How much data do you require to believe in Global Warming?

I've noticed how many deniers say that we have far to little data to reach any responsible conclusions.


What is enough data?How much data do you require to believe in Global Warming?
Any scientific data would be sufficient.


But theories, nonsensical and hysterical doomsday predictions, and computer models are not data.


Ignoring and/or distorting facts are not data.


Lies and deceit are not data.


Paranoid fear is not data.


The list goes on and on.





I believe in science.


I do not believe media hype, politicians, doomsayers, scam artists, etc...





Show me one valid piece of scientific evidence that so-called 'Global Warming' is anything unnatural, and I will be more than happy to join the other side.





I shall continue to side with scientists and science facts.


By the way, 'Global Warming' seems to be yesterday's term and has been replaced with 'Climate Change' now in order to cover all possibilities!How much data do you require to believe in Global Warming?
Just to let you know I'm on my iPhone so I mayhave some errors in my answer.





Back to the question-I already do believe in glbal warming, BUT, I also believe that they are stretching the truth I tool Speke.





Should answer more bot this isn't easy
I suppose deniers are looking for accurate historical evidence. There is none. In fact, the climate change data is based on computer models (and anybody can create a model with a pre-planned outcome).





The problem is those who push the ';global warming theory'; are called hysterical because they often fail to talk about the scientific evidence and instead the attack those who are asking to discuss the issue. The biggest problem with the Global Warming movement is they have become like some crazy cult religion - with no evidence to back their claims. For Instance, Al Gore's Inconvienient Truth movie has been found full of errors and miscalculations - even discredited in part by data from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).





If scientists are paid research grants for only finding ';man made global warming'; is real and serious then of course, that is the outcome they will reach. There is no money in denying it. I just think that people should stop believing these things and ask the tough questions, do their own research.



Firstly if you want to get peoples backs up use the term denier, its not the corect term though, I prefer the term ';thinkers'; or ';skeptics';





If the IPCC could find a link between manmade co2 and climate change it would be start since theyve already spent $50 billion on research which we have paid for (and a model isnt proof as its based on the theory and hundreds of assumptions), fact is its impossible to prove so it will always be a theory and there will always be skeptics of any theory





What I agree with is the climate has warmed over the last few hundred years , co2 is a mild greenhouse gas, co2 levels have been increasing and the climate changes. I dont agree with all the alarmist stories though as it has been warmer in the past and the sea didnt swallow the earth and the polar bears survived and europe enjoyed mild climes and the english grew vineyards across london (you cant question physical evidence with model projections based on a theory).





I doubt co2 drives the climate, though It may have a very small input as it accounts for 0.054% of greenhouse gasses. Records show warming happens before co2 levels rise, so historically the climate has been driven by something else - maybe the sun? this doesnt prove that co2 cant be responsible this time, but the evidence for this would be warming of the troposphere and its not happening suggesting the climate is still being driven by something else. It is this information that is leading many leading scientist to question the theory as the signature isnt there for global warming.





Scientists often look at a trend and come up with a theory but it doesnt mean they are right so I reserve judgement on the AGW theory. Remeber in 1975 the climate scientists predicted an ice age so they DO get it wrong despite all their phd's etc...



I believe in global warming or climate change........whatever. What I question is these predictions of doomsday. Maybe humans are causing some warming, but all these doomsday predictions are ridiculous when even the IPCC hasn't predicted that ';we'll all be dead'; in 100 years. People are choosing the most extreme of the scenarios that these climate models have come up with. That kind of exaggeration is what could lead us to policy blunders in which the govt interferes too much. I constantly hear complaints about how inefficient the govt is but at the same time people want it to solve this ';crisis';.





I think the free market will move towards renewable clean energy in a much more efficient way because sending billions of dollars overseas to countries that despise us is not practical anymore. Like I've said before, we need to sensibly develop a domestic energy plan which utilizes domestic sources of energy like oil, coal etc., along with ushering in new technologies. I just don't happen to agree that the govt needs to impose taxes, penalties and regulations. The Kyoto accord isn't exactly working out too great in Europe.
Data is good and helps but I need a scientific study that proves a hypothesis. It has to be a repeatable study that me and others can perform that shows CO2 causes a rise in temperature. So far we don't have that, we have a correlation of CO2 levels and temperature. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It makes it worth study but doesn't prove it.





We also have a logical fallacy masquerading as proof when people say things like 'there is a consensus of scientists that believe in global warming.'





First a consensus means most believe, that is a logical fallacy claiming it must be right because so many believe it. Not correct.





Second is the fact they are saying since scientists believe it, that is the appeal to authority, in other words, authority can't be wrong. Again incorrect.





