Prove global warming is real you can't use liberal sources or wikipedia?

Question

Prove global warming is real you can't use liberal sources or wikipedia?

Answer 1

OK. No liberal sources (whatever those are). No wikipedia. Peer-reviewed science only, with links. Fair enough?

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...

http://www.acrim.com/ACRIM%20Composite%2...

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/S...

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 2

Are scientific journals liberal too? They all agree it's real.

Answer 3

I just farted, so I guess the methane gas that I just released ate .0000000000001 trillionth of a billion of the ozone layer which let my infrared rays in.

Answer 4

ARUNDEL (NEWS CENTER) -- Lawmakers in Augusta are debating whether they should raise the state's cigarette tax by another 50 cents a pack to help pay for the Dirigo Health program. And that debate has in turn renewed the old fight over whether increasing Maine's cigarette tax drives smokers over the border to New Hampshire.



Hannaford

Maine already has the 4th highest cigarette tax in the nation. And Byron Kindley, who owns Arundel gas, said he's seen about half his cigarette business disappear over the past two years. He believes smokers do make trips to New Hampshire, even though state health officials say there's no statistical evidence that's what's happening.

State health officials have said the reason Maine is getting less revenue from the cigarette tax is that fewer people are smoking now.

Answer 5

Prove that it's not.

Answer 6

Can't be done. Scientists have proven that carbon emissions have nothing whatsoever to do with the climate change. It is a political tool.

Answer 7

there is NO proof (of man made)

Answer 8

Doesn't matter if its real or not.

Even if we aren't raising the temperature, the pollution isn't good for us.

We don't even need to care about the environment itself on this one.  We need only care about ourselves.

The pollution and chemicals we are putting in our air is what is giving us cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc.  You don't want to save a Polar Bear.  You don't have to.  But you'd better bloody well do it for yourself and your family.

Answer 9

Amazing isn't it?  Of course, none of these sources are liberal!  It is like when, after being told numerous times, that Jesus was the most documented person ever to live.

I asked for documentation, other than the Bible, because the bible is only one source.  If he was the most documented, give me other sources.

Of course, I got biblical sources, and those people said they either were not biblical sources, or that the bible consisted of many books, so it counts as multiple sources all by itself.

I like the question, but you won't get any legitimate answers.

Answer 10

This is too easy.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"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...

(this is not a wikipedia site, the scientific references are at the end)

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:

These organizations have all issue public statements that global warming 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.

The scientific literature supports the case overwhelmingly:

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

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know...  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point.  You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Since you don't like liberal sources, the conservative credentials of these folks are unimpeachable.  You might want to pay attention to their advice.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Good websites for more info:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

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

Answer 11

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

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

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

Earth Observatory Feature: Global Warming Questions and Answers

Answer 12

I have seen NASA defined as a "Liberal Source" on this site.  The contribution by humans of greenhouse gases (particularly CO2) that appear to be warming was a well known fact when the Twentieth Century began.  If you are determined that it be false no one is going to be able to prove it to you.

Answer 13

I have the proof you seek.  Here in Michigan, the great lakes were carved out with help of glaciers.  A couple of hundred thousand years ago they melted and filled them up with water.  

Anyone who thinks GW is real is coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

Answer 14

Well, all I know is a 25 mile stretch of ice fell in the ocean the other day and it had been there for several thousand years. Video doesnt lie

Answer 15

Ice fell into the ocean...  Do a web search and you will see that same piece of ice fall into the ocean...  LOL  How many times does it renew itself and fall into the ocean?  Seriously, they cannot and will not provide legitimate sources because their simply isn't any.  This officially marks a time in history when science went up for sale.

Answer 16

A while ago one of NASA's top scientists concluded that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free within five years, much faster than all previous predictions.

when the north pole is gone , you may have polar bears soon in America ,looking for a home ,

Calculations do not include the accumulative ,speeding up ,factor with time. the increase in water temperature will get faster all the time as well as the melting, when the ice is all gone the deeper cold Ocean currents will be drastically affected,which in turn will affect the warm currents,since all moving bodies of water are connected in series.

