Amazon.com Widgets
  • The people who say it isn't are (typically) pro-drilling Republicans.

    The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Even NASA agrees that global warming exists (http://climate.Nasa.Gov/evidence). Scientists have been proving for decades now that the greenhouse effect clearly exists, hence the existence of global warming. The people who say it isn't are (usually, but not always) Republicans misinformed by the greedy Conservative politicians who just want to drill for oil to make the big bucks. (Not that all Conservatives are greedy.)

  • There's a tremendous amount of evidence to show Global Warming is real.

    There's a tremendous amount of evidence to show Global Warming is real. Besides an upward trend in global surface temperatures over the last century, there's also rising sea levels, melting polar ice caps and evaporating land ice (like glaciers) to corroborate this now worldwide accepted position. Analysis shows that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have also been increasing over the last century (since the Industrial revolution), and man's contribution to this dramatic problem is virtually set in stone at this point (the sun has not gotten warmer over the last century, and volcanoes, it's been demonstrated, actually contribute to GLOBAL COOLING when they erupt! The burning of fossil fuels (like gasoline and coal), deforestation, and large-scale fertilizer-use has been increasing greenhouse gas concentrations for more than a century now!

    Http://climate.Nasa.Gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

  • Yes, without a doubt

    I'm not sure if anyone thinks it doesn't anymore. I know there is still some debate as to how to stop it, and how much Man is contributing, but there is no question that the Earth is getting warmer. I suspect this question is more about whether Man is causing it, but this, too, has been settled. The only people suggesting Global Warming isn't real are usually those scientists hired by oil companies or cranks; aka, the fringe. There will always be people who deny reality.

  • Yes it does !

    The earths temperature has increased dramatically since 1880. The oceans water level have increased by up to 7 inches . Also due to the earths rapid increase in temperature the polar ice caps have been melting causing habitat loss . The polar bears have been drowning due to the loss of ice leaving them to swim further to reach ice floats.

  • If climate change did not exist we would be living in a perfect world

    With all the natural disasters occurring in today's world there is a massive sing in your face saying "I't climate change" I don't know why people think it's not real I mean if it wasn't real why is Antarctica melting. Anther reason that climate change exist is because of the massive heat wave.

  • Yes it does

    A slow increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide (co2), and other pollutants.
    Global warming exists
    There's a tremendous amount of evidence to show Global Warming is real. Besides an upward trend in global surface temperatures over the last century, there's also rising sea levels, melting polar ice caps and evaporating land ice. Analysis shows that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have also been increasing over the last century (since the Industrial revolution), and man's contribution to this dramatic problem is virtually set in stone at this point (the sun has not gotten warmer over the last century, and volcanoes, it's been demonstrated, actually contribute to GLOBAL COOLING when they erupt! The burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and large-scale fertilizer-use has been increasing greenhouse gas concentrations for more than a century now.

  • Anyone who denies global warming is an ididiot

    The polar ice caps are melting more than an average rate, and carbon emissions are people overloading the natural balance. Normally, volcanic ash and humans give out some carbon dioxide but it is almost balanced by trees. Now, cars, factories, etc are tipping the balance and causing glibal warming. YOU CANT DENY THE FACTS

  • Yes, as evidence supports

    It is statistically shown that over the century, or even decade, the global temperatures have risen. It could be true that trapped greenhouse gases aren't the only cause of the increased temp, but global warming DOES exist and is a looming issue for future generations. I honestly don't understand how this became such a polemical issue, I mean global warming is what it is. It IS hotter than it was in 1407. I think that the real debate is on the best way to prevent this and our approach to critical environmental issues.

  • Yes, global warming exist because of us.

    Global warming does exist. We are putting carbon dioxide into the earth. We are cutting down trees and never replace them. We need to stop burning coal and oil. Those are fossil fuels which comes from dead animals and plants. We need to stop cutting down trees because that gives humans oxygen. Trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It is going to get hotter in the atmosphere. Global warming is the average temperature in the atmosphere. We are the people who is causing it. We need to stop this. We need to plant more trees. We need to stop using nuclear energy, nonrenewable energy, and renewable energy. They all burn fossil fuels. We need to stop this. Nuclear energy is made out of uranium. Uranium does not release carbon dioxide but has radio activity. This is deadly. We have a solution which putting it underground and into a titanium container. But radio active lives forever so the waste can leak. Nonrenewable energy can not be replaced. If you are gone out of it, it is gone forever. Nonrenewable energy burn coal and oil. This is bad for our atmosphere. The world can die. Renewable energy is naturally replaced but it is still negative. We need to stop deforestation which is trees being cut down and not replace. We are causing deserts to pop up. Our beautiful land is going away. Save our planet!!!! Plant more trees!!! Thank you!!

