Is mans effect on the climate ever been proved, or is it just the pipe dreams of the unimportant?

Question

I know we dont have proof but some people want it to be true and belive that thier want and desires are reality. Who will be the first to prove it. Remember, you dont have to prove it doesn't exist. You have to prove it does exist.

Answer 1

sure, we can continue polluting our world all until we will be fried.

Answer 2

I don't believe it's possible for man to change climate.  There is nothing that I can think of that has made any difference in our climate.  One argument against global warming is that if it's real, it hasn't yet started.  The temperature is not rising.  If anyone thinks it is, can you say where?  No, didn't think so.

Answer 3

Amy L said:

"There are a lot of variables; early models -- and some current ones -- are imperfect,"

Please, tell me which current models are not imperfect. I would love to know.

Well, you know, you can't "prove" anything in science. However, you must have empirical evidence and reproducible results to be a strong theory. Sadly, AGW doesn't really have real world empirical evidence and is mostly theory--part of the deductive method rather than the scientific method.

While not directly about AGW, this AIG 07 newsletter has a nice little article titled "Science and Pseudo-Religion". It helps to explain what real science is about--the scientific method. AGW isn't really a part of the scientific method: http://aig.org.au/assets/22/AIGNews_Feb0...

Answer 4

It has been proven as much as any other scientific theory.  All science is tentative and prone to change as new facts come forward. So until such a time as that happens, the dominant theory of AGW is as "proved" (actually, a mathematics or legal term, not really a science term) as any other theory.

As for the "unimportant" and their "pipe dreams", you will find them here on Yahoo asserting things that are false and acting like they know more about climate science than real climate scientists.

Answer 5

You make an insult and the first response back has an insult.  Sigh.

Why in blazes would I want it to be true?  I've got a grandkid, and it scares the bejabbers out of me to think what his future could hold if even the milder projections come to pass.  I want anything but for global climate change to be true.

And am I unimportant?  Not to my husband, son, daughter, grandson, immediate family, longtime friends, new friends, neighbors, coworkers and volunteers.  (And the pets, though they voice their opinion differently).  Pipe dream?  Is it such a fantastic notion to espouse the belief that the cumulative actions of human activity since the advent of the Industrial Age has had demonstrably negative impacts on our planet's atmosphere and climate?

I don't know what proof would satisfy you, because in my research I've found so much of it that any doubt I had disappeared a long time ago.  In any case, I wouldn't be the first to prove it.  Or the 2nd, or the thousandth.  There are a lot of variables; early models  -- and some current ones -- are imperfect, and not everything every scientist says will happen will come to pass.  Does this mean the theory is wrong, or ridiculous, a myth or a hoax?  No.  It means that we're learning as we go.  We're in uncharted territory.

We've never been here before.

I'll offer you some sites if you'd like to check them out, but do so with an open mind.  No sense slamming the door shut if you haven't even opened it.

Answer 6

perhaps you could find out for your self by reading published journals on the subject, which print proven facts by people called scientists , try looking on the new sientist web site for starters, and after a bit of reascearch you will find that there is quite a lot of proof out there.

Answer 7

Ever since Carbon Trading came on to the money markets 10 years ago Global Warming is "True".

Answer 8

Only if you consider these people unimportant.  And they know just a little something about the scientific method, too.

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.

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  

The National Academy of Sciences, in particular, is not unimportant.  1800 of the best scientists in the US, elected by their peers.  Getting elected to the Academy is like winning the Oscar in science.

You'll have to forgive me if I take their statements, backed by a mountain of data, over the unsupported statements of deniers here.  Like the unsupported statement "volcanoes emit more CO2 than Man."  Proof that this is dead wrong:

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect)."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoe...

And this statement "see the CO2".  CO2 is a colorless gas, you can't see it.

Answer 9

CONGRESS ORDERED THE  E.P.A. TO PROVE THAT ALL NON-SOLIDS CAN RISE TO THE OZONE LAST YEAR. ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE WHEN YOU SEE IT DECIPATE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. START A SAFE FIRE AND WATCH THE SMOKE DECIPATE IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN EYES. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CHANGE THE CLIMATE IS NATURE.

Answer 10

It is false...

GLOBAL WARMING IS JACKED UP!

It has NO and I repeat NO truth to it at all.

It is a political scheme

Here is an outline for a 30 minute speech I delivered

I. For a long time people have been looking through glasses that have foggy lenses of deception regarding global warming. In the next couple of minutes I intend to show you a more accurate eye chart and update your prescription.

