Can any global warming alarmist come up with some proof?

Hi Cindy,

I see that you are still as pissed off as I am, and trying to get some sensible answers from people without any sense.

The fact is that these idiots that believe that global warming is caused by CO2 gas also believe that man has to be responsible without any shred of evidence at all!

They are not only willing to show off their stupidity and arrogance, but actually seem proud to do so!

I got a bit of a kick the other day when I read this one young girls comments about the 'ozone melting' and some other similar crap.

The only reason that most people even know the word ozone today is because they hear it all the time.

When you ask someone what ozone is they have not got a clue.(I'm trying to control myself and my language).

I once was at the local pub and joined in a conversation with two regulars who were spouting off about 'Global Warming', and the hole in the ozone layer.

When I asked if either of them actually knew what ozone was one of them said that "all that I need to know is that without it we are all going to die and man is destroying it!"

This, as sad as I am to say, is the type of mentality that we are faced with!

These fools can not come up with any proof to support their claims because their is no proof!

In some ways I can't blame the general public for not understanding the facts and believing this crap since they only hear what is constantly being fed to them by the media.

Let's face it, most people also are not really interested in science either.

Give them something to worry about and they will suck it up quicker than a sponge. That also is a twisted part of human nature.

Basic science, or intelligence no longer seem to matter these days. All you need is a super inflated ego and a lot of Bull***t behind you.

I shall crawl back in my cave for a few more hours with my dogs to keep me warm.(since I can't afford to heat my house properly anymore!)

Take Care

The amount of convolution in the answers is overwhelming. Some of the people say that global trends can't be extrapolated from 10 years of temperatures over the last 150 years, a time when we were emerging from the little ice age. Then they say it can be extrapolated from the last 150 years over the last 3,000 years or even the last 4.5 billion years. In the 1970's, there was a lot of concern about a new ice age. You can see the temperature was declining since the 1930's until about the mid 70's. The news magazines and the news programs were full of stories about the next ice age. I know, I was there. It was presented as an inevitability, possibly the end of mankind, not something we had to try to stop, but maybe something to prepare for because we couldn't stop it if we wanted to. In this new age of narcissism, the Earth is perfect from the moment I was born and I must preserve this moment in time for the future of the human race because Man is now more powerful than any force on the planet and only I can change the future! Truth is, you and I are only Dust in the Wind.

Are you asking for proof that the greenhouse effect exists?

Earth would be 33°C colder if not for the greenhouse effect.

"The energy that is not reflected back to space is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240 Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation. Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the heat energy one feels radiating out from a fire; the warmer an object, the more heat energy it radiates.

To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_C...

Evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. But evidence can never "prove" a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory. Unlike math, all science is tentative. So no one can offer proof to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but only scientific evidence that supports the theory. Skeptics, however, can (if there were such evidence) prove the theory wrong, yet haven't.

With that preface, here's some evidence for you. Unfortunately, not all of it is available if you don't have access to the scientific journals (thus, I'll also provide a few less scholarly links):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/5/142...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/21/7465?m...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/31/10832

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/22/12753?m...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-do...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-do...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...

Non-scholarly links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/the-sc...

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/fa...

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/index.cgi?...

Edit:

Wow Cindy, you are quite the speed reader. Just over an hour ago, I post a link to 7 peer reviewed journal articles and 4 fairly extensive non-peer reviewed web-sites on global warming and you somehow manage to get through all those and declare with great certitude that none of us have provided even a shred of evidence. Hmm. Or is it possible that you don't even read the evidence we provide? NO, I'm sure that's not the case ;-)

Beginning in 1662, scientists found a beam of white light could be split into it's component colors with a prism. A scientists found that if he used a gas flame for a light source, burning n element or compound caused light and dark lines to appear in the rainbow, or spectrum. He also found that each element and compound produced a different pattern, that was reproducible. By the start of the 1800's, scientists were able to show that the dark lines represented colors (or wavelengths, or frequencies) that were absorbed by the substance, and the bright lines were colors emitted by the substance. It had also been shown that the violet end of the spectrum was higher energy, and the red end was lower energy. As the 20th century began scientists showed that other invisible light existed on past both the high and the low ends of visible light.

Astronomers used the unique relationship of light to each specific substance to determine the composition of stars and other planets. They also noticed that the position of the lines in the spectrum of a body moving away from us were found to be shifted toward the red, while the lines shifted toward the violet. This happens in the same way as the pitch of a train whistle changes as it passes. Countless other uses for the lines (or "spectra") have been found, but the most common is still finding out what things are made of. The exact color, or wavelength is usually described in units called "Angstroms". "Organic" (carbon-based) compounds were found to be not rare, but extremely common everywhere in the universe. Oxygen was found on Venus.

With the advent of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics it could be determined that the energy contained in a quantum of light (or photon) is equivalent to Planck’s constant multiplied by the frequency of light. This was applied to building lasers after WWII. These used the idea that as a substance was filled or "pumped" full of energy (usually in the form of electricity) the electrons moved from the "ground state" through an orderly series of electron shells and spin-flip states, each corresponding to a quantum of light. Upon reaching a maximum excited level the energy is released (as light) on the frequency of the emission spectra of the substance being used, and the electrons drop back to repeat the process. This causes "coherent" or orderly pulses of only one frequency. In the case of CO2, the frequency is in the infrared (heat) range, and is specific even to different carbon isotopes. CO2 heat lasers of enormous power were built and used to cut and weld thick steel. Smaller ones were used by surgeons. In both cases the gas gets tremendously hot and requires a cooling system. For the small medical lasers a circulating water bath is sufficient. For an industrial or military laser a refrigeration unit is needed.

Because of its properties, CO2 and other carbon compounds tend to inhibit the escape of heat from the earth's atmosphere. Because any loss of energy equals a shift toward the lower energy red and infrared end, light that enters the atmosphere as ultraviolet, or blue, green, yellow, etc. will tend to be converted to infrared as it is bounced around among objects, loosing energy all the time. Rising CO2 levels make it more and more unlikely that any given photon will escape. Human activity also generates quite a bit of heat also, as do many natural processes. Increasing CO2 equals higher temperatures.

If the idea of white light converting to heat bothers you, it shouldn't. There is an astronomical theory called "entropy", or the "heat death of the universe". It's the idea that all matter and energy degrades slowly and surely into heat, and eventually only heat will remain. It depends on which cosmology you like whether you find that likely, but it explains the concept well.

I think the recent news of major portions of the antarctic ice shelf falling apart, combined with the parts that have fallen off over the last year or so, were proof enough for me.

And I think a lot of the site out there have proven the point, it's just that certain people don't want to believe the point. Much like the so called 9/11 experts who keep trying to prove it was all some great and wonderful mass conspiracy. Some of the foil hat wearers will believe it and the remainder of us with a measurable IQ won't believe it. Unfortunately the foil hat wearers like to squawk a bit and continue to get press.

All the proof is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The latest IPCC report consolidates it all quite nicely in a very readable format.

I don't know how much chemistry you know, but you may want to read it and see for yourself.

But otherwise, it's very difficult to prove scientific concepts to people who have no knowledge of science.

In India there's an eye-opening proverb-weep before a blindman,lose your eyesight! Who in the government of any industrialised country is willing to see the truth?

The Bush Administration has blocked scientific evidence, policy debate and regulatory action for seven years. Although his oil buddies have done well in the short run, we are paying, many times over, in the long run. (They screwed the Public in the short run as well, but what's $500 billion among friends?)

I agree with Richard. Here's yet another helpful resource you may like looking at. There's lots of pretty colors.

http://globalwarmingkids.net/