Can you prove to me that global warming is man-made and should be addressed?

Question

I am, by nature, a skeptic. While I accept that the temperature of the earth is rising, I do not subscribe to the global warming hype for two reasons:

(1) The temperature of the earth is constantly changing, as evidenced by the hypothesized 'little ice age' of the late middle ages. I have not seen evidence which directly links increased CO2 output to temperature change. What I have seen is correlation, but correlation does not, of course, equal causation.
Please note that I do understand the means by which CO2 could theoretically have an impact, as per the greenhouse effect.

(2) I believe that EVEN IF global warming is an anthropologic phenomena, we should NOT take steps to reduce pollution. Doing so would hurt our production, and (a) other countries that decided not to change would simply surpass our productive output, hurting our economy and negating our progress,

(b) it will cost more to prevent the effects of GW than it will to simply alleviate them after the fact (based on a universally-increasing GDP), and (c) by continuing our progress full-speed we will ultimately stumble upon a means of cheaply and effectively ameliorating the situation (using CO2 scrubbers rather than ending fossil fuel reliance, using nanorobotics to eliminate pollution at a quantum level, ect).

There is a large number of intelligent people who genuinely accept global warming as a real, dangerous, man-made phenomena: convince me they are correct.

One final note: feel free to quote me numbers or statistics, but they'd better be confirmed by the inclusion of reliable sources. I'm open to scientific research -- but not your own (unless you've published it in a peer-reviewed journal!).

UPDATE
Hemp-- thanks, that wasn't the least bit helpful. Try actually reading the question next time.

Larry-- I will check out that vid sometime; but be careful with those 'appeal to authority' arguments. The fact that there are, as you say, "many scientists" who agree does not convince me of anything. I don't care about the men; I care about their research.

UPDATE
Keith & Bob-- thanks, that looks like good information! I'll parse through it when I have more time.

Han & Tiffany -- the US also has a substantially higher output than Britain. You shouldn't compare pollution based on population, you should compare based on gross national product (incidentally, America has a higher gross national product than the entire European Union).

Linlyons-- try rewriting that answer with the help of your English teacher.

Thmtom & Corey-- yes, I acknowledged that "things can be done." My question was, why should they be?

Dana-- I'm ignoring the number you quoted since you didn't indicate a source. Yes, I do think it will cost more to prevent further GW than to alleviate it afterwards-- that's why I said exactly that. With regard to your latter paragraph, your understanding of macroeconomics seems flawed saving money is not inherently "good". If every retailer cut their prices in half, we'd all save tons of money, but the stock market wo

..........

UPDATE
Truth-- "But until there's proof you can't go around restricting other people's lifestyles." That hit the nail on the part of the nail one generally desires it to be hit. My grievance is not with people voluntarily change their own lifestyle, it's with those who would to force me to change mine.

Answer 1

Hello Steve,

Like yourself I'm a skeptic. I'm also a scientist and have studied global warming and yes, my work is peer reviewed, published and accepted. There's a couple of links from other answerers to my work and research I was involved in.

Allow me if you will to go through the points you raised, you may want to make a coffee as I fear this may be a long answer (edit: yes, it turned out to be a long answer).

<< The temperature of the earth is constantly changing, as evidenced by the hypothesized 'little ice age' of the late middle ages. >>

Yes it is. This planet has been around for 4.567 billion years and the climate has never been static, certainly not during the 542 million years for which we have climate data. The 'Little Ice Age' was just one of a great many periods of climatic change, this particular one being occasioned by three factors - the Maunder Minimum (decreased solar activity), the Black Death in Europe which killed between 40 and 70% of the population and therefore led to a substantial decrease in the anthropogenic GW contribution and abnormal volcanic activity leading to a cooling trend. One event by itself would have had very little effect but a combination of three cooling events had a noticeable effect.

<< I have not seen evidence which directly links increased CO2 output to temperature change. What I have seen is correlation, but correlation does not, of course, equal causation. >>

There is indeed a direct correlation and many people quite accurately point out that in the past increased greenhouse gas (GHG) levels have followed periods of natural warming. This is to be expected. It's also to be expected that the reverse be true - and it is. The reason being that GHG and temperature are directly related through a mechanism often called the Feedback Effect or Feedback Cycle; one leads to the other irrespective of which comes first.