  • Undeniable Evidence; Humans are (in part) to Blame

    There is more than evidence to prove global warming. Not only is it widely accepted by the scientific community, it is being taught as part of some country's national school curriculum. Yes, we are entering an inter-glacial period when the polar ice caps retreat, but the rate they are melting at is being significantly affected by human intervention. Anyone who denies global warming is denying the truth, and I'm not just saying that because I am a scientist, I am saying that because it is true.

  • Yes, but it is not caused by humans

    The earth is getting warmer. It should be. It has been getting warmer for almost 100,000 years as part of a 100,000 year cycle when the earth's orbit becomes slightly more circular (as opposed to eliptical). We are somewhat close to the hottest point of one of these cycles, but the earth will probably continue warming for thousands of years - the hottest point of previous cycles have been warmer than today. What people don't understand is that the greenhouse effect is only one small factor in Earth's global temperature, and carbon dioxide is only one small factor in the greenhouse effect. The hated carbon dioxide is an insignificant part of global temperature, not to mention global warming.

    The original public concern about global warming came from and IPCC (international panel on climate change) document that originally said that the group had failed to find evidence of significant human impact on global temperature. Politicians who didn't like that finding forced the IPCC to abandon its scientific results and put in statements that said that human impact on climate change was significant and worrying.

    Catastrophically, the fabricated issue of human caused global warming is distacting people from actual environmental issues such as hydrochloroflorocarbons which are still consumed and paid for by much of the developed world. These molecules destroy the ozone layer and are, incidentally, 1000 times more potent a greenhouse than the more easily villified CO2. The actual problem with carbon dioxide is that it acidifies the ocean, but this fact is little known, as it is overshadowed by the imaginary problem of human caused global warming.

    People who claim to support protecting the environment spend far more time trying to restrict a relatively harmless gas than they do battling real and pressing problems like river, air, and ocean pollution, or extinciton. Worse, people who realize that gloabl warming is a hoax use the commonly held impression that concern about global warming is synonymous with environmentalism, and conclude that all environmentalism is worthless.

    For the sake of reason, and the environment, makind needs to wash its hand of the notion of human caused global warming as it washed its hands of the notion that the sun revolves around the earth. After we stop believing in human caused global warming and the leaders who fabricated it, we can start tackling real environmental problems.

  • Why are you even asking?

    There has just been the biggest snow storm this century in my state. If there was global warming it would just be plain rain. Mother Nature can send anything and people will make something up to explain it. Just because a couple glaciers melt doesn't mean the world is dying. Is there a way to fix it? No. Is there a way to make it worse? No. It is not real in the first place.

  • Its not real

    People say 'there is a lot of evidence to suggest that its real'. Yeah, but there is a lot of evidence opposing. Not all scientists agree. In history the earth naturally changes temps. How do you know that this isn't something the earth is suppose to do? Soil cracks, oh we should make up some scientific fake word that means its bad, it causing something terrible and man did it. The world always change temperature, the world does a lot of things. So this is just a dumb scientific word given to something that has always occurred so the greenies can argue to the world and say how bad and dumb people are. This is stupid and dumb. It doesn't exist. How do I know this? I'm an enviro scientist.

  • It does not exist

    The Earth hasn't risen in temperature in the last 15 years and Arctic Ice has grown by 60% since last year. Climate change is a natural cyclic process that involves the rising of temperature and subsequent cooling. Oh, and don't worry about our precious Polar Bears, if your planning on visiting the Arctic you'll be sure to bump into your very own fluffy-white-vicious-killer, as their population are at an all time high.

    Assuming that man-made global warming does exist then I don't see how we can reverse it anyway, our total CO2 emissions contribution as a human race is approximately 4%, the other 96% released from volcanoes and the anus' of cows. I'm from Britain and we are constantly harassed to lower our "carbon footprint". My carbon footprint by the way can be calculated as so...

    70 million people in Britain...So 1/70,000,000 of the of the emission as one person.
    Britain contributes 0.08% of the 4% polluted as a human race.

