cheating Marxist scum
* there are two or three climatologists who don't believe what the rest do, and they can't get published because all the others don't want their dirty little secret exposed
* I don't know what else, there's some new garbage every day.
If you are writing for an audience who does not pay attention to the science journals and is totally ignorant of how physics works then you can write a persuasive paper. If on the other hand your audience does follow actual scientific research, then you have to change the tone of your paper. Make the theme of the paper what the denier machine tries to pump out. Just present the silly arguments, don't defend them and close by quoting the National Academy of Science, Stephen Hawking or some other credible source.
I'm assuming this is for a high school course; this wouldn't or shouldn't be a college assignment. In high school, doing what you are told is the easy path to a B paper. For the A, you have to show independent thinking, making the paper about the misleading stuff the denier machine puts out shows that you are looking at the other side of the argument but closing with legitimate scientists shows that you can actually follow a scientific conclusion. That's the A paper.
The global warming that we are experiencing is just a part of an earth heating and cooling cycle. The current heating portion of the cycle is caused by an injection of about 31 billion metric tonnes of human produced CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This added CO2 is throwing a "warm blanket" over the surface of the earth whereby energy in the visible portion of the spectrum is allowed to travel to the earth's surface but the energy is then inhibited from leaving out to space when is it re-radiated as infrared. This blanket is shifting the earth/sun energy balance and causing the earths surface and the earth's oceans to warm up.
As we continue on the upward transit of this cycle, sea levels will rise and (geologically) rapid changes in climate will severely impact man's ability to survive and prosper. The result will be a falling off of the human population (mass starvations and war caused by mass migrations and general instability due to scarce resources) beginning in the second half of the 21st century. This, accompanied by the peaking of fossil fuel production towards 2100 will slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 to the point where human caused CO2 rise will fall off in the 22nd century. By the end of the 22nd century, natural processes (chemical weathering) will begin to slowly bring CO2 down. By the end of the 22nd century, man's world-wide civilization will have faded to a shadow of it's current self and will no longer be able to impact atmospheric CO2 levels the way we do now because there will be no easy to obtain fossil fuels left and there will be many fewer humans. The CO2 descent will probably be at a rate of roughly 2 ppm per century downwards (where now it is rising at 2 ppm annually).
So you see, after about 50,000 years, earth's CO2 levels will have returned to pre-industrial revolution levels of about 280 ppm and with it world-wide temperatures will settle back down to where they were. There you have it, nothing will be warmer than it was before. Global warming is not real.
You mean viable reasons.
Anything which is used to state it isn't real basically comes down to "margin of error" claims. The people will say the fluctuations in temperatures which supposedly show an increase in global temperatures aren't great enough to indicate they have shifted beyond the norm because a margin of error needs to be applied. The percentages they use for a margin of error then bring the numbers close to the norm, and any remaining slight difference is then shrugged off as inconsequential.
The Vostok ice core samples clearly show that the earth goes through 100,000 year cycles with each cycle comprised of a 10-20,000 year warm period followed by a very rapid decrease in temperature ( over 3-5000 years) of 12-16 degrees F and remains at this frigid temperature for 70-80,000 years. At present we are at a temperature very near the peak temperature of the past ice age cycles. We very well could be at or just past the peak of the warm period and headed into the declining temperature period which would begin with a very gradual decrease ( almost imperceptible at the onset). One thing is certain. We will experience a decline in the earths temperature in the not to distant future and such decline will begin very slowly. Has the decline started yet. Perhaps.
Do any of the global warming temperature prediction models, which project global warming, also predict the onset of the next ice age. If so, when do they predict that the onset of the earth cooling will occur.. If such models cannot predict the time of the onset of the beginning of the neat cooling period, then they are not comprehensive and are woefully lacking in credibility.
So JimZ ridicules others for using blogs and his links all are to... blogs. Hypocrite? Yes.
