Is there any definitive proof that burning fossil fuels is the cause of global warming?

Question

If so, please give links.

No wacko extreme environmentalist or oil company apologist websites please.

Answer 1

It doesn't matter whether global warming is man made or just a cycle in the earth's history .... it is happening. Between solar processes or natural earth processes such as volcanoes and the ever present forest fires which will be argued to have occurances whether or not mankind were present. It still just doesn't matter how it is happening, it is.

FACT: "Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming."

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

We have gone past the point of no return unless we can build improvements to assist in reflecting light away from the earth.

First you have to understand how long the earth has been storing up the fossil fuels. The coal, oil and natural gas that we are using now are products of the earth converting plants and animals into their present forms over (often) millions of years. They have been stored now for millions of years without being used until now. By being used now, we are converting these fuels from stored carbon, into released carbon. Thus allowing this released carbon to act as a greenhouse effect gas again.

Since we are talking about a situation where the Earth once had a lot of stored carbon and now that stored carbon is disappearing at a tremendous rate (and will continue into the future) We can be truthful in saying that there is a definite trend, and relationship in the increase of greenhouse gasses. We can also say that these greenhouse gasses would not have been released without the intervention of man. Logically therefore we can say that global warming gasses have been released and any global warming increases are directly attributed to mankind’s releasing them.

The damage done by increased greenhouse emissions has already taken its toll. This is evident by the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. Some will say that there is no such thing as global warming, because there is in their opinion very little change in the average global temperature. However when you take into account the fact that there is less ice, and snow, because of the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. That melted ice, snow and glaciers across the globe will in themselves temporarily lower the overall ocean temperatures untill they all melt. Thereby lowering the average temperatures on the earth. So if you account for that, the temperature can be proven to be increasing.

We cannot get the world back the way it was, even as of fifty years ago, much less stop the damage that will still occur in the future. Sure we could try to stop all industry that will cause pollution, but at what cost. Without industry we could not sustain the present world population. Giving up industry and sacrificing billions of people on this planet in the process, is not a viable solution (even trying to merely lower greenhouse emissions is at best a temporary solution).

The biggest problem we have now is not just the fact that we have more greenhouse gasses trapping heat in, but we are getting less and less sunlight being reflected out from the planet. As the snow cover melts from more and more of the planets surface, the sunlight heats up more parts of the earth that once reflected light back out. It is like a dog chasing its tail (until it gets dizzy and falls from exhaustion). As global warming just keeps building on itself till the ecological balance fails, and this planet will no longer sustain the teeming human populations.

Greenhouse effect cure (there are no real cures but this may help till we can find one). First I want to point out that there are no real, viable short term, or easy methods of curing our Global warming woes. The damage to the environment has already been done and is, for all intent and purposes, basically irreversible. It is likely, however, that any type of plan to get rid of Global warming, will require some type of dramatic ecological compromises.

Some will say that all we need to do is give up industry on the planet and the world will eventually go back to the way it was. I say it is too late for that solution (as a short term solution anyway).

My plan, however, will require the use of old tires and recycled plastics. Of course it will require some engineering feats also, and a few ecological compromises. The benefits of using these wasted products will far outweigh the compromises required.

My idea is to build large floating islands (white on top, to reflect sunlight back out of our planet) made from used tires (filled with co2) and recycled plastics. Yes there are engineering and ecological problems, but everyone has to admit there are worse problems in our current situation. So the only feasible solution is to build a bunch of artificial reflection "islands" across the planet.

We can also try to get more people to use reflecting surfaces on buildings (which will be as difficult to do, as no one likes to have to do things exactly the same as everyone else).

There will be other benefits realized, once we build enough of these islands. One of the problems associated with the increased temperatures we are experiencing is the possibility of increased hurricane intensity and frequency. Having enough of these floating islands in strategic points in the oceans will help to alleviate this problem also. It is a well known fact that hurricanes form in areas of the ocean where the temperature rises above approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit. If we can keep those areas below that temperature (by reflecting sunlight away), we can prevent the formation of hurricanes. Without these floating islands, hurricanes will probably continue to increase in intensity and frequency…

We need a solution to deal with our Global warming woes, and we need it now. Even if this is a difficult path to follow, it will pay off in the future. The overall problems I see for Greenhouse effect is that we can go green all we want, but Global warming and our constant desire to be comfortable, will eventually undermine any efforts we may do. Unless we can get rid of some of the excess heat in this world, we will always be under the eventual threat of a thermal overheating demise.

Answer 2

I wouldn't put it quite that strongly.

There is definitive proof that burning fossil fuels is *a* cause of global warming.  Obviously the greenhouse effect causes the planet to warm, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and burning fossil fuels emits CO2 which has been trapped for millions of years.  The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm (a 37% increase) since the Industrial Revolution due entirely to humans burning fossil fuels.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8...

