Where do I find experimental scientific proof that Human CO2 emissions drives the Earth’s Climate?’?
I have studied the NASA, NOAA and other reference sources that back anthropogenic global warming but have not encountered experimental scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are the driving force for global warming.
There are countless such papers that show the opposite. For example the research done by Henrik Svensmark et al regarding cosmic rays and shoeing how cloud cover has a huge effect.
Any debates here on this forum, specifically by Dirac and Solar Wind leads one to believe the science is not settled. In fact Solar Wind, who cites Svensmark’s research and with the video by J. Postma explaining away the energy budget diagram and its transgressions seems more believable. Especially when you consider the observation evidence outside our front doors.
Dirac, you say it is dangerous to do experiments to prove CO2 is the main driver, come on, what a cop out statement. The rest of your response, is vague and jumbled. I think Graphic's response to you with Feynman's quote, is right on.
As for debunking Solar, I have read a lot of the "to and fro debates" between you two and I don't see where you debunked anything he put forth.
Real Climate Science vs Fake Political Science
Dirac, why do you always tell people to take a course? You skimmed through a valuable physics lesson, I think you better learn some physics and watch the full video. I think you are just trying to confuse the issue by submitting nonsense, that goes for Realist too. Stupid answer Realist.
- $@!ar W!ndLv 611 months agoFavourite answer
There is absolutely no experimental scientific proof that has passed through the Scientific Method verifying the IPCC's CO2 forcing claims.
Here is the forcing graph for IPCC's 5th report, note the red circled solar irrandiance forcing, a complete farce. Notice also there are no galactic cosmic ray forcing, no cloud forcing, ocean forcing, solar and planetary orbital forcings.
Common sense tells you that any climate models that are created using their forcing chart will be absolute "garbage". Also all their alarmist claims regarding catastrophic global warming is bogus.
Dirac, you skimmed through the video and you missed where Postma points out that the K/T diagram uses the output formula as the input, thus creating the 33 degree temperature shortfall. Therefore forcing them to invent their own alarmist physics to compensate for the huge error. Climate Realist/Yushless - LOL!!
- 11 months ago
I believe that the nearest thing to experimental proof is from climate models.
However, they are not to be believed. Scientists start from "science" so they assume that CO2 causes warming. Then they make a model that shows that CO2 causes warming then they use that model to say "I told you so!"
- CowboyLv 611 months ago
It's all around ya bubu - if you can't see the **** already hitting the fan, go shoot yourself. The nation will thank you...
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- DiracLv 411 months ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental scientific proof" or why you think that Svensmark has any such proof. Look, the planet has been steadily warming for the past 50 years or so. No actual scientists argue against that anymore--that is seen in measures of global temperature from NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre, the Japan Meteorological Agency, Berkeley Earth, the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, to name so of the more famous agencies. Since it is warming and the warming exceeds any possible measurement error, there has to be a cause. Scientists call those things that might cause a change "forcings". Solar Wind shows a chart that compares various forcings and you'll see that greenhouse gases are the largest. The solar forcing is small not because solar radiation is not important--it's what drives all the weather on Eaerth--it's because CHANGES in that solar radiation are small.
As I said before, I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental" proof--we can't run experiments on the Earth's climate system without lots of confounding factors, and it would be a dangerous thing to do anyway. We actually ARE running such an experiment, by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and the results are as we'd expect--the temperature is going up and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also going up. We also see changes in incoming and outgoing radiation as we'd expect from increasing the CO2. If you want a more straightforward "experiment", then you should download a climate model (you can do that) and run numerical experiments where you vary the amount of CO2 and see what happens.
What you call a "debate' between Solar Wind and I is not really that, since most of what Solar Wind says is in conflict with the laws of physics and even simple geometry. Solar Wind rejects the greenhouse effect entirely, this is a view that is rejected by 100% of climate scientists (even ones like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen). He doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics, and falsely claims the greenhouse effect is a perpetual motion machine--if a poll were taken, this would be rejected by approximately 100% of physicists, it's quite easy to see it's not a perpetual motion machine. I haven't seen any video by Postma trying to "explain away" the energy budget diagram, but it is something that is backed by observations, so you should be suspicious of anyone trying to tell you that the observations are wrong. If it's anything like what Solar Wind has posted before, I've thoroughly debunked it past answers.
