Can science prove global warming is caused by humans?

Answer 1

No... they can only come up with "theories" that may even in facts on a certain level could pan out scientifically. The problem is when the grossly embellish the actual cause and effect and ignore other longstanding or contributing factors. Like, the proved fact that the earth goes through natural cycles. Ah yes... "but this is much warmer this time around and much faster" they say.... really... how slow did the Ice Age melt away and how hot was it? They also ignore the fact that our swamps and other wetland areas produce more of these gases on a yearly basis and have since the beginning of time than we will ever produce. Yes... in theory, in a lab on a grossly inaccurate scale... they can prove their point. It just doesn't hold water when you apply all principles to the issue.

Right now it is to the benefit of scientists to support and try to prove this theory as this is what will currently fund their programs. Just like when they all jumped on board the "Global Cooling" band wagon in the 70's and even went as far as holding a conference at the World's Fair to alert the world that the sky was falling. When the popular "junk Science" of man made global warming is over will these scientists still be credible?

Answer 2

Yes global warming is a natural cycle and yes it has been occurring for millions of years, but over those millions of years, has global warming ever occurred within a century?
And if it has then when has this happened? Were there any major loses of species?

After you answer these questions then ask yourself what makes modern warming that we are experiencing so different than that of warming periods in the past, and how have we affected it, and how can we effectively reverse what we have done to slow down global warming back down to its natural cycle? Finally ask yourself that if we don't do something now, then how are you going to face your children and grandchildren and tell them why you didn't to anything even though you were perfectly capable able to do so?


Also, for all of the skeptics and deniers who say that the sun, or the ocean, or some other force is causing the new global warming that we are experiencing today, do you acknowledge that CO2 follows the rise in temperature directly, and that CO2 among other gases can contribute to the rise in temperature? Also that for the past 200 years we have been releasing unfathomable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then wouldn't this alone have aid in the natural process of the rising temperatures, and effectively cause a rapid increase the pace of the natural cycles of global warming? Think about it.

Answer 3

Yes, it can and basically has. Keith's answer gives you all the details.

Various studies have examined how much of a role the Sun could have played in the current warming. The most extreme analysis I've seen said that the Sun might be responsible for as much as 25-35% of the current warming. Most analyses have the Sun responsible for 5-10% of the warming. Bottom line, it's not the Sun.

What else does that leave? Well, many people who don't know any better say that it's all just a "natural cycle" because the Earth has warmed before without human intervention. 'Were there SUVs around at the end of the last ice age?', they ask. Well the fact is that there are natural cycles (called Milankovich Cycles), but according to those cycles we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now. So it's not natural cycles either.

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

In fact, scientists have a good grasp of the various factors which effect our climate. They know about greenhouse gases and volcanic emissions and solar varation, and they put all those factors together in a model. This is what they come out with:

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

80-90% of the warming over the past 30 years or so is due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Technically it's not "proven", but the evidence is overwhelming.

Answer 4

Its especially sparkling that this administration has been "advised" or has an information that no longer something is to ensue with regard to worldwide warming or making this us of a actual extra shield. who's president, An EX oil-guy, who's vp an EX and destiny oil-guy. what's the enormous ask your self that they tow the business corporation line to be the rustic's coverage. what's reassuring is that inspite of the conservative demonization of Al Gore as being the long misplaced illegitimate son of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. That the technological know-how is basically so incontrovertibly sound and that we as a rustic might probably do properly to do some thing / something suitable to the priority. We now as a rustic understand that it is not likely adequate that an alcoholic would not drink anymore that is extremely that there is a set of issues they are able to't do o.k. and alter their point of view is one among them. My factor is this, at a undeniable factor, that is not significant in case you have confidence in worldwide warming, it is going to easily be the case that rain would not fall the place it used to , that foodstuff would not strengthen that deserts are the place fields was, who cares what you call it , what we are able to be responsive to then as unfavourable to be responsive to is that it could have been our fault. per hazard it grow to be unavoidable and per hazard it wasn't yet we would be screwed besides. only consult from the human beings in the Carolina and Georgia who have not got any water left of their reservoirs in the event that they think of world warming is BS. All Bush has performed grow to be delay long adequate to take a possible financial difficulty and turn it into an unmanageable environmental and financial disaster.

Answer 5

There are scientists on both sides of this issue, I am sure there is some global warming caused by Humans but do we cause the majority of it and will our economic costs be so great that we can legitimately control it within what ever time frame given.

Answer 6

Ingella posted...

Below are three facts that not even the most persistent skeptical scientist can disagree upon.

- Global data shows that the planet is in a warming trend.

- Scientists can prove with experiments that CO2 can act like a greenhouse gas by trapping the heat.

- There's no doubt that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased with about 35% compared to pre-industrial levels and that this is due to human activities.

For me (as well as most scientists), putting these three arguments together makes it very likely that humans cause global warming.

A skeptic tries to find other explanations which would show that humans have a smaller impact on climate.

A denier is very likely to refute even the above three "proven" facts.



