With the amount of evidence that says global warming is man-made, how can anyone believe it isn't?

Question

Just as a few examples:

1) The planet is warming as much or more during the night as during the day.

2) The upper atmosphere is cooling as the lower atmosphere warms.

3) Solar output has decreased over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated.

4) No scientific study has concluded that more than one-third of the recent warming is due to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to solar influences.

5) Greater warming at higher latitudes.

6) Climate models have shown a high level of accuracy based on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

A denier asked the opposite question today, but provided zero evidence to support his claim. Here is just some of the scientific evidence supporting the AGW theory. With the amount of evidence that says global warming is man-made, how can anyone believe it isn't?

Answer 1

too many people think it's a government scam devised by the democrats or something.

Answer 2

No reasonable person can say that global warming is not occuring becasue many scientist's studies suggest that global warming is occuring.

Answer 3

You seem to be stuck on the same thing.  Everyone agrees that CO2 levels have gone up.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  If greenhouse gases are increasing (as everyone agrees), due to natural warming and emissions by humans, then the result is that those increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are responsible for moderating the coldest temperatures.  That in no way suggests that humans are responsible for significant warming, only that we increased greenhouse gases from the emissions of CO2 as the result of burning fossil fuels.  I think a conservative estimate of human emission is a 100 parts per million by volume of the almost 400 ppmV in the atmosphere.  This explains items 1,2 &5.  Regarding the solar output, you have to take into account the theories of magnetic disturbance and cloud formation.  

You also demand an explanation when the fact of the matter is our knowledge is limited.  You can manufacture computer models to suggest whatever you  want.  Why anyone would give them much credibility is beyond me but that is all the alarmist have to rely on.  

Remember what you are talking about. It is a degree.  The natural variation is far higher than human influence and huamn influence is impossible to quantify.  Trying to blame humans for something so miniscule is rediculous IMO

Answer 4

1) Yes. Faster warming during the nighttime indicates that this is a heat retention issue (consistent with AGW). If increased solar energy were the cause, you'd expect faster daytime warming (when the solar energy is hitting that side of the planet).

2) AGW predicts warming from the surface to the troposphere, and cooling in the upper portions (stratosphere) of the atmosphere. This is because greenhouse gases are keeping heat down and reducing infrared heating above.  Increased solar irradiance would have the stratosphere and troposphere warming (the opposite of what we measure).

3) Even though we have only 30 years of direct measurements, we have very good proxy measurements (agreements using mutliple techniques) going back over a 1000 years.  And while solar variation clearly can be seen affecting other climate changes, in the 20th century warming it's a minor factor overshadowed by anthropogenic forcings.

4) Shapeshi is incorrect  The IPCC doesn't do studies on their own, they merely analyze the mountain of peer-reviewed literature done by many other research organizations around the world and provide a summary (in effect) of the consensus view.  Many research organizations around the world have tried to determine the cause of the warming and a 90% confidence level that it's human caused has been reached by climate scientists from all over the world.

5) This is what the models predicted.  More land mass in the northern hemisphere causes it to warm faster than the southern hemisphere (given the oceans heat absorption ability).  And the northern latitudes are warming faster due to the decreasing ice albedo effect and the equatorial to pole wind patterns.

6) Though clearly not perfect, multiple independent models are indeed showing themselves to be fairly accurate.

Edit:

Eric C - No one says solar activity doesn't play a role in the history of climate change.  But that doesn't mean it's responsible for all climate change past, present, and future.  The Max Planck Society says it best: "solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming" (see link below)

Answer 5

It is Human made!!!

If you go back far in off,  the planet was very hot!!!  Yes  when it form!

LOL.

NO government wants to cut down on co2  they have to!!!

Answer 6

Well, you've asked this question several times in different forms. The last one was deleted; did you do that or was is the net nanny? I like to post to your questions because I figure lots from the other side will read with a prurient sort of interest.