So there is no question that our burning of fossil fuels has caused some global warming.  The only question is how much.  Scientists have concluded that humans have caused 80-90% of the warming over the past 30 years.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

But there is not "definitive proof" of this, just overwhelming evidence.  It's a theory, and theories cannot be proven (same with evolution as another answerer mentioned), theories can only be disproven or supported with evidence.

Answer 3

Asking for definitive proof in science is tricky. Take one of the most respected scientific theories, evolution. We can't prove it's true conclusively, but we've collected a huge amount of data which supports it and none that contradicts it.

So with that in mind, there is a scientific consensus that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are because of humans and that this will lead to climate change.

This first link is the original carbon dioxide measurements (still ongoing) taken in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This was the first and longest running study into atmospheric co2 concentrations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Now by itself it doesn't give a super large amount of information. All it shows is that co2 levels are increasing, but gives no frame of reference to explain why that is a bad thing.

Because of that the levels of gas trapped in the ice caps over thousands and thousands of years are measured which lets us know atmospheric co2 concentrations going back quite a long time.

This is a graph of the data:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

This is a link to all the data collected by the experiments. As a note, these are some of the most widely respected studies done.

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

With that data, and based upon estimated emissions by burning fossil fuels. A causal link has been established between burning fossil fuels and rising co2 levels, which will result in climate change.

Answer 4

no their is not, never and will  there ever be? no

Answer 5

There is pretty good evidence than fossil fuel use has caused the concentration of CO2 in the air to go up from about 0.028% to 0.038% in the last hundred years or so. See the source.

And CO2 is known to block IR radiation. And it is the blocking of outgoing IR radiation by water vapor, CO2 and other gasses in Earth atmosphere that prevents it from being totally frozen all the time at its present distance from the Sun.

The obvious conclusion is that any change in the amount of water vapor and CO2 in the air will change the heat balance, with more CO2 causing warming. The only problem is that some people (Dr. Jello for example) do not believe and will not accept any evidence as definitive that the CO2 level change can be enough to cause warming in the face of the much greater contribution of water vapor which is not steadily rising and it in fact highly variable up and down all the time. Some people say the CO2 will cause secondary effects that will also increase the water vapor, and their arguments are convincing. Others (like Dr. Jello) say that will not happen. Still others say the opposite could happen, with water vapor could go down as a result of complex secondary effects and actually cause cooling. But since the average world temperature has been measured to be going up, most people are convinced the CO2 is the cause of warming and that it will get even warmer as we add more CO2 to the air.

Answer 6

If you believe that increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations DRIVES global temperatures--- then YES.

If you believe they FOLLOW global temperatures then NO.

There are scientists on both sides --- however the UN scientists and many others have decided that CO2 DRIVES temperatures-- hence the effort to lower human caused CO2 emissions.

Answer 7

I'm taking my second class on this matter.  A reliable website for more information on the subject is:

www.nrdc.org/

The problem is real, but the causes are gray to too many people.  History shows us long before we started putting CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth went through periods of warming and cooling, relatively regularly over the past 650,000 years (maybe before then, but we have no ice core samples for proof), the last ice age being approximately 11,000 years ago.  The problem is in the last 100 years we went through an industrial revolution and didn't consider what our waste products we're doing.  We assumed that as the black smoke left the tailpipe or the coal plant stacks and seemed to fade away it did just that?  Instead, many chemicals including CO2 go through a process called defusion.  Consequently, we drove the level of CO2 in the atmosphere past any time in history before.  Now we're at approximately 380 ppm up from an average high of 270 ppm at past recorded peak times.    

So why is CO2 so important?  Well it represents one of the few naturally occuring gasses in our atmosphere that has "albido,' CO2 absorbs IR energy.  The sun radiates UV, IR, and visible light.  The IR energy particularly then gets trapped and reflected once more to the earth.  As that energy gets recycled to the surface it evaporates ocean water that keeps a substantial amount of the available carbon on earth which then deposits even more carbon in the atmosphere which is what you call a "positive feedback loop."  A second compounding positive feedback loop is the rising temperatures melting polar ice which also store a substantial amount of the carbon that keep heat in, which also keeps the earth from freezing mind you.  As these positive feedback loops are in action and we continue to do our part to put carbon into the atmosphere the melted ice subsequently melts our polar ice raising the mean sea level destroying coastal areas.  The majority of our population lives in our coastal areas...

People don't know the truth because there is an active agenda to suppress the truth to so you don't demand they fix it faster than they are.  The White House edited the facts out of the report released to the US Congress and the public and they don't deny it.  

So the situation and my thoughts:  The scientists largely agree as to what is happening and the fact that it is carbon that is doing it.  They disagree if the carbon is coming from us, "anthroprogenic" or are naturally occurring.  Its both, but the Earth has struck a balance with itself to support life, we have disrupted the balance and all h**l is going to break lose if we don't fix it.  Regardless of the cause its happening and the consequences will be hundreds of millions of displaced people around the world including the US, increased disease, and a distressed economy if we don't fix it before some key things happen which are already beginning.  