A good illustration of this is the Siberian permafrost. Warming temperatures in recent years have led to the melting of a million square kilometres of the permafrost, this overlies an area of peat and through a bacterial process called methanogenesis (or biomethanation) huge quantities of methane are trapped beneath the permafrost - about 70 billion tons in all. As the permafrost melts the methane is released, large amounts of it. Methane is a more 'effective' GHG than CO2 and it causes temperatures to rise further, this in turn melts more permafrost, more methane is released and so the cycle is a self perpetuating one.

The evidence that CO2 (and the other GHGs) are directly linked to a warmer climate is a physical one. Our atmosphere, as you probably already know, is primarily nitrogen and oxygen. Both of these are elements and exist in our atmosphere at an atomic level, there are many other elemental gases as well including hydrogen, helium, argon and others.

There's a bunch of other gases that exist at a molecular level - the greenhouse gases. Three of the primary ones are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, these occur naturally but are also produced anthropogenically. A fourth important GHG is water vapour which is almost entirely natural. There are many others which are primarily synthetic including the CFC's, HFC's and HCFC's.

OK, so we have an atmosphere composed primarily of atoms but with an increasing number of molecules and this is the cause of the problem.

The heat we receive from the sun arrives in the form of solar radiation, this has a very short wavelength and easily passes through the 'gaps' in the atmosphere. This heat is absorbed by Earth and once the ambient temperature drops the heat is radiated outwards in the form of thermal radiation. This has a longer wavelength than solar radiation which impedes it's progress through our atmosphere. Quite simply, the molecules of greenhouse gases are too large for the longer wavelength thermal radiation to readily pass through. The consequence of which is that some of the thermal radiation becomes trapped within our atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

As levels of GHGs increase in the atmosphere it has the effect of increasing Earth's insulative properties - the more GHGs the more heat is trapped.

<< Please note that I do understand the means by which CO2 could theoretically have an impact, as per the greenhouse effect. >>

Hopefully I've explained this above.

<< (2) I believe that EVEN IF global warming is an anthropologic phenomena, we should NOT take steps to reduce pollution. >>

You mentioned harming production (I'll come to that in a bit) but there is more to GW than production considerations.

I answered a question earlier in which I outlined some of the impacts of GW. The points I listed weren't the ones that scientists had come up with or that had been theorised about or that might occur in the future but the ones that are already affecting people and that ordinary people can witness first hand. Here's the list...

Increased rainfall in some places
Decreased rainfall in others
Flooding
Drought
More hurricanes
Increased hurricane intensity
Soil erosion
Desertification
Rising sea levels
Loss of agricultural land
Glacial retreat
Inundation of low lying islands
Melting ice caps
Warming seas and oceans
Population migration
Acidification of seas and oceans
Disruption to food chains
Loss of marine life
Abnormal migration patterns
Extinction and threat to species
Spread of disease
Decline in crop production
Insect infestation
Water scarcity
Landslides and avalanches
Loss of habitat
Economical impact
Increased wildfires
Deforestation
Disappearing beaches
Damage to tundra regions
Impact on ozone layer
Threat to boreal forests
Loss of wetlands and marshland
Coastal erosion
Decline in bird population
Melting of permafrost
Increased allergens
Coral destruction and bleaching
Impact on winter sports and tourism
Loss or Arctic sea ice
Increased heatwaves

<< Doing so would hurt our production, and (a) other countries that decided not to change would simply surpass our productive output, hurting our economy and negating our progress, >>

It's very much the other way around. 92% of the world's population consider global warming to be a serious threat (this is from intranet data based on a March 2007 survey, the most recent comparable internet data I could find is 18 months old and back then the figure was 90% http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187 )

What the world is witnessing is a surge in demand for environmentally friendly goods and services and the countries that are catering to this demand are the ones that are benefitting the most - a simple case of supply and demand. The countries that are leading the way in the fight against global warming are the ones that are benefitting financially through increased imports, these countries are primarily Japan and the European Nations.

The most obvious example to look at is the motor vehicle industry and what we see is that sales of Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Citroen, Peugeot, BMW, Mini, Mercedes, VW, Renault and the like have increased by 24% in recent years whilst at the same time sales from American manufacturers including Ford and GM, which haven't 'gone green', have slumped by the same amount (the fact that both figures are 24% is just a statistical coincidence).

Further, efforts to conserve energy and find alternative products and materials has meant significant technological advances being made by Europe, Japan and other countries.