This is not about science, ignorance, facts, logic or any other rational concept that you can get an absolute answer to. It's about human psychology. No amount of logic can overcome dogma. We have to find a different way to attack this problem. Scientists and environmentalists have been trying this tack for 40+ years and it is not working. I have no answer, but I think I have defined the problem.

I wish to present an instructive comparison.

There is absolutely no real, reproducible, extensible, non-inconsistent or peer-reviewed scientific evidence for Creationism. There is a huge body of pseudo-science built up over the past 150 years (since Darwin) by individuals with the incredibly focused motivation that to accept Darwin means to refute the Bible. And since to refute the Bible means the end of their belief system, they will go to any length, any extreme, to build an alternate belief system (Creation Science) that supports the dogma.

The science of Evolution has built up a huge body of evidence over the last 150 years. Is has been built by different scientists of different nationalities of different faiths working in different fields of science. It is extensible (consistent with other scientific domains), internally consistent (when the theory is challenged from different approaches it withstands the analysis) and peer-reviewed real science (assumptions, methodology, datasets and conclusions that are consistent with accepted scientific norms - the same norms that give us every bit of technology that works in the world today).

In comparison, the “science” of Intelligent Design (Creationism) is the result we get from of a small group of fanatical fundamentalist Christian hacks and cranks.

And you know what has happened? The idea of Natural Selection has expanded to other fields and then converged to become one of the most or possibly the most profound idea ever formulated in the history of science.

Einstein’s theory of relativity went through the same process. First disbelief. Then acceptance. Then finally irrefutable proof when the bending of light was measured during the eclipse in 1920.

The science of ecology is new, but it has built an impressive body of real, reproducible, extensible, non-inconsistent, peer-reviewed evidence over the last few decades.  The anthropogenic cause of environmental problems is now beyond dispute.  I believe Ecology will become the cornerstone of the new political economy and eventually become the most important science in the history of mankind.    

We are in the beginning phase of the process. Disbelief.

To begin to believe it means you have to accept that your belief system is flawed. The American Way, Capitalism, unlimited individual freedom, as great as it is, is creating the problem. Political freedoms, free markets and technology lifted humanity from utter poverty and deprivation to the incredible life we enjoy today (those of us lucky enough to live in the first world, that is).

What if political and economic freedom for individuals to do whatever they want without regard for the natural world is going to CAUSE the apocalypse? When you consider population, resources, the destruction of natural systems and the limit of the biospheres ability to absorb our waste - On the current trajectory global environmental collapse is inevitable.

Since the dawn of the environmental movement, deniers have been incredibly motivated to discredit the movement because to accept Environmentalism means to refute our very way of life.

To have to accept that your belief system is flawed is too difficult for many people to face.

Evolution challenges Genesis, therefore Evolution is blasphemous, abhorrent and evil and must be challenged and eradicated.

Environmentalism challenges Libertarian Democracy and cornucopian laissez-faire capitalism is therefore blasphemous, abhorrent and evil and must be challenged and eradicated.

Next issue - the difference between totalitarian collectivism (Communism) and democratic collectivism (Socialism).

Answer 7

1) No it is not, the planets temperature just plunged .75 C in thirty days, were was your CO2 to protect us?

2) The stratosphere shows no cooling, and in fact shows a warming tend over the last ten years.

3) No it has not, only when you include PMOD. ACRIM and other sources do not show a decline in solar activity until 2003.

4) I have showed you many times papers that can directly link TSI variations to at least 50% of the warming over the last century, without utilizing any feedback mechanisms.

5) Prove it, where is your data? The last time we crossed this path you could not provide it.

6) No they have not, were is the hotspot in the atmosphere that the radiative transfer theory demands, that should exists in the mid troposphere at the equator.

Answer 8

Man made AGW is a myth several qualified scientists have indicated as much.

Just to note one item that is not mentioned in your list that Pro AGW group  1st noted but appear to not note anymore is that CO2 increases led to higher temperature when this correlation was debunked by examining data coming from albeit less than standard and accurate weather stations.  

