The theory of global warming is rather complex. Thanks to our media and the efforts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences and a whole slew of other alphabet soups, internationally it can be simplified (some say over-simplified) enough for the lay person to grasp it. Before I address the scientific debate on the validity of the global warming hypothesis. I will attempt to explain the science behind it.

The driving force behind the global warming hypothesis is the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately this effect has nothing to do with greenhouses the name is an unfortunate misnomer. A greenhouse stays warm by preventing convection between the outside and the inside of the house. The a

One argument that is consistently used to refute any of these global-warming skeptical arguments is to claim that the scientists making the claim are “bought” by establishments that have interests that will be harmed by taking steps to limit greenhouse gases, such as the Kyoto protocol. While it is true that these establishments are responsible for much of the funding to find problems in global warming, it is again a question of correlation and causation. Are these scientists publishing these studies because of the source of their money or are they gaining the funding because of their research. If their science is being “bought” by anti-Kyoto protocol forces, does that mean that the pro-Kyoto forces are also “buying” scientists. In the end when the debate falls to character attacks, we have left the bounds of science behind and instead fallen into politics.

Another point of debate is whether the temperature is in fact warmer. There are many basis of criticism here, the main ones being the urban heat island effect, the discrepancy between satellite data and ground based temperature measurements.

This brings us to one of the most important criticisms of global warming.Quite a bit controversy exists over our understanding of greenhouse gases, especially CO2. The current understanding according to the IPCC and National Academy of Sciences is that C02 is, at least partially the cause of the warming. This is based upon our understanding of the behavior of CO2 and the correlation between rising levels of C02 and temperature. However as we all know correlation does not prove causation. There are at least two different interpretations of the correlation. One is the accepted argument above, the other is the temperature actually is driving the CO2 levels. According to a fundamental chemical law, known as Henry’s law, when the temperature of water is raised the amount of CO2 it can store is decreased. As the ocean is the worlds greatest sink of CO2, holding some 38000 gigatons of C02. (Compared the estimated 1000 gigatons held in the surface by plants and 750 gigatons in the atmosphere)(Soon 1997) any rise in temperature would cause the ocean to release CO2, thus accounting for the correlation. Figure 3

This positive feedback would melt glaciers and ice caps, causing oceans to rise, reclaiming lowland areas. It could cause global weather extremes. Further effects include droughts, flooding and eventual loss of ecosystems and farmland. As arid zones grow and the temperate zones move further north and south.

Some topics in this essay:
Change IPCC, IPCC IPCC, Ross Mckitrick, Academy Sciences, Change HDCC, Soon Baliunas, Sciences C02, Day Tomorrow”, C02 Compared, Spencer Marshall, global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases, greenhouse effect, heat island, heat island effect, island effect, urban heat, proxy data, temperature measurements, human emissions, urban heat island, intergovernmental panel climate, national academy sciences, panel climate change,