Can any of you prove man-made global warming?

Question

"The UN says so" is not proof.

Anyone else saying so is not proof.

Accusing me of hating the planet or being a Christian fundamentalist is not proof.

Accusing me of being paid by Exxon is not proof.

Accusing me of working for the Bush Administration is not proof.

Pointing out that the Iraq war is going badly is not proof.

Accusing me of having similarities to the tobacco lobby is not proof.

None of those things are even relevant.

Repeating that it's us over and over again is not proof that it is.

Accusing me of putting my head in the sand is not proof.

Proving that it is warmer than it was 100 years ago is not proof that we are the cause of it.

Denying that it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today not only is not proof but is another reason for me to not give you the benefit of the doubt even though you don't have proof.

Proof. P R O O F.

Put up or shut up.

You're the one who wants to limit otherwise free, productive activity, and you can't prove a negative.

It's your burden of proof.

And insults aren't proof.

Bob, like I said, proof OF warming is not proof that we're causing it.

And repeating that we're causing it is not proof that we're causing it.

And your links, which are nothing more than proof OF warming with repetitions of the assertion that we're causing it, are NOT proof that we're causing it.

Seriously, if it's so settled, this should not be hard for you.

Gotta love Trevor - "I could easily prove it" - then do so.

The Emperor Has No Clothes.

Sione no, the inability to prove that it's something else is not proof that it's us.

I'd have LOVED to have that standard of proof when I was prosecuting. Judge, I can't prove it's anyone else, so please convict this defendant. Yeah, that would have gone over REALLY well. LOL!!!!

Peachman:

1/11,000th of the atmosphere over 200 years, and the fact that it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower. I'm not ignoring it - I'm putting it in context. On some level we're contributing, have to be because CO2 does trap heat - but there's not a shred of evidence that it is more than a drop in the bucket. CO2 is not the only or the most potent greenhouse gas. There's also a diminishing return - people compare the Earth to Venus but Venus is half the distance to the sun and its atmosphere is 98% greenhouse gases and it's about 800 F there - they have tens of thousands of times the amount of CO2 and about 15 times the temperature. That would sustain an answer that "we can't keep doing it this way ........... for........ another..........." fifty thousand years......

Mike my fear is that the radical environmentalists - actually let's call them what they are, socialists who use environmental issues real or imagined as pretexts for state control over commercial activity - will lie and exaggerate so much that when there's a real threat, nobody will pay attention - - a boy who cried wolf (Mann who cried wolf?) phenomenon.

I also fear the decline of individual liberty and I think that it's threatened by both the Pat Robertsons and the Al Gores but that some people want to apply different standards to the two - - the gays have a right to do their thing free of government intervention, they are not causing the world to come to an end, and I have a right to drive to work, and I am not causing the world to come to an end.

Are there real threats, including environmental ones? Sure. Like acid rain. All I'm asking is for proof before you limit activity. Like with acid rain.

They don't have that for AGW. They just repeat, but don't prove, it.

Vikes, yeah, it's real - just like it was real when the civilization after which your NFL team was named had a farming colony in Greenland.

But there's no more proof that it's manmade this time than that it was manmade last time, and we know it wasn't manmade last time.

Joe, the tobacco argument is a canard. There's plenty of proof that smoking causes lung cancer, starting with the simple fact that there are extremely low rates of lung cancer among people who DON'T smoke. By that logic this sort of thing shouldn't have happened before but it's happened repeatedly.

Answer 1

Actually, we do contribute to Global Warming to some extent through our production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. However there are many other factors that also affect the temperature of our planet.

For example, one very large factor, much more so than greenhouse gases, is the output of the sun. The output of the sun was once thought to be constant. It is now known that the output of the sun varies. When the output of the sun increases the temperature of our planet increases. When the output of the sun decreases, our planet cools.

This is thought to be the cause of the repeated ice ages that our planet experiences from time to time. Not all that many years ago most of North America was under an ice sheet over one mile thick. This was during a period when the output of the sun is thought to have decreased. Fortunately the output of the sun increased several thousand years ago, and melted the ice. That is the reason that we can live in the United States today. Otherwise we would be freezing in the dark.

We are very fortunate that the output of the sun increased several thousand years ago and warmed the planet and melted the glaciers that covered North America.

It sounds to me from the tone of your question that the radical extreme environmentalists have been annoying you. According to recent surveys 40% of the population believes that Global Warming will eventually kill every person on our planet.

This illustrates the level of hysteria created by the extreme environmentalists and the lack of scientifc knowledge of the general population.

There is little if anything that you can do about the extreme environmentsts. The environment is their religion, and the earth is their mother, or so they think. They are extremely emotionally tied to their belief system. Fortunately there are relatively few extreme environmentslists, however they take advantage of the lack of scientific knowledge of the general population and scare the daylights out of them.

