The climate as observed over the instrumental record always cools and warms in 30 year cycles, in conjunction with the PDO phase. The only warming that has occurred during the time humanity has been emitting large amounts of CO2 was between 1977 and 1998. The same amount of warming occurred between 1920 and 1945, but could not be from CO2, because human emissions of CO2 were almost non-existent during that time period.

Solar activity has been increasing and can be directly related to at least 30% of the warming since the Little Ice Age.

Two major volcanic eruptions during the early 80's and during the early 90's caused ozone levels to drop substantially in the stratosphere which allowed more solar energy to reach the surface. And water vapor increased by 10% during the 80's and 90's which can be directly attributed to at least 30% of the warming observed during that time period.

That only leaves about a 1/3 of the warming that could have been caused by CO2, but the climate always warms during the PDO warm phase which occurred from 1977 to 2003. As of 2003 the world has cooled slightly and the cooling trend will likely accelerate and continue until at least 2030, because of a PDO negative phase and an alarming decrease in solar activity.

It seems suspicious that the warming has paused for over ten years, which just happens to coincide with the PDO flip, and that the warming that occurred during the 80's and 90's occurred inline with the PDO positive phase. It is completely plausible that the warming observed was a natural event, and that a doubling of CO2 would only lead to 1 degree of warming. However, if it goes up to 1000 ppm then you might see something.

Well you need to clarify what you are arguing against. Are you trying to argue that the globe has not gotten warmer? Then you need to focus on adjustments to the temperature record, claim that actual temperatures have not changed. You might try Chiefio or surfacestations.org

You could also claim that temperatures have not warmed in the last 10-15 years and you would be on stronger ground.

If instead you are arguing against CO2 causing global warming, then you can point out that the planet has been warming for centuries, when CO2 levels were much lower.

Other possible reasons for climate change:

Galactic cosmic rays, theory of Svensmark, that the sun keeps out GCR, and when the sun is weaker, it lets in more GCR, and these GCR form clouds that reflect sunlight, making things cooler.

It's the sun. Weaker sun makes things cooler. Exact mechanism unknown.

PDO or other natural change, changes cloud level. This change in cloudiness has caused the warming that is being blamed on CO2.

CO2 rise is because of a temperature increase centuries in the past. Ice core records show temperature rising before a CO2 increase.

Doubling of CO2 emissions only warms the planet about 1.2C. Scientists use models to predict that this warming will be much higher, by inserting positive feedback loops. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the effect of clouds. Whereas the models assign a high positive feedback to clouds, it is possible they are a negative feedback. For example, more warming means ocean evaporates forming clouds that reflect sunlight. This would moderate the warming from CO2. IPCC says that there is a great deal of uncertainty but doesn't go into detail. Meanwhile the models are built more on the idea that warming adds water vapor that is a greenhouse gas causing more warming.

Note that this last one does not allow for global warming to be a myth but rather that high amounts of global warming- catastrophic anthropogenic global warming- is a myth.

I have a good reason for you. We are recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended somewhere around 1850. This is significant because most modern temperature records only go back to 1860 or so. During the LIA there were periods of more intense cold which were caused by reduced sun spot activity. The last one of these was the Dalton Minimum, circa 1800-1830.

So our burning of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution roughly coincided with the end of the LIA. You would expect some temperature increase naturally. One scientist argues that the temperature increase over the last 150 years has been linear. Periods of increased heating are due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a 60 year cycle of warming and cooling. Dr. Akasofu wrote in a peer reviewed journal that the PDO was responsible for the observed heating from 1970-2000. While the IPCC models show a continuation of that trend, Akasofu predicted that the PDO would shift back to the cool phase and global temperatures would be flat.

Global warming theory is based on an average rise in the annual temperatures of places around the globe. The increases in average temperatures may be very slight, but they are well documented. It doesn't mean you're necessarily going to have a warmer winter or hotter summer for any given year however. Maybe this will help. If a glacier in the arctic is surrounded by an air mass at 32 F it remains stable. But if the same glacier is subjected to air at 32.1 F it melts. The melting releases water into the atmosphere via evaporation. More water in the atmosphere, combined with more heat energy from global warming, is responsible, in my opinion, for the dramatic increases in extreme weather events around the world. Not all such events are the result of warming though. It's a complex issue but I'm a firm believer. I also believe there is little if any hope of reversing the trend.