There are good scientists doing interesting work but so far no one can prove global warming.
There are many ten year periods the Earth noticeably warmed, but not in the last ten years, this is not something predicted by climate models, why should I believe Florida will be flooded in 25 years if they can't get the last 10 right.





http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs鈥?/a>





Especially when there is an alternate prediction that has been more accurate and that is much more serious than mild winters.





http://bourabai.georisk.kz/landscheidt/n鈥?/a>


.



Something that outweighs the strongly documented historical evidence that there is no existing problem to go bonkers over. Current global warming ended about 70 years ago and has basically flatlined since them except for minor variations below the 1934 high. Recent studies by scientists not aligned politically with the limits to growth religious cult and their high priest have expressed worry over the current low level of sun spot activity! This if true could be a lot more serious than any further warming could possibly be. Every time there has been a long quiet period of solar activity it gets cold fast.





This leads to serious global cooling as happened between 1946 and 1958 and between 1970 and 1985, which were minor cooling periods. Or it could if extended become another little ice age like the one that extended from the middle 1300s through the middle 1800s that killed millions through starvation and disease, remember the black plague that devastated the world during that time!



Subject: IT IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, BUT IT IS A SHIFT IN CLIMATE ZONES DUE TO THE DECREASE IN THE EARTH'S OBLIQUITY





%26gt; The earth's obliquity Angle decreases by 0.47'; each


%26gt; year, which changes the focus of the sun's radiation


%26gt; on earth, resulting in climate shifts. As the


%26gt; obliquity angle decreases, the hemispheres change in


%26gt; basic temperature with the south becoming colder and


%26gt; the north becoming warmer. When the obliquity angle


%26gt; reaches about 22 degrees, it will start to go the


%26gt; other way and the north will get colder again and the


%26gt; south will become warmer. Obviously, and counter to


%26gt; Al Gores unlearned theories, the warming of the


%26gt; northern hemisphere cannot be stopped by man. It will


%26gt; stop and reverse itself. Then the climate shifts we


%26gt; presently experience will be goin the other way. It


%26gt; is pure logic applied to astro-physical law.


%26gt;


%26gt; It has long been recognized that rather than staying


%26gt; constant, obliquity varies slowly with time as a


%26gt; result of external gravitational influences. The Moon


%26gt; and Sun's tidal torques on Earth's ellipticity give


%26gt; rise to the familiar 26,000-year astronomical


%26gt; precession, while the gravitational pull of other


%26gt; planets, primarily Jupiter and Venus, slowly perturbs


%26gt; the orientation of the ecliptic plane in space. The


%26gt; combined effect observed by Earth dwellers is an


%26gt; ~41,000-year oscillation in the obliquity with overall


%26gt; amplitude typically of about 2掳. This oscillation is


%26gt; one of the three Milankovitch cycles that ultimately


%26gt; affect our long-term climatic system and serve as the


%26gt; pacemaker of ice ages. The present-day obliquity


%26gt; happens to be close to the mean value, and we are in


%26gt; the middle of a downswing (see figure (1)). In terms


%26gt; of real distance on the Earth's surface, one should


%26gt; see a slow equatorward shift of the tropics by 14.4 m


%26gt; a year-well over 1 km in a century!
No U have enough it is a question as to how accurate it is. A 1 deg change in 100 years is nothing and falls below what most thermometers calibration accuracy.
I guess 1 study which actually supports the theory would be helpful.



15-20 more years of SATELLITE data--- the ground data is almost worthless.
in north carolina ,the piedmont region ,it used to snow 3-4 times per season. now it's rare to get a few flurries,it used to cloud up and rain 3-4 days in a row ,and drought was rare,now the only rain we get is the occasional burned out hurricane and afternoon thunderstorms.we have had record high temperatures and record droughts for the last 3 years,today i heard a huge glacier in greenland has cracked and will probably seperate within the year,and the north finally has a northwest passage all the ice is melting. a rhode island sized cunk of ice just broke off antarctica .monster hurricanes , mississippi floods ,who needs convincing?............tom
The 'deniers' have already made up their minds, and no amount of scientific data will change their minds. When you cite satellite data, ice core data, tree ring data, all they say is that they don't ';trust'; the data! No hope for them.


When the tsunami was approaching the shore, people ran out to gather the fish left behind by the rapidly receding sea. They did it because they were ignorant of the ways of the ocean. They 'denied' that anything bad was happening! When I hear a 'denier' say that there will be ';good'; things to come from AGW, that reminds me of the foolish victims of the tsunami!


The ever widening parameters of severe weather records,is a clear sign of abrupt climate change. What will it be next time? A hurricane that makes landfall 5 times? What if the heavy precipitation in the Mid-West continues? Last winter was the snowiest on record for the Mid-West,and now they get repeated flooding rains. The temps in the desert S.W. keep breaking all records. How hot is too hot? If these were just single events, by themselves, it would just be called ';freak'; weather. But with the rapid increase in severe weather lately,these weather events are WARNINGS! Are you living in a 'safe' area? I hope so!