is there any absolutly undenyable proof that global warming is real and is caused by humans?

Question

i have a friend who thinks that global warming is a myth. he keeps on coming up with new argument strategies and im running out of things to say. please help me!!!

Answer 1

Maybe it is caused by humans.
Maybe it's a combination of both humans and nature.
Maybe it will happen anyway, regardless of human factors.

Maybe it's only a coincidence that human pollution is at a high, at the same time the globe is heating up.
Maybe it's only a coincidence that everytime the globe heats up, CO2 levels are up.

I haven't made up my mind yet.
It's difficult to see through all the smoke of partisan propaganda coming from both sides.

If there was proof, there would be no controversy.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't know.

Maybe it's a possibility that all of the original scientists who theorized that global warming is caused by humans are liberals. Maybe it's a possibility that all the new scientists that suddenly emerged who agree with conservatives are all fakes.

Maybe all global warming scientists should be required polygraph tests, background political leanings investigations and financial trail investigations to try to get a better understanding of considering whether they could possibly have ulterior motives that are dishonest.

One good thing out of this whole mess is that it fosters a scientific learning community. One bad thing is that there are now a whole lot of partisan pseudo-scientist amateurs / partisan activists who foolishly choose a side without solid evidence.

If anyone has to ask, evidently they are not really sure.
(Like me!)

Answer 2

No. The science behind manmade global warming is not absolute, despite what people may tell you. People used to say that it was absolute that the earth was the center of the solar system, and that it was heresy to say anything different!

A very similar thing is going on now. Politicians are telling us that the science is absolute, and people who say differently are being called heretics and liars. (Yes, some scientists who oppose global warming have been called heretics, no joke.)

I have a lot of things to say against it (here are just a few):

1) CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.

2) Only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is human-produced, much more of it coming from volcanoes, decaying plant matter, and of course, the ocean.

3) CO2 rise has been measured to follow temperature rise, not cause it.

4) There was ten times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Ice Age than there is now.

5) Perhaps most importantly, the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000-1300 was much warmer than it is today, without the help of SUV's etc. Leif Erekson's norsemen had farms in Greenland, and there were vineyards in the north of England and Scotland, things which certainly aren't possible today. So if human CO2 emissions didn't cause it back then, why is that the cause now?

So those are just a few of the reasons I just don't buy the theory of anthropogenic global warming. And tell your friend to keep up the good work!

(And about the IPCC report that you're supposed to read, many of the authors wrote only a small part of the paper, and never saw, or even disagreed with, other sections, but they're still cited as "authors of the report." That doesn't sound very honest, does it?)

Answer 3

I do not know about proof of human cause, though I believe it.

Edit: from a previous answer I gave

as far as proof of it actualy happening. . .

The key to understanding it is to think of it not as global "warming", but as global "heating". Raising heat has effects other than raising temperature. There is an experiment from high school physics that demonstrates what I mean.

Take a beaker and fill it with ice and water. Stir it with a thermometer and the temperature will read 0 degrees celsius, or 32 degrees Farenheit. Put the beaker over a burner, and start adding heat. The Ice will start to melt quicky, but the temperature does not go up until all the ice has melted. This is because it takes energy (heat) to break the water molecules in the ice apart.

Once the ice is melted the added heat can go to increasing the speed (kinetic energy) of the water molecules in the liquid. Temperature is actualy a measure of the speed the water molecules move through the liquid.

As you continue to add more heat, the kinetic energy of the water molecules becomes so great that they start to escape the liquid mass in greater mumbers (evaporation). When the water reaches 100 degrees C, or 212 degrees F it starts to boil, and again the temperature will hold constant.

At normal pressure, water cannot exsist as a liquid above this temperature, just as it cannot exist as a solid above 0 degrees C.

Even at lower temperatures, some molecules at the waters surface have sufficient energy to escape. This is why there is water vapor in the air. In the last couple of decades the number and intensity (energy again) of storms has increased.

The ice caps ARE melting. Be afraid

www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/

EDIT

Don M.C.- It is a common error to say that heat rises. Warm air, as in a balloon, has a lower density than cool air, causing the balloon to rise due to buoyancy.

