Can any scientist prove beyond reasonable doubt that global warming is down to us ?

Question

Lots of hype and and media attention blame global warming on co2 emmissions. Wheres the proof ? Not just statistical manipulation, you can prove????!!! nealy anything statistically if you ask the right questions, which realy are the wrong questions. Come on you scientists prove me one way or another!!!

Answer 1

They can't really pin point it down to us, but from research they can prove that we are causing the earth to heat up alot quicker then it would naturally.

Answer 2

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

Answer 3

Given the fact they can't agree on an accurate model of past warming trends, I find it highly unlikely...unless they stumble across a better understanding of the long-term climatic cycle.

This graph shows just how much scientists' models differ concerning the past:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

"Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison to other years). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot."

Notice the heavy black line is the averaged temperature variation of all of the models.  Notice the trend line is BELOW past highs modeled, and well within the expected range for this period if you assume cyclical temperature changes.  Lastly, notice how many of the models have the temperature oscillating in OPPOSITE directions at any given moment.  If there were any procession to their methods at all, they would at least get the DIRECTION of the change right.

In this graph:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

The cycle can clearly be seen.  Variations in the current peak can easily be accounted for due to the difference in data collection methods between today's temps and temps hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Answer 4

No.

Check out the Vostok, Antarctica ice core data at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vosto...

Cycles of temperature change occurred before mankind burned a lot of fossil fuels.

Since no human intervention is needed to explain the current cycle that resembles previous cycles, by Occam'a Razor, we don't need to conclude that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of anything.

There are only four factoids that folks agree upon:

1. We are currently in an "ice age", where glaciers cover the Antarctic and Greenland.

2. We have warmed up from the last extensive glaciation that ended about 10,000 years ago.

3. CO2 levels have increased about a third since the start of the industrial revolution approx. 150 years ago.

4. In theory, CO2 should add to the greenhouse effect of the earth's atmosphere.  No one has demonstrated this to be true from atmospheric data.  (It may be swamped by the water vapor/clouds feedback.)

As far as relying upon scientific research and "consensus" ... here is a BRIEF list of scientific fraud:

Emil Abderhalden's "defensive enzymes" (biochemistry, immunology)

Elias Alsabti scandal (cancer immunology)

Steven F. Arnold data falsification endocrine disruptors

J. Michael Bailey (sexology/psychology)

David Baltimore and the Thereza Imanishi-Kari affair (immunology)

Jacques Benveniste affair (immunology)

Bruno Bettelheim (psychology)

Aubrey Blumsohn Procter & Gamble Affair [5] (Medicine)

The Bogdanov Affair (physics)

Stephen E. Breuning scandal (medicine)

Cyril Burt affair (psychology)

Ranjit Chandra controversy (nutrition)

Inge Czaja (plant biology)

John Darsee scandal (medicine)

Charles Dawson's Piltdown man (anthropology)

Jacques Deprat (the Deprat Affair)(geology)

Shinichi Fujimura (archaeology)

Robert Gallo (virology)

Bruce Hall (immunology)

Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (biotechnology)

John Lott (sociology)

Dănuţ Marcu (mathematics)

William McBride (medicine)

Sir Roy Meadow (medicine) [6]

Raghunath Anant Mashelkar

Richard Meinertzhagen(ornithology)

Gregor Mendel--it is often alleged that his results were too close to perfect to be true; see the article about him for more information.

Josef Mengele's cruel experimentation on humans (medicine)

Robert Millikan's data selection in his famous oil-drop experiment (physics)

Victor Ninov's superheavy element (physics)

Leo A. Paquette [7][8] (chemistry)

Luk Van Parijs (immunology)

Eric Poehlman (medicine)

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's cold fusion

Reiner Protsch (anthropology)

George Ricaurte (medicine), see also Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy

Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology) [9]

Gerald Schatten (biotechnology)

Jan Hendrik Schön scandal (physics)

Dalibor Sames (chemistry)

Jon Sudbø, Andrew Jess Dannenberg (cancer research)

William Summerlin scandal (cancer immunology)

Kazunari Taira [10](molecular biology)

Andrew Wakefield (MMR vaccine controversy)

John B. Watson's Little Albert (child psychology)

Ian Wilmut (biotechnology)

We know that another extensive glaciation would be devastating, the end of the US as we know it.  If by some fluke mankind DID delay the next glaciation via CO2 emissions ... it would be considered the greatest feat ever achieved by our species.

Answer 5

probably not.

it's like evolution and God.

there is significant research

all of which wont convince everyone

one way or the other.

Answer 6

The scientists have proven it, to a 99% certainty, which is about as certain as you get in science.

See:

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

and:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

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

If we do nothing about it, it will be bad.

Do you want to risk the well being of everyone on the 100:1 longshot the "skeptics" are right, and these people wrong?

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.

For the world's leaders, that decision is a no-brainer.

Answer 7

They can't prove it 100%, but try watching Al Gore's documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Answer 8

i think they can but not in our lifetime.. takes longer than that to see any drastic evidence... but so far it seems like it's true

Answer 9

The most rational and thoughtful review of the scientific data by capable PhD scientists has noted that at most man made pollution contributes less than a tenth of degree.  

What is for sure, in the past there was warmer and colder periods than today's average temperature before man could be accused of being the problem/ source in this regards.

To dramatically reduce CO2 will cost trillions year over year with results that will be too hard to measure or make a difference.  Better to invest in renewable and cheaper sources of energy like  Cellusosic Ethanol ( e.g. switch grass) via gasification.

At least one of these plants will be on line in 2 years from Coskata. They have been able to bring this to market due in part to a contract to supply General Motors with ethanol for their vehicle testing efforts.  

Also Switch grass used in crop rotation will help keep crop land fertile and provide wildlife a habitat all at the same time. The cost of this crop  as a starting raw material is $50 per ton switch grass/ wood chips when compared to $520 a ton (before delivery cost to refinery assuming  $100 dollar / barrel oil)  oil or corn ethanol.

Answer 10

If you mean that you want proof that it's humans use of fossil fuels that is causing global warming,the proof is there.  We drive the cars! You ,my friend said it all with your attempt at asking a question. You said that it's the way that a question is asked could be wrong,or how statistics are manipulated to prove a point. That sounds exactly how you have framed your question. You seem to actually doubt that it's human use of oil that has caused the problem of global warming. So what you really want to do, is to challenge a scientific consensus of world renowned scientists. Would you even understand the truth? The scientists are not responsible for making EVERY person understand the data!  Whether or not you 'believe' the scientists, doesn't change the data or the science of climate change. You want proof? Become a climatologist!

Answer 11

I doubt it. We should assume it is caused by human activity though, just in case. It would be an insane gamble to simply ignore it for the sake of an easier life.