What actual proof or data do you have that proves humans are not having an impact on global warming?

Question

I've been doing a lot of research on global warming, and honesly, I'm not trying to choose sides. So far, though, I've only seen real arguments for the side of humans having an impact on global climate change. I would honestly like to know what actual data the other side is using to "prove" that we aren't having any effect on global warming. The side arguing that we are affecting the climate have been able to present tons of data that presents solid points. Of course, as of now, we cant be 100% sure of anything, but at least the side has a real argument.

Answer 1

Try this peer reviewed research paper supported by over 19,000 scientists. I am willing th wager that this is a far greater number than that of those who support man made global warming.  Read the entire paper.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

How about an article written by a contributer to the 2007 IPCC report on global warming and a co-winner of the Nobel Prize with Gore:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

How about the Sun being responsible?:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/global...

Or how the real CO2 record was buried:

http://www.rense.com/general75/0223_inco...

Or, founder of Weather Channel is a skeptic and thinks Gore and those like him should be sued to expose their c**p:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/...

As time goes on, more and more evidence is coming forth that shows that man made g/w is nothing more than a money making scam based on flawed, altered and selective science.

Answer 2

Which is manier? Methane or CO2? We HUMANS barely manufacture methane. CO2? It's natural isn't it?(so is methane) So what do you think?

And all this c**p I've heard from agore, right? or is it al Gross? Nevertheless, can you explain to me why global warming is considered as junk science?

**************************************...

BTW do you remember the Pinatubo eruption? It polluted the earth the most.

And you say you are an environmentalist? so why eat meat?

Shouldn't all the environmentalist be vegitarians?

Answer 3

The way I under stand it a lot of the so called data is in error. CO2 reflecting the sun back to earth. Need to tell them that CO2 is right on the ground. CO2 is such a heavy gas's that it is used to extinguish fires, Plants need CO2 to live and if they get it they will produce better fruit. I have Sean nothing on the measuring techniques used. CO2 is a little difficult to measure.

Then Methane . It is a very light gas so they are not measuring it but just calculating what they want it to be. I suspect that it could be 10,000 tomes greater. There is a lot of methane that has been produced by this world. Mother nature has a special way to handle this. As methane rises in the atmosphere the sun will become bright enough to oxidize the methane into CO2 and water vapor. U can not find any in the lower or upper atmosphere.

   If there is not the green house there is not Global Warming.

Answer 4

I think one reason there is a debate about global warming, as opposed to something like the existence of quarks, is that it's never going to be possible to run an experiment with two Earth's, one with anthropogenic greenhouse gases and one without, compare the results and make an informed decision that way.  That's why climate scientists run models--they're not perfect, of course.  That's why they're called models.  Still, the models are extremely useful when combined with observations of the warming (which no one really disputes) and laboratory measurements of long wave absorptivities of greenhouse gases.

But most people are unaware of an "experiment" that was run courtesy of the U.S. government after 9/11 that DOES show that humans have an influence on climate. As everyone knows, jets make condensation trails across the sky when conditions are right.  It has long been suspected that these contrails might have a warming effect on nighttime temperatures, because they re-radiate infrared radiation back to the surface, just like greenhouse gases.  In the days after 9/11, all commercial airline flights were stopped in the US (there were still military flights), so there were vastly fewer contrails. Climate scientists realized that they had a unique opportunity to compare temperatures with and without contrails.  It was found that the diurnal temperature range was greater (lower nighttime temperatures) in the days without contrails.

You can see one article about this effect here http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/clim...

So, when you hear people that don't believe in global warming say there is no proof that humans can influence the climate, here is actual "experimental" proof.

Answer 5

The fact that there were changes in temperature and climate years before humans started to "supposedly" have an impact on climate, and years before modern human society even existed.  What caused these?  Did the cavemen or dinosaurs have coal fired powerplants and drive SUVs?  Alarmists act like the earth was always at a constant temperature before modern society evolved and "supposedly started" impacting the climate.  No there were warming and cooling periods long before modern day human society came along.

Also, all the alarmists have as proof is some simulations.  Just because a simulation says something is going to happen it is not proof.  If I put the newest copy of EA Sport's NFL franchise game into my Xbox 360 and have it simulate a season and it says that the Kansas City Chiefs will win the Super Bowl, does that mean it will happen?  No, it doesn't.  While I'm sure EA Sports has spent millions of dollars of research for its games, looking at the teams and the players, trying to take all sorts of factors into account..... more than some global warming researchers consider when looking at our climate....  Its still just a simulation of what might happen, there is just a high of a likelyhood of the opposite occuring.