And to directly disagree with comment 3, solar activity, has not consistently  decreased. Yes there was lower solar activity in the 70s, same time that there were severe winters, although this winter may not be considered as severe as 70s, the local municipalities are running out road salt with a month more of winter to go. And at other times in the past going back 500 hundred years ago, there was a mini ice age. Going back further before man could only be accused of starting camp fires to cook the food they ate, the weather was much warmer.

Other sources to examine are noted in the link area.

Answer 9

It is becasue your information is from liberal sources before making an assumtion look at all the information. When you where in school I am sure one of your teachers put the word assume on the board and showed you what you can make from the word.

Answer 10

Just to answer your first point, you do realize that the sun always hits the earth, don't you? When it's nighttime in America, it's daytime in China, and vice versa. So, the sun's always hitting the earth.

Global Warming advocates talk about scientific consensus, but immediately disregard any scientist who disagrees with the idea of man-made global warming. There was a letter written to the UN, signed by 100 scientist, of all whom do not believe that global warming is man-made. But no one listens to them. Anyone who disagrees with the global warming movement is obviously paid off by "Big Oil," or some evil corporation.

Bottom line, there is not scientific consensus on global warming.

Answer 11

It's called "denial"

Answer 12

IT WILL ALL TURN INTO ANOTHER WAY FOR GOVERNMENT TO FIND MORE WAYS TO TAX US.  THE EVIDENCE AND THE MANY FACTS ARE THAT, THE SUN ,AND MARS ARE GETTING HOTTER AND THE MOON IS SLOWLY PULLING AWAY FROM EARTH. THAN THERE'S THE BIG EVENT COMING ON 12/21/2023 WHEN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 26,000 YEARS ALL 9 PLANETS WILL LINE UP TOGETHER, GOOGLE IT AND SEE WHAT SCIENTIST SAY COULD HAPPEN.

Answer 13

I concur with earlier comments by Ken, JS & Dr. Blob.  Your question has brought out attempts to deal with the question based on science from some of the other side, notably shapeshi, ecic, jim and tomcat.  This is an  encouraging sign.  I think that the inclusion of the word believe in your question is the key.  A better wording would be to accept the evidence rather than to believe.  Belief has the connotation of accepting a dogma in the absence of direct evidence or proof.

Answer 14

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2...

Solar activity has not decreased in the past 30 years as you claim.  The sun has been the most active that it has been for the last 10000 years.  If you this is insignificant?

There are many studies that show a correlation between the sun and climate. A lot of them say the sun has played a significant role in warming the earth. But none of them is going to quantify something that is difficult to quantify.  That would be irresponsible. Only scientists with political motives do such a thing.

For references to these studies see:

http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n

The studies that you support say that co2 alone without amplifications will cause a small temperature increase.  It is the amplification that is going to cause catastrophic consequences.  So if the solar scientists are correct and the sun has played a major role, the models will be off.

The troposphere is warming at a slower rate than ground temperatures.  For more info see this NASA web site:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headline...

Most of the none tree ring temperature proxies show the existence of the LIA.  The current warming is well within natural parameters of us coming out of an ice age.  That is why Mann wanted to get rid of it.

As for climate models being accurate, they have been way off base in what they said the temperatures would be like today.  Scroll down to the very bottom of this page and find out why only a computer illiterate believes in climate models.

http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n

Answer 15

A lot of people regard the evidence for man made global warming rather as a sales prospectus for a product that they are being told they should buy.  They know that the data is complex and are deeply suspicious because of this.  The more people that say it is a scam reinforces scepticism (no smoke without fire).

Answer 16

Let's put it as simple as this... oil companies basically have all the money therefore their in control of the government and how everyone thinks... You know why people despise american made cars so much, because they listen to those oil companies and make their cars less fuel efficient, that's why everyone buy's corolla's and other japanese cars, because unlike the U.S., Japan actually gives a **** about their environment...proof kyoto plan, to limit carbon use in every given country... There is no freaking conspiracy, you noticed in the full blown winter, NYC was 68 degrees, wtf was that... watch if we don't stop giving all this power to these oil companies, we'll end up like that movie "the day after tomorrow"

Answer 17

Not everyone is as educated on the supporting evidence, and the underlying science, as you are.  In fact, very few are.  They don't drive a Prius (as you do).  They'd have to come to terms with being "wrong".  Not everyone can handle that.

