Can you tell me the names of important scientists who has proofs about global warming?

Question

I know global warming exists, but I want to have a deeper knowledge. Some people say "The cause of global warming is not humans." I want to be able to prove that they're wrong.
I need reliable sources and names of scientists. If you help me, I'll really appreciate that.

Answer 1

"We need action now to reduce emission of carbon dioxide."
Stephen Hawking, Physicist

"Global warming is already starting, and there's going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse."

James Hansen, Ph.D. climate scientist, NASA

"Global warming is the most challenging problem our society has ever had to face up to. Ice is the canary in the coal mine of global warming."

Britain's chief scientist David King

"By mid-century, millions more poor children around the world are likely to face displacement, malnourishment, disease and even starvation unless all countries take action now to slow global warming."

Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University

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

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont (Engineer)

"We are not saying that the Earth's temperature is just going to rise. In general, as energy is added to a system, the fluctuations in the system increase. So, we expect more storms, more droughts, more wildfires, more floods, more fluctuations of all kinds. What we are saying is that weather conditions will become more volatile due to the impact of humans."

-- S. Mukherjee & D. Brouse (2004)

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

James Annan, a climate scientist at the Frontier Research Center for Global Change in Japan

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

"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

"We've got about 20 years to turn (greenhouse gas emissions) around or it's going to cost the world a lot environmentally but also economically," said Terry Hughes, a leading Australian coral specialist.

"Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas is largely responsible for climate change. Deforestation and modern intensive farming methods also contribute to the problem."

David Suzuki

Answer 2

Bob (above) has provided some good names to get you started. In reality, you can pick the name of any scientist at random and he / she will almost certainly beleive in global warming, the number of scientists that don't beleive is a very small fraction of the entire scientific community - less than 1%.

It's not hard to prove global warming, you can do this yourself using everyday household objects. Here's how...

You'll need two empty bottles and two thermometers that fit inside the bottles, a bucket, some water and some indegestion tablets, it's useful to have a small funnel.

Take one bottle, put a thermometer in it, put the cap on. Fill your bucket with water, fill the other bottle with water, place the bottle neck down into the bucket of water, put the funnel into the neck of the bottle, drop some indegestion tebalets into the bucket. The bubbles they give off are carbon dioxide, catch the bubbles with the funnel so they go into the bottle and displace the water. When the bottle is full of gas remove it from the bucket, put the other thermometer in it and screw the cap on.

You've now got two bottles - one full of air, one full ot carbon dioxide. Take them outside and place them in the sun and see what happens (if it's not sunny place the bottles near an electric lamp). The carbon dioxide traps heat from the Sun and this bottle will warm up more than the other one.

It's a small scale demonstration of what happens in the atmopshere - namely that carbon dioxide, along with the other greenhouse gases, has the ability to trap heat.

Scientists do similar experiments, they're a bit more sophisticated than using plastic bottles and indegestion tablets but the principle is the same.

If you do the above experiment you can be your own scientist and provide your own proof of how the 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming. Video it on your cell phone and post the video on YouTube then you can show it to anyone who says we're not causing global warming.

Answer 3

Global warming works like this - A. Evil Republicans talk too much which causes B. Hot air to rise and hit the global cooling layer left over from the scientific consensus of the 1980s which bounces back to C. Al Gore's pocket, causing it to enlarge.

Answer 4

all i can say is "good luck." this is what people have been trying to do for years. how can we know for sure? i don't think we can. differentiating human effects from natural cyclical phenomena is very difficult since the ability to measure global changes accurately is, well, difficult. the Earth is a complicated system, we need to be responsible in our use of resources and avoid hurting others by our choices but as far as actual proof - it's like asking is there a God? there's lot of evidence for, lots for against. you interpret the evidence how you want. interestingly these debates are often on a similar intensity to the God vs athiest debate.

I hope this helps.

Answer 5

You can't. Just as you can't prove that smoking can cause cancer. It has never been done. Despite that all medical scientists agree that smoking can cause lung cancer. It is the same problem with global warming. There is a well defined plausible cause effect relationship, but no proof just like the cancer and smoking relationship.

Answer 6

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/