why do scientists believe that manmade co2 primarily drives global warming ?

Question

scientific evidence shows that sunspot activity is the cause,
and that carbon dioxide levels actually fell during the onset of 20th century industry.
astronomical data on pluto and mars and jupiter's storms also indicate the sun as the primary driver ...
is this about taxation or is it about science ?

Answer 1

Because they are up against the green machine their checks come from all those who want the earth green and they want to limit the planet to 1 billion in population or less in the next ten years, read the maxist documents and find out how bad people are on mother earth.

Answer 2

Probably because the evidence shows that the extra CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere is what is causing global warming and that sunspot activity is a minor effect in the lower atmosphere.

Not to mention that CO2 levels didn't fall during the onset of 20th century industry.

Answer 3

The Heartland Institute are a funny tale they don't look able to recommend some thing that dosen't fall to products even if that's that this list ~10% interior 24 hours of its launch retaining they new no longer some thing about being on the list sounds very such as the Oregon Petition which used a similar tactic. that's Heartland Institute inventory & commerce the convention they held in vast apple those days claimed a number of hundred scientists yet became out to have in undemanding words a handfull and they were paid to attend.

Answer 4

While CO2 may have fallen at the onset of the 20th century (I personally don't know), it's been climbing steadily for most of the 20th, with a strong spike when cars really took off as the primary form of transport.

Sunspot activity goes in a twelve year cycle; I've heard nothinng to suggest there is a longer pattern cycle, nor no of any reason it would seriously raise the temperature of the planet. CO2, on the other hand, is a well-known greenhouse gas.

Answer 5

I can't imagine where you got the idea that "sunspot activity" is the cause of global warming. That perspective certainly isn't supported by any actual data. Take a look at the time series data here:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

and tell me if you think the minute fluctuations in solar influx correlate with the steady rise in global mean temperatures in the past 30 years. Better yet, take a look at the reconstructed solar irradiance here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

and tell me what correlation it has with global mean temperatures since the 1970s.

Climate data from Mars and Jupiter, while interesting in its own right, really isn't relevant to the problem of Earth's climate, especially since all solar flux data shows no appreciable change in incoming radiation over the past several decades. As seen in the above data, the Sun clearly is not responsible for increasing temperatures here on Earth, and arguably it's not responsible for changes in Mars polar caps over the past few years either. It's certainly true that no one has offered any evidence for solar causes anyway. Evidence matters in science.

Answer 6

Several reasons on why they 'believe' manmade Carbon Dioxide primarily drives global warming:

- most of their research funds came from parties who want them to research if humans can be blame for anything.

- releasing a paper that said otherwise is the equivalent of handing out a letter of resignation, since the organisation they belong to have an opposite view.



It's not about taxation or science, it's about blaming humans for anything and making humans fight each other.



It should be noted that Dihydrogen Oxide is a much more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, and around 70% of Earth's surface is covered with Dihydrogen Oxide. Dry Ice versus Ice Cube, who wins in cooling things?

And also that Earth's atmosphere is only a tiny part of Earth, plus there's a GIANT heater under the Earth's surface. The Sun and its 'trapped radiation' in Earth's atmosphere means little, let alone tiny humans with their activities.

Answer 7

1. The sun has been cooling since reaching a relative peak in 1958. Meanwhile the earth has been warming in that time. Therefore, increased solar activity can be ruled out as a cause of the current warm trend.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html
2. Carbon dioxide has been rising steadily since the earthly 19th century; at a linear rate prior to WW2, and exponentially since then.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
3. Our knowlege of Mars is far too scant and recent to say whether global climate change is occuring there or not, much less in which direction. And our knowlege of Jupiter and Pluto are much less than Mars.

Meanwhile, we know that CO2 warms the atmosphere, and we also know that the current level of CO2 is greater than at any time in the last 23 million years. And we know that humans are the cause of this.

Answer 8

So UV's are a problem on other planets. Great but Earth have an ozone layer that helps defend us from the harmful rays of the sun. Therefore, the problem is CFC's, methane, jets in high altitudes. CO2 is a problem only because of the amount we are adding to the atmosphere. Science is far behind reality-some still call the apple falling-gravity (which is a math equasion). It is estimated that 9 forces are acting on the apple. I sent this letter to Al Gore:

Putting the technology together to start cleaning up and reintroducing new ozone to the atmosphere is possible. The cost and size of this project means taking a long term commitment. I am proposing the biggest cleanup in history. Al, I do not see any proposal that is realistic or proven at any cost, not even Washington can solve this problem. But if every person on earth does his or her share, we may be ok. Never-the-less, I see governments acting like a deer in a car’s headlights and people doing the same thing. The inevitable is almost upon us. Cleanup and change is the only option.
The first cleanup machine starts with a ten billion dollars investment. Ten year later with twenty-five machines operating, these machines will produce enough ozone to replace both holes at the poles. But more importantly, these machines will remove chemicals that deplete the ozone. Beyond making ozone, decreasing the poisons that deplete ozone, these machines reduce the major greenhouse gases and unbelievably we can have all this for fewer than one hundred billion dollars.
Beyond cleaning up our atmospheric mess as I am suggesting, we humans must do a better job reducing or cleaning up carbon monoxide, collecting and storing methane and ethane for fuel, burning less of everything, cleaning up our forests and using more solar insolation. Solar steam electric generators are the type of systems we need and are 90 percent efficient and near 100 percent if heat recovery is used. I believe nearly 30,000 MW are needed in the USA and Mexico over the next 30 years. This opens the door to new electric cars, new construction vital to our way of life, new bullet trains, and these industries produce new high paying jobs. From small scale solar generators on malls, to 2000 acre collector sights, these systems are viable and ready for production. The Federal Government must give up some land, money and have less regulation to help save the planet from disaster.
Al, spreading the message that we can help ourselves is a key to the development of these businesses. Washington can help: the businesses need grants, patents, land and regulations. Congress must create a pollution surcharge. From gas, coal, diesel, wood to cooling towers, from cattle, other ranches to cigarettes, from agriculture burning to airplane passengers, this surcharge can fund parts of these projects and many stationary pollution control devices in general.
Your personal support is very important to getting the atmosphere cleanup started and developing sights for solar generators.

Sincerely,

Answer 9

Because that's what the data shows.

Climatologists include solar radiation in their analyses. It has been measured in many locations by many individuals. The data is solid. Increased solar radiation is nowhere near enough to account for the observed changes.

Solar radiation increase is 0.12 watts per meter squared. Man's warming is 1.6 watts per meter squared.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

page 4.

Answer 10

It's about a bunch of hens clucking loudly because a leaf flew into the coop and freaked them out 'cause the leaf looked threatening to them.
The tiny % of junk scientists are being ridiculed around the world by real serious scientists who deal with REAL problems instead of paranoid delusions of a squawking clutch of chicken littles.