What proves that carbon dioxide causes global warming?

Question

I'm a global warming skeptic. I'd like to be a believer. What proves that global warming exists and is caused by CO2 admissions? I'm an open skeptic. Embrace me.

Answer 1

Bob and templar have given you the science so I won't waste space on that. Instead how about a quick history lesson and a soundbite?

History:

Contrary to what most sceptics seem to believe (that global warming is a new theory proposed by Al Gore) it's well established scientifically.

Svante Arrhenius in 1896 proposed the basic theory that burning fossil fuels would create a global warming effect. This was an hypothesis based on his work to answer the question of why the Earth was about 15 degrees C warmer than it should be. He found that CO2 and water in the atmosphere was responsible. Hence he and another scientist, Thomas Chamberlin, made the obvious jump that adding CO2 and/or H2O into the atmosphere would increase the warming.

As for the soundbite answer:

Venus!

P.S. to eric - Bob and templar have given many, many links. I respect your theory that they have "cherry picked" the data. This must mean that there is a lot more data that says CO2 is not the cause. Please feel free to do your own cherry picking and come up with as many sources as they have to disprove this theory.

Edit to Eric...

You're right... I probably did (slightly?) overstep the line with my "waiting" remark - apologies and retractions!

As for your response - good one; it highlights one of the doubts & uncertainties that still exist re AGW.

It isn't, however, drectly relevant to the question as it doesn't really address the role of CO2 in GW one way or another.

The fact that CO2 traps energy has been well proven but the exact connection/contribution to GW IS harder to prove which I assume is your point... I will concede that it has not been 100% proven that CO2 is the only primary driving factor in GW. I do think, however, that it is likely to be such "beyond reasonable doubt" and given the potential (and literal!) grave consequences, that is good enough for me at this time.

P.S. to mikey

Most of your questions are valid and as such have been considered over the decades of research and study.

For example, solar radiation has been shown to not correlate to the recent surge in global temperatures.

Good science is sceptical by nature - people should always question orthodoxy and the theories of the day; that is how progress happens. However, simply being sceptical isn't enough - to overthrow a theory that fits the facts, a new theory that fits or explains the facts better is needed.

At this time, man made CO2 production has the best correlation to levels of atmospheric CO2, global temperature change and the potential mechansim relating the two is largely understood.

Before we can throw out man made CO2 as a major factor, we do need another explanation.

Scientists are not conservative people; a better answer than CO2 would be welcomed and any person who could PROVE that humans are not causing GW would be a very strong candidate for the Nobel Proze. Trust me, I'd love to hear that we are not wrecking this planet but wishful thinking ain't enough!

Answer 2

i have not heard any hard proof backing it up. someone here has the numbers im sure what natures C02 output is compared to human output is

Answer 3

The basic proof is the physical properties of carbon dioxide.  It's transparent to sunlight, but partially blocks heat coming up from the Earth.  You can't put it into the air and NOT cause warming.

The detailed proof (exactly how the numbers work) is far too extensive for here, it's in the links below.

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...

Answer 4

CO2 traps heat.    That is not the same thing as proof that the 1/11,000th of the atmosphere that is CO2 that wasn't when Jefferson was President is the reason why it warmed in the 150 years following the end of the Little Ice Age.

Answer 5

Historically there is no proof that co2 is a major driver of temperatures.  

Their "proof" is to cherry pick articles that do not support natural  causes of warming and conclude, it has to be co2 because we can not think of anything else.  Very scientific.

Adam:  Your  hypothesis is not that co2 can not cause warming, but that co2 is a major driver of climate.  There are many such articles that dispute climate sensitivity.  What is more important that the empirical satellite data does not support this theory.  Troposphere warming should be two to three times faster than ground temperatures.  The troposphere shows cooling during the last couple of years.  Spencer and Christy show a negative and not positive feedback using satellite data.  If you think that they interpreted the data wrong, then you criticize it, and you provide your own interpretation of the data using correct methods and show your conclusion.  That is the scientific way.

From NASA:

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...

NASA is about to release another study using satellite data, that again contradicts mainstream climate theory.  How much are you willing to bet that the impartial folks over at real climate are going to accept it.  Not a chance.

You also do not prove a theory by only showing a thirty year cause and effect relationship.  Show me where in the ice data sets shows co2 causing temperature changes.  If your theory is corrects then after the 800 year lag and temperatures and co2 move in the same direction, temperatures should start accelerating.  Where does it show that?

Final point.  Your attempt to discredit me by your "still waiting" comment is illogical.  80% of the time I do not check back on my answers.  I read your comment because for the most part I respect your answers.  I do not read many of the other responses.  But if someone does not answer your question, it does not mean he does not have an answer.

Answer 6

I would encourage you to read a peer-reviewed paper by Jim Peden. You can find it at Global warming skeptics website on the left side of the home page.  The paper is designed to be understood by the laymen. Peden concludes that the physics doesn't allow for the current AGW theory. He contends that it is physically impossible for CO2 by it's very nature to have the effects many alamists have claimed.It is surprisingly, a very good read.  

Answer 7

There is no proof  because the opposite is true.

No matter how much CO2 humans and animals have emitted into the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet has not even gone up one degree in over 100 years.

This planet takes care of itself just fine and we don't need a bunch of know-it-all elitists trying to convince us that everything we do in our life causes some kind of crisis to the planet.  It's not proven and not true.

History shows much warmer times in our past which proves that we have no effect on the temperature of the planet.

Most honest scientists now agree that the issue is overblown and completely political in nature.

Answer 8

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/...

It's funny how the rest of the world looks at Climate changes and takes them seriously but America...not so much!!!

Proof....

Ocean temperatures have risen along with the earths heat index over the last 40 years.  and not just surface temperatures but even at depth. Seismic activity models , volcanic, natural variability, models all pointed to not a chance in increasing the ocean temperatures due to the oceans mass and lack there off the modeling  even combined they could not have created the temperature increases. This not only applies to the oceans but bodied waters as well.

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.  Aren't we seeing that already?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/mai...

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/21/mo...

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/11/proof-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqrJRZJHk...

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.h...

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/col...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

RE: sodapop....how about 10% nature versus man made 90% ,  the data is out there. Those people that are on the fence about the issue or don't buy in to GW should do their own research and submit their findings instead of just sitting there and debating on semantics only.

Honestly...how stupid can we all really be....the natural environment shows us how the climate works. For example on a calm winter  night and the temperature is 25 degrees and cloud cover moves in ever notice the temperature rises? Thats because the cloud cover is holding in the radiant heat from the earth.  Or how about on a hot day when its 90 degrees out and cloud cover moves in and the temperature goes down? Shade obviously blocks the suns rays and therefore cooling you. But I am sure you are saying now....but wait you have contradicted your first example...have I? The answer to that is NO. You see it is part of thermal dynamic principle...warm air is drawn to cooler air. At night the air should cool allowing the earth to radiate the captured day light heat keeping us from freezing due to the lack of sun light. You need an example of that...try the moon...standing at the solar equator of the moon, one side sunny the other in the  freezing darkness of space...thats definitely a line you don't want to cross. We would have the same drastic temperature change here going from the sunny side to the dark side (0 degrees kelvin) but only every 24 hours if it were not for our atmosphere holding in that heat. Keep in mind thats just a normal atmosphere and normal clouds...not heavy clouds full of pollutants that are far more dense much like smog which traps in more heat. Sure the water burns off but where does all that heavy air go....how about up until air pressure can only lift so much up at a time so it collects at altitude builds up like a cloud and traps radiant heat...thus warming the earth with the very heat the earth is trying to get rid of.

I think that every Anti GW or skeptic should live in phoenix AZ for a year get a lesson in general thermal dynamics be given a ambient temperature for the city so they measure city temp an d then a gauge for the near by desert to see and feel the impact that man  has on the environment.