Well "climate change" is a misnomer. Its always changing. We live on a dynamic planet and its going to change whether we like it or not. 10,000 years ago most of Europe and North America was under a kilometre of ice. We owe our existence to a global warming event because its about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago that the ice age ended and the ice retreated, and humans went from being hunter gatherers to farmers, which in turn led to the invention of writing, and money, giving rise to whole new concept we had never thought of before; civilisation.

It changed then, and it'll change again. The last change just so happened to be to our benefit. The next one may not be. Sad day for us. We cannot stop the climate from changing any more than I could stop a freight train by putting my hand out in front of me. Rather than wasting all this money and resources trying to stop it, you cannot stop nature, we should be adapting to it.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:

Let us put it this way in simple terms. According to 'scientists' on this site and Al Gore, the level of CO2 will drive the temperature up or down. Al Gore had a graph which clearly depicted that to be true. When the CO2 level went up the temperature went up. When the CO2 level went down the temperature would go down. Laws were written on this theory and carbon taxes were created due to this theory.

However, during the last decade and more the Earth's temperature has gone down. All the while the CO2 has risen.

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

This disproves the AGW theory point blank. AGW is a myth!

Unfortunately your best argument is questioning what they don't know. In other words, an unknown natural variable could be causing the observable changes.

Don't try to find scientific support or evidence, simply focus on what we don't know and how these limitations may hold the secret to what is 'really' causing the change.

If there was ONE piece of scientific evidence that countered the theory of anthropogenic influences then the theory would be dismissed. As the theory is still valid this implies that there is no evidence so far (so you have to argue it is something we don't know).

First, define myth versus truth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will raise the temp of the atmosphere. That much is true and has a ton of science backing those assertions.

What is not known is the extent of the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. Most of the modeling done assumes enough positive feedbacks so as to create an exponential temperature growth curve. There is little doubt that that LARGE changes in temperature will have massive effects.

Thus far, we have only seen 0.8 degree temps rises over the last 100 years. Some of that rise is to be expected in coming out of an ice age, but certainly most of it is caused by CO2.

Now I am going to assume that you believe in evolution and that you will accept my statement that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. During this period of time, the climate of the earth has been relatively stable with only a fluctuation of 10 degrees during the entire time.

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

Now this is why I do not "believe" in global warming. Many people assume this "belief" inherently means that I also accept the exponential future modeling and "runaway" global warming. I DO NOT. And neither should you.

The models that they use have actually predicted as high as a 10 degree increase in temps, which would place the temp of the earth 2 degrees higher than it has ever been. The 10 degree increase is from only a change ofthe atmospheric concentration to < 700 ppm. The concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere has been as high as 7000 ppm with temps lower than their models at 700 ppm!!!!!

That is problematic!!!

But its not just that model but all models of the future. Just using basic logic, you don't trust your local forecast to be accurate with 10 degrees when they predict 10 days out. They are telling you that they can predict the global temp 100 years out!!! WHAT???

Lets go back to evolution, though. You agree with evolution. Do you understand that for evolution to occur over hundreds of millions of year, that the earth had to have a relatively stable climate??? Think about it. If runaway global warming in the past occurred and our planet was ever like Venus, then all life would have died and we wouldn't be here. If it froze to a Mars-like environment, once again we would not be here.

So if you agree that the earth's climate is a stable system, then you cannot accept the warming models. NONE OF THEM. You see, in order to have a stable model, you have to have more negative feedbacks than positive feedbacks. Think about it. If I heat something up and the effect is that the heat multiplies and multiplies because of positive feedbacks, then you have an unstable system. Small change cause HUGE changes. If you have more of a dampening effect to any change made (negative feedback), then just like the shocks in your car, the system is stable and stops bouncing.

ALL of the models that the scientists are using have more positive feedbacks, than negative. In fact, they have so many more positive feedbacks, that the models show exponential temp changes.