Third, if you look at the data, and not the conveniently zoomed out table in "An Inconvienient Truth"  you would see that CO2 levels and temperature actually cycle up and down quite regularly in dramatic fashion, and that in many cases temperature has increased first, and C02 second....not the other way around as many alarmists like to claim.  

Fourth, the side arguing against global warming has also been able to present facts showing that it is either not occurring or what is occuring is not caused by humans but is natural.  Unfortunately much of this is not reported or is under reported because it doesn't fit with the "crisis" picture the media wants to paint.  Instead the media just keeps trotting out the same people who say "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".  When someone does come forward and try to offer an alternative view, they are immediately jumped on as being non-believers of the Church of Al Gore, or in the pockets of big oil, or on par with the n***s.

Answer 6

I've looked into climate change triggers and I've come to realize we are heading for a drastic decline in the average global climate. The factors I looked at are: The sun cycle and it shows it's in a cooling trend. The El Nina factor, which we are now in. I also looked at studies done about our oceans and they're actually cooling, off not warming up. I watched the Jet stream patterns this winter and how far south the snow pack reached, which brought with it a colder winter in the Northern Hemisphere. We also had a colder Spring than we had last year. I'm not claiming all this disproves the AGW theory, shoot if it kept us from having a colder winter this past season than last season, with the same factors I mentioned at the begining of my answer, I might have actually started believing in it myself.

Answer 7

Obviously, it would be difficult to prove that unicorns are not having an impact on global warming.  That doesn't mean that I should trade in my unicorn in for something smaller that I'm scared to ride on and doesn't run worth a darn.

Answer 8

My response is based on complex systems analysis.

Of course we are having an impact. The global climate is the most complex of all complex systems of which we are a part, and it is impossible for us NOT to imipact the climate.

That said, the issue is not whether, but what. Many of us who are cautious do not doubt that the earth is warming. Climatologists have several hundred years of data that prove this. Simultaneously, the earth is cooling. Geologists have about half a billion years of data to prove this. The former is a short term trend, the latter a long-term trend. It is common to find short-term counter-trends within long-term trends in a complex system, and differentiating between a counter-trend and the end of a long-term trend is exceedingly difficult.

The data are irrefutable: The earth will rise about one degree Fahrenheit in a century. Geologists have found far steeper rises in the past (up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a decade) before humans were on earth. So, what is human impact?

Humans affect the climate through several known mechanisms. First, we are one of only a handful of species that has caused the extinction of other species. Since the climate is a complex system, this has to have had an impact.

Second, we clear forests, which has an astounding impact on local weather as well as global climate. We also create forests (not noted by the hysterics). In fact, the Great Eastern Forest in the U.S. is far larger than it has been in the past 200 years. Deforestation is calculated by the hysterics based on clearing, with no counter-credit calculated for forest creation. This is like balancing your checkbook by counting only the checks you write without ever acknowledging a deposit. Of course you're broke.

Third, we cause emission of many substances into the atmosphere. The current discussion is about carbon dioxide emission. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes temperatures to rise. How much is it impacting the climate? In fact, nobody knows.

The graphs that trace carbon emissions and global temperature rises are convincing in the short-term, useless in the long term. As geologists have found, higher CO2 levels in the amosphere have historically accompanied global warming - - but the come AFTER the warming. This one reminds me of the statistical "proof" offered in the 1950s that the rainfall in Alaska directly affected the birthrate in Alabama. Ask any statistician: if you carefully select your sample size, type and duration, you can prove almost anything.

The truth about all of this is that the earth is warming (and cooling), and we simply do not know why. There are overwhelming reasons to reduce use of fossil fuels - the supply is finite, the many substances emitted into the atmosphere contain harmful elements, the U.S. has become hostage to the totalitarian regimes that control much of the world's oil.

Answer 9

Yes there is proof we are having an impact.  Do you have proof it will be enough for the alarmist senerio?  The burdon of proof is always on the one who comes up with the thoery not people who do not believe in the thoery.  A new science has been formed We are RIGHT BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVE US WRONG.  (yes I know this happened with Einstien, but there was alot more work involved there.)

First it is accepted by almost everyone that left alone with no feedback the CO2 will raise the earths temperature 1 deg C +/- .5 deg C.  Most scientists believe this increase will have some impact but be negligable.  

Why do you hear 3 to 10 deg C.  It has to do with the feedbacks, the main one is water vapor.  

