Is there someone out there who is able to convince me that global warming is a myth?

Really the closest thing is probably the Douglass et al. paper which discusses the missing 'hot spot' in the tropical troposphere. Models show that there should be a hot spot in this part of the atmosphere if there's warming at the Earth's surface. However, the hot spot should be there no matter what's causing the planet to warm, whether it be humans or the Sun or unicorn farts. So the fact that we're not seeing the hot spot simply tells us that the radiosonde data (instruments on weather balloons measuring the atmospheric temperature) isn't very good.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

Summarized at myth #14: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-m...

If you want a real 'fingerprint' of human-caused global warming, I think the best piece of evidence is the cooling upper atmosphere. With an enhanced greenhouse effect, essentially more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere, causing the upper atmosphere to cool. With warming from solar effects, you expect all layers of the atmosphere to warm. And what we're seeing is indeed a cooling upper atmosphere.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-a...

*edit* Tomcat is wrong, the physics is explained in the links above.

I wouldn't claim that global warming is a myth. It is simply an exaggeration. As a geologist, I can never understand why laymen accept terms like global warming. It is purposefully vague. What does it mean? Does it mean only the warming that is caused by humans? Does it mean only the warming in the last 40 years? It is a meaningless name meant to deceive. You are supposed to draw the conclusion that all warming is from humans. In reality, climate is not stable. It varies naturally. Geologists are the biggest AGW skeptics because we have been taught climate history. It is written in stone, to borrow from a metaphor that can be taken literally. Have humans added to warming? Almost certainly. Have humans caused warming? Probably not. We just added slightly to already warming trend. It has been warming for about 300 years. We know this through historical accounts and climate proxies. Your search for a peer reviewed article is probably fruitless and worthless also. Your best bet is to take all evidence including what I said with a grain of salt until you build enough information to make an informed opinion. Too many people are simply willing to abrogate their opinion to others.

Note: Majtaba is correct except it isn't exactly a sine wave but it is cyclical and some cycles have consistant time intervals. .

It would be almost impossible to convince someone who has a religious belief that hides behind those that claim to have science to back them up. In real science, like the real world, when something is proven wrong, it is wrong. A tiny amount of common sense would make this perfectly obvious that humans haven't contributed significantly. The increase of 0.6 degrees C of the last century is perfectly consistent with historical rises. Since none of that can be attributed to increased greenhouse warming according to the models used then how can you rationally attribute that to humans. Just because you don't like capitalists or your paycheck depends on it isn't a rational reason. That is the logic of those doing the peer review.

"Professor Lindzen comments that this failure of observation to match prediction cannot be so easily explained, since the transient response would be likely to exceed the equilibrium response. He concludes that no more than about a third of the observed trend at the surface is likely to be due to greenhouse warming, and adds: “This is about as close as one ever gets to proof in climate physics.”

On this analysis, “global warming” is unlikely to be dangerous and extremely unlikely to be catastrophic."

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenho...

You can read below why your peer review has been corrupted by political types that treat it more like a religion.

http://www.ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climat...

There's alot of good answers and links to that effect, it is a myth. As a matter of fact, it looks like we are going into a 30 year cooling period, it was fabricated by Al Gore and others. We haven't been around long enough to study climate....we've only been keeping records of weather for under 200 years and Ice Ages, and the cooling periods between, last thousands of years. As a matter of fact, it looks like we're going into a 30 year cooling period:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cool...

I think I tend to believe NASA scientists.

The biggest proof is seven years of declining temperatures.

As for Dana, and his any warming would cause a hot spot theory, that is misleading. For one thing, that is based on one persons, Jim Hansen's, hypothetical assumptions on how the earth will warm given a rise in solar activity. Given that his model runs are based on the assumption of strong positive feed backs, it should not be taken seriously.

That also goes against the IPCC report that says a tropical hot spot is a signature of greenhouse gas warming.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a... (page 674)

But it is not just the tropical troposphere hot spot, it is the entire troposphere that has to been warming at a rate greater than ground temperatures, and that is also not happening. There is also nothing wrong with the data as three separate and independent studies are in agreement on this.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407075.p...

Could this be the reason why temperatures are falling world wide?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...

shifting stupid human beings won't help, those varieties in many situations have the choose to tell others what to do without self compliance., eg; vote casting. Whats the project with show A? Norway, no clothing, or being confident? certainly the entire question is unrelated. yet I comprehend frustration.

global warming is not that myth as you say! it may be a little strange but i have to say: what is happen now had happened before, i suggest you to study Paleoclimatology (branch of climatology science studying past climate f the earth), if you see the average temperature chart of the earth during the eras of the earth, you'll learn that it's like a sinus wave, increases and decreases.. hope you find what you look for.

ANOTHER MAN-MADE RUMOR TO MAKE MONEY off the ignorant and uneducated. The WORLD and all the Planets go through cycles. I just read tonight that millions will die of THIRST if the glaciers melt in china. Drinking water comes from the rain and snow NOT GLACIERS. I also read tonight that the WWF says the HIMALAYAN Glaciers are GROWING. Mt. Shasta's glaciers in Calif. are growing. In the 70's "THEY" were predicting the ICE AGE for "NOW". It's a SHAM. By the time people figure it out,,all the money that was made will be passed on to their HEIRS.

Check out 'surfacestations.org'.

This site documents the inspections of the majority of the U.S. temperature monitoring stations. The vast majority of surface stations have been found to be providing data that 'Creates' warming.

Spend some time on the site and you will have your eyes opened.

You may see the Alarmists in Y/A attempt to pull a character assassination routine on the site and its head honcho. The bad data is unfortunately, providing the very foundation of the "Man-did-it" Global Warming Claim and the Alarmists are extremely sensitive to anyone who suggests that they are mistaken...... kinda like "Global Warming McCarthyism".

Keep in mind that the efforts to review these sites was done by volunteers. They are not supported by Big Oil or Big Al.

Enjoy and prepared to be outraged by the findings.

Dana beat me to the smoking gun of why the AGW theory is wrong, the missing hot spot in the mid troposphere. And no DANA there would not be a hotspot in the mid troposphere if more sunlight was hitting the Earths surface. Since the mid troposphere is essentially invisible to incoming sunlight, more energy striking the Earths surface would cause the surface to warm faster than the mid troposphere, OMG!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007...

"No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong"

Albert Einstein

.

.

The AGW theory is not exempt from the basic principles of scientific theory.