They are asking you to believe that their models are right, even though, they are unstable models trying to imitate a stable Earth.

Now perhaps you could accept them as accurate if they showed accuracy over the time point we are aware of.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20c...

They are overestimating. So not only are you being asked to accept unstable models of a stable earth, but you are being asked to accept models that are KNOWN to overestimate.

The truth is that any model that has more than a linear increase in temps with CO2 increases, are unstable and CAN NOT adequately model a stable earth. This means that in the next 100 years, we will likely not see any more than a 1.3 degree change.

So a 1.3 degree change caused by man should be avoided, but there is certianly no way the apocalypse is going to occur from this change. So we need to make rationale decisions based upon truth, not extreme decisions based upon their assinine version of a crystal ball.

Now if you are wondering why the scientists are so dorking up their estimates, you can look into thing like the PDO, and the ocean's "missing heat". BTW missing heat is their code for saying their models are wrong. Other factors like clouds have on-going debates as to their role as either a positive or negative feedback. BUT, what shoudl not be debated is that greater cloud cover would inherently reduce the radiative heating of the oceans. Because of this, the oceans would serve as a greater heat sink than their models currently project.

I have to write a science paper on whether global warming is a myth or if it has merit, and I am playing devil's advocate and saying that it is a myth. I personally believe global warming to be true, but for the sake of the paper I want to say differently. So I have different reasons why it's a myth, but I can't think of anything almost "scientific" or other reasons for the climate change. I'm not sure, I'm stuck and need help. So please 10 points to the top answer.

Also if you could give me some websites that would be awesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoce...

12,000 years of climate change.

The difference between then and today?

Today we have real time temperature readings down to a hundreth of a degree.

Today we have satellites.

Today we have an agenda driven media.

Today we have agenda driven politicians.

And,

We have a glut of "climate scientists" who would be flipping burgers with their overpriced degrees without AGW.

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

Here's the problem deniers have a raft of excuses and theories, but all have little basis in science, take 'graphicconception' (or should that be misconception) his 500,000 year graph (actually it's 400,000) is the ice core record denier lurch from saying it can't be trusted to trying to use it to show why they claim we cant have a man made cause for climate change.

The glacial cycle has been going on for ~2.5 million years it is a long slow process taking ~120 thousand years per cycle triggered into warming by the Milankovitch cycles, followed by centuries of slow reaction to that (the so called gap deniers try and reference) then increased as CO2 starts to add to the atmosphere.

In both natural and man made situations CO2 warms the planet in the natural cycle it is triggered (with some delay) by the Milankovitch cycles and now it is triggered by our direct release of CO2 which in just 100 years is up to a level not seen in 800,000 years and by the end of this century will be at a level not seen since long before the current glacial cycle started 2.5 million years ago.

Some of the failed excuses denier have already (and still) try to use.

1) "It's the Sun" wen not according to the actual data collected on solar activity

2) "it's clouds" clouds do play a part in global climate but not to the extend denier have tried to claim

3) "It's Cosmic Rays" this was a short lived theory over a decade ago, it was shown to be incorrect but in denier world any old theory will do

4) It's governments after more taxes

Show me the denier who really believes this and I'll show you a denier who has no understanding of basic economics

5) "It's all Al Gore" Yeah right, good old Al has hoodwinked all the worlds climate scientists or bribed them, again a theory from cloud cuckoo land.

6) After trying to blame Gore and governments and various billionaires now deniers are trying to blame scientists directly. A sad collection of theories, that taken as a whole show the true and sad nature of denial and it has little to do with science or even rational thought.

The reality is there is not one science group that disagrees with the premise of AGW the evidence is overwhelming and continues to grow, as deniers fixate about fictional beach side houses Al Gore never bought.

The right of U.S. politics and media has attached itself to the denier cause for short term political gain, in the long term this may be a terrible mistake as when denial sinks it will take much of the, small amount, of credibility they had left.

Of course outside the U.S. politics is not so polarized and most political groups world wide left or right follow the science rather than the BS.

God playing board games

take the time and watch this you will be glad you did