To global warming skeptics, what evidence do you require to think Global Warming is real?

Question

If the earth was literally on fire (exaggeration), it seems that some people would still doubt global warming is caused by humans. "It's a natural cycle. Liberal propaganda. Conspiracy of scientists." Scientists looked at the evidence and have come to an almost universal consensus that global warming is caused by humans. What proof do you need?

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

The scientific opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Rupert Mudoch, owner of News Corp (Fox, Fox News...) "his youngest son, James, who is thirty-three, persuaded him to take global warming seriously. “I’m still a bit more skeptical than most people,” he said. “But if there is even a thirty-per-cent chance that the experts are right, we should do everything we can to insure against a bad outcome.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061016fa_fact1?page=3

About that those tree rings:

CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod reports the scientists who did this study are adamant their findings do not undermine the greenhouse theory. They are simply saying the dramatic warming we've seen in the last half century can be explained, at least partially, by the earth's natural cycles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/22/tech/main504436.shtml

For those who read State of Fear and believe what Michael Crichton has to say.

From the authors of the study he used to make his case:
Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.
http://equake.geos.vt.edu/acourses/3114/global_warming/060727nytclimate.html (Nytimes article costs money so I'm using the alternative site)

Answer 1

Nothing, not even the Second Coming will convince them.. It's all about their own personal needs and interests- i.e. money, so unless . These are the same folks who clung to the belief that the Earth was flat for a hundred years after it was proven otherwise- and executed those that claimed otherwise as heretics. If we'd left it up to them, the Great Lakes would be dead ("they'll cleanse themselves naturally, we can keep dumping raw sewage and toxins...), the rain forests would be long gone ("too expensive to add scrubbers to coal plant smokestacks..."), and half the remaining animal species would have gone extinct years ago ("the animals were put here for our use as we see fit..."). Assuming, of course, that they hadn't already gotten us into a global nuclear war by now as we spread Liberty, Democracy, and Jesus at gunpoint.

Answer 2

In 1980 after mount St. Helen's erupted, the global temp was dropped by 3 degrees. We are just getting back to the prior temp now.

There is no doubt that the world is warming up. This is evident by the fact that the glaciers have melted and left the Great Lakes around Michigan. Man did not cause the ice to melt back then, and there is nothing man can do to stop it now. Man may have caused an increase in the warming rate, but not the problem.

I am sure that the world one day will turn back into lava and tar pits. All of our bones will be turned back into fossil fuel. Hopefully we can find a way to survive that period and the next ice age that will follow. For this is the cycle that Earth will follow.

Ask Nancy to study this the next time she has to fly in a 757 by herself back to California. I am sure she is worried about global warming now. By the way the 2.5 million dollars that she will spend this year along flying back and forth, should have been spent on alternative fuel instead.

Answer 3

First, we would require that there be at least one incidence in the last 400,000 years where a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration preceded a temperature change. The Vostok data shows conclusively that such an event has never happened.

Second, we would require that the carbon dioxide concentration and temperature data from Vostok not be so easily, and exactly I might add, explained by the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 in sea water.

Third, we would require that the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory, i.e., the greenhouse effect, be consistent in its application of the relevant factors. Since the greenhouse effect uses a mean absorptivity based on earth's albedo to determine energy absorption from the sun and then uses a different absorptivity (or emissivity, in this case) for infrared radiation emission, such consistency is absent.

Fourth...well, for brevity let's just say that there are others. But try to meet these requirements first.

Answer 4

You're looking at data for the last 1,000 years, which is a blink of an eye in geologic time. The point is that climate change is cyclical, each cycle lasting many thousands of years. Why is it that everyone ignores the fact that the RESULT of global warming will be a new ice age? The Earth has lasted for several billion years and it will outlive the human race, with or without your miserable existence.

Answer 5

How about some middle ground. Yes, humans are boosting greenhouse gases and polluting the atmosphere which I'm sure is having an effect, I do not argue that point. This is a problem that the USA cannot handle alone and let's face it, your "up and coming" industrial nations don't give a damn. It is also a recurring cycle in the earth. We have had several "Ice Ages" without any help from man.

