Where is the evidence that humanity is causing global warming?

Question

The evidence suggests that the global temperature is rising. But, where is the evidence that it is caused by humanity. There is strong evidence this is just a cycle the world goes through. We came out of an Ice age 10,000 years ago the temperature has been rising ever since. Show scientific evidence that adheres to scientific principle. It must be observable, reproducible, and quantifiable and most of all be linkable to mankind.

Answer 1

My two cents...

Al Gore is a F@G!!!!!

Global warmign periodic cycle not caused by humans ya da ya da ya

Answer 2

How else do you explain the continuing depletion of the

ozone layer,for the first time in the world's history?

Answer 3

According to  a Researcher friend, there is absolutely NO evidence of Global Warming, except in Al Gore's mind.

Answer 4

I've pretty much quit responding to these kinds of posts, but it seems to be a slow day.  I'm going to ignore all your misstatements of fact.  I'm sure others will get to them.  Likewise I'm going to ignore your conditions.  People who are asking to be spoonfed have no business setting conditions.  Knowledge is pretty much a take it or leave it affair.  You don't seem like someone who's brain is so chock full of knowledge that every piece has to be carefully screened to avoid an explosion.   I'm not sure anything I've ever heard of would meet your criteria, but who really cares except yourself?  I'll be glad to tell you what I know about it.  You can decide for yourself if the bouncer at the door to your consciousness wants to admit it.

A scientist named Fourier showed in 1824 that a planet with an atmosphere will be warmer than the same planet would be if it didn't have an atmosphere.

A scientist named Tyndall showed in 1859 that not all gases affect heat retention to the same degree. Some are much more effective for this purpose than others.

A scientist named Arrhenius showed in 1896 that the CO2 being released by the then new industrial age would cause the temperature of the earth to increase to dangerous levels, if allowed to proceed unchecked.

Humans have raised the level of CO2 a measureable, but quantitatively small amount. Qualitatively though, the increase is around a 40% increase over the pre-industrial value. Estimates made in 1957 were able to accurately predict the increase that took place during the 20th Century.

Every doubling of CO2 has been considered to equate to an increase in temperature of 5-6°C based on bench top experiments of Arrhenius in 1896. These experiments are very reproducible. The observed rise in temperature of the earth's atmosphere has been more like 1 degree C, leading some to argue that the actual predicted rise should be more like 0-1 degree C. However, if you use the observed change in CO2 and the observed change in temperature you get a value of 2.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2, which is pretty much the commonly accepted value.

Rises of 4 degrees C above where we are now have in the past been associated with the six known mass extinctions but not other periods (not including the era before life on land). Humans evolved at the peak of the last ice age, and can handle a drop of 10 degrees easily. No higher form of life has ever survived a rise of more than 4 degrees.

Answer 5

did you realise the weather is rather weird this year? when it suppose to be sunny, it's raining..do read national geographic dude!

Answer 6

Well Venus is awful hot, it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 a greenhouse gas

Actually it is hotter than Mercury, and almost twice as far away from the sun

Why do you or anyone suppose that is? if it is not greenhouse gasses or CO2

Venus

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/Geor...

Mercury

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/Oles...

Answer 7

there is none. because we are not causing it. it is just that all of the gullible people in the world are buying into it without proof.

Answer 8

there isn't any hard evidence thats why the alarmists shout so loud

Answer 9

OK i am a skeptic about global warming and im here to defend our opinions. Watch a video called "The great global warming swindal" You'll see that carbon dioxide has 800 year lags behind tempreture and can't be the cause cause carbon dioxide is a product of tempreture rise

greenies would go on and on and on about co2, carbondioxiede, carbon emissions, carbon dioxide emissions, co2 emissions. Notice something? THERE ALL THE SAME THING FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. It's a fad that they try and keep you from bieng bored by changing the words.

Answer 10

dude dont you watch the news???

sea level rise in the south pacific....

the temperature changing every now and then....

goodness, observe your environment.....

Answer 11

all over the place people are just to hard headed to accept the evidences

global warming is only part of the equation  that threatens us

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Global warming is  a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources , air pollution,Non sustainable Agriculture,over pumping carbon aquifers

all concepts which are definitely not part of the Natural Processes of the Natural world

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

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR,

The most prolific growth on this planet is part of the day in the mist and most of the time under clouds ,and the least growth is always directly in the sun .

To exchange the one for the other means changing local climates

We are exchanging Nature with Tar , concrete and open spaced mono cultures.

In 300 years half of the planets forests have gone ,and in the last 50 years half of the wet lands ,and rain forests

These Areas absorb heat during the day and release heat at night ,

Cause cloud formation(shade).humidifying the air on the surface as well as releasing excess water at the roots that keep rivers flowing ,which in turn brings more water into the Environment .

As well as contributing to absorbing carbon emissions as do the leaves of the trees together with the oceans .

All in all many factors which directly affect the local Environment .

The loss of the above resulting in rivers drying up ,less rain ,desertification,loss of habitat for many species and so on.

dryer and hotter surface environments which can manifest in different weather patterns such as tornadoes or bush fires

I may be stupid or Naive but somehow i believe that lots of these local environmental changes, can add up to affect global weather, If there are enough of them (and there are)

And then on top of that comes the story of the effects of pollutants released into Nature and especially the Air ,by MAN http://earthissues.multiply.com/photos/a...

A cocktail of events and a lot of the ingredients have MAN written all over them

So it is safe to assume that we should look at ourselves ,just a teeny bit ,for possible improvements ,and rectifying Eco errors that are with in our powers.

What is a safer bet

to be or not to be

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

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

Answer 12

I think that an answer regarding our ozone is the best you can hope for....They don't have much else...

Then you will have some that will come along and mention something along the lines of "its basic physics", or "radiative transfer is well understood". You can discount anyone who says either of those two things--it is quite apparent that they know nothing of the physics.

Then someone will say something about different scientific organizations' announcements and the IPCC reports--those two things are a cop out for not being able to find evidence themselves. They don't know anything either.

Next, they will point to various "fingerprints", but hopefully they know that each "fingerprint" they bring up can easily be explained by various other forcings (and their feedbacks). But of course they become excellent hand wavers at any mention of a troposphere warming as fast or slower than surface temperatures, or when you say something about how the oceans have not warmed for at least 4 years, meaning no radiative imbalance at the moment.

Maybe some clever warmer will point to the Harries et al 2001 paper as "proof" of man's influence. With statements like that it is apparent that they haven't actually read the paper. If they had, they would know that most of the changes in outgoing radiation were due to methane and CFCs, and that the change in outgoing radiation due to CO2 was so small, that it was WELL within the margin of instrument error--the author implies as much several times in the paper.

And finally, when they know they have nothing left, they start reaching for the last thing they can find--consensus. It means nothing without the evidence.

Answer 13

Would you know what you were looking at if data was given to you? My guess is you would still be a denier. It's a good thing scientists are doing the real thinking.

Answer 14

I must say that I'm NOT a skeptic, I believe that human activity has something to do with the recent rise in global temperature (although i'm still not sure if we are the prime cause, or we're only making a natural phenomenon worse)

Having said that, unfortunately I don't think there is a single hard solid evidence that actually shows the recent runaway global warming effect to be caused by human activities.

All we have are trends in temperature rise showing a significant climb in global temperature coinciding with the industrial revolution and accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, as my statistics lecturer always said, corellation does not mean causality... Just because two pieces of data corellates with each other, it does not mean they are causally linked...

So, as an answer to your question, I don't think there is a solid  undisputible, observable, reproducible, and quantifiable evidence at the moment...

therefore, I think further in-depth research are definitely needed to ascertain and quantify the direct impact of human activity on the global temperature rise in the past decade...

(e.g. by doing controlled long-term lab experiments)

but I bet even if somebody found a solid evidence, there will always be skeptics and critics,

since falsifiability is the basis of modern scientific approach (a scientific hypothesis needs to be falsifiable) and therefore this would attract others trying to falsify the result of the experiment.

However, even though no one found any evidence, I'd rather stay on the safe side by trying to limit my carbon footprint :) and i'd advice others to do the same...

well... you never know...

Answer 15

I love how some people say run away global warming. Really? Where the heck do these people live? Surely not on the same planet I'm living on. Up here in Minnesota we are worrying that our northern most lakes will still have ice on them during our fishing season opener, this coming weekend. To me that's solid evidence that global warming is starting to shift in the opposite direction. Oh the funniest thing about it was the news casters were blaming it on global warming.

Answer 16

Some believers quote a partial proof, like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increaseing CO2 must increase warming - of course there is no proof that the temperature rise will be enough to measure.

The only complete proof is the existance of the alleged consensus, which is another way of saying, it must be true because a lot of people believe in it.  Kind of like the emperors new clothes.

Answer 17

Let's see..what are the factors that would cause this, that are different than the factors 10,000 years ago....hmmmmmmmmmmm....HUMANS and their laziness and greed!!! Humans makes things that emit greenhouse gases into the air. Humans procreate and over populate the world and make MORE humans that are lazier and greedier, thus perpetuating the problem. If I could show  you scientific evidence..I would..but I'm not a scientist. Read a book.

Answer 18

AGW is simply fad-Science and an Invention....it provokes Fear, causing folks to spend money to alleviate that fear, which in turn makes the perpetrators of that Fear wealthy, by selling the 'remedy' for their 'Invention' to the poor fools who are clueless enough to drink the Kool-Aid.