I think that the best response is to help educate the members of the general population so that it is not so easy for the radical environmentalists to scare the daylights out of them and cause the general population to demand bad and extremely expensive and destructive policy choices from our scientifically illiterate politicians.

Answer 2

Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun. Trees take in carbon dioxide and in turn give out oxygen. A lot of trees are being cut down per year and less and less virgin forests exist which causes more carbon dioxide to be left in the air.

Emissions from vehicles and factories like carbon monoxide (which turns into carbon dioxide once it has come in contact with oxygen) trap the sun's heat by creating a layer that stops the sun's radiation from escaping into outer space.

CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbon) from refrigerators, air conditioners, hair sprays and other products eat away at the ozone layer letting more of the sun's rays in.

Soot, black carbon resulting from incomplete combustion, is said to contribute to global warming and, even worse, climate change.

We are not the only cause. There are a lot of natural contributors. But with the earth's growing human population, it's hard to ignore the fact that we may be contributing a lot to this thing.

Answer 3

I can't prove it in a few paragraphs. This is serious science. You'll need to do some serious work, looking up the references (probably in a college library), and reading them thoughtfully. Will you do that?

Here are two good summaries, with detailed references to peer reviewed articles with peer reviewed data. In other words, proof.

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

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

More data contained here, with more references.

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

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Of course, for most of us, the fact that the vast majority of scientists who've studied this for many years, accept that it's real and mostly caused by us, is further proof.

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

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

Supporting a bad theory is not a good career move in science.

Bottom lines, BECAUSE OF THE DATA WHICH OTHERS HAVE STUDIED IN DETAIL:

"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

"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

Honestly at this point being a skeptic on global warming is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. That's not an insult, it simply refers to the fact that you pretty much have to deny science to do it.

And citing a few skeptics isn't proof of anything either. They have no "traction" in the scientific community, because the data shows they're wrong. For the general public, most of their arguments are countered here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Answer 4

If you are so ready to shut down so many answers (which mostly, I doubt have been answers to prior questions regarding proof) right off the bat, what happens when you get your "proof"? Why isn't the warming trend proof? What data isn't giving you enough evidence, sorry PROOF, that you need be so skeptical? Is proof going to change any of your actions? Have you looked into claims and find them unbelievable or just don't find them compelling enough for you to care about any of it?

You can read:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Anyways, there is enough evidence to very strongly suggest a link between human actions and the warming trend occurring in the world currently. There is not absolute and unequivocal evidence which isn't that odd, as there is very little that we know with that much proof that we could say without a shadow of a doubt.

Answer 5

There is proof of cyclical Global Warming/Global Cooling. How do you think ancient "Americans" came to this continent? ***What is with the Exxon/Mobil hardon buddy? Get back on your bicycle. Don't you know you're contributing to "Human Caused Global Warming" just by being on your computer? It takes power to do that and what do you think produces that power? Bird waste! ***I don't suppose you realize that you are arguing for the human caused Global Warming wackos while defending those who do not believe in human caused Global Warming. Exxon/Mobile takes the oil out of the ground, refines it into gasoline and we jam it in our cars and trucks and drive. Why would Exxon/Mobile want us to NOT buy their product? I drive 60 miles to and from work everyday. I firmly believe that you don't know what/how you are arguing. Global Warming and Global Cooling have been happening for billions of years on this planet! If we can stop Global Warming then we can stop Continental Drift and Volcanic Eruptions! lol!

Answer 6

So everyone knows that there's no such thing as proof of this assertion. Tobacco used the same argument forever. It doesn't mean that it IS, or IS NOT true. There simply isn't proof either way.

Incedently, when and if there finally IS proof, we may well be unable to do anything about it. Maybe the human race will win the ultimate Darwin award because we can't resolve to agree on this question.

Answer 7

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, there are isotopic signatures in atmospheric CO2 prove that it is indeed coming from the burning of fossil fuels and not any other source.
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...

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/wg1/222.htm#635

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 strength of the scientific evidence.

Answer 8

I could very easily prove it but would you listen and would you beleive me if I provided you with an explanation? I fear you'd claim I was making up the science and that there was no evidence.

I'm not going to provide a long explanation suffice to say that it's a physical property of the greenhouse gases that they retain heat (greenhouse gases interact with heat radiation on a molecular level). Put simple, the more greenhouses gases there are in the atmosphere the more heat is retained.

Answer 9

GW is a MYTH!

If you thought our weekend was bad look at the weather across the water...

Freak snow, freezing temperatures and tropical storms across Europe are making the Bank Holiday washout here look almost pleasant.
In Spitzing in Germany, locals have been forced to wrap up after ten centimetres of snow brought out the snowploughs for the first time this year.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...

+

Answer 10

there are hundreds of studies that suggest it is real. neither side can totally prove or disprove it, but the evidence leans toward it being real. and youre probably right, there are other factors as well.

it cant be totally proven, so should we just not worry about it and see what happens? what if it does turn out to be real, which there is a decent chance of it being so?