The US is facing the very real prospect of getting left behind and effectively locked-out of world markets.


<< Additional Details

(b) it will cost more to prevent the effects of GW than it will to simply alleviate them after the fact (based on a universally-increasing GDP), >>

The present cost of not doing anything is approximately 1% of global GDP - this is what global warming is already costing, the figure is rising and is expected to reach 7% within 100 years if nothing is done to combat global warming.

7% is a staggering amount of money - imagine having to 'throw away' 7% of your pay packet every week.

There are several schemes that have been proposed to combat global warming - large scale schemes generically referred to as geoengineering. Such schemes are focussing primarily on two areas - reducing sunlight or reducing CO2. The most expensive scheme has a massive $452 trillion price tag, this involves the construction of an immense 'sunshade' 1.5 million miles from Earth at the L1 point (where Earth's gravity and the Sun's gravity cancel each other out).

There are other much simpler schemes which would cost infinitely less. Perhaps the cheapest of the schemes are the ecorestoration schemes which would utilise algae and / or phytoplankton to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They already do this and the proposal is to create more conducive environments in which they can breed, this can be achieved by nothing more complicated than introducing urea to the seas and oceans or sprinkling iron filings on the surface. I'm not aware that any costs have yet been assigned to these proposals but it will certainly be considerably less than the costs currently being incurred.

<< and (c) by continuing our progress full-speed we will ultimately stumble upon a means of cheaply and effectively ameliorating the situation (using CO2 scrubbers rather than ending fossil fuel reliance, using nanorobotics to eliminate pollution at a quantum level, ect). >>

In time we will undoubtedly ameliorate the current processes that produce CO2 and other GHGs but we may not have much time left. Some people say it's already too late.

There's a point in time known as the 'tipping point', effectively the point at which the damage we have caused to the environment becomes irreparable. There's debate as to where this point lies but the 'average' opinion puts it at 20 to 30 years hence - it could be more, it could be less.

We're taking an enormous risk with the only planet we have if we delay taking action. We're effectively at or close to the brink and I believe we need to pull back now.

<< There is a large number of intelligent people who genuinely accept global warming as a real, dangerous, man-made phenomena: convince me they are correct. >>

Indeed there are and I work with them. But it's not so much that people believe it to be solely a man-made phenomena but that humans are the primary cause of the current warming trend. There is a natural element as well and the various natural contributory factors have been very carefully examined.

What we find is that in the past all warming and cooling events have been solely attributable to natural variations, a combination of the way the Earth moves (Milankovitch Cycles) and heat from the sun (Solar Variation).

There are several concurrent cycles, the shortest one the Earth goes through is a precession cycle of 19,000 years (gyroscopic movement) and whilst these cycles do affect our climate the changes are very slow.

On the other hand, the sun has much shorter cycles, the shortest being the regular sun spot cycles which occurs every 11 years. As with Earth, there are several concurrent solar cycles and sometimes they combine or counteract each other. The difference between maximum (insolation maxima) and minimum (insolation minima) is very small.

The power received from the sun is measured in Watts per square metre per year, the average is 1366, the difference between maximum and minimum is just 1.3 W/m2/yr.

If all these cycles were to coincide to produce the maximum possible warming there effect would be small compared to the level of warming we're currently witnessing.

The most recent glacial retreat (often referred to as the end of the last ice age) was the result of natural warming on a grand scale and is the fastest known natural warming event (there is speculation that there have been more rapid warming and cooling events but no conclusive proof).

Currently our planet is warming 17 times faster than that which occasioned the glacial retreat and at the very most, 20% of this is attributable to natural causes.

<< One final note: feel free to quote me numbers or statistics, but they'd better be confirmed by the inclusion of reliable sources. I'm open to scientific research -- but not your own (unless you've published it in a peer-reviewed journal!). >>

I know I haven't included citations (it takes too long to look them up) but you'll find them on the websites referenced in previous answers.

Answer 2

You're stupid! Oh wait, that's not proof.

Here, all these UN-appointed smart people say it's happening, though none has provided proof. Oh wait, that's not proof.

The war in Iraq is going poorly. Oh, wait, that's not proof.

You hate the planet!!!! Oh, wait, that's not proof.

You're a racist homophobe! Oh, wait, that's not proof.

