Is there any scientific facts to proof or disproof the theories of global warming?

Answer 1

Here is a link to a paper written by a PhD Climatologist that is titled "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?", that I thought was pretty interesting.

Answer 2

This is a complicated question. First, it's a FACT that the earth has warmed since the last ice age and is constantly being warmed by the sun. There is no denying this. If there were no sun, the earth would be -273 degrees C (absolute zero), as would all other planets in the Solar System. And, the closer to the sun, the warmer .. simple scientific fact. And, there are theories, opinions, and facts (data) to explain why the earth seems to warming faster than predicted by natural events.

Answer 3

Well, depends on your definition of "facts". And maybe what "science" really is, and how linked it should be with politics.

Remember the suffering of the Dark Ages, when the government leaders determined what was scientific fact and what was not?

But here and now, first, we are in a natural warming cycle, coming off an ice age. I think this is factual; not disputed.

Second, there are the "facts" of the computer studies, which however have had problems coping with new discoveries and historical facts previously known....

3rd, I just read of the discovery of the Peruvians growing squash and cotton about mile high in the Andes, ten thousand years go, so this says it was fairly warm clear back then, too.
Or I do not understand about squash and cotton's growing needs!

The Global Warmers have not checked in with their explanations of this.

And then, we know for a fact that the quite warm MWP came at a time when there was no big industry and far fewer people, so it was not man-made, and was followed by the freeze period of the LIA, which just happened to coincide with an almost total lack of sunspots to deposit energy into the atmosphere.

But of course the computers have shown that these did not exist, from the charts I see. Global Warmers are rewriting history where it is an inconvenient truth.

And we do have the fact that about 40-50 years ago these same people were screaming about man was bringing on a new ice age, which turned out NOT to be true.

I am not sure about "facts" made on computers that can be programmed to put out whatever you want. GIGO is the name for it!!

The retreat of glaciers is not always factual, and some are retreating because of man cutting off the moisture supply, depending on whose "facts" you believe. Lakes can evaporate due to warming, or can be overused for irrigation, say, and drained as effectively.

At this point, of course, the politicians are screaming that they have total and unassailable proof, and are putting down anyone who finds a different answer. Rabidly.

But the political approach seemingly is to inflict heavy costs on the public, and seems also to be to enrich big multinational companies at the expense of CO2 reduction, and the small peasants in the rain forests which are being bulldozed. And that seems to be a fact!

But when the politicians and their scientists are trumpeting that it is all known and solved and all we have to do is follow their words, not necessarily their actions, I must wonder about the "facts" they then produce.

And...if they are wrong, they seem not to have a fall-back plan! Look at "facts" in light of who produced them and what they stand to gain. True science is NOT in science for profit or fame or prestige, but truth even if it is inconvenient to the power structure. Remember Galileo?

But I agree...it is likely to get warmer, tho I see some other reasons possible. And if it were me, I LIKE the idea of new farmland like the Vikings found, and reconstructing our cities to better plans in safer places. Those will work regardless of global warming or cooling, man-made or natural. And give us a better world for all.

Thanks for an interesting question.

Answer 4

And since when has global warming been a theory? Take a temperature gauge outside and write down the temperature day after day after year after year and then you will have a real time relationship with reality and not some theory. The theory involves us but our activity does cause a certain reaction and that with other factors is constructed into a theory that places us in the subjective end of an objective situation.

Answer 5

As long as we're looking at the "scientific" aspect of global warming. let's get some of the lingo down:

Facts: we generally shy away from this. Too absolute. The preferable term is "data" or "evidence". If you want "facts", those are not easy to find on either side of the argument.

Proof/disproof: again, not used in science. Instead, try "support" or "fail to support".

Theory: Global warming is not a theory. It is a loose set of hypotheses. If climatologists were to put forth a unified hypothesis, then it would have to be relatively specific, and it would have to stand or fall with the full weight of scrutinized evidence. This would be very difficult in light that global warming science is based almost entirely on computer modeling and reconstructed measurements.

All that being said, there is considerable evidence to support many of global warming's hypotheses. There is also considerable evidence that fails to support - chief among them are the computer models themselves: many variables have not been taken into account, results have been inconsistent. In all fairness, every scientific discipline that uses computer modeling runs into the same problems. So, there's no saying that they won't ever be able to work through this, and eventually arrive at a more strongly supported hypothesis or theory.

When you hear someone claim something to the effect that this warming trend doesn't match up with natural cycles, what they are may be omitting is that they haven't been able to come up with a computer model that fully reflects natural cycles under all conditions. I tend to think that it's man who has not got it figured out.

Answer 6

Just a consideration.

During the industrial age there have been periods in which the pollution was much higher than now, because of the extensive use of coal in industry and for heating.

Yet in such periods the Earth suffered what has been called a "mini ice age" because of the very low temperatures recorded.

The newspapers at that time were full of "scientific" predictions foreseeing a catastrophic new glacial age to occur in just a few decades.

Now we read in the newspapers exactly the opposite predictions.

Isn't that curious enough to give it a thought?
...

Answer 7

Sure, tons of facts say it's real and mostly caused by us. Here's just one example.

This is a nice picture, includes the effect of the Sun, and there are many more scientific studies showing the same thing.

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

None of the "natural" explanations work nearly as well. The scientific equations don't work for them. The numbers come out wrong. Most questions about that are answered here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Good general information on global warming. with many facts and pictures:

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

Answer 8

Global warming simply means it is getting warmer as it has for thousands of years. The controversy is whether humans have anything to do with it.

Answer 9

Alot of proof is showin the loss of Iceberg, the drop of animal populations in the arctic, more terrible storms (katrina), less snow, more sun, More rain, hotter days.

Answer 10

yes, here's some:
http://pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/