A. Reasons for listening to my speech are very simple. One of the main reasons is that Global Warming is nothing to waste your time on. If it so important to the environment, then we would have done something for it by now. Another reason that you should listen is that this could be a life changing speech that greatly effects every moment of your life from here on out.

I am 100% accurate in reporting my information. I have done the research necessary to ensure that you are getting nothing but hard core facts. For the past several weeks of my life has been dedicated to finding out information for my speech topic. Nobody knows as much credible information on this topic as I do.

C. My point for this speech is to try and persuade you to see the light at the end of the dirty tunnel of humanities’ lies.

II. Global Warming is the most debatable topic that was probably ever around. You need to know this information. If you don’t educate yourself properly on this topic you will live the rest of your life in fear of something that doesn’t exist.

A. Global Warming is a natural cycle. Everything about it is natural. Carbon dioxide levels vary throughout time. Humans can make little or no impact on the environment.

1. Take a look at this chart taken from an online internet poll. What do you notice from this? There is a close tie between adults that believe in Global Warming and some that don’t. As you can see the charts are pretty close. There is about one person who doesn’t believe in Global Warming to two people who do. This means that only 60% of the world believes in global warming. My goal by the end of this speech is to have the 60% be persuaded that they are not believing in the accurate thing. With the following facts, I am 100% sure that this goal is possible and will be achieved.

2. Al Gore stated this quote in his movie “…The 10 hottest years ever recorded were within 15 years of today.” Now this point is valid and true, but we have not been measuring the temperature or anything since the early nineteen hundreds. Can we go down and see how the polar ice caps were doing in the early 1800’s? We can not do that because temperature was not recorded. You may say that they guessed using carbon dioxide levels, but whose to say that they are right? I heard that scientific measures were not always accurate because they took a hundred year old log and did some carbon 14 testing on it. Scientists thought that it was thousands of years old. It was later proved to be younger after more tests were ran. Whose to say that our method of discovering weather is right? We have been measuring temperature for only a short period of time. Earth right now is in a heating process. Thousands of years ago we were cooling which is when we had an Ice Age. Now we are doing the opposite and are starting to warm up before cooling again. Look at this political cartoon. What is one thing that you notice? I notice it being freezing then gradually getting warmer. As my next point is about to prove, we have no effect on the environment no matter what we do.

3. In 1990 a volcano in the Philippines erupted violently. It was by far one of the biggest explosions of the century. We all have read about how volcanoes let off carbon dioxide, but did you know this… When the volcano erupted, it put more carbon dioxide in the air than all of humanity has ever produced…. More than humans have made since the creation of time. All in just a matter of hours. Look at this picture. See all of this carbon dioxide being put into the air? While, with all of this there was no temperature increase or decrease at all… just some carbon dioxide level changes, but nothing major. If volcanoes put off this much carbon dioxide with no effect, then how could we be doing this? When all this happened, then how could you be persuaded that humans who produce fractions of that amount could impact the environment in fractions of the time. Humans if we tried could not severely impact the environment. It is just too big. Even if we are letting some off, plants and other natural recyclers of Carbon Dioxide are just transforming them to oxygen.

4. During World War II, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. We spilled tons of harmful green house gasses into mother nature. This includes radiation, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. After all of that happened, again there was no effect to the environment that was found. Hiroshima has been having radiation problems still, but there is no significant temperature problem. Nothing humans do can severely change our environment. We only occupy about 50% of the globe. The other 50% is the ocean, ice caps, and land that is not suitable for humans. How could two nuclear bombs not have an impact on the environment, but changing a light bulb in your house to fluorescent can save the environment? It is just impossible that we could have an impact.

5. Another point is that if you look in your text book, I promise you that you will find these words… “When Washington was marching his troops, it was bitterly cold outside” Bitterly cold means freezing. I know that they didn’t have supplies but Virginia in the summer (which is when they fought) is warm. As you can see by these charts, it was 106 degrees outside in the summer. This is without humidity too. Now when we look at this chart it shows us that the battle was fought in Yorktown. There isn‘t much of a distance between Yorktown and Richmond, were this was recorded. How was it bitterly cold a few hundred years ago when now it is normal? The conclusion is that it is a natural cycle. The cycle changes every several hundred years. It was cold then, and now it is slowly warming up. We have nothing to do with it. This is perfectly natural for our environment to do. We would like to believe that humans are the dominate species. Have we ever thought to wonder if what we believe in is caused by nature?