Answer 6

Tree rings show Earth was warm 800 years ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — An unusually warm period a millennium ago may have been part of a natural planetary cycle, say researchers who studied tree rings.
The study, appearing in the March 21 issue of the journal Science, analyzed ancient tree rings from 14 sites on three continents in the northern hemisphere and concluded that temperatures in an era known as the Medieval Warm Period some 800 to 1,000 years ago closely matched the warming trend of the 20th century.
In recent years, many climate scientists have said an unprecedented warming spell that began last century and continues is caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect. While the natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth at a liveable temperature, the enhanced greenhouse effect is blamed on an increase in the atmosphere of gases, principally carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels.
The tree-ring study gives another perspective on Earth's natural cycles, said Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. Cook is co-author of the study with Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber of the Swiss Federal Research Institute.
Cook said the study shows the Earth to be "capable of rapid changes and long periods of above average warmth on its own without enhanced greenhouse warming caused by human activities.
"We don't use this as a refutation of greenhouse warming," said Cook. "But it does show that there are processes within the Earth's natural climate system that produce large changes that might be viewed as comparable to what we have seen in the 20th century."
Cook said the study found that, based on the growth of rings in the trunks of trees that lived hundreds of years ago, the temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were about equal to the warming trend that started in the 20th century.
"Greenhouse gases (added to the atmosphere by humans) were not a factor back in the Medieval Warm Period," said Cook.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group, has predicted that the current warming trend will continue deep into the 21st century, with average temperatures rising by from 2.5 and 10 degrees.
Cook said data used in the climate change panel's calculation is based on a model that compared the preindustral age climate with the climate of the 20th century. The model did not include a Medieval Warm Period. Including data from that era could change the calculations, Cook said.
"The Medieval Warm Period is in some sense comparable up to 1990 in the 20th century," said Cook. "But that does not say that the 20th century hasn't been perturbed by greenhouse gases. The real challenge is to factor out the natural variability from" manmade causes of global warming.
Cook said the panel's temperature warming prediction could be correct. Based on the new tree-ring data, however, he said the warming could be in the lower part of the temperature range forecast by the group.
Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn, climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain, said the study by Cook and his colleagues "provides evidence for greater climate swings in the last 1,000 years than has yet been generally accepted."
In a commentary in Science, Briffa and Osborn said a need exists for more such independent studies to refine predictions for global warming in this century.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/climate/2002-02-03-tree-rings.htm
________________________________________
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Answer 7

I guess it is easy to spread a lie when you lie about the opposing position. I don't think any serious person doubts that the earth is warming. However, anyone with half a brain must question what influence, if any man has had on the process. Wake up. The earth has been warming since the last TWO ice ages.

Answer 8

the call remains out as to the reason for worldwide warming. The information which helps the extremely some camps of world warming, IE. organic occurring cycle, CO2 emissions, image voltaic pastime, are no longer yet sufficient to furnish us conclusive information. this is silly to handle the priority via the very high priced relief of carbon emissions that interior the top will in basic terms furnish an exceedingly marginal distinction in temperature. the cost being a relief in boost expenses with the aid of out the worldwide hurting the worldwide's detrimental the main. worldwide governments are wiser to pursue a path of extra analyze and technologies progression truly than putting limits on carbon emissions now,

Answer 9

I honestly think that these skeptics are in need of a dramatic event in order to believe. Like all the hurricans and floading has been enough.

I asked the question whether or not people thought that global warming was in effect. And most of the answers I recieved were mindless and stupid. Some say "Oh! its so cold here where I live." Yes that is a consequence of global warming the weather is off the loop the planet doesn't know what it wants. Just like when you get sick, fever and chills and that is what the planet is facing.

What proof do I need? NONE, Its here and I'm willing to do what I can to help my mother earth recover.

Answer 10

You should look at it simply the earth is getting warmer even Bush recognized this after denying it was even occuring. After that all you need to say is we arent helping with greenhouse gasses. No need to debate.