Anthropogenic Global Warming - To all intents and purposes an established fact?

Question

Anthropogenic - man made

Answer 1

Yes It is an established fact and if we dont change our carbon emission levels we do have a very grim furture

Answer 2

What makes that statement true?  Your declaration?

Is this what passes as science these days?

Answer 3

Yes. a concensus by 200 nations and over 3000 scientists is good enough for me.

Answer 4

For all intents and purposes, yes.

There is certainly the very slim possibility that something we don't yet understand is causing most of the current warming, overwhelming the increased greenhouse effect caused by humans.  I think any scientist would acknowledge this slim possibility.

However, all of the scientific evidence currently supports the AGW theory.  We have no reason to believe it is wrong, and we should certainly prepare for the likelihood that it is correct.

Answer 5

I don't know if it's established, but I have noticed that the people who believe it also tend to have complete faith in James Hansen of Nasa who claims that 2007 was as warm as 1998 and 2005 was hotter, despite the fact that this goes against what most meteorologists are saying.

James Hansen also has a track record of publishing eroneous data, grabbing the headline then retracting it later.

Answer 6

There is now so much evidence that I think that we have to presume that If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

   Even if we are not sure then what harm can it do to try to be more environmentally aware of the planet?

Answer 7

Not at all fact, c'mon guys do your own research. I know you have no faith in the human race but if it was as obvious and as black and white as what u all are painting, a change would have been made already. There are lots of doubt by established and respected scientists in this very field. So CO2 causing global warming is a theory, not to be dismissed, and nothing to be drilling a hole in the side of a mountain over. Before I go on, I want you to know that I am an advocate for a greener earth (Some reasons for Global Warming, others reasons I miss riding my bike to work, its toxic out there!!! That is a fact!) The question for me is not whether u can prove it 100%. The question is do we have reasonable data to prove the theory? If we do, are we willing to accept the consequences for not purchasing the insurance? Funny enough, I have heard the same explanation before for being a Christian (Do you have fire insurance?). Anyway, that is a tangent, and instead of explaining the Theory and both sides, I am going to point U in the direction of both sides to the story and hope that u will make an educated decision. Sources below

Answer 8

yes, this theory has been supported by hundreds of studies and there is little debate in the scientific community.(most of which is about predictions and effects and not whether we are causing global warming)

Answer 9

The underlying physics such as radiative transfer through inhomogeneous atmospheres are established facts, or if they are not we have to call into question a lot of very basic stuff derived from Maxwell's equations.  There has been so much work done on classical EM, the interaction of infrared radiation with gases, etc. that if there were problems, very basic and very complicated things wouldn't work.  For example, the same sort of radiative transfer theory used to model longwave IR transmission through the atmosphere is used to model radiation of plasmas in magnetic confinement fusion reactors.  That there has been steady progress in fusion research in terms of producing hotter and hotter plasmas (although not a workable reactor design to date) attests that the models used to both predict the radiative losses from the plasma and suggest ways to minimize those losses, are in essence correct.  The fact that these same models can be used to calculate accurate mean temperatures on Earth and Venus also shows they are correct.  Radiative transfer is the core of climate science, since it is that theory that estimates the forcing from CO2, and shows that forcing to be at least a factor of 5 greater than any known natural variability.  If you believe solar influences dominate climate, what you are saying is either that a). something that is 5 times weaker than something else is more important in terms of cause and effect or b). radiative transfer is wrong and the forcing from CO2 is overestimated by at least an order of magnitude.  I argue that either proposition is absurd, but am willing to discuss either in rational terms.  However, just blowing smoke saying it's all solar or whatever doesn't cut it in terms of a very basic physical analysis.  

That is why I think all skeptics are "scientifically challenged" (would "differently abled scientifically" be more p.c.?) and have faith in the predictions of Jim Hansen.  Understanding radiative transfer is why Lindzen is so tortuously conflicted, he knows that radiative transfer is right and instead of arguing that CO2 is unimportant, argues for the iris hypothesis.  That even if the iris hypothesis is correct implies drastic changes in global climate doesn't concern Lindzen.  In contrast, Hansen knows the physics, it is what he was doing before climate was relevant.  If you are ignorant of radiative transfer, you are doomed to talk nonsense about climate science.  

Any other position is the mark of a scared man, unable to face a physical reality.

Answer 10

No - It's not an established fact, since it is only a theory and many theories that scientists thought were close to 100% certainty have been proven wrong.

Edit: Cutting someone down who doesn't believe as you do, does not buy you brownie points. And it's not my brain that's addled it's yours, since you want to believe all the lies that Global Warming is being caused by man.

Answer 11

Mikira - Here's the deal.  Suppose the scientists are only 90% sure to be right.  That's a low number, most would say 99%.

Do you want to bet the well being of the world on a 10:1 longshot that they're wrong, and do nothing about it?

On the one side you have a very few "skeptics", largely with no great reputation as scientists.  On the other,

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Which horse do you want to back?

Answer 12

Not quite fact... 95% certainty still gives scientists some wiggle room.  After all, on such a complex system which scientist wants to trust all of the others involved to have their part of the system modelled correctly?  In the various fields involved there are also active areas of research.

The crux of the issue may be one of opportunity cost.  We have the opportunity to address an issue that we've identified (with a very high degree of certainty), and we can do it now at minimal cost.  The issue gets worse every year that goes by, while the costs of inaction compound.  

Furthermore, our degree of certainty is high enough that it doesn't have a lot of room to improve, so there's no reason to hold our breath for the perfect proof.  We can start cost-effective energy conservation now while developing technologies that promise to bring us the next wave of emission reductions.  Since it will take many years to design and implement reductions, we can start now while simultaneously monitoring the science as it develops.

Here's how the chief scientist of the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program puts it:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost...

Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars." He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against n**i Germany and Japan.

"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSu...

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

Scientists aren't sure exactly what such a change in temperature could bring, but one of the "big possible consequences" is an increase in sea level, Mr. Schwartz said.

"It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

Answer 13

I've read enough scientific reports to conclude that AGW is a lie.  If you didn't already know, the IPCC has actually announced that temperatures have remained stable since 1998.

They won't be stable for too long though, because even though I know there's no AGW the natural cycle of changing climate can never be stopped.

Answer 14

This depends on what statement is being made.

It is established that human originated CO2 from fossil fuels does contribute to the greenhouse effect and to global warming. There remains some debate as to whether the change we have experienced since the middle of the last ice age is mostly caused by human activity. Only a very few would support that.

There remains considerable doubt that removal of our emissions if spread out over a century have any chance at all of ending global warming.

We have legitimate reason to doubt that such a long delayed end to emissions can succeed, because as temperatures rise, we get increasing CO2 without human intervention. We also get increased water vapour and reduced cloud cover.

(Increasing temperature reduces cloud cover and  by failing to form clouds we get increased water vapour.