"Heat is energy in transit from a system at a high temperature to a system at a lower temperture."

Answer 4

That would depend what criteria an individual sets for determining whether something is undeniably proven or not.

To most people there is 'undeniable proof' that the world is rouughly spherical but some people maintain that it's flat and reject any evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, there are people who believe in the concept of a Young Earth. To their mind they have 'undeniable proof' the world is 6000 years old, whereas others will cite 'undeniable proof' that it's much older.

In science few things are given the distinction of being absolutely proven and it's perhaps better to assign a balance of probability. 10 years ago there was perhaps an 70% certainty that humans contribute to global warming, 5 years ago that figure was perhaps 85%, 2 years ago about 90%, today it's safe to say that it's in excess of 95%. Bear in mind that scientists err on the side of caution and when a layman describes something as 'definite' a scientist would be more inclined to refer to it as 'probable', a layman may say 'probable' but the scientist would say 'possible'. In layman's terms there's a 99.9% chance that huamns contribute to global warming but the cautious scientists would prefer to say 'in excess of 95%' rather than be specific.

Answer 5

Of course there is proof! I know a lot of people say that there is no way there is global warming when its so cold outside. The answer to that is global warming causes extremes in temperatures, not just hot hot hot all the time. If you look at ocean levels in the past compared to now, now is significantly higher. Global warming is real and people need to start recognizing that, and even if it isn't and it is a scam, then whats the harm in just steering clear of harmful materials??

Answer 6

You can't prove this in a few words or a short time. It takes days of studying the scientific data. All you can do in a short time (or on Yahoo answers) is debate the issue. Debate is not scientific proof.

Here's the best proof available. 150 authors, 600 reviewers, hundreds of references to the scientific literature. It's over a thousand pages and your friend will never read it.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Of course scientists do read this stuff which is why the vast majority of them accept global warming as real and mostly man made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The best short argument is this graph. It shows that, up until about 30 years ago, natural forces were very important in driving the temperature up or down. About then we started to make so much greenhouse gas we overwhelmed the natural forces and started pushing the temperature up seriously.

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

Good website with more information that might help:

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

And this will help you answer specific arguments from your friend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Answer 7

Well, if science is wrong, party in 100 years look back and laugh! But if science is right, hello dinosaurs, goodbye life... But here's a quick science experiment...
Start the engine on your car in a garage and close and lock all the doors. Now imagine that the garage is the world and the car engine is human CO2 output. Now slowly depress the accelerator on the car for the next 20 Min's... (Really rev it for some excess production!)
Monitor how you feel and how you think that carbon monoxide affects the air in the room.
Write your thoughts on your findings in your science diary!
Don't forget to update your diary for 40 Min's, 1 hour and 2 hours! ;)
(NOTE; Please DO NOT try this!!!)

Answer 8

No, there is no absolutely undeniable proof that global warming is caused by humans. There is proof that it's real - average global temperature measurements:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

There is a lot of evidence that humans are the primary cause - sufficient to convince most climate scientists, but no undeniable proof. It takes a long time to discuss all the evidence, but in a nutshell compare that temperature graph to these atmospheric CO2 concentrations graphs:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

There's a pretty clear correlation between the two. The final straw in terms of evidence is that when climatologists model the global climate, their models don't fit the temperature measurements unless greenhouse gases play a big role:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

If you want to read more detail, I suggest you read the IPCC report Summary for Policymakers. It's just 18 pages long and contains a summary of the best climate science, including lots of nice charts and graphs.

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

Answer 9

No. And the fact that the global warming croud say this and also say that the debate is over have totally shot their credibility.

Answer 10

I can't understand why this is still a question. Go to the EPA's web site and check it out, look at the information. I guess all the PHD's must be wrong, and we are all making it up. And why do you think Bush put a "gag order" on the official 10million dollar study headed up by the EPA, funded by our government. Could it be that a little friend of his wanted to open 7 coal burning electricity plants in Texas at the same time. All the information is there on the internet and findable.