I dont have any thoughts on this tpoic yet but I want to know, with facts. Is global warming real or not?

Top scientists have had consistent conclusions for over twenty years that the unusually rapid global climate change of the past century has been mostly human-caused, and for the past 10 years nearly all indications are that this is likely to have significantly negative long term consequences for the global economy. Fossil Fuel companies have often denied this science and Republican politicians in the U.S. have been adamant lately in espousing such anti-science denial. A range of anti-science con artists, pretending to be the "other side" of a scientific "debate" on whether anthropogenic climate change is a serious long term issue, are prevalent on-line. Yahoo Answers is loaded with deniers-in-training trying to copy-paste such deception. It is advisable to do your own homework on this subject. Here are some links:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_A...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

Saying it is real or a hoax is a talking point but really does not address the issues at hand. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas, and thus the introduction of more CO2 into the climate will have the effect of raising temperatures.

The question is how much. Now it is know that doubling the CO2 content will raise the temps by about 1 degree. This really is not much of a problem In fact, the earth temps have been 2 degrees colder and about 8 degrees warmer in the past. On average the earth is actually colder than normal. Further, the earth also has less CO2 than normal. The jurassic period had around 2200 ppm and was 8 degrees warmer, and not only did life survive but plant life thrived more than it does now. So when talkiung about global warming, we need to keep a realistic perspective. It is not going to destroy the world. It may cause issues, but life will continue.

So the question is really how much warming is man causing and how much can we expect in the future, what will be the effect and what shoudl we do about this.

This is really where the debate becomes really contentious. You see while CO2's affect is small, there is question about positive feedbacks. A positive feedback would amplify any warming seen. For example, warming causes more H2O to go into the atmosphere, which is also a greenhouse gas. But H2O creates clouds which may be a negative feedback and cause cooling.

Personally, I think the models are wrong for 2 reasons.

1.) The models are unstable. Small changes in the models have temps shooting off to infinity. The earth is not unstable, so the models are wrong.

2.) The models have all been overestimating the current temps. So how can I trust models that overestimate over a 20 year period, to be accurate 100 years from now?

Bottom line, we should work towards reducing our CO2 output, but there is nothing to panic about. There is no reason to tax ourselves into a recession. We just need to work on smart solutions. For example, the cost of solar power continues to decrease and will become a great alternative for home power.

Global warming is real but a lot of the science involved is a hoax. To date, none of the climate models accurately reflect current climate conditions. These climate models are strongly influenced by CO2 emissions which suggest the CO2 may not be the cause of warming. Also the rate at which surface temps have been rising has flatlined since 1998 and has actually showed a slight cooling trend since 2006. Involving politics into the scientific process is also worrisome. Despite the mounting evidence against global warming, scientist are still trying to push the theory forward instead of looking at alternative theories

Other then the deniers of science we have the two extremes, those who claim it is inconsequential and those that claim it will be the end of the world. My personal opinion is probably somewhere in between. (It will have serious consequences and that the consequences will become increasingly more expensive to deal with over time.)

Wikipedia is a good place to start. (And for those who don't understand the definition of the term "global warming", maybe they could try a dictionary.)

"Global warming refers to an unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans. Despite the oceans' dominant role in energy storage, the term "global warming" is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth's surface. Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850." [1]

I have not seen any "alarmist" here claiming that AGW itself will be the end of the world. A recent study showed that "Climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists." [2]

The claim by Maxx and James that thousands of scientist all around the world are secretly working together and falsifying the published science in order to get politicians to increase taxes on every one (including the scientists) is just one example of the conspiracy theories.

Then we have one individual who tries to uses association fallacies [3] (often by misquoting and even outright fabrications) that because those people allegedly said something that sounds suspicious, that the whole scientific community is "bad".

Quotes by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause)

"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",

"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",

"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch"'

"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",

"God has his hand on the thermostat". (A god who fries children because they do not give enough money or bow deep enough to him)

While it is painfully obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, if we were to use his "logic" [3] it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that his fans [4] are.

