What is the scietnific evidence against man made climate change?

Question

What is the scietnific evidence against man made climate change?

Answer 1

Can you prove scientifically (that is in a verifiable way) that UFO's, ghosts or telekinesis doesn't exist?

Answer 2

For Blue.Lob:

"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 385 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this."[1]

We know this fact because 1) humans have burn enough fossil fuels to raise the atmospheric CO2 level to above 500 ppm. The only reason why the concentration is not this high is because the ocean acts as a buffer, or a sink, that swallows up some of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses. As the oceans become warmer, they will absorb less and begin to release more of their stored greenhouse gasses.

2) Burning fossil fuels changes the ratio of naturally occurring carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.  Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.[2] Due to these changing isotope ratios, we know that all or nearly all, of the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the past 150 years, have been due to human activities.

For Deep Blue:

You seem mystified by the scientific method. First of all, there are no “proofs” in science, only the scientific method which involves observation and experimentation.  The greenhouse effect is based on established physics that goes back 200 years and is well established as a theory. The greenhouse theory basically says that certain molecules (greenhouse gases) will absorb outgoing infrared radiation (sunlight that’s been reflected off of Earth’s surface).

The theory of gravity is also a few hundred of years old. This theory can never be proven to a 100% certainty (it could all just be intelligent falling, right?) but I still believe in gravity because I can observe it.

Both of these theories have been tested and retested, and are about as close to “fact” as possible within the framework of the scientific method.

For Ben O:

Do you have any evidence that the feedback mechanisms will only be negative? This goes against observations and research made by tens of thousands of climatologists. Cloud cover is a wildcard, because clouds have both positive and negative feedbacks.

Many of the positive feedbacks are well studied and known. Positive feedbacks include decrease albedo when the snow and ice packs melt, increased release of dissolved CO2 from warming oceans to the atmosphere[3], release of methane gas as permafrost and frozen blogs thaw[4]…

The “saturation argument” has been debunked time and time again. I will not waste my time here.

Except for at the tropics, the troposphere is warming faster then the surface. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and

radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies,” writes John Christy, skeptic and lead author[5].

For Dr T:

The “lead/lag argument” has also been debunked. It is no secret that as the climate changed from glacial to interglacial during this ice age, that changes in atmospheric CO2 lagged temperature changes. This is because CO2 did not initiate the temperature change. Orbital forcing initiated the changes. The alternations of glacial and interglacial periods over the past few million years have been fairly well linked to the Milankovitch cycles. The Milankovitch cycles are small, predictable changes in Earth’s orbit. However, the weak orbit forcing of the Milankovitch cycles alone cannot fully explain the temperature change that occurs when Earth shifts from a glacial period to an interglacial period, or vice versa. The orbital shift was just the flint and steal that ignited the gunpowder. The large temperature change can only be explained when the positive feedback effects of ice sheet albedo and greenhouse gas concentrations are taken into account.[6][7] Changes in greenhouse gases concentrations provided the bulk of the temperature change.

Climate change is complex and in the past, changes have had different causes. The fact the climate change in the past had natural causes does not mean that climate change can not have any anthropogenic causes. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that forests fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.

Also if you look hard enough, will find instances where temperature changes lagged changes in atmospheric CO2.

_____________________

Edit: Dr T: Do you advocate throwing out the theories of gravity and relativity? These theories can not explain the physics of a black hole. Anyhow, it is believed that that the troposphere above the tropics IS warming; observations errors (orbital drift of the satellites, rising tropopause) is thought to be the reason why there is the discrepancy between data and models.

For Rick:

Picking two random days a year apart does not prove a thing, just like picking two random years doesn’t prove anything either.  Read "Doubts about the Advent of Spring" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... to see how silly cherry picking random dates really is.

Also, you may rest soundly; according to NASA, solar cycle 24 has begun[8].