Anyways, the thing with science is that it is not shared in blogs. It is shared in peer reviewed study. If you want real answers to your question you're going to have to look in those peer reviewed studies and weed through all the studies that acknowledge the world is warming and is due to man and find that one or two that call that into question. I'm fairly certain that you are going to have a very hard time doing that. Instead of telling your class why global warming isn't real tell them why future warming isn't as great as models predict. At least that has more uncertainty other than stating the old conspiracy theories that scientists/politicians/whomever are all in on it to make a quick buck or JimZ's ignorant comment about "It's changed before therefor this time it's natural" similar to saying forest fires have naturally happened before therefor man can not create forest fires.
We know it is due to human emissions of CO2 due to the frequencies involved, CO2 absorbs in a narrow band centered at 667cm^-1 and that is the forcing band that is showing the most change as it gets wider, and human emissions, at 33.5 gigatonnes per year, being greater than atmospheric increase, at 15.6 gigatonnes per year, with the excess being absorbed by the oceans mainly.
You can try and call into question the water cycle response to a warming atmosphere though. As we know water vapour concentration will increase in a warming atmosphere increasing the feedback effect however with more water vapour there may be more clouds, though this shows no definite long term trend.
You can find things such as this:
http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea213/...
http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~jchiang/C...
though those two don;t follow what you are looking for you can do a search at http://scholar.google.ca and typing in your search terms
They are now identifying it as extreme weather events we are putting a lot of energy out into the world and cause higher temperatures that collide with low temperatures and pollutants causing environmental chaos so on and so forth. We are expected to have incredibly storms and other natural disasters as a result. New york does not regularly experience the incredible level of storm that they did in 2012. Weather is changing and it IS our fault.
Yeah, visit all of the conspiracy theory sites that deniers like to mention. Or, assume the mindset of an ignorant moron who thinks a spring snowstorm in the US is the opposite of global warming.
Why would you have to write a paper like this?
"God did it"
so many Deniers think their god controls the weather and they think there's a huge conspiracy going on in the scientific community. They also think many scientists are influenced by Satan.
Who ever is making your write a research paper on why global warming isnt real is an idiot.
learn more;
http://ncse.com/climate
It is real. The only thing that is up for debate about global warming is whether or not it's due to humans through things like factories and power plants. Sorry I can't be much help. I assume somebody else will give an answer with some reasons as to why it could be "fake"
Have U noticed how cool beneath a big tree not cut down? How HOT AFTER cut down.
I have to write a research paper on why global warming isnt real but unfortunately, i support that it is real and havnt been able to come up with any liable reasons why it could be fake. Any answers would be much appreciated!
They data they collect is extreamly skewed. They fail to realize that earth have had cold and warm spells before. Once they were pointed out for all the flaws and messed up data they had....all of a sudden they call it "tempatures extremes". Which doesn't even make sense because they will have to completely toss the "green house effect" theory out the window. I think gobal warming is a theory made to manipuate people and gain a certain influence or power.
Google "climate warming a chilling prospect" they have lots of info.
Watch Al Gore movie one more time...
It's only false if you choose to believe it is false. If you live on Planet Reality, then you know perfectly well it is real.
There are some places that still having some snows and very cold weather. Record breaking. That they do not expect it is going to happened. I call it Magic.
As a geologist, we didn't study "global warming" in school for good reason. It is a bullshtt category that has no meaning to real scientists IMO. It is a political name given to warming which they hope to blame on human emissions of CO2. In fact, the Earth warms and cools naturally. We were relatively cool 300 years ago and have been warming generally since then. So what? In fact we live in relatively cool times. It was much warmer a hundred million years ago, 10 million years ago, and even 6 thousand years ago. It was probably similar a thousand years ago. What makes you believe it is real? The answer above that talked about blogs is simply repeating what he read in leftist blogs. You are young and inexperienced so I would just urge you not to believe everything you read about in media. They are largely biased and ignorant of science. If you want some helpful links that might help you in your paper, here are a few.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warmi...
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03...
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2010/12/t...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/sp...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/oc...
Take your pick from some of the fossil-in-stone crackpot conspiracy theories:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Or peruse popular oil and coal company anti-science trickeries and lies:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