    Therefore I contribute approximately
    1/70,000,000 x 0.08
    = 0.000000001 % of all co2 emissions

  • No it doesnt

    Speech
    THE ICE IS MELTING!That may be true but if you think about it the ice has been melting sense the last ice age. This “problem” started when Al Gore(freshman in congress) in 1976 held the first hearing of climate change. Videos like this (http://www.Climatecentral.Org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-seconds) are highly exaggerated ( according to the wall street journal(#1 paper in america and still climbing) and the 16 scientist that have signed the paper) .On top of that people are saying we need to cut down on our manmade CO2,and Man Made CO2 is coming out of my mouth right now and the only way to stop it is to kill me! When people get scared they turn to the government and they try to get them to do something about it. The GOVERNMENT CAN’T CHANGE THE WEATHER! According to the U.N water vapor is not a greenhouse gas and it keeps us alive.You can never get to much of a good thing. The U.S is $16+ trillion in debt. We are going to be paying that off for the rest of our lives.So why spend more money on something that is not a porblem.To go along with that,there has been a lack of warming over the past ten years.So i ask you how can something be bad if it doesn’t exist.

  • What global warming? ...And why should we care?

    The Earth hasn't risen in temperature in the last 15 years and Arctic Ice has grown by 60% since last year. Climate change is a natural cyclic process that involves the rising of temperature and subsequent cooling. Oh, and don't worry about our precious Polar Bears, if your planning on visiting the Arctic you'll be sure to bump into your very own fluffy-white-vicious-killer, as their population are at an all time high.

    Assuming that man-made global warming does exist then I don't see how we can reverse it anyway, our total CO2 emissions contribution as a human race is approximately 4%, the other 96% released from volcanoes and the anus' of cows. I'm from Britain and we are constantly harassed to lower our "carbon footprint". My carbon footprint by the way can be calculated as so...

    70 million people in Britain...So 1/70,000,000 of the of the emission as one person.
    Britain contributes 0.08% of the 4% polluted as a human race.

    Therefore I contribute approximately
    1/70,000,000 x 0.08
    = 0.000000001 % of all co2 emissions

    What is the point?

  • Global Warming does not exist.

    Global warming does not exist. The weather changes all the time and is never stable, the ice age is a perfect example of this, the ice age happened then it melted, not because of pollution as there was no pollution around for that to be the blame. So what caused the ice age to melt? Not global warming and certainly not a hole in the ozone layer.

  • We are not the only reason the temperature is increasing

    In my opinion Global Warming doesn’t even exist. I believe in global climatic change because in my opinion we are not the only reason why the temperature is increasing. I believe the pollution we put in our air increases the amount of carbon in our atmosphere which affects our planet but I think that our climate is changing as a whole. I think if there was not as much pollution, burning fuels and deforestation that the temperature would not be increasing as fast as it is now but due to the climate changing that it would be significantly higher than the previous years. The fact that we are putting more carbon in the air than our atmosphere can take is just a factor not the whole enchilada. The population that we are putting out there might be another reason but I am not sure about that. Whether you believe in global warming or not,

  • It's just liberal propaganda

    Average Temperatures aren't getting significantly hotter. Its just something liberals made up to harp on everyone. Liberals are insanely stupid and selfish, and they'll do anything it takes to make every other political party look bad. Its too bad that our current president is from the left. He hates America, and the American Dream is essentially non-existent anymore because of him.
    "Liberalness" = a logic that I fail to comprehend

  • What a crock of s***

    The fact that in 2008 there was 500 000 km squared more polar ice compared to that of 1979 when records by NASA began is the first fact. Secondly the worlds surface temperature was hotter in the 1930s than it is now. Thirdly approx 1000 years ago the world was going through a period known as medieval warming and generally speaking the climate was hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas produced by plants the world over, we as a race do very little to add to that overall total, in fact if anything through deforestation we actually decrease the total. Amount present in our atmosphere. To be honest there is enough evidence to discredit it, that reasonably speaking it can't exist.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Nathan-D says2013-08-11T19:46:32.223
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is scientifically valid as far as I can see. Increasing atmospheric CO2 should increase back-radiation and warm the surface, but it's a question of degree, isn't it? When determining the intensity of this back-radiation the IPCC often reference the MODTRAN and HITRAN computer-model codes. However these models are independently unaudited and the results have never been empirically substantiated in the public domain in any way shape or form. For evidence of CO2's powerful heat-catching effect some cite Harries 2001, who apparently measured a radiative-imbalance on CO2 absorption-wavelengths, but if one reads the paper the result from CO2 was barely statistically significant, which is why you never hear CAGW-advocates ever actually quantifying it. From my own investigations, I have found that the so-called evidence for CAGW is not real evidence and is being manafactured to suit a predetermined political agenda. According to independent experiments by scientists Hottel and Leckner, including many others (Google Nasif Nahle Emissivity) it has been demonstrated that CO2's total emissivity is extremely small, at ~0.003, equating to a maximum warming of 0.08C by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If CO2's emissivity really is that small then something else must have been responsible for the observed warming. Actually, clouds by themselves can easily explain recent global warming. Pinker et al 2005 found a satellite-measured global-brightening of 1.92W/sq.M between 1983-2001 from reduced cloud cover. This has been reinforced by others such as Spencer. Also, there's been no 'statistically significant' global warming for over 15 years and global surface temperatures have been "flat" for over 10 years, a fact acknowledged even by James Hansen. As for ocean acidification, that is physically impossible by my understanding because of the precipitation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) which acts as a pH buffer maintaining oceanic PH at about 8. Because CO2(aq) exists in chemical equilibrium with CaCO3, increasing CO2(aq) must therefore lead to a corresponding increase in CaCO3 in accordance with Le Chatalier's principle. If pH is decreasing then eutrophication or land-based effluents are more probable candidates. There's also Henry's law, which sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the average surface temperature of 288K, implying that anthropogenic CO2 can only accumulate in the atmosphere at the rate of 7.8ppmv/century (Google my article 'Digging into the core: Could the CO2 increase be due to warming oceans?'). The only way you can significantly increase the atmospheric CO2 cotent for a long-time is by warming the oceans as that changes CO2's solubility coefficent and alters the partitioning ratio. The IPCC ignore Henry's law and apply the empirically-unproven Revelle Factor. The ice-core data also undersetimates paleo-atmospheric CO2 levels but that's enough for today. I could go on forever, really, but these are inherently structually-limited 900 word captions and I'm formulating this post on my Xbox-360, which is time-consuming.
Juan_Pablo says2013-08-11T23:23:13.387
To Nathan Do:

