What science facts are global warming alarmists using to support their radical position?

None all they have are computer models. Ask Dims why their computer models can't tell me how much the sea will rise in the next two years, but are certain what will happen 100 years from now if we don't rush to install soviet style control of the economy.

Milankovitch theory and the associated measurements shows that we were cooling for 6000 years prior to the industrial revolution. This was a slow decrease in temperature related to obliquity changes, one of the Milankovitch cycles. Greenhouse gas forcing, however has caused a warming trend larger than the cooling trend related to obliquity changes. (Imbrie et al, 1980) For proof that the world is in a warming trend we need look no further than the natural world.

The Arctic ice cap is decreasing at a substantial rate (Kwok et al, 2009), the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing also (Velicogna, 2009), and glaciers world-wide are, on average, receding (Barry, 2006; Zemp et al, 2009). If we look at how much the Arctic has been decreasing we see that it has decreased by an estimated 1.6 million sq/km since about 1978. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is only 0.4 million sq/km since 1978 (See nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/). The ice mass of Antarctica is actually decreasing as measured by GRACE (Velicogna, 2009). One reason why it may be increasing in some regions is because several Antarctic glaciers are speeding up (Scheuchl, 2012) as well as changes in various ocean currents. So while Antarctic sea ice is increasing slightly Antarctic ice mass is decreasing.

Several other proofs of the planet warming include changes in sea level caused both by glacial melt and thermal expansion (Rahmstorf, 2007), the widening of the tropical belt and associated change in storm tracks (Lu et al, 2008), phenological changes in such things as growing season cycles and animals migratory habits (Thackeray, 2010), the poleward movement of vector-born diseases (Carver, 2010), and changing spatial distributions of various types of species (Walther, 2002) to name a few.

The warming is not coming from the Sun as it has been in a gradual decline in activity since the late 1950s (See sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html). To find the cause of the warming we need to look at the frequencies involved. Due to the temperature differences between the Sun and the Earth the related blackbody emissions curves between the two are at two different frequencies. After the radiation from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface it is absorbed and re-radiated at a longer frequency due to it's temperature. Several types of gases in the atmosphere with an uneven distribution of electric charges can become excited when radiation at certain frequencies strikes them. If we look at the frequencies that show the greatest increases in heat retention we see the frequencies related to water vapour and carbon dioxide,. Water vapour is, and will always be, a feedback to some other forcing because it's concentration is directly dependent on temperature. It is how clouds are formed and why it rains. If we look at a molecule of CO2 we see there are various vibrations related to different radiant frequencies. The vibration related to the greenhouse effect is known as the bending vibration and is centered at a frequency of 667cm^-1, near the peak of the Earth's blackbody emission spectrum and the frequency that shows the most change with relation to the current warming trend (Griggs, 2006). So the majority of the warming is due to both increases in CO2, the forcing, and water vapour, the feedback. Other sources of warming, though nowhere near as prominent as the two mentioned, include average decrease in cloud cover, increases in other greenhouse gases such as methane, NFCs and CFCs, decreases in average albedo, and decreases in stratospheric ozone concentration.

Now we need to determine where that additional CO2 is coming from. Temperature does play a role in CO2 concentration as long as other values are kept equal. This is related to what is known as Le Chatelier's Principal, which states "If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.". However as humans are increasing the partial pressure of that CO2 above the oceans surface all other values are not remaining equal. The oceans are currently absorbing a greater amount of CO2 than they are emitting during a warming period which is why they are decreasing in pH, something that would not occur naturally (Doney et al, 2009). Beyond that we can look at direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 from Scripps which show that CO2 is increasing at an average rate of 2ppm/y, which is roughly equal to 15.6 billion tonnes, and compare it to human emissions which have been estimated to be over 33.5 billion tonnes (See http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.... and remember to include the weight of the two oxygen atoms on top of the carbon atom that is listed)

Like nuclear physics and some other hard sciences I accept that I am not smart enough to understand a great deal of it. Therefore I respect the opinions of those that are.

They have no conclusive or consistent scientific data. You know what they do have? Nice shiny colorful graphs and charts full of screwed data and a pool of liberal nature worshiping lemmings willing to take their word on faith.

Progressives don't deal in facts, just fear, hatred and intimidation. It's the only way they can achieve the socialist utopian nightmare of total government domination.

Just a bunch of historical weather data, as well as ice core data dating back hundreds of thousands of years, and the support of the smartest people on the planet...nothing much.

Hollywood films like inconvenient truth and day after tomorrow.

Sea levels rising.

science words.

the fact that roaches are more valuable than illegal immigrants in America...dr