Can any global warming alarmist come up with some proof?

Question

I just want one shred of proof.... Not a poll and not a demand for proof that the sun warms us. I just want one shred of actual proof that CO2 is tied to temperature and please don't refer to Wikipedia or any other website that can be altered like those crayola graphs that are in there.

Seriously, you guys leave yourselves so open when you argue a point that cannot and has not been proven.

Answer 1

The Bush Administration has blocked scientific evidence, policy debate and regulatory action for seven years. Although his oil buddies have done well in the short run, we are paying, many times over, in the long run. (They screwed the Public in the short run as well, but what's $500 billion among friends?)

Answer 2

I agree with Richard. Here's yet another helpful resource you may like looking at. There's lots of pretty colors.

http://globalwarmingkids.net/

Answer 3

they can't prove it that's why they use the polls and schools to further advance their issue.

polls can be manipulated, or completely disregarded if they don't meet your needs, and school children or gullible and susceptible to the influence of their teachers, because they are teachers.

Answer 4

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/va...

If you go to the above link... you'll see that today's temperature is 7 degrees warmer than the average.

PROOF ENOUGH

We are DOOMED!!!

DOOOOMED I SAY!!!!

Answer 5

Are you asking for proof that the greenhouse effect exists?

Earth would be 33°C colder if not for the greenhouse effect.

"The energy that is not reflected back to space is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240 Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation. Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the heat energy one feels radiating out from a fire; the warmer an object, the more heat energy it radiates.

To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

Answer 6

I think the recent news of major portions of the antarctic ice shelf falling apart, combined with the parts that have fallen off over the last year or so, were proof enough for me.  

And I think a lot of the site out there have proven the point, it's just that certain people don't want to believe the point.  Much like the so called 9/11 experts who keep trying to prove it was all some great and wonderful mass conspiracy.  Some of the foil hat wearers will believe it and the remainder of us with a measurable IQ won't believe it.  Unfortunately the foil hat wearers like to squawk a bit and continue to get press.

Answer 7

In India there's an eye-opening proverb-weep before a blindman,lose your eyesight! Who in the government of any  industrialised country is willing to  see the truth?

Answer 8

I've attached a website you should be able to understand. The other ones people list for you must be too technical. Let us know if you have difficulty reading it.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenh...

EDIT - definition of atmosphere...

"the gaseous envelope surrounding the earth; the air."

You know, the stuff you breath is part of the atmosphere. Atmosphere just doesn't mean above a certain elevation, Einstein! Please, stop before you embarrass yourself more.

Answer 9

Evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. But evidence can never "prove" a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.  Unlike math, all science is tentative.  So no one can offer proof to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but only scientific evidence that supports the theory.  Skeptics, however, can (if there were such evidence) prove the theory wrong, yet haven't.

With that preface, here's some evidence for you. Unfortunately, not all of it is available if you don't have access to the scientific journals (thus, I'll also provide a few less scholarly links):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Non-scholarly links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

Edit:

Wow Cindy, you are quite the speed reader. Just over an hour ago, I post a link to 7 peer reviewed journal articles and 4 fairly extensive non-peer reviewed web-sites on global warming and you somehow manage to get through all those and declare with great certitude that none of us have provided even a shred of evidence.  Hmm. Or is it possible that you don't even read the evidence we provide?  NO, I'm sure that's not the case ;-)

Answer 10

Hi Cindy,

I see that you are still as pissed off as I am, and trying to get some sensible answers from  people without any sense.

The fact is that these idiots that believe that global warming is caused by CO2 gas also believe that man has to be responsible without any shred of evidence at all!

They are not only willing to show off their stupidity and arrogance, but actually seem proud to do so!

I got a bit of a kick the other day when I read this one young girls comments about the 'ozone melting' and some other similar c**p.

The only reason that most people even know the word ozone today is because they hear it all the time.

When you ask someone what ozone is they have not got a clue.(I'm trying to control myself and my language).

I once was at the local pub and joined in a conversation with two regulars who were spouting off about 'Global Warming', and the hole in the ozone layer.

When I asked if either of them actually knew what ozone was one of them said that "all that I need to know is that without it we are all going to die and man is destroying it!"

This, as sad as I am to say, is the type of mentality that we are faced with!

These fools can not come up with any proof to support their claims because their is no proof!

In some ways I can't blame the general public for not understanding the facts and believing this c**p since they only hear what is constantly being fed to them by the media.

Let's face it, most people also are not really interested in science either.

Give them something to worry about and they will suck it up quicker than a sponge. That also is a twisted part of human nature.

Basic science, or intelligence no longer seem to matter these days. All you need is a super inflated ego and a lot of Bull***t behind you.

I shall crawl back in my cave for a few more hours with my dogs to keep me warm.(since I can't afford to heat my house properly anymore!)

Take Care

Answer 11

Beginning in 1662, scientists found a beam of white light could be split into it's component colors with a prism.  A scientists found that if he used a gas flame for a light source, burning n element or compound caused light and dark lines to appear in the rainbow, or spectrum.  He also found that each element and compound produced a different pattern, that was reproducible.  By the start of the 1800's, scientists were able to show that the dark lines represented colors (or wavelengths, or frequencies) that were absorbed by the substance, and the bright lines were colors emitted by the substance. It had also been shown that the violet end of the spectrum was higher energy, and the red end was lower energy.  As the 20th century began scientists showed that other invisible light existed on past both the high and the low ends of visible light.

