this climate change is all bull their is no real scientific proof proof of science is that has been tested &?

Question

Proof yes this is fact or no this is not fact so far all so called proof on the yes is hyperthetical & not fact or can any one prove to me there is proof beyond any dought

Answer 1

Exactly. Look at the proof provided to show that "global warming" is real - The CEO of Wal-Mart says "global warming" is true. That's the proof! I wonder why? Is it because he plans to use global warming to sell more CF Light bulbs? I think so. Hell, give me the profit Wal-Mart makes off of these lights, and I'll be preaching about the evils of man and man made global warming~

Answer 2

Even the most well tested of theories, are still that, theories. To get beyond a hypothesis, you have to have a lot of data behind you. That being said, the common terms, "proof", "theory", and "fact" are awfully subjective. Additionally, because we have only one earth to test, we'll never be able to plan anything. Most scientific experiments work on the premise that you have a control which you leave alone, and a "treated" whch you give your treatment. Anywho, no one is going to be able to prove anything about global warming. Since the industrial revolution, we've had quite significant increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and I can't imagine that that is doing nothing. Anywho, my two cents.

Good luck and maybe you should try working on punctuation. I had a hard time figuring out what you were talking about.

Answer 3

There is new important proof that there is a significant man-made cause of climate temperature change.

Aircraft are the only proven man-made cause of climate change, resulting in an immediate change in temperature over North America diurnally by over 1 degree Celsius (Travis, 2002).

It was predicted by many earlier global studies, including NASA, that aircraft could have a significant impact on our climate but it was not proven until all of the aircraft could be grounded in some region.

When aircraft were removed from the sky over North America, because of the tragic events of 9-11, the temperature quickly reverted back to pre-1950s over the US diurnally. Not coincidently, the 1950s was the advent of jet air travel.

Sadly, flights are supposed to triple by about 2015-2020 and double every 8-10 years thereafter, until 2050, if left unchecked; this is likely to lead to something catastrophic in our lifetime.

Some of my advisors, including senior US government scientists/ climatologists believe that something catastrophic could begin as early as 2011 or so; if it has not begun already. However, no one knows for sure and generally, new aviation/ climate models have not been run.

*The real answer is to immediately limit flights and develop viable alternatives; however, the powerful air transport industry and the US government are opposed to them.

The media doesn't get it either: They think it is everything else.

HOWEVER, you take the planes out of the sky and the temperature immediately is effected... DUH!

Answer 4

The reason for so much debate about whether or not global warming is caused by people is because science isn't about proving anything. Scientific method is used to disprove people's theories.

Consensus of opinion is not proof as some are saying.

Wasn't the world flat, didn't the sun move around the earth?
Facts change and so does science.

Scientist aren't always right. Their conclusions are not always right. The data isn't always pure. The method isn't always without error.

People demonstrate too much blind faith in science.

Many here who have answered this question have cited their sources. Well my soucres will be listed too. It serves to demonstrate what I've been saying. Science can be used to refute science because science changes. And scientist have agendas, opinions, faults, and narrow minds.

Scientist need funding, and who's their biggest contributor? Unfortunately most of our politicians are "convinced" about humans causing global warming. GW is used by politicians to get more control and attack capitalism.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/9e1bd67e-236c-4230-b462-bbd65a5ec7a1.html
http://blog.businessgreen.com/2007/03/what_firms_shou.html

I hope my point gets around to everybody who thinks global warming is caused by people. Research the other side. Don't get suckered by scientist and politicians. Never be afraid to question the scientist, your teachers, and especially the politicians.

Answer 5

I find it interesting that the left always falls back on science as their back-up but rarely do they actually understand the science nor do they understand the limits of our present technology. They rely instead on a consortium of politicians and scientists who have plenty to gain from pushing global warming. Climate change is a reality. Climate stasis is a fantasy. Those who think the climate remains the same do not have the most basic knowledge of geology. We are in a period of glaciation. The climate shifts from cooling to warming over and over again in cycles that generally last about 100,000 years between them. It almost always happens the same. The cooling is somewhat gradual but the warming is generally very rapid. We happen to be fortunate to be born in a time of warming and it is near the top of the trend. In the next few thousand years we will probably begin to cool again gradually. Trying to determine the extent that humans influence the climate relies heavily on models that can be manipulated to give you anything you want. You would have to be a fool in my opinion to pay much attention to them. We are far from the point where we can understand the very complex systems involved in climate and the carbon cycle.

Answer 6

Yes there is proof. Would you trust peer ("peer" in essence being other unbiased computer models) reviewed data? Would you trust the organization funded by the British government specifically for the purpose of providing environmental policy advice?The organization that is the most involved in collecting data and developing climate models?

That is the Hadley Center for Atmospheric Research. I've provided the link, all you have to do is look. If you don't understand something about it, feel free to ask.

Answer 7

First get some kind of education, if you want to know the science behind climate change go to college. Other than that I find it very interesting everyone loves science when it fits your own needs, but God be damned when your told humans are/have the ability to screw up the planet you all get your panties in a bunch.
Global cooling was real back in the late 60's and 70's due to more particulates in the air and aerosols that were very polluting

Answer 8

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.

If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. But if it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_global_mean.txt
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html

2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf

3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
... and the ice core data ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
... and a graph showing how it fits together:
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html

6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74

So what's left to prove?

Answer 9

There's plenty of proof. Why do you think every world leader is working hard on solving this? It's not something they want to do. Here's proof, from every angle. Note that the real proof is in the links, one of which is a thousand pages long.

It takes time and effort to understand this. If you don't want to do that, you could believe people who have spent the time and effort to do so.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"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

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (a Ph.D. who's not running for anything) challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

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

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... 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

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - OK, Mr Jello. Since you saw fit to criticize one tiny detail, I've seen fit to change it. I've got many quotes.

Answer 10

Well, when the glaciers of ice melt in greenland and expose the green earth again, they are finding that the land was onced farmed and people lived there. So it looks like its just the earth being in a "cycle". I think the earth is just setting itself up to go into another cooling period.

Plus, the tempature on other planets has been rising also.