Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

That's easy, go out with a thermometer in the summer and write down how much the earth heats up each day. That's global warming. Next, go out during the Winter with the same thermometer and see how much the earth cools, especially at night when the sun is not shining. That's global cooling. Been that way a long time. Right now we are experiencing fantastic global cooling as evidenced in the fact that places like Egypt and other African countries further south than Egypt have been having freezing temperatures, something that is unprecedented. It's pretty neat how the earth works that way.

Your answer is NO. If you were living near any ocean and watching it rise from the melted Glaciers you'd believe All Glacier's were melting, but now Global warming is over with, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012. Mike

Perhaps a linear warming which will lead to 1-1.3 degrees (celsius) of warming in the next 100 years. Not terribly worrisome. Sure we shoudl reduce our CO2 output, but we shouldn't be killing our economy to do so.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Even taking the NASA data, an exponential trend is impossible to see. If you want evidence that the trend is NOT exponential, watch the warmers here, try to convince you theat warming is even happening. It is quite entertaining when they use LINEAR regression trends on past data, without even recognizing that they have been claiming exponential warming.

Then you have people like Hey Dook, who just uses consensus. TOO FUNNY. The "consensus" articles say nothing about whether the warming is linear or exponential. For some reason he believes this proves his point. Don't bother pointing this error in logic out to the warmers though. I have for quite some time and they either ignore or insult.

To address Elizabeth's answer:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/111...

Man is causing the coral reef to die, but NOT by AGW, but by water treatment.

But she was entirely right about one thing. The treeline is moving north. OHHH THE HUMANITY. Imagine, a greener world. Such a tragedy. That CO2 fertilization be darned. Who wants more plant life???

Here is the problem with AGW. Warming is a good thing. CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. We are in a relative CO2 and temp drought. Periods like the jurassic period saw CO2 of 2200 ppm and temps 7 degrees higher. Plant life flourished. Why? Because COLD is the enemy of life.

The inherent possible danger of temp changes is that they change too fast and lifeforms ar enot able to keep up with the change. In order for this to be a proble, you must believe exponential warming is going to occur. All life already is adapted to withstand large temp variations seen during the year. In my town the temps vary from -15 F to 100 F during the year. A 115 degree swing, or 64 degree celsius swing. Clearly 1 degree celsius change is not going to kill of lifeforms used to this large of a yearly variation.

You have to buy the exponential change to be scared. And it is the exponential change that has so little justification. They can more than show some warming caused by man. They can't show why you should be scared. Show me any article that has you scared and I will show you why the article is wrong.

CR,

Are you proposing that the scientists should do a wilcoxon signed rank test???

Over the past few decades we've made various observations of our planet. These observations include:

1. Rising surface temperatures over the past century

2. Rising ocean temperatures

3. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere

4. Changes in the isotope ratio of carbon in the atmosphere and in plants

5. Reductions in O2 levels in the atmosphere

6. Rising sea-levels as measured by tidal gauges and satellite systems

7. Decreased pH levels in some oceans

8. Increased glacial melt and reduction of the thickness of Arctic ice

9. Northerly advance of treelines, changes in migration dates of birds and flowering of plants

10. Massive coral die off

Now the role of science is to try to explain our observations. To do that you need a 'model', which is not the dirty word some skeptics seem to think it is, but the basis of modern science. For example, if I heat water I'll find that at 100C the temperature doesn't increase any more. That's an observation. The 'model' is that energy is now being used to change the state of water from liquid to gas and hence we should see no increase in temperature of the water assuming atmospheric pressure remains constant. That's the explanation. So, the 'model' is essential to how we interpret the observations. Without a model you're just quoting what you see in a graph rather than explaining the mechanisms involved.

Scientists have created models to allow us to interpret those observations. The theory of AGW is based on a model in which human emissions of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, trap additional heat and warm the planet. The models then include feedback mechanisms which amplify or diminish the heating effect. And what we find is that the observations can, generally, be explained in terms of that model. Hence AGW is a 'good' scientific theory. It explains why CO2 levels are rising, why O2 levels are dropping, why the isotope ratios are changing, why oceans are becoming more acidic (and why coral is dying), why temperatures of the surface and seas are increasing, why glaciers and the ice sheet is melting, etc.

When we attempt to use a model that doesn't include the CO2 contribution from humans as a factor, they don't fit the observations. That's not to say that you can't fit *some* of the observations using other models ... for example, if you argue that the sun has increased its output then that would explain the temperature rise. It would also explain the CO2 rise (due to release of that molecule from the oceans). But it would be contrary to other observations, such as the reduction in O2, the isotope ratios, and the fact that solar radiation didn't increase during the time when temperatures rose.

Therefore AGW gives us a much better power of explanation for our observations than any of the competing theories. Hence it is the one favoured by the scientific community. If another theory emerges that has the same explanatory power, then that will have to be considered. But, it has been 30 years since the basic model was produced and no one has produced a better one in that time.

Does that mean we know everything? Of course not. Does that mean the theory is complete? No. Does that mean that scientists won't revise predictions based on new evidence? No. But we can only know what we know at any given time. And AGW is the best theory we have for now.

Both the latest IPCC scientific report (AR5 Working group1) published last September, and Professor Jones, head of the climate research unit of the UK met office, state that there has been no global warming for at least 15 years. Since Human CO2 emissions have increased 8% during this time, they cannot be driving our climate

There is NO man-made Global Warming.

It's been cooling for at least 12 years.

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

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle