Is global warming scientifically true or false?

There is almost 100% scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening.

There is a 95% consensus among climatologists that the current acceleration of global warming/climate change is due to man made emissions of greenhouse gases. The majority of the worlds climate organizations are in agreement with this.

The secular trends you talk about have been investigated, and science has a good understanding of what is causing them. The Earth moves from ice ages to warmer interglacial periods in response the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles are small variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit that cause the solar insolation, the amount of sunlight the Earth receives, to vary slightly in predictable cycles. Ice core data shows that ice ages tend to occur in roughly 100,000-year cycles that match the timing of the Milankovitch cycles. The temperature between the ice ages and the warm periods, however, are much greater than would be caused by the changes in solar radiation alone. Increasing solar radiation warms the earth and is followed by an increase in CO2 that amplifies the warming.

Though a clue to the cause of the ice ages, the Milankovitch Cycles are not the cause of the current warming. They predict a minor cooling trend, which began some 6,000 years ago, will continue for the next 23,000 years. The current warming trend is too rapid and in the wrong direction for the Milankovitch Cycles to be the cause. However, the current warming episode is being caused and amplified by man's release of 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. Unless some huge catastrophe intervenes, the Earth will get warmer and warmer as long as the concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing.

1. They have looked at the cycles you talk about. Milankovitch forcing shows we should be cooling currently and we had been for 6000 years prior to the industrial revolution. Trend in the PDO, the AMO, the ENSO, and so on can not account for the warming we are experiencing currently.If you claim that it is provide evidence in the form of reliable scientific journals from respected publications. Stating "Well temperatures have gone up before therefor this time it's naturally" is crazy. You have to look at how much warming, if any, those natural cycles are causing. You did not do that. You did not provide any sources.

2. The Earth will eventually begin to cool but that is not to say many of the species the are going extinct or will go extinct will miraculously be saved before that time. And with your second part of this question you go into conspiracy mode. Everyone out to get your money eh? You are doing much the same as every other person in here who questions AGW. You are looking at the effect and then coming to the conclusion that the stated cause is a hoax because you don't like the possible mitigation strategies.

1. I've been hearing this argument a lot lately and I usually pose the question 'If that's the case, are human interactions with the environment not natural'? I ask this because saying the Earth is just going through another natural cycle as it has since the beginning of time is an empty appeal to nature that doesn't explain how these cycles exist or why they change. The Earths' climate is not some sentient driver that follows some script, it's a potluck of forcings from topography, albedo, solar activity, ocean currents, atmospheric composition/ pressure etc. that all work in tandem forming a given climate. That said it's safe to infer that changes in these values will, logically, be followed by shifts in the net energy flow respective to those changes. Let us say hypothetically we cut humans out of the equation and replace all our industry with run-away coal fires and high volcanic activity that expel sequestered CO2 at the current rate we do (which in fact has happened similarly in the past and lead to dramatic consequences, wiki Permian-Triassic extinction) would you argue as an observer that these events will have no bearing on the global climate in the long-term?

2. I don't quite understand what you're arguing here, nor how it relates to AGW? But yeah, extinction events have happened many times before and will happen again with time. However I will say that we're in a privileged position compared to organisms in the past purely because of our knowledge base. Unlike they, we have the potential to influence and direct the planet's state and if push comes to shove may even prevent future extinction events, whatever the cause may be.

This is a given, private enterprise will always exploit a market that seems exploitable regardless of whether they are in the right or wrong. Do you think that the fossil fuel industry doesn't benefit from skeptics fighting on their behalf by curbing public perception away from renewable alternatives that they (well some, not all fossil fuel companies are against renewable energy) themselves don't benefit from?

SCIENTIFIC gurus from all over the world are predicting that five years from now, all lifestyles on the earth could good come to an end. Some are saying it’ll be people that will set it off. Others think that a average phenomenon would be the intent. And the religious humans are saying it’ll be God himself who would press the discontinue button. The next are some likely arguments as to why the arena would end with the aid of the year 2012. Reason one: Mayan calendar the primary to predict 2012 as the tip of the world had been the Mayans, a bloodthirsty race that have been excellent at two things -- building particularly correct astrological apparatus out of stone and sacrificing virgins. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago they managed to calculate the size of the lunar moon as 329.53020 days, handiest 34 seconds out. The Mayan calendar predicts that the earth will end on December 21, 2012. Due to the fact that they were lovely virtually the mark with the lunar cycle, it’s seemingly they’ve acquired the top of the sector proper as good. Reason two: solar storms sunlight specialists from all over the world monitoring the solar have made a startling discovery. Our sun is in a little of strife. The vigor output of the sun is, like most things in nature, cyclic and it’s presupposed to be within the middle of a period of relative steadiness. Nevertheless, recent sunlight storms had been bombarding the earth with lot of radiation vigor. It’s been knocking out power grids and destroying satellites. This endeavor is anticipated to get worse and calculations endorse it’ll attain its lethal peak someday in 2012. Purpose three: The atom smasher Scientists in Europe had been building the world’s greatest particle accelerator. Essentially, its a 27 km tunnel designed to smash atoms together to discover what makes the universe tick. Nevertheless, the mega-machine has brought on serious situation, with some scientists suggesting that it’s adequately even a nasty proposal to turn it on within the first position. They’re predicting all manner of deadly outcome, together with mini black holes. So when this laptop is fired up for its first critical scan in 2012, the sector might be crushed into a really perfect-dense blob the scale of a basketball. Intent four: The Bible says it If having scientists warning us about the end of the arena isn’t dangerous enough, religious folks are getting in on the act as well. Interpretations of the Christian Bible disclose that the date for Armageddon, the ultimate combat between just right an evil, has been set for 2012. The I Ching, sometimes called the chinese book of alterations, says the identical thing, as do quite a lot of sections of the Hindu teachings. Intent 5: super volcano Yellowstone countrywide Park in u.S. Is noted for its thermal springs and ancient faithful geyser. The rationale for that is simple -- it’s sitting on high of the arena’s largest volcano and geological specialists are establishing to get nervous sweats. The Yellowstone volcano has a sample of erupting every 650,000 years or so, and we’re a long time overdue for an explosion in order to fill the surroundings with ash, blockading the solar and plunging the earth right into a frozen iciness that would last up to 15,000 years. The strain under the Yellowstone is constructing continuously, and geologists have set 2012 as a probable date for the giant bang. Rationale six: The physicists This one’s case of bathroom -- easy maths mathematics. Physicists at Berkely university were crunching the numbers. They’ve determined that the earth is good overdue for a fundamental catastrophic occasion. Even worse, they’re claiming that their calculations prove that we’re all going to die, very soon. They're additionally announcing that their prediction comes with a certainty of ninety nine per cent; and 2012 simply occurs to be the pleasant bet as to when it occurs. Intent seven: Earth’s magnetic area everyone knows the Earth is surrounded through a magnetic area that shields us from lots of the solar’s radiation. What you would not know is that the magnetic poles we call North and South have a foul habit of swapping places every 750,000 years or so -- and correct now we’re about 30,000 years past due. Scientists have famous that the poles are drifting apart roughly 20-30 kms each and every year, a lot turbo than ever before, which elements to a pole-shift being proper across the nook. Whilst the pole shift is under method, the magnetic field is disrupted and can eventually disappear, usually for as much as a hundred years. The effect is ample UV outside to crisp your dermis in seconds, killing the whole thing it touches.

Global warming is scientifically true. It is proved by scientists that global warming is happening. The real question is are humans really affecting global warming? or is it just a natural progression?

Do check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gQyqqN8-Sw

There is no controversy the Earths temperature is rising that's a fact. Even if it's a natural temperature increase it's still global warming, what else would you call it?

You clearly aren't ignorant, and you don't deserve an answer like that.

Thus I will not explain what is happening and what scientists know, because it would be pointless as you already understand that. I will instead redefine your question.

Even though temperatures can increase during different ages, there is almost always a cause for this. However, you address Global Warming in a different way. You ask if it is really happening as if it will be a new stage that we will enter. Global Warming is just the average warming of the Earth due to green house gases and pollution. Yes, our Earth is warming, so one can come to the conclusion that it is scientifically true. You stated that it may just be another era that we will face and if we can manage to reduce the amount of pollution in the air, you may be correct. However, if we don't, because the amount is increasing exponentially, it WILL be a stage that we enter and the more the problem persists, the less control we will have on it. Wildlife is affected by what causes global warming, not global warming itself. However, to answer your question, it is scientifically true.

Scientifically anthropogenic influences are having a NET EFFECT on the current global warming. This is supported by science (remember it takes just one piece of scientific evidence to dismiss this conclusion, as yet none have been found).

To answer 1. Most historical dramatic climatic changes have explanations. That is what science is ... the reasons. Current understanding of humans is that no known natural variables can explain the rate of global warming we are currently having. So yes, it could be some unknown natural variable causing the trend however we are either yet to discover this and anthropogenic influences can explain the majority of the change we are observing.

The current trend has NO KNOWN NATURAL explanation ... but if you want to believe it is a secular trend perhaps then it just happens to be coincidence that this trend can largely be explained by anthropogenic influences.

2. You do realise that dinosaurs were wiped out from the dramatic climatic change? Sure the planet will reach a new equilibrium, we (humans) may just not be there. Don't know about you, but as a human I probably would want to do everything in my power to stop that from happening ...

Again, it could be "natural" but the evidence suggests otherwise at the moment. There is no long-term "harm" in reducing our greenhouse emissions, and in fact most economists (not scientists) have found that the long-term costs of inaction on climate change will cost billions more than the cost of action now.

In regards to money, there is far more money involved in oil and gas (6 out of the top 10 most profitable businesses in the world are oil and gas ... no "green" companies make the top 100). I think they have far more to "lose" and therefore if money dictated "science" then the scientific conclusion would not paint them as the "bad guys". Not to mention Shell (in the top 5) has enacted climate change strategies and acknowledges the effect of humans. So the money argument should mean that the opposite conclusion is reached in science.

You seem to be pushing denier arguments

1. There have certainly been many past changes in climate, how this rules out one caused by us is not really made clear in an denier version of this story.

Co2 is linked to many of those warmer periods, just as drops in Co2 are linked to colder periods. Particulates are also going to have an effect but it won't last for millions of years as particulate are removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly.

This can be seen in smaller scale by the Pinatubo eruption, it did cool the planet a little but the effect only lasted about 18 months.

Longer term continental movement can affect both planetary albedo and ocean currents have a marked affect on climate.

Of course the problem with the Sun argument is we have detailed data on the Sun and it quite simply over the last 40 years is not the cause, continental movement is to slow, air sampling has proved we are responsible for 99% of current emission of Co2 and volcanoes just 1%.

You mention higher levels during the time of the dinosaurs, this is true, but with this higher Co2 we also had a much warmer planet sea level high enough that the UK was a group of tropical islands in a shallow sea and no glaciers at all. The planet was for much of this period 10-12c warmer.

Another favorite of deniers is to point at an even older Earth ~500 million years ago and say "look it had high Co2 but was sometimes cooler" this is again true as long as you ignore the slow increase in solar output, ~10% per billion years so 500 million years ago it was putting out ~5% less, remember these are the same deniers who claim the solar minimum has an effect and that is a change of less than 0.1%.

From my experience here deniers understand of any of these issues would not fill a thimble.

The earth is warming, man is most likely responsible for some of it, but it most likely won't be the huge catastrophe everyone worries about.

However, there is strong pro-doomsday bias among academia. Any NEW information about climate change should have an equal chance of concluding that either global warming is worse than we thought or global warming is not as bad as we thought. But 90% of new research says that global warming is worse than we thought, which is a lot more than 50%.

You may think this proves the point that global warming is really terrible, but it does not. It only proves bias. This is an important point so let me put it another way. Suppose the current consensus is that global warming will cause 5 degrees warming in the next 100 years (I made that up for convenience). This is based on everything CURRENTLY known. When science discovers something about the climate that NO ONE KNEW before, it is just as likely to say that actually the warming will be 4.5 degrees as it is to say 5.5 degrees. This is because it is NEW information and, by definition, we don't know the impact of the unknown until it is known.

Anyway, short point is that clearly there is a systemic bias toward promoting the idea that man-made global warming is an apocalyptic calamity in the making.