You must work for Exxon!!!! Oh, wait, that's not proof.

The present warming is unprecedented since..... the last warming, which happened when CO2 levels were lower... Oh, wait, that's not proof.

Well, that covers all of the objections above - you're right, there's no proof.

It might be us.

I'm not saying it isn't.

But until there's proof you can't go around restricting other people's lifestyles.

And there isn't proof.

The BEST answer above is represented as "we can rule out natural causes" but we can't - all we can say is that we can't prove it's natural causes. It's NOT unprecedented, the warmth in the 800s - 1200s was as significant, if a bit more slowly in coming, though the descent into the LIA in the 1200s-1300s was at least as rapid. So neither the scale nor rapidity is unprecedented. And we DON'T know exactly what caused those periods either.

So, we can't prove it's something else, that means it's us? I'd have LOVED to be allowed to argue that when I prosecuted - Judge, I can't prove it's anyone else, so please convict this defendant!!!!

And lies about the peripheral issues don't make me inclined to give the AGW proponents the benefit of the doubt - the notion that the 'rate of the present warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years' is true but only because of wordsmithing - the warmth isn't unprecedented and the rate of the shift isn't unprecedented - this warming is coming on faster perhaps than the last warming but that last warming came on more than 1000 years ago, and this warming isn't coming on any more rapidly than the cooling in the 1200s-1300s.

When the side with the burden of proof lacks proof and supplants it with lies and with carefully crafted, almost Clinton-esque statements that are true only in a technical sense but not if interpreted the way they're meant to be interpreted (much like what Krugman does with income quintiles), I'm sorry but I can't not be skeptical.

Answer 3

With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

Answer 4

While the earth's temperature does constantly change; the earth's temperature has not changed this much this fast without a major event (meteorite hitting earth or ice dam breaking).

Right now one thing that is keeping the earth cool is the amount of exposed limestone. (Mt Everest for example has limestone at the top of it.) The limestone soaks up the CO2. More pollution is making the limestone "work overtime" causing the earth to warm.

Things can be done to reduce pollution and help the economy. For example it the government required all new houses built to have sun-cells. The demand would go up. The reaction would be the more production of sun-cells which leads to more industry jobs and helping the economy. The sun-cells would also reduce the gas and coal use to light our homes. This would lessen our pollution and make better use of our coal and gas (vehicles and defense).

Answer 5

Here's summaries of the peer reviewed proof, with detailed references to the scientific literature. It's not practical to post the articles themselves.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

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

The peer reviewed data shows clearly that this is not like earlier warmings:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

People here are not experts. The actual experts agree on this, BECAUSE OF THE DATA. The scientific consensus on this is overwhelming:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The skeptics have no "traction" in the scientific community, because the data shows their arguments are wrong:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

The scientists also agree that it will cost vastly less to reduce man made global warming than it will to deal with the effects full force. The right balance between reduction and coping is a worthy topic for debate, but some reduction is definitely cost effective.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

Wow, I was going to answer your question, but Keith P. nailed it. Instead I'll address your points #2 and b -

"it will cost more to prevent the effects of GW than it will to simply alleviate them after the fact (based on a universally-increasing GDP),"

I don't see how you can possibly make this statement with the certainty with which you appear to be making it. If sea levels rise 20-80 feet (a very possible consequence of global warming), hundreds of millions of people will become homeless. You think it will cost more to prevent further global warming than to alleviate this problem, which is just one of many possible consequences?

Furthermore, preventing global warming can actually SAVE money, because one of the main solutions is to make individuals and companies more energy efficient. Investing in energy-saving technology saves on energy costs in the long term. I think your argument is fundamentally flawed by a lack of information.

Answer 7

Global warming is not a myth. Many people see Global Warming as the most threatening force of destruction on our planet. Global Warming is linked to a number of other environmental problems affecting the earth. Millions of people would die as a result of global warming if no changes were made.[i]

The threat of global warming has already prompted large money and time investments on the part of environmental watchdog groups like the Sierra Club.

Briefly summarized, global warming is the increasing buildup of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is released when fossil fuels, such as coal or petroleum, are burned for energy. In the last 100 years alone we have increased our CO2 levels by 30%[ii], with a noticeable effect on the environment. Our sea levels are rising, the global temperature is increasing, our glaciers are melting, and scientists predict further and more massive levels of destruction in the coming years. The dependence on petroleum products and fossil fuels could potentially ruin the earth, making it possibly uninhabitable in the coming centuries.

