What solid proof do you have that global warming is man made?

Question

Why do all the global warming supporters say it is caused by people?? There is absolutely no evidence that supports this. Even Al Gore doesn't believe in man made global warming, he flies around in his PRIVATE JET, he goes to his house that consumes more electricity in one day than the average American household does in one year. The man made global warming skeptics say that global warming is caused by sun spots. This seems to be entirely correct and the only sense able explanation. My final question is isn't the earth almost always warming, with or without humans??? How did we get out of the last ice age. There was no "industry" to make the planet warm. And whos to say the earth wouldn't be better off if it was a little warmer, growing seasons would be longer, there would be more food. More animals would thrive. The man made global warming theory seems to be crumbling while the truth about how global warming is caused by sunspots seems to be thriving.

Answer 1

They really don't have any solid proof to prove global warming is real.

But here are some facts:

In places, ice is melting.

The earth is warming.

We don't know if we are the cause of global warming.

Answer 2

There is none just speculation on the part of scientist getting grants to 'prove' the theory with out hard evidence.

The seas have not risen in temps in the last 8 years contrary to the Day After Tomarow.

Sun Spots cycle through causing warming and cooling trends

There is not enough CO2 to make a difference

Carbon is not a pollutant

Man has no control over the Climate any more than control over the suns output.

Answer 3

There is an old saying that says "You don't teach a drowning man how to swim."

I think way too much attention is placed on the question:  "To what extent is human activity contributing to the warming of the planet."  The real question is "Given that it is obvious that our use of fossil fuels is impacting our environment, what can we do to minimize its effect."  You do not have to have a definitve answer on how much we are contributing to global warming, but rather only agree that it IS having an effect which we need to address.

Most people agree that we are putting way to much carbon into the atmosphere.  And contrary to what you and others say, we are able to track carbon concentrations in our atmosphere over very long periods (100 of 1,000 of years)   by studying ice core samples in the Arctic.

While it clearly shows that our climate has fluctuated in average global temperatures over the eons, and that these changes can be explained in many non-man made ways, it is also indisputable that our rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere are so striking (almost perfect correlation with rise in industrial activity) as to be inescapably linked to such activity.

It ultimately doesn't matter which came first, the chicken or the egg - we have to reduce our emissions.

As to your assertions about sunspots, getting out of the ice age with no industry, and being better off with a warmer planet being good for agriculture, I submit that these are simply opinions without any basis in fact, scientific research theory or expert concurrence.

Man made contributions to global warming is not crumbling and the sunspot idea is pure blather.

Finally, I have a question for the questioner.  Why are people who do not believe we are responsible for, or at least significantly contributing to global warming, so angry that there is a strong movement to address it?  It's like people who say that poor or sick people are not their fault so they should not be responsible for helping them.

PS to drjedicaptain:  You seem very focused on the ice age question and sarcastically ask if the Vikings produced enough CO2 to end the last one.  You unwittingly make our case when we say that you don't know what you are talking about.  You are suggesting that only man-made warming could have ended the last ice age.  Read up on the fact that the earth's axis is about 23 degrees tilted relative to the Sun AND this tilt is not constant;  the axis "wobbles" .  This "wobble" cycle is quite long (don't remember) but changes the incidence of sunlight and moves warm zones up and down on Earth's latitude.  This is one simple and well known contributor to past ice ages.

Answer 4

There's a mountain of evidence.  Don't believe me, it's in the links.

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...

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...

"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

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 5

There is no solid proof...  That is why they need more 'research' money, which has made this problem a money pit for this country.  With all of the real problems in this country, why do we need a fake problem?

I just don't get it!  If it were proven, without question, like these so-called scientists say it is proven, then they would need no further action.  The simple fact is that they are so desperate that their research ignores the facts against global warming and touts those very few facts that may support global warming.

It is a simple and natural cycle....  That is the absolute bottom line.  They have spent millions to say, it's not cosmic rays, it's not the sun and it's not natural.  When still, all of those factors cannot be ruled out.  They cannot even say what the 'right' temperature is and should be.  They can't even say that with all co2 gone and all the plants are dead, that it won't continue to warm.  They are creating a catastrophic nightmare from all aspects.  They are the nut cases, plain and simple.  

There simply aren't that many factories left.  The steel mills have virtually shut down, copper smelting is virtually gone from this country, textile mills have moved to China and Taiwan.  What is their goal?  When Mommy and Daddy don't have jobs to support them, how will they live?

Answer 6

There is a ton of data that clearly demonstrates the relationship between global warming and the activities of mankind. If you aren't aware of the evidence by now it is because you are an ostrich with your head in the sand. But don't feel bad about it. There isn't anything YOU can do to fix it anyway. Just sit back and smoke another doobie and watch some 'Star Trek' reruns.

Answer 7

Guyster, the Hockey Stick graph was discredited because it was proven that it ignored the actual data regarding the MWP. The Vikings were able to cross the Northwest Passage 1000 years ago, long before the Industrial Revolution. Yes mankind has an effect on GW. But termites do too! The point is that 0.0037% of ANYTHING in the atmosphere can't cause any major problems.

Now they say that it's not the sun, it's cosmic rays. lol. And of course, humans produce cosmic rays all the time, right?

Reducing fossil fuel usage is only good sense. But why do Liberals think they have to lie to us to make us do what is only economically rational? Remember what happened to the boy who cried 'wolf'.

Answer 8

i'm not reading all of it.. i'm just answering it on the subject.

how did we get out of the ice age if there isnt global warming??

my husbands friend brought that point up recently...

Answer 9

well, even if there was no proof, a basic risk assessment would indicate action was advisable

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hDHcNR-J6A...

Answer 10

You seem to have your mind made up and are emotionally angry toward the whole idea.  So anything, anyone posts, that doesn't agree with your prejudiced view (on a subject, you've probably not studied) will just be ignored.

But given my everlasting optimism, I'll throw out a few bones to answer you.  

Here's a good presentation (in simple enough terms that the average non-scientists can understand) of the evidence for global warming:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

Here's the science of global warming explained in more detail (at a lower-level college science level):

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03...

Here's a nice history of the science and how it developed over the past 100+ years:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summa...

And here's a bunch of sites that deal with many of the myths global warming doubters spread around the Internet (they aren't even bothered with in the real scientific literature):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07...

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

So, the decision is yours.  You can remain ignorant (and angry) about the subject of global warming.  Or you can put forth the effort to study it enough to understand it.  If you do, I'm confident you'll see that while not necessarily catastrophic, global warming is serious enough that we need to address it and prepare mitigation plans in advance (as many of the factors involved take decades to adjust).

Here's a few easy to access FAQ's from climate science research facilities:

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...



Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...



NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

Answer 11

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

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

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

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 12

You should read something about it.  You appear to not understand climatic physics.  Most of us don't.  But there is a preponderance of data suggesting at least *some* amount of the warming, probably most, is due to human activity.

The earth precesses on its axis every 26,000 yrs.  There are many complex cycles that affect climate, and affect the advance/retreat of the many ice ages we've had.  

"More animals would thrive" shows a lack of understanding.  It's actually the opposite.  If sunspots were the primary cause, you wouldn't see the "hockey stick", you would see steady 11-yr cycles in temperature.  But you don't.

One argument points out that CO2 increases have historically *lagged* behind temp.  The latest thinking is that a (probably unknown as yet) factor causes a small increase in temperature.  CO2 and other GHG's act as very strong *amplifiers* of temperature; they are not the initial instigator.

Go read something.

Answer 13

This is really a no brainer, we make carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and we've been steadily pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere for over 100 years, it's bound to raise the planet's temperature, this is freaking common sense people.