Do you know of any scientific studies that have concluded that humans are the source of global warming?

Question

I would love to hear about it!

I live in Maine, and it's only gotten colder, but apparently, every 2 or three years it gets 1 degree warmer everywhere else but here??!! Not fair!!!!

Can you please give me some links to studies that humans are the cause of this?

I have always imagined that if this is the case in other parts of the world, than it must be a climate shift. But who knows, I guess we could be causing it?! Where is the evidence??!!

And no, if you dare suggest Al Gore's movie, you have no shot at best answer. I want real, hard proof. Thanks!

Answer 1

there isn't any evidence to even suggest that man causes climate change, don't read the IPCC reports, they've added rubbish and left out the important stuff that suggests man isn't the cause. You should read 'not by fir but by ice' it's easy to read, not too scientific and really interesting, you can get it at http://www.iceagenow.com

Answer 2

their religion and its messiah Algore now call it "climate change"

Most of the sane world knows it for what it really is: a mask for socialism and communism

http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/0...

Answer 3

Regarding your question of "Do you know of any scientific studies that have concluded that humans are the source of global warming?"

The answer would have to be...

IF you mean finding one that isn't biased or hasn't been twisted/stretched into one of the biggest lies/scams ever created...the answer would have to be "no".  There is more evidence disproving man made g/w than there ever will be supporting it.  The list is getting longer and longer by scientists who have stated that they don't support Gore, his "pals" or the c**p that he is feeding us.

To further show Gore's "self-centeredness", "ego" and complete disregard of true science....when asked about the majority of the various climate related scientists who disagree w/ him..he called them stupid.  What insight from a politician who has no education/degree in the field to which he claims so much expertise.  Truly pathetic.

Answer 4

From the National Academy of Science...

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

Answer 5

The only real scientific studies prove exactly the opposite. There were no cars or airplanes when the earth warmed from the last ice age. The sun is the main ingredient computer models ignore. Our entire solar system has warmed from the sun. Mars has warmed and there are no cars there.

Watch these free online videos to get the answers about global warming and climate change:

The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp

Global Warming Hysteria Debunked - Scientists Ignored: http://tinyurl.com/366dbf

An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? Part II: http://tinyurl.com/63cfq2

Answer 6

Scientific?  No.  Political studies galore, though!

Answer 7

Elise, I have to agree with Dr_Knowi, his link is good, and maybe you can tell my buddy the mad scientist Bob to also look at it.

Answer 8

Not a single scientific study supports our noticeable influence on climate.

Answer 9

The concern isn't so much for the 1.4 F warming that has already occurred, as it is about the predicted 3 - 8 F warming that may come this century.  At those levels some significant changes are bound to happen.

Here's some good presentations from government scientific organizations and major universities:

Global Warming Questions from NASA's Earth Observatory

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

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



Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

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



NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

The 2008 National Academy of Sciences Summary Brochure on Climate Change

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



The Discovery of Global Warming (great history site)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Answer 10

There are tons of them.  This one is excellent:

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

This is  great summary of the science from the National Academy of Sciences:

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change

Answer 11

Try this one: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.h...

I also recommend a book entitled Thin Ice, by Mark Bowen.

Or just start reading Science magazine.

Answer 12

There are over 900 published peer reviewed scientific papers supporting AGW theory.

The IPCC involves tens of thousands of scientists form 120 countries who have spent 20-30 years doing EXPERIMENTS on climate change.  They published their third assesment of the studies of all those scientists last year.

Of the dozens of scientific organizations supporting the IPCC, the AGU or American Geophysical Union represents 14,000 scientists.

They are just one organization in the following list.

Regarding the IPCC report on climate change.

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Think they might have done a few experiments?

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."

Here's the kind of scientific conferences that the skeptics hold.

"Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap. "

"A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:"

"Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:"

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

"So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.) "

"At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper."

Exxon is a main funder of both Heartland Institute and AEI or American Enterprize Institute.

" At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org  or exxonsecrets.org.)

Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there."

by Amanda Lang

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

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't

understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions."

from comments at   gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

by LeeAnnG

skeptic argument: there is no consensus

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

Skeptic argument  the IPCC exagerates

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their

colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If

they do not get published, then it is because their

data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their

conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny,

not because reviewers were predisposed to a

different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to

grind, but with persistence, you can find enough

fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion

published. My years as a journal editor, as a

reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles

validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

So no it is not all heavily biased and tweaked.

In fact the IPCC scientists have understated their case.

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from  

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

Answer 13

There is this little thing called the IPCC report put together with the the help of thousands of scientists and science organizations from around the world..

The avreage global temp has gone up 1degF or 0.7degC in the last hundred years, Not 1 deg every 2 or 3 years!

edit:

Yes Holy Shirt! Indeed and for good reason, an average rise of just 3-5 deg total is probably enough for the North pole to be gone, last Northern summer with just the 1deg rise saw the smallest Arctic summer ice coverage on record.

Unlike deniers who would post a link to blog text that proves nothing the link below is actual satellite images I have set it to end of summer 79 & 07 you can easily see the difference.

Our release of Co2 is only increasing, the latest estimate from the IPCC is the temp may rise by 2-3 degs by the end of this century which is a sea level rise of 24in minimum, while this doesn’t sound much, unless you live in the Maldives or Bangladesh, it means that things like the Katrina floods will happen far more often.