This will affect coastal climates ,world wide ,almost instantly. All aquatic flora and fauna will be affected,many dying off and others becoming invasive,

And recently In Chiapas ,and Tabasco in Mexico .more then a million people became homeless overnight with water coming up to their roofs ,because of rains from super evaporation from the forests,this had never happened before. Millions of animals died.

In India 3000 people died because of super storms .

.A few years ago in Europe 3500 people,died during a heat wave ,many of them in France .

Right now the average death toll annually is 150.000 due to Global warming

. these figures are already out of date and are expected to double soon.

In Northern China millions of people are running for their lives because regular dust storms so far have buried 900 villages under the sand and the whole of northern China is turning into a dessert.

The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year all around the edges ,like a slow burning fire shriveling up their neighbors In the Kalahari huge rivers have dried up and thousand of species are gone due to their habitats disappearing .

The biggest changes are invisible at micro biotic levels species are becoming extinct ,others are multiplying ,

This affects the insect populations that follow ,and changes in that ,affect all that follows in the food chains ,

in the last 300 years half of the planets forests have gone

and in the last 50 years

half of our wet lands ,rain forests and ice fields .and 3000 species of animals .

Global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,Subsequen... wind and Water erosion,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources and air pollution.

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

We are now witnessing a mass Extinction of animals and plants of Biblical proportions,equal since the disappearance of the dinosaurs

.

There is a series that you can download easy ,called

bbc,Planet earth by David Attenborough.

About 15 ---700mb videos

this is a photographic team that has been filming Nature stories all over the world ,for a very long time .

In 3 of the episodes called --the future--saving species(this one covers extinction and the importance of species)

the future--living together ,ice worlds ,

they compare films they made before of places and species to what they are filming now in the same places.

Many scientists give commentaries as well .

Whole migrations of animals involving millions have disappeared in only 20 years,

in one place in the tundras ,in just 5 years

CHECK THE CLOCK FOR THE SPEED

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

If we want to save ourselves as a specie ,we have to address

the problems

We can correct most of the destructive factors

with disciplines ,changes of attitude and habits,alternative energies ,sustainable design etc.

All species are in Danger eventually,and each is important because all of Life on this planet is interrelated even if it is not obvious

Imagine that the Eco system is a wall and each specie is represented by a brick

Every brick taken out weakens the wall ,and eventually it will collapse ,which brick is the most important ???

they are all important and we are one of the bricks

Answer 17

You may want to go to the Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals to get your answers. The scientists (you know, those PhD types, not the media) are virtually unanimous in saying that global warming is real and man has played a big part in it.

It is depressing, but true. Even John McCain acknoledges it: "I believe climate change is real, I think it's devastating, I think we have to act." (its on his website)

If you want realiable sources, try going to the journal "Science", or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If you still don't believe global warming is real, and man has played a BIG part in it, I have a bridge to sell you.

Answer 18

As opposed to the denier sources Heartland.org and blog sites.

There have been literally hundreds of papers published over the last decade on various aspects of global warming in journals like Nature, Science, JATP (look it up in goggle) and several others as well as the IPCC reports themselves.

Why (in the real world) do the denier movement have such a small following, because most of their theories are laughable, Pluto warming or the UN trying for world domination HA HA HA etc.

Global warming makes sense for several reasons

(1) We have been pumping out Co2 (and other green house gases) for 150 years no stop

(2) Suggesting the world is to big, we can't affect it, is childish nonsense when we can all see how much we have affected the world already from mercury in fish to DDT in animals, from deforestation to exhausted fish stocks.

(3) Regardless of the poor attempts at science on the web Co2 is a green house gas.

(4) The recorded rise in temp over the last 100 years

(5) The corresponding shrinking of glaciers and the Arctic

(6) The recorded sea level rise

‘Fossil’ fuel is literally the atmosphere (Co2) from the time of the dinosaurs when there were no icecaps and the temp was 15deg warmer and the oceans 150m higher

P.S. On the Pluto warming theory it is estimated by scientists that the temp on Pluto has risen 3deg (from -400) but Earth has only risen 1deg in the last century this alone would suggest there is no link at all with Solar output given the distance Pluto is from the Sun.