Do anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 'belivers' have any scientific data to support their belief?

Question

You can't cite liberal sources like NASA or the IPCC, no wikipedia, politcal arguements do not count.

Answer 1

ski

Answer 2

What does count?  Why exactly are we supposed to want to convince you when you want to play hard to get?  I can't see that it makes any imaginable difference what you think about it.

Answer 3

THEY GOT COMPUTER MODELS....

And they worship those models to no end!!!

Answer 4

It's funny that a 'doctor' would consider NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal sources'.  Funny as in you're a joke.

I used to be in denial just like you.  It's time to admit that we were wrong and accept AGW.

Answer 5

Of course they do! “It’s because,,,,,,, uh,,,,,, you know,,,,,, the, uh,,,,,, oh wait! Uh,,,,,, no,,,,,, Oh yeah - Al Gore said so! And every single scientist who ever lived said so too - except Copernicus who was paid by big oil companies to say that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric."  

But isn’t this question a little off-point? I thought most of the AGW folks had converted to “Climate Changers” since recent temperature records are failing to support the warming hypothesis. (Of course CC may be the ultimate in silly, since the climate ALWAYS changes.)

Answer 6

Yep, they support what they believe.

Answer 7

Tons of it.  Here's one study of hundreds that show the same thing.  This one is good because there's a Cliff Notes version on the Web.

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

summarized at:

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

There are many reasons why all these guys say it's real, and mostly caused by us.

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

The bottom line:

"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

Answer 8

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

A recent study concluded:

“the range of  [Northern Hemisphere]-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories…constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C [less than one-third of the total warming].  Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

You can see this in the third graph here, where the dotted lines are just from natural causes, and the full lines are natural + human causes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue...

If that’s not enough to convince you the Sun isn’t responsible, consider the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:M...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:C...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 9

YES WE DO!!!!!!!!!!!!

just watch Al Gore's movie

An Inconvinent Truth

sry

nvr was really good at spelling

Answer 10

Global warming is the 21st century Eugenics.  Just like eugenics, there's plenty of scientific articles written about the subject, by many fine and smart people.  

Both sciences fit the conventional wisdom.  After all, who could argue that a strong man breed with a strong woman won't have strong kids?  And if co2 traps heat, and we're putting more co2 in the air, who could argue that the planet won't get warmer?

However both sciences fail because the assumption is that we are smart enough to understand minutia details about very complex areas of studies.

Just like genetics, we don't understand enough about the science of the climate to say we know what will happen in the future.  Co2 isn't adding to the warmth of the planet as we do not know the full dynamics of the climate.

Unfortunately, few have the smarts to recognize this.

Answer 11

Gore's "[Inconceivable] Truth" is excellent propaganda.  It's all true.  It contorts the charts to make them look more dramatic and neglects contrary facts, but that's what good propaganda does.

See the Greenland ice core data at http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cry...

that shows the whole historical cycle from earth orbit and axis wobble, mostly.

We may have a minor affect, but in the end we're on our way to another big ice age no matter what we do.

Answer 12

Go to any of these links and perform your own searches for scientific papers on anthropogenic global warming:

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.pnas.org/

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

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

After you've read through (and understand) the articles you find, report back to us ;-)

Answer 13

I'm not an AGW proponent, but I believe this site will serve as a great illustration of their scientific method:

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114...