Ottawa is right. First you have to define global warming. It is an ill defined concept. Is it a hoax? I don't even understand that question. I think there is probably an exaggeration of the consequences of our CO2 emissions and it is a convenient excuse by those on the left to attempt to push their agenda, not that all on the left sink that low. Unfortunately many people abrogate their thought processes to others. I don't get my science from Rush Limbaugh but I think most alarmists get their science from leftwing blogs and the mainstream media.

If it were real the warmers would have a much easier ride. The climate at ground level would get warmer with respect to time. Snow would be a rare event and all their other frightening predictions would come about. There would be no need to hide the decline or massage the figures to present their case. When a politician gets on the wrong horse he has great difficulty changing as the truth becomes impossible to hide.

The problem with this debate is that people use different definitions for "global warming". So you get one group arguing in favor of definition A and another arguing against definition B. So you can see the problems there.

IT WAS REAL, but now its over with. It ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012. Mike

Kano has it right. The earth is warming and CO2 is contributing. Water vapor has a heat trapping effect which is 100 times that of CO2. Scientists have identified negative and positive feedbacks due to water vapor. Bottom line is they really don't understand.

If the models project warming that is not catastrophic, then it is not a problem and literally billions of dollars in grant money disappear. It doesn't take much of a tweak to change the warming from manageable to catastrophic.

And my fat grant is secure for another five years.

Gary F: That college flunky said there would be less hurricanes hit the US the year after Katrina. James Hansen said there would be more. The flunky was right. Ha! Ha! He took on the Communist activist James Hansen head on and he won! Rush Limbaugh 1, James Hansen 0.

In answer to your question, it is a hoax and even many of the greenies admit it.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

That really should end the argument if the greenies admit AGW is nothing but a scientific hoax but let us look at what a true credentialed scientist has to say.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

And if that isn't enough. Let us look at the Earth itself. Does it go along with the AGW theory? Al Gore clearly showed everyone a graphic display. In this display he claimed that when CO2 level increases the Earth's temperature rises. And when the CO2 level decreases the temperature goes down. That is what the carbon tax is based on. That is what Carbon Credits are based on.

So let us look at the facts. For over a decade the Earth's temperature has been falling.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Yet the CO2 level has increased, as everyone agrees. Game over. Turn out the lights. That is it. AGW is a hoax.

It is real but it is inconsequential. Wikipedia tells us that a doubling of CO2 will give an extra 3.7 watts per sq meter of heating equal to a 1C rise ( thats no problem) so they then go to say that small rise in heat will increase water vapor which is a stronger greenhouse gas (positive feedback) but that doesn't happen otherwise it would have happened before, because any rise in temperature whether from CO2 or anything else would cause a positive water vapor feedback.

Funny how they always talk about CO2 causing global warming but stay quiet about the feedbacks necessary to make it happen.

Jeff M okay there is a positive feedback but there are also many negative feedbacks, the whole water cycle removes heat from the surface

I dont have any thoughts on this tpoic yet but I want to know, with facts. Is global warming real or not?

Real..end of debate

Kano: There is a positive water vapour feedback. You have been discussing increased evaporation and convection in warming world yet here you are claiming that .the water vapour feedback isn't as strong as they claim it is.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v34...

http://www.clidyn.ethz.ch/ese101/Papers/...

http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~toine379/extr...

They have been talking about the feedback mechanisms for decades now both through modelling and observation.

Kano: Again, you are basing opinion on limited understanding. How did you come to the conclusion that the whole water cycle is a negative feedback?

Graphicconception: Since when is the 'Greenland Ice Core' global? What you are doing is taking a very small drill hole in the entire world from an area known to be greatly affected by tides and currents and using that data as if it's global. and you don't see a problem with that?

Who cares? If you think it is fake, enjoy the weather. If you think it's real, recycling that soda can isn't going to do anything.

Very Real.

read; http://news.yahoo.com/enough-creationist...

learn;