If anyone has proof, not consensus, that global warming is exacerbated by humans coud you let me in on the...?

Question

info? Thanks. I would also like to know how the models work, at least your understanding of them. By the way, this is not homework. I can do my own, thank you.

Answer 1

Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere. The Global Warming hype is a way to advance the cause of collectivism. First they take what is a natural event (Global warming & cooling cycles) and claim that it's being caused by mankind (anthropogenic) Then they foment hysteria by over-blowing the conclusions. For example the summary from the United Nations’(not the full report, it has data that attacks the anthropogenic premise) a much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent. Yikes! Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn't’ changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.” Here's some recent inconvenient data. According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century. and hot off the press In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed. Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming (Agenda driven Science)— and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen. See a pattern here? on Drudge Report we are given this article *Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax* http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm?CFID=74011477&CFTOKEN=64924235 They want to tax and control our economy. Put us under the control of a U.N. that is both corrupt and Collectivist. This report was crafted by 18 scientists requested by the same corrupt UN that stands to benefit from it's implementation and the lead researcher of the report is a John Holdren of Harvard University He has a decades long history of Agenda driven policy initiatives http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/john_holdr... and is not even a climate expert. Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. A lock-box mindset that ignores promising research on Iron-Catalyzed Plankton Restoration. Make no mistake the purveyors of Anthropogenic Climate Change wish to sequester more than just carbon...

Answer 2

Some simple laws of physics tell us how global warming works - namely that the shortwave solar radiation passes unimpeded through the atmosphere but the comparatively longwave thermal radiation from Earth gets stuck. This is a basic physical property of our atmosphere and it can't be changed.

It's the greenhouse gases (all of them) that impede the escape of thermal radiation. It's this simple property that keeps our planet at a habitable temperature, if it didn't exist we'd have a climate more akin to that of the Moon than of Earth, where the temperature fluctuates by 250 degrees C (450 F) between day and night.

By emitting greenhouse gases we're adding the the concentrations already in the atmosphere which can only lead to one thing - more heat being retained. Effectively the greenhouse gases blanket our planet and the more of them there are the thicker the blanket is.

As for the actual proof and going into details - that would take a very long time and would probably lead to the longest Yahoo Answer ever - I'll avoid that as there's a huge amount of information available to look up.

Turning to the models - again, the answer could be very long but in their simplest form they look at what has happened and make predictions based on that. These predictions are 'tweaked' by the input of many variables based on what we think will happen.

Imagine this scenario - every day for many years you take the temperature outside your house, you plot it on a graph and of course, the graph goes up in summer and down in winter. After a few years there's a regular pattern - even if you knew nothing about summer and winter you could look at your graph and predict with reasonable accuracy when the temperatures were going to peak, when they'd begin to fall and so on. What you'd have done is to create your own simple climate model.

Actual climate models are infinitely more complicated and require some of the most powerful computers to do the number crunching, there's also many factors that need to be programmed in but the principle is the same.

If we look at historical predictions we can see that by and large they've been accurate. This gives us the confidence to say with some certainty that future predictions will also be correct.

I've worked with climate models for a long time so please let me know if you want a more detailed or accurate answer.

Answer 3

Climate prediction models are enormously complex. The company I work for made a custom super-computer in 2000 that's only purpose was to run such models. I'm sure it's been getting a workout.

So far, such models have not been stunningly accurate at predicting climate, but, climate changes slowly, and they haven't been in use long.

There is no proof that global warming is caused by human beings. The thing is, we only have one global climate, so you can't really set up a control global climate and an experimental global climate, pump excessive CO2 into one, and observe the difference it makes. So it's all theories and computer models.

So there will be evidence, but never proof. Even if the earth cooks like Venus, any survivors who move to Mars or whatever won't have proof that humans did it...

Answer 4

try the NASA Goddard research lab site or the union of concerned scientists. the first is about as objective as you can expect and the second - while leaning in the pro-environmental direction - has some good information.

as far as models go, there's a lot of discussion about positive and negative feedback loops and carbon cycling out there but you might check out the book "The Weather Makers:, written in 2005 by Tim Flannery. This books is definitely in the corner that supports the idea that human activity promotes global warming and,as a result, more rapid climactic change, but it also present some pretty interesting science in an easier to read format.

good luck, 'cause there's a lot of garbage out there that focuses on one or two popular aspects of climate change and misses the big picture, sometimes on purpose! when in doubt, check out who publishes or pays for the information or who sits on the board of directors of a foundation or think-tank that is making the report.

Answer 5

the main disagreements are as to who or what is responsible

some flatt earthers still believe that nothing is wrong ,but they are becoming less,they will also be convinced when the price of food and beer hit the roof because of third world problems in food production and Global potable water shortage

as for the rest of us ,can we do somethin about it
,I dont think so but we can behave more responsibly in out behaviour towards the Environment ,maybe we can buy some time

are We responsible ?
or is it God who wants to punish?
or is it Gaia who wants to clean some parasitic infestation?
who cares ? that is not important any more

WHAT IS -is that we are gonna be in trouble

The Earth has many problems because of man
this is undeniable ,how much we are responsible for Global warming is debateble ,But there is a definate change in Global temperatures that is affecting nature in a bad way.

this text only covers some aspects of Climate change ,mainly agriculture i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification

water and air polution such as caused by
industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,

and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions

there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

climate change is caused in great parts by desertification ,and most desertification is caused by man
the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result,

And now many animals are becoming sick because of changes in temperature ,
vital links in the food chains are disapearing affecting other species further along in the chain

90% of the feral (wild) bee population in the United States has died out.

In the Netherlands bee diversity is down 80 percent in the sites researched, and "bee species are declining or have become extinct in Britain."

wildflowers that depend on pollination have dropped by 70 percent

we are witness to a mass exstinction ,for the first time since the dinosaurs, of the earth's estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past 50 years. each years, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct.

everything is happening so fast it is not possible to monitor things any more.

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up ,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.
This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter

Global warming could be slowed down to some extent,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where,instead of just some third world countries Source(s) here are a 100 ways to help
http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur... Source(s) ) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into many languages and won the best book award in 2003

Answer 6

If you'd like some proof of anthropogenic climate change, just thumb through the latest IPCC report, which you can read online for free here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Now, I lack the technical understanding needed to explain how climate modeling works, but here is an excellent article that takes you through the steps of a very basic model:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/

Answer 7

It's not just earth that is heating up but the rest of the solar system.

Answer 8

I don't have sh*t for knowledge, but I can say
"Stop Global Whining" because it makes me feel good.