Is Global Warming Real?

[Spendulus]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

[BADecker]

Possibly the biggest thing is the sun. Sun spots are releases of energy into space, that when it hits the earth, it turns into heat. Sun spots are the fewest that they have been for 200 years. When you combine this with the ash from dozens of volcanoes around the world, odds are great that we are entering an ice age.


7 Major Earth Changes That Are Happening Right Now That Everyone Needs To Know About

The sun is behaving very strangely, freakishly cold weather is breaking out all over the world, ocean temperatures continue to rise, volcanoes all over the globe are shooting ash miles into the air, Australia is experiencing the worst wildfires that they have ever seen, and the north magnetic pole has been moving at a pace that is deeply alarming scientists.  Could it be possible that all of this bizarre activity is leading up to some sort of a crescendo?

Sadly, most people don't even realize what is happening, and that is because the mainstream media only emphasizes stories that fit with the particular narratives that they are currently pushing.

But it has gotten to the point where nobody can deny that really weird things are happening.  The following are 7 major earth changes that are happening right now that everyone needs to know about…

[sovie]

Anything that goes unnoticed is harmful, same for carbon release in the air. For decades we are emitting carbon in the air without any check while cutting down the trees. Those who don't believe that global warming is real, can see the change of climate in there surroundings. We all are getting effected by this global warming, lets control it before it gets too late.

[renuabened]

Yes, there is a hypothesis that this is all being promoted for making money on this.
But there is also a theory that temperature is now recovering after a nuclear winter. According to this hypothesis, in the 50s and 60s, the USSR and the USA launched a mini nuclear winter on the planet. The temperatures that were before are hidden by governments. But it seems to me that this theory is not good at all, there is no logic in it.
Well, the most famous hypothesis is that global warming is really happening.
I don’t know what to believe. In addition, for me it is not so important what exactly is happening. In any case, we all don’t know much.

[mickyy]

yes, it is. I notice that in my country in Central Europe there are no snow during the winter and the temperatures are surprisingly high during the year. it's funny that people don't believe in global warming, it has small 'symptoms' but yes, it serious problem, climate gets worse every year

[Negotiation]

I believe that global warming is real but it is not a conspiracy to control the development of industrialized countries. Global warming helps to predict the weather. Global warming is needed to control the sunshine of our country It is the effect of global warming and seasonal wind in our country.

[BADecker]

The question isn't about global warming. It isn't even about the fact that an ice-age is coming. The real question has to do with how we are going to prepare for ice-age devastation, personally.


Earth Is About To Enter A 30-Year "Mini Ice Age" As The Sun Hibernates, Scientist Warns

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor at Northumbria University's department of mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering, told the Sun that the period will be an expanded version of the solar minimums that naturally occur every 11 years. However, rather than lasting only a few years, the "Grand Solar Minimum" could last for up to 33 years.

The professor, who has published multiple scientific papers on the subject, said:

"The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

[exemplaar]

You folks here are so outdated. It is so obvious hoax that the environmental cultists themselves renamed it now to CLIMATE CHANGE. It is no longer even called global worming, LOL

Watch and enjoy - environmental socialist-cultist Greta crumbles without her script 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0IZlY8llMc

[canamani]

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

[Spendulus]

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

Global worm?

I will have to think about that.

That sounds really scary.

[Negotiation]

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

I don't think it can be stopped because global warming will continue worldwide The temperature of these two seasons whether winter or hot, is controlled There will be no sunshine many times. It cannot pollute the environment but controls the temperature.

[Spendulus]

Sun spots are releases of energy into space, that when it hits the earth, it turns into heat. ...

No, that is inaccurate.

[TwitchySeal]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

It depends on semantics.

There are many peer reviewed studies that calculate the global warming consensus differently.  The main difference is how they handle studies that do not take a stance one way or the other.  Another factor is whether the the authors self rate their study or if they are rated abstractly.  

In all cases, the % of studies with the stance that it's extremely likely that humans do not play a roll in global warming ranges from 0.4% to 2.1%.

When taking into consideration studies that do not take a stance, 33%-38% have a stance that it's extremely likely humans do play a roll, 63%-67% have no stance.

When only considering studies that take a stance one way or the other, ~97% of studies take a stance that it's extremely likely humans are the primary factor of global warming.


 
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

[BADecker]

^^^ But consensus isn't the only way. Political science is the other way. You know. Where the person who out-blabs the others is right. Like fake-news media, for example.

Oh, wait. Isn't consensus all a part of that? Global warming is real or isn't real based on political science consensus blabbing.

Wow! We can get rid of poverty, hunger, wars, even evil, by just blabbing a blabbing consensus into being. Good thinking.

[Spendulus]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

It depends on semantics....

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

[TwitchySeal]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

It depends on semantics....

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

Yes, there are other factors besides Humans.  The consensus is that Humans are the primary factor, not that it is the sole factor.

And yes, politicians are definitely exploiting the situation.  Some are motivated by the money that is coming in from the fossil fuel industry or simply 'beating the left' , some are motivated by the renewable energy industry or the desire to 'beat the right'.

All we can do is look at the research objectively, which shows that it's extremely likely humans are the primary cause of global warming.

[Spendulus]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

It depends on semantics....

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

Yes, there are other factors besides Humans.  The consensus is that Humans are the primary factor, not that it is the sole factor.

And yes, politicians are definitely exploiting the situation.  Some are motivated by the money that is coming in from the fossil fuel industry or simply 'beating the left' , some are motivated by the renewable energy industry or the desire to 'beat the right'.

All we can do is look at the research objectively, which shows that it's extremely likely humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The mathematical factor "climate sensitivity" is the technical way of describing effect of humans.

This replaces vague words like "primary" "likely" blah blah with simple estimated constant.

[TwitchySeal]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

It depends on semantics....

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

Yes, there are other factors besides Humans.  The consensus is that Humans are the primary factor, not that it is the sole factor.

And yes, politicians are definitely exploiting the situation.  Some are motivated by the money that is coming in from the fossil fuel industry or simply 'beating the left' , some are motivated by the renewable energy industry or the desire to 'beat the right'.

All we can do is look at the research objectively, which shows that it's extremely likely humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The mathematical factor "climate sensitivity" is the technical way of describing effect of humans.

This replaces vague words like "primary" "likely" blah blah with simple estimated constant.

Primary cause means the effect is greater than any other cause. (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)


The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society  
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina  
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration  
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research  
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia  
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters  
Society of Biology (UK)  
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

[BADecker]

^^^ Wow! You typed all that in this short of a period of time?     

[tvbcof]

^^^ Wow! You typed all that in this short of a period of time?     

Wonder how many of these entities run on grant money.  Grant money which wouldn't be their unless they play ball on the climate change scam.  I'll bet every last one of them.

This reminds me of the 'big list' of formed a 'consensus' of U.S. 'intelligence agencies' who found that Russia hacked the election (or one similar idiotic assertion from that time.)  It included entities who obviously had no reason or ability to look into the matter.  e.g., the Coast Guard.  It was obvious that they just signed some piece of paper which was thrust in front of the director's face.  Totally meaningless and a joke.