1)

- Global data shows that the planet is in a warming trend.

The dispute is the cause, not the effect. This is the effect.


2)

- Scientists can prove with experiments that CO2 can act like a greenhouse gas by trapping the heat.

True. Also true that when this occurs the greenhouse gas layer heats faster than the ground level in these models and experiments. So the truth of it is NOT being disputed... but the application to the condition the Earth is experiencing is disputed as the troposphere (layer where CO2 accumlates) is NOT heating faster than the surface. This is why people who understand the greenhouse effect are not citing the warming trend as being 'caused' by greenhouse gas. It can cantribute, but it is not the cause.

3)

- There's no doubt that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased with about 35% compared to pre-industrial levels and that this is due to human activities.

CO2 levels have risen this century is true. BUT similar CO2 levels have been acheived or exceeded even without mankind's industrialization as demonstrated by polar ice studies.

That all of the increase is due to mankind is under dispute. The oceans are a huge 'resevoir' of CO2 and other dissolved gases. As the ocean heats up the dissolved gases are liberated, just as a warm bottle of pop fizzes more when you open it then a cold one does. THIS is why temperature increases CAUSES more CO2 in the atmosphere. The temperature drives the CO2 and not the other way around in this equation.

Studies that measure sources of CO2 but composting vegatation near the level of mankind's industrialized emissions. When you add in volcanoes (magnitudes more than mankind), and other emissions (biological emissions) you see that mankind contributes in the single percentages of the generated CO2.

When a solar effect causes a natural temperature increase the CO2 will always go way up as the resevoir of dissolved gases (including CO2) in the oceans is liberated back into the atmosphere. Plants flourish and return the CO2 into organic carbon. When temperatures start to fall, and the oceans finally cool the ocean will again 'soak-up' more CO2.


So I, a skeptic, do not dispute the net effects you describe. I only dispute that mankind is behind all of it and that greenhouse effect is the primary cause of the warming trend we are experiencing. I hope I explained my differences well enough for you to at least be skeptical (as all good scientists should be).

I still have a open mind. That's why I visit these forums. But as I have listened to both sides and weighed the evidence I feel that the most vocal proponents on both sides have politicized the arguments and taken extreme views. This makes it hard for level heads to discern the truth, but with due diligence you can find the middleground and form your theory of what is occurring much as I did.

Answer 7

Here are a couple of sites for your perusal…

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

http://www.sepp.org/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html

REAL science does not prove MAN-MADE global warming, but rather indicates that while the warming of the planet is undeniable, it is caused by natural forces, (sun-spots, solar wind, polar reversals etc.) and man's contribution is negligible and insignificant.
This is NOT to say that we should ignore the consequences of our activity on the planet. It just isn't the crisis that the "scientific consensus" declares.

As a post script, I think it is rather arrogant on the part of man to think he can destroy, even with resolved purpose, something created by an omnicient and omnipowerful being.

Answer 8

No. Insofar as is understood by the scientific community not the 'political community' has not proven the case for man made global warming. It has failed the notice of politicians that the man made global warming concept is a theory and not a proven fact. Furthermore, folks seem to fail to notice that big burning mass called the sun!
Check out a video titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". You'll like it.

Answer 9

Below are three facts that not even the most persistent skeptical scientist can disagree upon.

- Global data shows that the planet is in a warming trend.

- Scientists can prove with experiments that CO2 can act like a greenhouse gas by trapping the heat.

- There's no doubt that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased with about 35% compared to pre-industrial levels and that this is due to human activities.

For me (as well as most scientists), putting these three arguments together makes it very likely that humans cause global warming.

A skeptic tries to find other explanations which would show that humans have a smaller impact on climate.

A denier is very likely to refute even the above three "proven" facts.

Answer 10

It is interesting and revealing that alarmists see skeptics as deniers trying to play word games to link them to holocaust deniers. Bob always seems seems to give his proof by quoting non-scientists. One answer had some truth suggesting that there has been warming and that there is increasing CO2. The problem with that line of reasoning is that as a geologist, I know that it has been warming for thousands of years and it was not related to humans. They claim to be scientists yet they refuse to look at historic trends and acknowledge that we have been warming for thousands of years. During that time, greenhouse gases also increased with the warming. The CO2 levels increases were lagging by about 800 years. This is likely indicative of CO2 being released by the oceans due to warming. CO2 is released by humans. Trying to tie the latest warming on humans becomes and exercise in wishful thinking, religion, and politics and veers sharply from science. Clearly we do now have enough technology and generally knowledge to say it is caused by humans. Those that pretend to know reveal their ignorance. CO2 is a greenhouse gas though much less important than water vapor. Since humans release some CO2, certainly we have caused some warming. Some models suggest a half of a degree. It becomes very difficult to know for sure because CO2 is part of the cycle of life and carbon is recycled in many ways and is deposited on the ocean floors as limestone. The beaches of Bermuda are white becuase of calcite precipitated from the ocean. Corals take carbon out of the environment and use it to make thier reefs.