There are alot of peer reviewed articles that question the way this is handled.  NOTE the article below does not discuss the negative feedback clouds have.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/looking...

If water vapor feedback is still of debate then the whole thing is debatable.

Also when sun cicles or oceans or weather cool the earth water vapor will be positive in the other direction.  Water vapor is not tied to CO2 but to temperature.  The energy absorbed by water vapor in 1982 ~ is about the same as 1942.  I can say that in the first 40 years of AGW water vapor feedback was 0.

Answer 10

Johnnie B

"Need to tell them that CO2 is right on the ground. CO2 is such a heavy gas's that it is used to extinguish fires"

As you seem to have no idea about science here is a simple example, blow up a balloon take it outside in a light breeze and see if it blows away when you let it go, of course it will .

Atmospheric Co2 is about 385ppm the Co2 content of breathing out is about 5000ppm and yet with a Co2 concentration ~15 times the atmospheric level it still the balloon doesn't fall like a brick.

The atmosphere is thoroughly mixed by turbulence and as the link say's the mix is pretty much even up to ~13km.

The molar mass of each is (Co2 - 44) (O2 - 15.9994) (Methane - 16.0425) (Nitrogen - 14)

If you think the weight is important you should know that ozone (which dosen't seem to have much trouble staying very high in the atmosphere is 47.998, heavier than Co2.

Answer 11

Sorry "jk" the oregon online petition is now a peer reviewed publication, thats a new one, which I very much doubt. I would like to see you post what journal it was published in, I think I'll be waiting a long time

This LIST has been ripped to shreddeds in several different ways from the source to the fake names in the list to the fact it could be signed by anyone.

Answer 12

Of course you can't prove a negative (prove you're not beating your wife, etc.)  but if we truly have been steaming towards an environmental doomsday for the last 50 years don't you think slight environmental cuts and using our cars every other day are rather pointless?  IF man is having the impact environmentalists say then any enforcable action that would have any real impact on climate change would have to be done at the point of a gun with the entire industrialized world held in something of a virtual prison camp.  

In other words, we'll keep spewing out the same things we alway have, it either will effect the environment or not, and there's precious little anyone can do about it.

Answer 13

http://www.cycle-of-time.net/poleshift.h...

Answer 14

You will not find the proof, nor will anyone post it here

because it doesn't exist.

By comparison (to real climate science) the stuff put out by the cranks in the denial crowd is pathetic.  

People (researchers) have a right to chase down what they will, you never know what might turn up.  But lets call it what it is - fringe.

P.S.

My Unicorn gets 40+ mpg and runs like a top.  And it's safer than many of the pos that Detroit has put out in the past.

Answer 15

Humans are the main cause, at this time.

There are other factors that influence climate.  In the past they were more important than man made greenhouse gases, since we weren't making that much of those.

But the data shows that, since the 1970s, that isn't true. Our huge increase in production of man made greenhouse gases has taken over. See:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

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

This is not to say natural factors have gone away.  They still can cause cooling, but only for a short while.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

The fact that, historically, CO2 lagged behind temperature is actually solid proof that this time is very different than warmings in the past.  For this time, THERE IS NO LAG.  CO2 and temperature are going up together, because CO2 is the main cause.

Answer 16

It is not that I doubt that human activities have had an influence, it is just that I haven't seen any real evidence that links CO2 to warming. I am sure CO2 causes some warming, but the extent (and sadly, whether it actually does) is not known. And there are too many uncertainties--clouds, oceans, cosmic rays, solar influence, the role of geomagnetism, land use changes, etc to be sure of anything.

At this point, we can't rule other forcings out, because of the particularly weak case for CO2. We know so little about our climate.

Answer 17

from historical sources and archeological excavations, we know that the vikings settled Greenland and around 1100 planted wheat and oats there- which means the climate was much, much warmer- and that is proven beyond doubt

from historical sources - a 1600's grant by the King of Poland - we know that the Baltic sea used to freeze over in winter to a thickness strong enough to support a building and reliably enough (year after year) and long enough (4 months or more) to allow the grantee to build and operate an Inn on the ice, serving travellers who voyaged between Poland and Sweden, overland (or overice) in winter time. Again, that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt

SO we know (as in proven) that the climate was both much warmer and much colder than it is now, and in pre-industrial times too.

It would therefore appear that an "other than human" factor influences the weather.

I am not saying "we" do not make an influence- (eg the massive pollution in China and India definetly plays h**l with the environment) but I fail to see how making laws in the "west" is going to influence the Chinese slave factories (except forcing more businesses to move there and damage the environment even more)