Power plants release carbon dioxide when they produce energy. In 1998 electric utilities released about 550 million tons into the atmosphere.[iii] Because the carbon dioxide comes from energy that has been stored for millions of years, this adds an unexpected burden to the environment. While plants help a little by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, there is far too much for the plants to take it all in.

I am not for Smoking Pot but I am all for using it to save our planet.. here check this out.. sample was above read more..

Answer 8

well I'm pretty sure the earth is getting hurt and destroyed by the things we are putting in it and on it i see it As a privilege to be here on earth not in America. America is a consumerist country we do what were told think what we are told to thin buy the thing we are told to. if we just spent money on advertisement for a cleaner life a healthier environment people Will change and adapt. the u.s may not be the one creating these products but we are the largest consumers of them and we don't care what is does to are children as long as we are happy for that one moment. if we took the time to make more parks as community projects and changed the way people think, our children might out live us but if we continue this path we will never achieve and advance as a civilization

Answer 9

global warming is caused by both natural and man-made emmissions. whether any means exists to stop such a process, other than reducing man-made contributions to slow it to some degree, is beyond current scientific acceptability. unless it can be proven, using accepted scientific methodology, it has no answer, thus no solution.
besides, at the current rate, we'll all be dead before anyone solves the problem.

Answer 10

1. When coming out of an ice age, the earth typically warms by 4° to 7° C in a period of about 5000 years. That's a warming rate of 0.14° per century, or less.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf (page 21).
In the last century, earth has warmed by 0.7°, a rate at least five times faster than any natural warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

2. This unprecedented rate of warmth exactly coinicides with an unprecedented rise in the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. The level of background CO2 (taken far from cities) was stable for centuries prior to the industrial revolution at about 280 ppm. It currently stands at 383 ppm, a 37% increase -- and is increasing exponentially with no end in sight.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

3. The current rise in CO2 is due entirely to human burning of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the air. Furthermore, the isotopic signatures in atmospheric CO2 prove that it is indeed coming from the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, responsible for between 9% and 26% of the total greenhouse effect on earth.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

5. By increasing the level of CO2, we therefore must be increasing the greenhouse effect of CO2 as well. The amount of "forcing" (energy increase) caused by increasing CO2 can be measured in the lab is therefore known. The increase in anthropogenic CO2 has caused an increase of about 1.7 Watts per square meter of longwave (infrared, i.e. heat) radiation trapped at the earth's surface.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635

6. This increase of 1.7 W/m² should cause an increased average world temperature of 0.8° ±0.4° C in that same time – which is what we have actually observed (see point 1).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/216.htm

7. Ice ages and interglacial periods are caused by "orbital forcing", small changes in earth's orbit caused by pertubations of other planets and the Moon. Since planetary positions can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we also know that orbital forcing caused a temperature peak about 6000 years ago (the Holocene Maximum) and has been cooling the planet since then.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

8. Solar activity has been overall stable over the last three 11-year cycles, and is actually down from the mid-20th century peak in 1957.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarirradiance.html#composite

9. Since natural causes can be ruled out and anthropogenic causes exactly account for the increase, the scientific case is extremely solid. When the IPCC wrote that there was a 90% chance that humans were causing global warming, many -- perhaps most -- of IPCC's climate scientists objected. But they objected because they thought the 90% confidence UNDERSTATED the amount of evidence available.

10. Stopping global warming is like trying to turn a supertanker: you have to think far, far in advance. The lifetime of CO2 in the carbon cycle is centuries, so when we alter our behavior today, that will not affect today's climate -- but it may well affect the climate 100 years from now. That means that if we are to be responsible stewards of the planet, we must be able to forecast the effects of global warming a century or two from now. That's difficult to do, but not impossible. And there's where things get very bad: the level of CO2 is rising so rapidly that in a century, more or less, we may be facing the meltdown of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. What does 80 meters of rising sea level do to your assumption of an ever-increasing GDP? Throws it into a ****** hat, that's what. Will China's GDP continue to rise if Shanghai is inundated and half a billion Chinese become refugees?

Answer 11

There are many scientists who believe GW is a natural occurrence and that the climate is always changing. When you have 73 minutes to spare, you should check out this documentary. Keep an open mind and consider that they might be right.

Google Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle