If Global Warming is real, Where is the Scientific Proof this isn't a warming cycle and cool down in 40 years?

Question

Don't bother referring me to a 100 year temp chart. Most of those graphs and charts that track temperature change only show that Global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) from the 1860's to 2007

Hardly Global Warming.

If scientists can't even agree on what has happened in the past, imagine how much more difficult it is to figure out the future.

I am a naturalist / Conservationist. I have been following the climate change since the 80's. (Climate Change is the more appropriate term)

I am not denying that the earth 's climate changes, these are called cycles. I have only found FACT’s to sustain these are warming and cooling cycles.

There just is no scientific proof that we are only getting hotter and will never cool down again.

Answer 1

Leave the climate and weather to God, not the scientist or weather man...............Wake up Call..duhh

Answer 2

People that don't believe in man made climate change seem to have the same thought set as people that don't believe in evolution- it doesn't matter what evidence is presented they always dismiss it simply because they don't want to believe it.

Answer 3

I am so sick of reading the same thing again and again. And where are your facts? I suggest that you are ashamed of your source and realise that anyone that can read will see straight through any information you post.

  I have read this same sentence about 8 times in various posts recently "I am a naturalist / Conservationist. I have been following the climate change since the 80's."  So, prove it. Give me one link or bit of data that will prove the only fact you have submitted.

   The rest of your post is nothing more than opinion and as such is totally meaningless.

  And what kind of question is "If Global Warming is real, Where is the Scientific Proof this isn't a warming cycle and cool down in 40 years? " It does not mean anything. What does "Where is the Scientific Proof this isn't a warming cycle and cool down in 40 years?"mean?  It means about as much as the links you have posted.

  What you are basically saying is this "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it."

Answer 4

This is a great question.

"Where is the scientific proof?  Don't bother referring me to scientific proof, because I won't believe it."

"The globe has warmed.  Hardly global warming."

LOL!

The proof that it's not a "warming cycle" is easily found by examining the planet's natural (orbital) cycles.

"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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...

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

We're in the middle of a stable warm (and slowly cooling) portion of the natural cycles.  There is absolutely no natural reason the planet should be rapidly warming.  And it is rapid.  Over the past 30 years we've warmed at a rate 20 times faster than when the planet naturally came out of the last ice age.  Of course, to prove this to you I'd have to show you a temperature graph, and I'm sure you'll dismiss it regardless of my evidence, but it's true.

I only answered because I thought the phrasing of the question was absolutely hysterical.  At least you're not trying to pretend you're open-minded.  I appreciate that.  Of course, if you're not open-minded, there's no point whatsoever to asking this question.  Your complete and utter lack of scientific evidence isn't going to convince anyone you're right, and no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince you you're wrong.

Answer 5

From Newsweek Magazine:

The Cooling World

By Peter Gwynne

28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Answer 6

Yes it goes in cycles and although humans contribute, it is very very small and humans are not the principal cause.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossil...

Not only is that common sense but backed up by thousands of scientists and thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci...

The UN's IPCC report is NOT officially peer reviewed and has been debunked and noted for many errors:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/stor...

http://junkscience.com/

The point is do research on all aspects of this issue, not the one-sided (often dishonest) point of view present by Al Gore, the UN, and people on this answer page like Bob (who works for an environmental organization and is biased)

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/10-qu...

Answer 7

It is the 'global-warming-caused by man' crowd that must provide proof!   Evidence must be irrefutable and contradictions cannot exist.  

Science can intervene to show that warming (from whatever cause, most likely sun and cosmic ray variations) can heat up the vast salt water oceans, too. It is known that salt water contains an inordinately high concentration of dissolved Carbon Dioxide, CO2.   Its release with rising  temperatures means that the rising CO2 levels are merely a RESULT not a cause of a warming!  

To add a bit of levity to the discussion, open and pour a bottle of soda on a warm day and observe the result!

Answer 8

THE ARTIC ICE IS MELTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

POLAR BEARS ARE DIEING.

thats what i think

Answer 9

Exactly!  If the Earth didn't warm up, New York City would still be under a mile thick sheet of ice.

The climate always changes.  This change is as natural as a summer rain.

Answer 10

There are still some discussions if global warming is not a short term trend, but a one way process, but there is no evidence for change in the levels of radiation from the sun, so the culprit for the current meltdown of polar ice can not be a cyclic effect of the sun.

Answer 11

As a "naturalist/conservationist," you should realize that a change in a few degrees can drastically alter the weather.  If you don't realize it, I suggest you do a bit more research.

Answer 12

Bob above is quite wrong because he doesn't really know how science works.

While there are many Scientific Opinions that humans are causing Global Warming, that is not the same thing as Proof.

Because there are obviously also many Scientific Opinions that say Global Warming is largely natural and not caused by humans.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Science opinions must be debated and peer reviewed constantly and subsequently opinions are tweaked and improved.

But for some reason, the Global Warming Alarmists won't debate.

hmm.....

http://demanddebate.com/

Answer 13

There's tons of proof:

"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

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

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

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

summarized at:

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

We were in a very steady period of climate, until we messed it up.  Here's 2,000 years of data:

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

"We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society."

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

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

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 14

There are two types of natural warming/cooling cycles.

First is orbital forcing, or Milankovitch cycles. These are small changes in Earth's orbit that trigger ice ages and inter-glacial periods through the ice-albedo feedback mechanism. Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, during the Holocene Maximum, and has been slowly cooling the planet since then. Here's the science:

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

The second type of natural climate change is triggered by changes in solar output. So, is the current warmth caused by the Sun, or by more greenhouse effect? It's easy to tell the difference:

1. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

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

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

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

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

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...