Answer 3

man by his lazyness toward the environment, he made and still makeing pollution in nature. and this pollution (from cutting trees that it's result is starting to be revealed wich is "DEFORESTATION", and to air pollution and soil and water pollution) is effecting the climate by makeing a hole in the ozone layer which is leading now to the melting of the north pole. and the melting which is the effect of the globel warming which we are into it right now,and this means that the temperature of the earth is increasing,and that will lead into a climate change right now. and here in lebanon ( were i live) we are feeling the weather change, it's snowing on the coasts and it's the first time in the history of Lebanon that it's snowing on the coasts..!! so this is the effect of climate change.!! hope it's the best answer ...t.c bye

Answer 4

It's been hotter and a lot colder before in human history (ie the medieval warming period and the little ice age).

The tempreture has changed at a similar rate before in human history.

The effect of CO2 alone is not much.  Greenhouse theories rely on feedbacks (which is somewhat speculative).

Feedbacks are likley to be negative (i.e. a little warming may create clouds which cools the planet).

CO2 only absorbes a narrow band of radiation around 15 microns and the lower atmosphere is already opaque to this wavelength of radiation.  

The greenhouse effect is supposed to occur most at 10km altitude, but experimental evidence shows that this altitude is actually cooling slightly.  

The sun varies in intensity.

Answer 5

The evedence against it is a government unwilling to give up its power and it is obvious to those of us who do not believe in liars in Washington D.C.  who are wanting a One World Government in order to continue to cover up their criminal, genocidal intents and protect their riches.

Answer 6

The 9-11 study shows that the temperature (regionally and diurnally) has an immediate and dramatic change (>1C) when aircraft are removed from the atmosphere (Travis, 2002).

To my knowledge, aircraft is/are the only thing proven by the actual removal of the emission source* (Travis, 2002 - 2007).

When the aircraft were grounded for 3-4 days after 9-11, the temperature quickly and generally reverted back to pre-1950's temperature records, before the jet age.

*I realize that it would be impractical to turn off all of the

powerplants to see what their impacts are.

Answer 7

the earth is coming out of an ice age and levels of chemicals are bound to be changing. the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere has even been suggested to be connected to trees as it is thought that they can produce carbon dioxide as well!

Answer 8

There are many. However, the most damning is shown on the Vostok ice core data plot from the reference. Note the period indicated around 120,000 years ago. As time moves forward (toward the left), the temperature plunges while the CO2 levels remain at their most elevated values. That is concrete proof that temperatures can, and do, fall precipitously in the presence of and without a change in the highest levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Close examination of the other peaks in the reference shows that this behavior is universal in that it always occurs. Further, analysis of that record shows that temperature changes of any kind, up or down, precede changes in CO2 concentrations. So, temperatures influence CO2 concentrations and not vice versa. If CO2 does not influence temperature, then man's emission of CO2 has no influence on climate change. Since CO2 emissions is the only proposed mechanism for man's effect on climate and that possibility is eliminated by the analysis above, man has no effect on climate change.

---

With all due respect to Dana (below), the AGW model cannot reproduce a declining temperature in the presence of fixed and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The fact that such behavior is evident and repeatable in the historical record indicates that it is fundamental to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. That the AGW models cannot reproduce such fundamental behavior is clear indication that the flaw in the model goes well beyond the inability to properly predict troposphere warming rates.

Answer 9

This observation is unacceptable to AGW fans - however those that want to see what is happening today should find this interesting.  Compare the satellite pictures of ocean temperatures of one year ago to todays temps.

temps. from 2/3/07:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

temps. from 1/31/08:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Note an temperature difference of 2 degree C in the 'hot spot'!  This is FAR more important than an 2 degree C in air temperature.  Several months ago in 2007 solar cycle 23 ended and solar cycle 24 has not truly begun yet.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

If solar cycle 24 does not start - it would be a safe bet that we will be facing another solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum:  (and you think it's cold now!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Answer 10

wha

global warming

We definitely didn't start global warming, but we definitely do contribute to it now.

Natural gas (or Methane along with other thanes) for example, is completely a natural contributer to global warming and is derived pretty much the same way as oil. ie. Matter (animal, plant etc) decomposes over time resulting in a anaerobic (hope I spelled that right) decay of non-fossil organic material / gas (natural gas or methane).