# 1, 2 and 5 may confirm that global warming is occuring as would be expected by carbon-based greenhouse gases, but that level of detail is probably above the technical knowledge of most of the people here (unless you explain it in far more detail in each question).  

Then there the people who do know the technical underpinnings of those points, but choose to still deny (as reflected in the responses).

The response from "eric c" is fascinating, since he provides a link from NASA Goddard that opens the door to some potentially interesting influence from the sun.  Too bad most skeptics here reject NASA Goddard (ROFLMAO)!  So much for NASA Goddard Director Dr. James Hansen's "bias" and the "global conspiracy" (of scientists, liberals, socialists, communists, space aliens, or whatever people who believe in that sort of imaginary rubbish believe).

This is one of the most interesting questions (and set of answers) in weeks.  I'll try to come back and respond in more detail (if it's not closed to answers first).

Answer 18

Dana, we have had a climate regime shift.  The planet is now cooling.   January 2008 was the coldest January in the last 40 years.  Arctic sea ice has returned to its former level.  Antarctic sea ice is continuing to grow.  The planet has not set any new temp records since 1998. How can you say the planet is warming?

Answer 19

1.  How can anyone determine when more of the warming happens?  Is this based on night time temperature records or something?

2.  How does this support agw?  Is it possible that the volume of gas added to the atmosphere causes warming at the surface by slightly increasing pressure?

3.  solar output cant "decrease over the past 30 years", thats less than 3 solar cycles, in which the peaks and minimums happen every 5 years respectively, meaning there really isnt much correlation to be seen in 30 years.  Ive also read articles from NASA stating the next maximum in 2011 will be quite strong.  It isnt the luminosity that changes, its the uv and xray output, and we arent quite sure how that effects the atmosphere, there are theories, but nothing solid.  Also, are you aware of the other solar cycles, the 88 year cycle, or the 200 year cycle?  Does the IPCC address those?  Did they study those, and try to determine their influence?  See, the IPCC only studies things regarding man made changes.  They arent interested in trying to find the natural causes.

4.  The only "scientific studies" done to try to determine what is causing what amounts of warming is done by the IPCC.  First of all, no one can try to determine what proportions of the warming are caused by what influences because we dont know what the natural influences are.  The amount, and distribution of cloud cover is constantly changing, something that NO computer will be able to predict.  Cloud cover can be effected by the solar cycles (theoretically).

5.  Again, what does this do to support agw, exactly?  If co2 is evenly distributed through-out the atmosphere, shouldnt warming happen more evenly?  Could variations in the strength of the north atlantic current  be the cause of this?  If you ever watch how the weather systems move across the north atlantic, you'll notice how they get carried north of great britain quickly, could the current be traveling too far north because of melting ice?  If so, there will be a tipping point in which there isnt enough ice to melt each year, in order to dilute the current enough to get it travel far enough north.  Eventually, the current will sink farther south of where it does now, causing the arctic to cool dramatically.  

Also, at higher latitudes, the sunlight is less focused, shouldnt there be less warmer there than at the equator?  

6.  How so?  Have you gone to the future to check?  Or are you trying to base this off of early predictions from 1988, in which 3 predictions were made, making it easier to be "right"?

Do you actually consider this evidence?  Because it sounds similar to an evolution vs. creation arguement, in which people use the bible to try to support creation.  Except in this case, the bible is the IPCC website....

Answer 20

Simmilar ammounts of warming have been recorded on mars and pluto.  95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources.  CO2 was ten times higher during the ice age than it is today.  In the last 500 million years there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.  Further more CO2 levels go up AFTER temperatures have gone up, not the other way around.  I've given links to some good videos in the source box.