What, exactly, is the proof for human causation of climate change?

Question

Can anyone educate me?

Answer 1

It's the accumulation of evidence based on science.  Almost all reputable scientists concede humans have accelerated a natural trend.  "Proof" is irrefutable and demonstrable.  We have hundreds of theories we live with as having been proved, when in fact they haven't been, they are just accepted.  The problem here is that if we wait for the "proof" we'll have gone well past the point where we can turn this around.  

In this case we need to err on the side of caution, because to turn a blind eye means dramatic change which impacts our ability to raise crops, etc.  Food web impacts are already at play.  Basically, we sitting at the precipice, with God as our judge and jury.  I'm hoping we collectively wake up and smell the roses and act to control those factors that we know -- yes, know -- to be changing our planet's livability..

Education is in keeping an open mind.  Education is in watching the Gore film and deciding for yourself.  Education is reading the available literature, and making sure your elected officials do.  This could result in the mother of all treaties, because any effective action needs to be worldwide.

Added:

I didn't say "lots" of scientists agree.  B most not on somebodies payroll to say otherwise do.  And sorry, I understand the issues well enough, but I was on my way to work and didn't have time to write a thesis.  Sheez!

Answer 2

The proof is far and few between.   I'm sure scientifically there are some semblances of small proof but the fact is this is a political issue.  Politicians want to stand up and say putting a curly light bulb in all your light sockets are going to cure the worlds problems.  But in seriousness if these politicians were truly concerned about the world.....why not step up in the political world and go to a step that "could" have impact like say...the electric car?

Answer 3

A follows B, therefore, A caused B.

QED

What "proof" exists is nothing but a collection of carefully selected data associations carefully truncated to point to man-made global warming.  Data that doesn't fit is conveniently sequestered, e.g., the Medieval Warming Period or the lack of any temperature change in the troposphere.  

The most easily countered point is the so-called 'consensus'.  A consensus means everyone pretty much agrees.  Well, many scientists do not agree which means there is not 'consensus' at all.  PROOF of this is contained it the link below.

Answer 4

First, pull your head out of the sand. Second, stop making gobal warming a political issue. Third, you aren't interested in any logical reasons since there's a uncountable amount of info about it. Fourth, save your propaganda for the right wing chat room.

Answer 5

the first relevant datum is the fact that amount of some types of gas in the atmosphere have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution, about 300 years ago or more. so is the level of other contaminants. there is deduced from study of ice cores for example.

the big issue is whether the increase of CO2 gas for example, is the main cause for global warming, for that I don't think there is a clear cut answer, though it is known that CO2 can cause a blanket effect in the atmosphere, preventing heat from the sun to dissipate back into space.

Answer 6

There is no proof. All we know for sure is that people have added a lot of CO2 to the air. Now it is reasonable to assume that CO2 is causing warming, because it is a greenhouse gas, but the CO2 only accounts for 1% of the observed warming. So where does the other 99% come from? Political activists claim it is a positive feedback mechanism where a small warming triggers subtle changes in things like cloud cover and evaporation rates to cause a magnifying effect. In other words, our 1% contribution is really causing the the other 99% too. But there is plenty of evidence that the other 99% is not caused by the 1% CO2 effect. There is evidence that the other 99% is caused independently by things that would happen anyway even if there were no added CO2. But the political activists are suppressing this information. Scientists have lost their funding for even mentioning that possibility.

Answer 7

Chuck is right....it is only a theory, because currently there is no definite proof. There is information that leads to the theory being built, but to actually prove the human causation to the current global warming cycle is basically impossible. There is no way to duplicate an experiment, no controls...nothing that can really 'prove' the theory. Right now the theory that the sun is getting hotter, therefore the earth is getting hotter is more 'provable' as they have records showing other planets are getting warmer, and the only commonality between everything is the sun.

Look at the theory this way......they are taking a bunch of historicle data, massaging the data, adding a lot of assumptions and running it through a computer simulation to get results. This is the same as taking your computer, plugging in Madden Football, and running a season to see who wins the Superbowl. It is basically one giant guess, and the only way you can prove it is to actually follow through on it.

A better question might be, what information are the environmentalists using to suggest humans are the primary cause of the current global warming period. Al Gore in front of the US Senate already hurt this theory when he admitted that the information available already points out that that warming period preceeds the rise in CO2 in the environment.

Answer 8

There is a theory only. No proof exists, though others will tell you it does.

I have yet have anyone explain to me how we came out of the last ice age since the climate is now considered a static environment.

Answer 9

Watch Al Gore's movie.

Answer 10

Here it is.  

"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 and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries, short and long, of the massive, verified, and peer reviewed database:

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

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Because of the data, the consensus view among scientists is overwhelming:

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

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

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

and:

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

The IPCC cite is a 21 page summary.  The full document, due out shortly, will have more of the data, it's 1600 pages long.  It is the longest and most extensively peer reviewed scientific document ever.

In order to truly understand, you can't be "educated" in a few paragraphs.  You'll need to do some work yourself.  I've spent many hours on this.

Good websites for more info and data:

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

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"