So your claiming that, because the IPCC's data (which is consistent with the findings of the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency, and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies [Earth climatology]) isn't independently audited, that they're pulling off a huge global and political conspiracy?

And to what end would they be doing this?

If you further confirmation of Global warming and its impact, here's a wonderful website by NASA:

http://climate.Nasa.Gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

Global Warming is real, and the human connection is strong.
Nathan-D says2013-08-11T23:50:03.917
The assumed warming from CO2 that I was referring to doesn't come from the IPCC's own data, but from computer model codes from HITRAN that are owned by the US military establishment. You say that the 'human connection is strong'. That's a very vague statement. Unfortunately I can't access that NASA link as I'm typing this through an Xbox (of all things). I will tommorow. Currently, what evidence aside from blind deferrals to authority makes you think AGW is dangerous and something to be concerned about?
Nathan-D says2013-08-12T00:00:45.403
That should read 'deference'
Juan_Pablo says2013-08-12T02:41:26.820
HITRAN is owned by the US military establishment (specifically the US Air Force).

Implication according to Nathan: Its data with regards to global warming trends, increases in CO2 levels, disappearance of oceanic / land ice are not to be believed. C.O.N.S.P.I.R.A.C.Y. Better watch out!

Nevermind that institutions like NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Japanese Metereological Agency also publish data that agrees with the findings of the IPCC:

http://climate.Nasa.Gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

( Nasa link content: Surface temps, CO2 levels are going up; oceanic ice, land ice are going down )

http://ds.Data.Jma.Go.Jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20130205.Pdf

(Japanese Metereological Agency findings: surface temps are going up up up)

But hey, don't take their word for it. Take Nathan's!
Nathan-D says2013-08-12T12:29:11.423
@Pablo

“Implication according to Nathan: Its data with regards to global warming trends, increases in CO2 levels, disappearance of oceanic / land ice are not to be believed.”

You evidently don’t understand what the HITRAN and MODTRAN models are, do you? They have nothing to do with the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Loa, neither do they have anything to do with the satellite-observations of ice-cover or global surface temperatures. What the models provide us with are the radiative forcing characteristics of CO2. The MODTRAN and HITRAN source codes are owned by the US military and kept under security-wraps at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, so no one can check it to verify that it is authentic. How’s that for ‘open science’? If these models have never been independently verified by anyone and contradict observations of CO2’s absorptivity from scientists (See ‘Nasif Nahle: Analysis of Joe Bastardi's Comments on AGW’) how do we know that the models are based on empirical observations? The unreal climate pseudoscience for which you have chosen to be an apologist refuses to check its imaginary model simulations against physical observation and treats them as observed physical reality itself. There’s the difference, and it requires no belief in an overarching ‘conspiracy’, just a faithful adherence to the scientific method.