PS nothing personal to the people of phoenix but you guys live an example of GW year long....along with a other major cities...Phoenix just happens to be near a desert for real heat comparisons.

Alm0....okay thats an assessment.First of all you site some seriously skewed data in Hansen's paradox...obviously which you don't understand at how he arrived at the data...most reputable scientist  don't refer to the paradox because they know and understand that Hansen's human output summary and ratio does not include human energy consumption but measures the heat index of one human.  

Since most Anti-GWs like to split hairs...ill split this one for you...that 1 degree temperature difference they keep referring to is not 1 degree Fahrenheit but Celsius, which you know equates to 32 degrees Fahrenheit... I hope.

Answer 9

There is no definitive proof that carbon dioxide causes the warming of the planet

Answer 10

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas--it acts as a blanket, so to speak, trapping heat.

>we do have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere naturally--but at the natural level, the earth has a temperature equilibrium (the average temperature stays constant, unless some other factor intervenes).

>if you increase theCO2 cntent, you increase the insulating effect--so the temperature will rise.

That's the mechanism. The other question scientists had to answer was: could some other factor be responsible? The answer is partly yes.Deforestation reduces the ability of the biosphere to process CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere. That, as it turns out, plays a secondary but significant role. The primary source of the increase is burning fossil fuels.

Other possible explanations scientists investigated and found to be non-existant or minor:

>changes in solar radiation

>natural climate shifts

>added CO2 emissions from volcanic activity (the levels hae been normal.

Conclusion: since we have an existng cause, we know the process, and allother explanations have been eliminated, the rise inCO2 is the cause of global warming.

End of debate.

BTW--on the volcano theory: this jsut shows how ignorant the deniers are. Volcanic eruptions don't release all that much CO2--and they do release a great deal of ash, which causes COLLING.  I just threw that into give you an idea of just how nonsensical their pseudo-science really is.

Answer 11

I don't cling to the idea that global warming is directly related to excess co2 in our atmosphere; however as long as we humans on this planet know there is an issue of some type, we can work together to fix it, and maybe at the same time fix the real issue.  The real issue is a little to complex for the average person to really understand.  So if we group it under one issue that has something in common with the real issue, than we, as a collective intelligence can work towards a common goal.  There is also an alternate agenda attached to CO2. $$$

Answer 12

Doubling CO2 causes < 1 degree of warming (apparently).

The hypothesis AGW believers make is that the Earth is unable to cool (through changes in clouds & precipitation, or whatever) the tiny amount of heat humans add to the greenhouse effect (350 W/m2 + 1.6 W/m2).

They imply the global energy balance is a constant, and if it varies - natural cooling processes are unable to handle it.

I don't buy that.

Answer 13

i think it is explained in the wonderful world famous video called 'An Inconvenient Truth' by the former U.S. president Al Gore. it is entirely based on global warming.

Answer 14

Here is the problem as I see it:  does CO2 cause global warming, or does global warming cause higher levels of CO2?   There is no doubt that the climate is changing, it will continue as long as the earth survives.  Does CO2 drive the slightly higher temperatures which have been observed, and if so, is the increase the result of human energy production?  Or has the sun's energy level changed in relationship to what it was when it was slightly cooler(for what ever reason)?  And, has the slight increase in temperature recorded resulted in the increased production of CO2?  Limited space disallows the complete discussion of this conundrum, however, do you find it a little concerning that virtually every greenie/enirocrat/liberal agenda fits so nicely with the prospect that AGW is correct?  Are you not suspicious?  Continue to ask questions, and do your own reading on the subject, you will find a dearth of good scientific research and a plethora of opinions and raw data....good question, thanks  for asking.

Answer 15

Global temperature measurements prove that global warming exists.

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

As for humans causing it, I wrote a wiki article on the subject.  See the link below.