Astronomers used the unique relationship of light to each specific substance to determine the composition of stars and other planets.  They also noticed that the position of the lines in the spectrum of a body moving away from us were found to be shifted toward the red, while the lines shifted toward the violet.  This happens in the same way as the pitch of a train whistle changes as it passes.  Countless other uses for the lines (or "spectra") have been found, but the most common is still finding out what things are made of.  The exact color, or wavelength is usually described in units called "Angstroms".  "Organic"  (carbon-based) compounds were found to be not rare, but extremely common everywhere in the universe.  Oxygen was found on Venus.

With the advent of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics it could be determined that the energy contained in a quantum of light (or photon) is equivalent to Planck’s constant multiplied by the frequency of light.   This was applied to building lasers after WWII.  These used the idea that as a substance was filled or "pumped" full of energy (usually in the form of electricity) the electrons moved from the "ground state" through an orderly series of electron shells and spin-flip states, each corresponding to a quantum of light.  Upon reaching a maximum excited level the energy is released (as light) on the frequency of the emission spectra of the substance being used, and the electrons drop back to repeat the process.  This causes "coherent" or orderly pulses of only one frequency.  In the case of CO2, the frequency is in the infrared (heat) range, and is specific even to different carbon isotopes.  CO2 heat lasers of enormous power were built and used to cut and weld thick steel.  Smaller ones were used by surgeons.  In both cases the gas gets tremendously hot and requires a cooling system.  For the small medical lasers a circulating water bath is sufficient.  For an industrial or military laser a refrigeration unit is needed.

Because of its properties, CO2 and other carbon compounds tend to inhibit the escape of heat from the earth's atmosphere.  Because any loss of energy equals a shift toward the lower energy red and infrared end, light that enters the atmosphere as ultraviolet, or blue, green, yellow, etc.  will tend to be converted to infrared as it is bounced around among objects, loosing energy all the time.  Rising CO2 levels make it more and more unlikely that any given photon will escape.  Human activity also generates quite a bit of heat also, as do many natural processes.  Increasing CO2 equals higher temperatures.

If the idea of white light converting to heat bothers you, it shouldn't.  There is an astronomical theory called "entropy", or the "heat death of the universe".  It's the idea that all matter and energy degrades slowly and surely into heat, and eventually only heat will remain.  It depends on which cosmology you like whether you find that likely, but it explains the concept well.

Answer 12

All the proof is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  The latest IPCC report consolidates it all quite nicely in a very readable format.  

I don't know how much chemistry you know, but you may want to read it and see for yourself.  

But otherwise, it's very difficult to prove scientific concepts to people who have no knowledge of science.

Answer 13

There's tons of proof out there.  Why do you think EVERY major scientific organization agrees?  Are they lying?  In a giant conspiracy?

Here's just a few references:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

It's not the Sun:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

The temperature record is correct:

David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895

Download this (you'll need Acrobat Reader, free download) and just look at the hundreds of references at the end.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Here are just the ones beginning with "Me":

Meehl, G.A., et al., 2004: Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate. J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.

Meerkötter, R., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by contrails. Ann. Geophys., 17, 1080–1094.

Melillo, J.M., et al., 2001: Nitrous oxide emissions from forests and pastures of various ages in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D24), 34179–34188.

Menon, S., and A. Del Genio, 2007: Evaluating the impacts of carbonaceous aerosols on clouds and climate. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

Menon, S., A.D. Del Genio, D. Koch, and G. Tselioudis, 2002a: GCM simulations of the aerosol indirect effect: sensitivity to cloud parametrization and aerosol burden. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 692–713.

Menon, S., J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002b: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250–2253.

Menon, S., et al., 2003: Evaluating aerosol/cloud/radiation process parametrizations with single-column models and Second Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE-2) cloudy column observations. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4762, doi:10.1029/2003JD003902.

Meyer, R., et al., 2002: Regional radiative forcing by line-shaped contrails derived from satellite data. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D10), 4104, doi:10.1029/2001JD000426.

This one is nailed down solid.  As well proven as anything in science ever is.

But it's not 2+2=4.  It's proven, like all science, by hundreds of scientists working on small pieces.  It's serious science, and demands serious study.  Not reading right wing blogs.  If you want to see how all the pieces fit together, read the IPCC report above, which does precisely that.  Warning it's 1000 pages long.

Which kinda shows how silly the "no proof" argument is.

EDIT - I (and others) post peer reviewed scientific articles (in droves) and the response is one article from a right wing website.  I am content to let people make their own judgments about which is more credible.  Note that the asker still claims we have provided "not one shred of proof".  Can anyone POSSIBLY agree with that statement?

I love how the deniers here destroy every shred of their credibility.

Answer 14

The proof is the attorney generals tells us so. In fact, they'll sue, on the taxpayers dime of course, to force everyone to believe it.