Which of these is true?

1

Without looking at your link, I would suspect that all of them have been claimed to be true.

However, your first point relates to phytoplankton and there isn’t enough conclusive evidence to blame the decline solely on global warming. There’s no real dispute that the warming and acidification of the oceans will reduce levels of phytoplankton and other marine organisms but to suggest that a) there has been a 40% reduction and b) that it’s due to global warming, is going somewhat overboard.

The level of warming and the reduced alkalinity will affect calcification to some extent but, unless there is some as of yet unidentified factor, not to the extent that may have been claimed.

The point about the release of methane is certainly true and already some one million square kilometres of Siberian permafrost has melted and released the methane trapped in the organic peat matter beneath the ice.

I don’t agree that it would trigger abrupt climate warming. There are some 70 billion tons of CH4 trapped beneath permafrost, this is equivalent to 2.3 trillion tons of CO2 (about 50 years worth of human greenhouse gas emissions). The permafrost is melting slowly, if I recall then 8% of the planet is covered with permafrost which would represent an area of approx 40 million square kilometres, although the amount that has melted so far is significant, it represents just 2.5% of the total permafrosted area.

For abrupt warming to occur there would need to be a massive release. If we assume that equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3°C from 1.4 trillion tons of CO2e then a 10% melt in permafrost with the consequent release of all trapped methane beneath, would raise the average global temperature by about 0.4°C. Bear in mind, this is the figure for 10% release, four times as much as has been released in the last 30 years. To express the figures differently… 30 years of methane release has warmed the climate by 0.1°C.

The point about droughts is also correct but again, needs to be kept in context. Droughts are becoming more common, they’ve doubled in number since 1980; they also tend to last longer and are now affecting areas that hitherto had reliable rains.

As with the methane release, it’s a gradual process that gets slightly worse with each passing year (average trend). There isn’t a point when there is a dramatic increase in the frequency or intensity of droughts – at least not an a global scale, on a localised scale there may be, and this has been witnessed in parts of northern Africa in recent years.

You will be taken to task for quote mining and choosing the most pessimistic projections. However, you are pointing out three real serious threats.

But why did you stop there? To anyone who knows the difference between calcite and aragonite, the falling pH of the ocean, number 4 in that article, is right up there among the others.

Global warming is a convenient con to allow the control freaks to blame everyone else for the state of the world from car drivers to airline passengers. Just a thought if we suddenly stopped all car journeys and grounded all aircraft and stopped burning fossil fuels it would only make a 00.02% difference to what is after all a natural phenomenon, that has been going on for billions of years.

Once upon a time no one walked on this Earth, over a very long period of time Global warming made life possible. I will never believe that it is our fault. Like i said it is a con by the control freaks.Also these B***y silly whindmills wont make a hapeorth of difference.

All of the above

If you are implying that any of them are associated with alleged man-caused catalobal warming, then ..... none are true at this time.

There is simply no credible, unmanipulated scientific evidence to support catastrophic, man-caused global warming.

None. Global warming is a scam.

I think the best way to understand this scam is to read Harold Lewis' letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS). I quote from that letter here.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist"

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

…

Source(s):

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-ha%E2%80%A6

None of them are true because they are theories.

the·o·ry   /iRi, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

they are all true