6. One of the most important factual information is still on our planet. Greenland is one of the most misunderstood places around. People like to believe that the reason that it got it’s name is because the settlers didn’t want people to move there so they called an icy land Greenland so that settlers would move their instead of Iceland were it really was green.. After I saw a show on the discovery channel, I concluded that it was actually green. When the first settlers went there, they dined on grapes and cows. I don’t think that I am mistaken, but how could a cow live on an icy land with nobody to feed it. Grapes grow in warm environments which is not ice. Greenland fits that exact description. Also as you can see on this picture, there is still some green left in it. All of it was green once, which proves that it once was green and now it is ice because of the natural cycle, it is starting to freeze. Now Greenland is melting to start the process all over again. In a few hundred years, Greenland will begin to freeze.

NOTE TO READER: FOR POINT 67-8 IT MAKES NO SENCE UNLESS POWERPOINT IS VISIBLE… THANKS!

7. Ok… Phoenix is known as a hot dry desert place. You think that it keeps getting hotter and hotter here each summer. Take a look at this display on the screens. As you can see, during the day the sun is radiating energy to a large city… lets call it Phoenix. It does this all day until the sun starts to go down. As you can see now, the buildings are built up with radiation while the desert area barely got any radiation build up. Now it is night and as you can see the buildings are radiating heat forming a heat bubble. Now in Phoenix at night it is around 95 degrees. That is because of the buildings radiating. We are made of concrete and steel so we absorb heat. Take a look over at the desert. See how the temperature there is lower? This is because it is not trapped in the heat bubble of radiation.

8.Many people relate global warming with long citywide droughts. Like in Phoenix, we are in a drought. There are many reasons why this is not caused by us. Have you ever watched the news and heard the following phrase “… and people of Chandler are getting pelted by rain, many individuals are putting up sand bags to protect their homes…?” What this is saying is that small little cities are getting poured on. Look at the power point and see why, The big glob in the center is called Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria. Ok now imagine that we are in the middle of a storm. The red indicates heavy rain and the yellow indicates moderate rain. As you can see from this animation that I made, the storm is going around Phoenix. We are a giant blob and the storm is just simply avoiding us. Smaller cities like Chandler and Mesa are being pelted by this continuous down pour. So in smaller cities they may say, “We got rained on the most we ever have” and the airport were they measure the amount of rain says there were only a few drops of rain. This proves that we did not cause the drought by carbon dioxide, but we did it by industrializing.

9. Global Warming is also just a political trap. Who are the only ones who want to try and do something about global warming besides tree huggers? Politicians do. When somebody is running for office this makes a better point, I am going to save the world! Who would you rather vote for… Mr. Free Dental Insurance, or Mr. I am Going To Save The Planet From Destruction! The choice is pretty clear. Which, that was Al Gore’s main election motto. They want you to vote for them do th

Answer 11

As others have said, correctly, there is no absolute proof of any theory in science.  

However, there is evidence, and if there is enough evidence to support the theory, it is valid.

The process, of determining the validity of a theory, includes peer review, where the evidence is presented to other scientists to confirm or deny it's validity.  Any theory much pass the scrutiny of fellow scientists.  The AGW theory does that in spades.



By those measures, the AGW theory has an overwhelming body of evidence.  



And the theory, as stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment report on climate change, has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in the history of science.

You won't find much more proof than that, for any scientific theory.

Here are few comments by climate scientists.

"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...

posted by LeeAnnG

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

As far as skeptic arguments getting a fair shake in the peer review process:

"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."

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

And here's something about how dis-information is what informs skeptics.  you can trust the Wall St. Journal to tell the truth right?  Think again.

"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

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

From real climate.org

"According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill."

"The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit approaching 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge."

"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...

Suggested reading:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

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

Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

IPCC projections for climate change are actually understated, far from being alarmist, as skeptics claim.  Scientists are conservative by nature, and don't jump to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Actuall observations have been worse than what they have predicted

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

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings

"A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Answer 12

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.

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...

5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.ht...

6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

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

So what's left to prove?

Answer 13

TROLL! Climate change is real and the scientific consensus is that people are contributing to it and, therefore, hastening it. E

Answer 14

No, you are going to get TROLL and other slams from idiots because all they have to throw at this theory is name-calling.  There never has been any proof, however, they want us to disprove something that can't be proven in the first place.  Yet, they tout themselves as the smart ones?

Great Question!!!!