Global warming?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

These variable were long ago added to conclusions that say without that (and other) pollution, then global warming would be much worse.

We know a worldwide reduction of sulfur in fuel has resulted in cleaner air. As a result, global warming has continued to increase as models predict. Most of these effects you are referring are already quantified as minor. Have even been tested in models as a long term solution to greenhouse gases with little success. All have been including in equation (simulations) that confirm global warming.

Variations in many models and research exist. But the overwhelming conclusion is same. Climate change due to mankind is increasing worldwide temperatures and increasing greenhouse gases. Even resulting in increased acidity in the oceans - also well defined in research.

This month's Scientific American discussed the previous world record for fastest global climate change - the PTEM period. At no other time, has global warming been so fast - 5 degrees C in .... 20,000 years. We are doing same climate change in only hundreds of years. That proves global warming does not exist?

Why do subjective denials have credibility? Citations with facts, research, and numbers demonstrate that every decade is warmer.

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?