“(Japanese Metereological Agency findings: surface temps are going up up up)”

Gosh, really? They’re going up and up, are they? That’s a distorted picture of the situation I’m afraid. Global surface temperatures have been flat for over ten years, which a quick look at any dataset will tell you, thereby representing a divergence between CO2 and temperature. This has even been acknowledged by James Hansen – a prominent CAGW-advocate. The warming we have supposedly experienced since 1850 of 0.8C is completely dwarfed by natural variations in the past as demonstrated by paleoclimatological data. For instance, as Dr. Easterbrook of Washington University explains the GISP2 data shows that “The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years”, massively overwhelming the temperature increase we have seen over the 20th century (see ‘Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 data’). Also, as pointed out above the late 20th century warming can be readily explained by reduced cloud-cover which lowers the planet’s reflectivity (see Pinker et al 2005 and Ryan Eastman and Stephan Warren 2012). Yes, global warming has been happening. Is it outside of long-term natural variation? No. Is there any evidence that humans are primarily responsible? No.
Juan_Pablo says2013-08-13T00:08:03.197
Juan Pablo stated: “Japanese Metereological Agency findings: surface temps are going up up up.”

Nathan D replied: "Gosh, really? They’re going up and up, are they? That’s a distorted picture of the situation I’m afraid. Global surface temperatures have been flat for over ten years, which a quick look at any dataset will tell you, thereby representing a divergence between CO2 and temperature."

Let's see what the Japanese Metereological Agency has to say:

"The 14 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 16 years (Table 1). The recent
high temperatures are best explained as a consequence of disturbed energy balance between
the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing infrared radiation caused by an increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Imposed on the long-term warming trend,
natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system is considered to contribute to annual
to decadal temperature fluctuations." (For a graphic representation see Figure 1.)

http://ds.Data.Jma.Go.Jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20130205.Pdf

This is all very consistent with NASA's website on climate change here:

http://climate.Nasa.Gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

But to reinforce what Nathan D said: "Global surface temperatures have been flat for over ten years, which a quick look at any dataset will tell you, thereby representing a divergence between CO2 and temperature." Not according to the Japanese Metereological Agency and NASA (and the global conspiracy-driving IPCC).

Nathan D wants to paint a picture that because 2012 wasn't as hot as 2010 (the hottest year on record according to NASA) that temp. Increases have now stalled and global warming has stopped! Nevermind that the "The 14 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 16 years" or that temperatures do fluctuate on an annual basis. Scientists assess data at various time intervals to extrapolate a larger trend. 2012 was not as 2010 and it wasn't as hot as 1998. But it was hotter than every year in the last century (except 1998). When extrapolating trends scientists use time intervals like annual means, 5-year means, quarter-of-a-century means, etc. To determine a general trend with the data - and this last decade was hotter than the one's before it. Sure there's fluctuation, partly because of other natural occurrences, like oceanic cycles, but global warming is still happening. The late 1940s saw a noticeable dip in surface temperatures, but then temperatures began to rise again by the 1950s - and global warming continued to accelerate. Nasa shows (not unlike the Japanese Metereological Agency) that since 1890 global surface temps. Have increase by a full 1.5 degree farenheit!

Nathan D claims that in the last 10 years surface temp. Increases have stalled (notice he doesn't claim they've decreased because that's not what the data shows). Of course, the data also shows that 14 of the last 16 years were the hottest in recorded history.
Nathan-D says2013-08-13T11:49:17.780
“Of course, the data also shows that 14 of the last 16 years were the hottest in recorded history.”

I agree that the last 16 years have been the warmest on record but 1) we have only been measuring global surface temperatures for 150 years at most and 2) the only way to reliably-measure global temperatures without encountering UHI-bias is with satellites and they have only been operational since the 60’s. That was 50 years ago! Please burn into your memory that the planet is 4.5 billion years old. We do not know that the 0.8C temperature increase is a result of ‘anthropogenic forcing’ and it could be due to natural causes (such as changes in the earth’s albedo). And again there is the possibility of its being only a temporary phenomenon, either as a phase in an on-going longer-term natural cycle or prior to overwhelming negative feedback from clouds taking effect.

Nonetheless, it still doesn’t change the fact that there’s been no global warming for 10 years (here’s the trends: http://wattsupwiththat.Com/2013/03/05/has-global-warming-stalled-now-includes-january-data/). And, here’s the acknowledgement from NASA-scientist James Hansen if you’re interested: “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing”. However, from 1996-2012 the warming trend in the GISS is 0.122°C/decade. Continued warming at the steady rate of 0.122°C per decade hardly seems anything to panic about to me. That’s only 1.2C/century.
Perhaps you should bring it to Pachauri’s attention because the IPCC is talking in terms of 3°C or more by 2100!

“Nathan D wants to paint a picture that because 2012 wasn't as hot as 2010”.

You’re delirious. I never suggested anything of the sort.