One problem with global warming is that the concept is so vague in the minds of the people. The critical interpretation is basically how it’s explained in school and the news. However most of the public see global warming connected with the ozone and pollutants which cause harmful greenhouse gasses, etc. therefore investigating and fighting for things like alternative energy (ie. Solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, etc)

Greenhouse gases are real and do contribute to global warming. Think of the different gas layers like ozone (o3) that circumference the globe as the clear plastic on a greenhouse. Longer rays of light from the Sun go in and reflect off different thermal masses bouncing back and creating shorter lengths of energy that cannot exist the plastic barrier. These beams then just continue to bounce around inside the green house until they’re finally absorbed completely (some do escape but very few), thereby warming the greenhouse greatly even in cold temperatures.

Basically there are 2 ways that this reaction (or lack of) affects the planet. Global warming and global cooling.

1. as we add to the gases in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is (Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc), we add to the plastic of the greenhouse, trapping more short wave length energy and heating the earth more.

2. as we deplete the ozone (with chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs), we allow more long wave length energy, which bounces back out to space without heating any thermal masses on earth, thereby cooling the planet.

It’s pretty easy to see the results..

Melting ice sheets & glaciers

Floods & droughts

Great hurricanes & cyclones

Seasonal extremes

Seasonal phenomena’s

Species extinction

New & resurgent diseases

There are many ways to stop both global warming and cooling from accruing or at least slow them down until we can discover a way to reverse it, but Stop burning fossil fuels is the biggest.

I currently own 2 converted h2 vehicles which run on 100% hydrogen and 1 EV (electric vehicle), not to mention our home is completely off the grid, using alternative energy (solar, wind, etc)

If you interested I offer several DIY alternative guides to walk you step by step threw Greener living, how to run your car on alternative fuels and being self-sufficient, at agua-luna com or

http://www.agua-luna.com/guides.html

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at http://www.agua-luna.com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Retired Boeing Engineer now living 100% Off-the-Grid with my family, using Alternative Energy & loving every minute.

for more info visit agua-luna com or email me at [e-mail]

http://www.agua-luna.com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!

Answer 11

Brown Clouds over Cities

Trash in rivers and streams

100,000 houses and toxins from inside of houses relocated into the gulf of mexico; Fish must be doing a conference or something, like the rest of us.

ice melting

bullet shell casings all over the desert

Answer 12

Plenty.  It's just that any scientific study that determines there are other causes for the slight warming on Earth are dismissed, slandered by believers as research paid by the evil "Exxon".

Clearly the belief in AGW is a very selective science.

Answer 13

The BIGGEST eveidence is the rising Co2 levels.. which corospond directly with population growth..

but suppose it isnt man made.. should we not help clean up the earth anyhow??

should we not stop polluting the skies anyhow?? because of things caused by the air pollution, water pollution etc??

another reason is when you act more "green" you save money

http://www.gomestic.com/Personal-Finance...

that should be a motivating reason.. the link has EASY ways you can save money and help at the same time.. things you might not have thought of..

Answer 14

There is very little.  Notice that the few arguments made so far have been either historical in nature (i.e. past CO2 lag behind temperature) and/or irrelevant to the current climate change (i.e. past solar climate influence) and/or are scientifically irrelevant (i.e. narrow band of CO2 absorption).

That's not to say that the AGW theory is perfect.  For instance, it predicts that the troposphere should warm at a rate slightly faster than the surface, and based on current measurements, that appears not to be the case.  However, that's most likely a problem with instrumentation rather than an indication that the theory is wrong, because virtually all other evidence supports the theory, and the measurements of atmospheric temperature have large uncertainties (such as orbital decay of satellites) as discussed here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/m...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/s...

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any other significant discrepancy in the AGW theory, and I've asked skeptics to provide me with such flaws several times.  The tropospheric warming is the only valid evidence they've ever come up with.

response to Dr. T - of course it can.  Here's just one of many possible scenarios in which the AGW theory explains exactly that:

CO2 remains steady + solar output declines = cooling during steady CO2.

This is climate science 101.