What is a reason that I can prove that Global Warming is man made?

Question

I have two reasons such as increase in number of natural disasters, and increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

It is for a contoversial research paper man-made vs. nature and I picked man-made meaning Im not trying to say that man-made is the cause for global warming there just two different opinions.

Answer 1

Q. What is a reason that I can prove that Global Warming is man made?

A. It is really simple. A third reason to prove Global Warming is the depletion of forests and natural vegetation and replacement with parking lots, roads, and buildings. Just show two photos. One photo has a parking lot or highway packed with cars on a hot summer day. The other photo is one of a forest. Next to the photos explain that these two photos are of the same exact location (the highway or the parking lot has been recently created). Also include pictures of two thermometers. One thermometer shows the summertime temperature of the forest, about eighty degrees. The other thermometer shows the summertime temperature of the parking lot or highway, over one hundred degrees. Now multiply that by the thousands and millions of parking lots, rooftops, road, highways, automobiles, planes and trains around the world that have replaced forests and natural vegetation. That atleast shows and proves local warming. The forest naturally and passively keeps the same location cooler, while the man-made creation heats it up. All the extra heat has to go somewhere and it doesn't dissipate in space. Where does it go? The answer, of course, is that global warming exists on a local scale and now exists on a global scale, and we created it. Theoretically, all we have to do to solve the problem is find a way to cover everything man-made with some kind of cooling surface and neutralize auto and industrial emissions. As usual, it is easier said than done. We made the problem, so theoretically, we can solve the problem.

You could also take a look at a satellite image of earth at night showing the rainforests burning in the southern hemisphere, while the northern hemisphere of developed countries in Asia, Europe and North America is illuminated.

Answer 2

There is no shred of actual evidence that man is THE cause of global warming. This is an absurd statement being perpetuated by the far left and some ( a very select few, not hundreds ) scientists that have this whacked out idea of reducing the Earths population to 300 million. I have read their theories and their statement of what they want to do.
What caused global warming before man was here?
What has been the cause of the many ice ages that have occurred?
While our pollution doesn't help the Earth, even if we were not here the warming cycle would happen, just as the next ice age will eventually happen.
There is not one thing man can do to stop the Earth from going through its cycles any more than we can stop the tectonic shift, Earthquakes, or ocean tides.
Think for your self. Use logic and real science and reason in this. If a teacher has told you to do this for an assignment, tell her that using pure factual science proves that we are not the actual cause.
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT MAN IS THE REASON FOR GLOBAL WARMING!
Would you like to talk to real scientists that are not paid by big oil that says Al Gore is full of crap?
As far as the guy above me named Gonzalo, his calling people stupid proves my point of the far left. They can not debate with actual facts so this is what they do. They can't explain the Earth history of climate change so they call people stupid and expose themselves as to exactly what they are.
When confronted by scientists that have no agenda and know what they are talking about the far left crumble faster than grandma's cake.
As far as are we warming up, actually over the last 5 years the Earth has cooled .037 degrees C. The person below is using data from incorrect data used by some of the nut job scientists that I had mentioned earlier that have an idiotic agenda. There are marine biologists that have come out against those reports. They are skewed and are out right lies in many cases. The oceans warm and cool in cycles, and these so called scientists misused data on purpose to get the data that they wanted, not data that would tell the truth.

Answer 3

Scientists have reached a consesus that global warming is "very likely" caused by man.
Note, scientists never say anything is for sure, even observable phenomena like gravity. Its still called the "theory of gravity" because it can't be proven that it works the same at all points in the Universe. Yet we know with certainly that gravity exists and that it follows Newton's laws.
Global warming is caused or accelerated by humans. The biggest culprit is the CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels (see my souces below), but there are many other reasons.
There is plenty of research out there. "An Inconvenient Truth" is easy and not too science-heavy, so it can give you a good overview of the problem without being too technical. The UN and the US governments also have plenty of documentary evidence for global warming. This is all available online.
Good luck.

Answer 4

As someone who was has watched a number of rainforest be burned to make way for cattle pastures, even the immediate after affects are hard to deny.

Whether or not one believes in global warming, what is so wrong with switching to greener technologies that are easier on the earth. I'm sure Jesus said something somewhere about taking care of the earth.

Answer 5

I think it is unanimously agreed by the scientific community that there is a correlation between high temperatures and an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

There is lots of evidence that this is man-made, but it cannot be proven. Examples include:

1. The vast amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activity - automobiles, airplanes, generating electricity by burning coal, etc.

2. The vast destruction of rainforests, which naturally convert CO2 into O2 by photosynthesis.

Also not proven is if there is anything that can be done about global warming now. Permafrost has now begun to thaw, and this contains more captured CO2 than all of the human sources combined. It is possible that this is not reversible by anything other than natural means (i.e. the next Ice Age).

Answer 6

"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.

"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."

In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.

Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.

"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers.""

Answer 7

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST (Wall Street Journal Online)

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Answer 8

You can not prove that global warming is caused solely by man.

Answer 9

greenhouse effect is mainly caused by the excessive release of carbondioxide gas because it is the heaviest gas present in atmosphere and it gets settled trapping the maximum quantity of infrared rays so man is increasing pollution thereby helping in the increment of co2 in the atmosphere.

Answer 10

Global warming is a joke. It it were real, so warm the ice caps are melting, then why is this the coldest February in 30 years? Why am I freezin my buns off? Why am i running up my heating bill ?
Yea, global warming. ha ha. a big lie.