It can't be proven that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases?

Question

we can only prove that the temperature has risen half a degree over the last hundred years,,, wow we are all going to die now why don't they give us the hard eveidence that fossil fuels are directly to blame for global warming,, it's all theory,,, we can prove that humans pollute rivers, lakes and coatal areas, that we cause desertification by slash and burn,,,,,,but where is the proof on global warming and sea-level rising,,,,,we need more research and less rhetoric,,, and we need to concentrate on cleaning up rivers and lakes and coastal areas,, banning pesticides and such,,,,for the health of people,,,,screw the polar bears

why do they treat pseudo threory as fact here,,,,,why don't we just concentrate on what we know enviromentally,,,start being pro-active,,,,,just crying and being tree huggers

those documents are crewated by policticlly affiliated panelists not scientists,,,all the honest scientists say that it is all theory and only a half a degree temp rise

Answer 1

Every day scientist are coming out with conclusive data that the sun is the primary cause of any warming that the earth is experiencing.

However this does not mean that we shouldn't work to reduce the amount of CO2 that we put into the air. Over 1/2 of all so-called ghg's are caused by power generation. More Nuclear power plants are needed to generate the massive amounts of energy we need without producing any ghg's.

Answer 2

OMG. GO AWAY! Even the strictest conservatives like Pres. Bush have admitted that human behavior is leading to global warming. You will not find a reputable scientist with any knowledge of geology, meteorology, or chemistry who will not state that human behavior (greenhouse gasses in particular) are a direct cause (not nec. the only one, but the most important one) of the rise in temperatures. There have been thousands of verifiable research projects that prove that global warming is occuring and is caused in part by human pollution. You're the one using rhetoric--your asking for proof, but scientists DON'T BELIEVE IN PROOF!!! Scientists take the data that is given, and find the best fitting theory. Then they continue to modify their models and theory to account for new data.

If you want evidence, look to the multi-thousand page document currently being finalized in Paris created by hundreds of worldwide leading scientists clearly demonstrating the connection between fossil fuel usage and climate change.

Answer 3

CO2 traps heat. Humans started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels 200 years ago, and have increased it 30% relative to the prior level of CO2, or 1/11,000th of the atmosphere (you don't hear this ratio bandied by the AGW crowd though). The present warming trend started about 120 years ago - so there's a ROUGH coincidence.

But 120 years ago we were beginning to emerge from a multi-century cool period known as the Little Ice Age. This followed on the heels of a multi-century warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from the late 800s to the early 1300s. As late as 1995 the IPCC accepted that the MWP was warmer than today, and climatologists uniformly accepted this before global warming became a political issue. It was recognized at the TIME as a warm period because harbors and inlets were iced over for a shorter period of the year, plants grew where they hadn't grown previously (and in most cases don't grow now), tree lines were much higher, growing seasons were longer.... There was also a warm period from Caesar's day to about the mid-400s when travelers used Alpine passes now still iced over. And there was the Holocene Maximum 2000 years before that.

These periods occurred when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much lower than today.

That doesn't DIS-prove man-made global warming, but it certainly means the AGW crowd can't just rest their case on "it's warmer than it was 100 years ago and we're emitting CO2, ergo the one was caused by the other."

But that's all they have.

....which is why they're trying to re-write the climate history.

....which is Orwellian, if you ask me.

....and they're trying to do this based on computer extrapolations from a half-dozen tree rings from isolated areas, and without even attempting to explain how the myriad events that when and since they occurred have been attributed to warmer climes in fact happened.

....which if you ask me is akin to arguing that Washington in fact DIDN'T cross the Delaware without explaining how in fact he got to the other side.... which if you ask me makes them LESS credible than if they'd just admit "yes, it's been warmer than it is today despite lower CO2 levels, even though we think this time it's the CO2."

Another problem with the fact of warmer temperatures is that none of the gloom and doom scenarios happened during these warm periods - except one, the drought in what is now the US Midwest and Southwest, which is what the AGW crowd asserts will happen with another 1-2 degrees F of warming, which then begs the question, doesn't that indicate that it was 1-2 degrees F warmer 1000 years ago, since what you say will happen with another 1-2 degrees F of warming happened then?

The closest thing there is to "proof" of the CO2 blanket theory is that the stratosphere IS cooling. It would make sense that CO2 keeping the heat trapped in the troposphere that would otherwise dissipate would cause it to be colder in the upper atmosphere, the way insulation makes it colder right outside your house.

Except that that's been happening for all of 10-12 years, not 100-120 years.

So fine, there is physical evidence indicating that we've contributed to the warming since Bush '41, although some warming since then was to be expected given that the history is of 150 or so years of change followed by 100-200 years plateau -so after 120 years of warming this time it would seem that we have another 30 or so to go, just because that's how it's worked before. I had a ham sandwich today and I predict that because I had a ham sandwich, the Yankees will win at least 90 games this year. Just because they win 95 games doesn't mean it was because I had a ham sandwich.

And even if you attribute all of the 1990-present warming to us, that's 1/3 degree F out of the 1.1 degrees F since the 1880s. 1/3 degree F is just not material.

So based on the facts and giving the AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt on every un-known, they just don't have a case.

.....which again is why they're busy re-writing some of the facts...

Answer 4

There was a program I saw and I'm not saying one thing or the other, but I thought it was intresting. After 911 and all the planes were grounded, the temperature rose differently aver those 2 days. The scientist conducting the investigation theorized the gas clouds as a result of the jet engines were not present that nomally blocked the suns rays and thus the temperture surface rose. Makes sense to me. But the "greenhouse" theory, I'm not sold on. I've also heard but uncertain of truth of, that the dinosaurs caused so much meth gases it had an effect on weather, but it's opposite of what we're told today, the world froze from that one.

Answer 5

Heck, I could do with a few more degrees of global warming. It's about 15 degrees here in Ohio.

What I find funny is that there are people who also say we can't stop it at the same time they're telling us we caused it. HOW COULD WE HAVE CAUSED IT IF WE CAN'T STOP IT.

What a ridiculous idea.

Answer 6

I bet the people in Siberia could use a little global warming.

Answer 7

You're right, it can't be proven... but there's still damn good evidence.

Now, do you have a question?

Answer 8

Do you have a question?

Answer 9

well, hell, lets just not worry about it then. we have plenty of other planets we can live on.