Basically, the scariest parts of the Book of Revelations in case you didn't think I was a wacko yet!  Hope atleast the science lesson was useful.

Answer 8

Absolutley none!  Here's the problem.  Back in the 1970's when gas was cheap, cars were huge, longer and wider than today's SUV's.  You could fall in the back seat and get lost.  You could fit three full-grown adults in the back seat and each one would be comfortable, knees would not be shoved into chin.  Anyway, at some point, environmentalists wanted all cars to have catalytic converters installed on all cars, which we now have to this day.

A catalytic converter converts a car's exhaust into carbon dioxide and water.  Remember, this is what environmentalists wanted, and car companies did it.  

Now, these same devices are causing what environmentalists are calling "global warming" and the new buzzword is "climate change" so that even if they're wrong, they still look good.  We bought into the first one, but let's keep a cool head about what's going on and be realistic about it.  We don't want to put our heads in the sand, but neither do we want to be like lemmings and follow each other off the cliff.

Answer 9

No there is no link between co2 and temperatures.  If co2 levels halve or double, temperatures would remain constant.

No one can predict the future, not even science.  There's an equal chance that in 5 years the temperatures will be colder or they could be warmer.

Just because it was warmer in 1998 has no bearing on the temperatures today.

Answer 10

Global Warming is a scam by the Left . If they are successful U young people will not be able to afford a car. They want more control over U..

Answer 11

Tons of it.  The links below are mostly to unbiased scientific sources.  There are a couple to moderate environmental organizations, like NRDC and UCS, because they're good summaries.

This is science and what counts is the data, not people's intuition.

"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...

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...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is 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.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

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

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

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

BOATMAN1 - (And more proof, answering the question) CO2 is BOTH a cause (greenhouse effect) and an effect (warming ocean waters hold less CO2) of warming.  That is VERY basic and undisputed science.  In the past CO2 lagged temperature, proving it was mostly an effect.  In the current warming CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature (which has never happened before) because it's mostly a cause.

I remain baffled as to why you're not researching the science of this better.

Answer 12

The percentage of current CO2 in the air from fossil fuel burning is easily measured via carbon isotopes.  Here are some figures on the atmospheric CO2 increase due to fossil fuel burning:

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere."

"The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."

For elevated CO2 not to cause warming, CO2 would have to not be a greenhouse gas, i.e. our understanding of physics would have to be off, extremely unlikely given the hundreds of people who have challenged, tested and developed the theory over the past 100+ years:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

Furthermore, the absolute and relative temperatures of Venus, Mars, and Earth would have to have other explanations.

Fossil fuel burning however is not "the" cause of global warming, it's one major contributing factor.  Other major contributing factors are land use changes (reducing CO2 uptake by forests) and black soot air pollution.  

Black Carbon Pollution Emerges as Major Player in Global Warming

Soot from biomass burning, diesel exhaust has 60 percent of the effect of carbon dioxide on warming but mitigation offers immediate benefits

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?re...

Other greenhouses gases such as methane are strong influences as well, making human practices such as raising cattle a contributing factor and possible "tipping points" such as thawing of arctic tundra or undersea frozen methane clathrate deposits a potential issue.

Thanks for encouraging a rational (and supported) discussion on the topic.  

Just curious though, would not wanting to die in a food riot (as predicted in 2004 by the Pentagon as potentially occurring as early as 2020, but actually happening in 5 countries already by 2008)  make me an "environmentalist"?

Apocalyptic Pentagon report on global warming could spur action on Capitol Hill

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/2...

I know it seems unlikely in the U.S., but with 18% of school-age children coming from households earning less then $24,000, it won't take much of a hit to food supplies and prices to make a lot of people desperate and send many metropolitan areas over the edge.  Not only is the U.S. military running war games this summer to simulate riots and their military response, but we've even signed a treaty with Canada to recruit their military support policing U.S. cities.  

NORTH AMERICAN MILITARY AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE U.S. AND CANADA

http://www.arizonafreepress.com/columnis...

Neither step is the sort of thing that's done without cause and none of it has anything to do with that right wing bogeyman, "environmentalism".

If we take a step back from emotional labels, we seem to be faced with a valid challenge, but where we might be wise to focus a lot more attention would be on the proposed and possible responses, which range from ineffective to truly creepy and chronically repressive.

Answer 13

I believe it is. I ahve seen proof, like in the movie about Al gore. (The most boring movie ever in my opinion) we had to watch it 3 times at school. I dont know why.

There are many sides to global warming, however even if fossil fuels was not connected to global warming we have to reduce burning them. Its pollution, thats a fact.