EDIT: Chester, how much science do you know? Do you accept that the greenhouse effect is real? Because if you're questioning that (Solar Wind denies its reality), then what you need to do is to take some college level science courses As for the Feynman quote, it doesn't even appear that graphicconception understood it--it would be relevant if there were experimental evidence that showed that CO2 is not driving our current climate change, but there isn't. Either graphicconception didn't understand that the quote didn't apply, or else he was trying to turn it around to mean something it didn't.
Another edit: I just skimmed through some of Postma's video. He's apparently the one that came up with what I could the "double flat Earth diagram" that Solar Wind posts. Instead of taking the Earth as a sphere (like scientists like Trenberth do) he breaks the Earth into three regions: a night hemisphere (nothing wrong with that) and two other areas in the sunlit hemisphere that he approximates as having 960 and 480 watts per square meter. Why use this weird approximation? Why not just do things exactly using spherical geometry? It's not that hard, that's what climate scientists do. How does he come up with these values, does he just make them up? Is there any trigonometry involved? Who knows, it's not like Postma actually publishes anything. The funny thing is that you can get the EXACT answer without even having to use trigonometry, by recognizing that a circular disk with the same radius as the Earth will intercept the same amount of solar radiation that the Earth does. That's what Solar Wind calls the "flat Earth" approximation, because he fails to understand how to apply the mathematics correctly, when it's actually the exact answer you would get from doing an integral of the flux over the sunlit hemisphere.
- Climate RealistLv 711 months ago
Scientists have demonstrated that carbon dioxide influences Earth's temperature more than 150 years ago.
As far as such research as by Henrik Svensmark et al regarding cosmic rays and other studies on effects of factors other that CO2 are concerned, they just say that CO2 is not the only factor that influences climate, not that it is not a factor.
As far as the debates between Dirac and Solar Wind are concerned, Solar Wind denies such basic principles as the Law of Conservation of energy.
<As for debunking Solar, I have read a lot of the "to and fro debates" between you two and I don't see where you debunked anything he put forth.>
Really, Chester. Take a science course. Or, perhaps follow this link.
- JimZLv 711 months ago
I don't think even the most idiotic of climate scientists think CO2 drives Earth's climate. It obviously doesn't. In fact, temperature has driven CO2 concentrations in the past so the reverse its closer to true. This doesn't stop alarmists from claiming any change is due to our CO2 emissions. They are lying or they are wrong or both.
- RudydooLv 611 months ago
Hey Chester, you sort of answered your own question here, and it isn't a source of data, or scientific evidence you search for. There have been so many studies and research work, drilling ice cores in the arctic, accurately measuring sea temperatures, and on and on. In the third paragraph of your question you then state, "...explaining away the energy budget diagram and its trangressions seems more believable..."
Humans don't make decisions logically. If I asked you what 2 + 2 was, you would say 4. If I typed it into a calculator, it would give me the same answer in the same microsecond. If I asked the calculator what the square root of 174 is, it would also give me that answer in a micosecond, but it might take you 5 minutes to work out that answer with a pencil and paper. The human brain does not operate in a binary mode, it works to find patterns, and it frequently finds them where none actually exist, like dropping 100 pennies on the ground and seeing a cluster of them in one area that are all heads. You can give the answer to 2 + 2 so fast because in 1st grade you memorized your math tables, you don't have to picture 4 apples on the table for that one.
The "definitive" proof you look for is not something that should "seem" right or wrong, but all humans, including yourself, need to feel good about the proof, whether it's correct, or more accurately, correctly arrived at. Remember, it was just 1998 when a team of doctors and scientists stood on a stage on national TV and stated, "There is no proof that smoking cigarettes causes cancer." Did you believe that then? Do you now? Today the question is whether or not climate change is man made. Twenty years ago the question was, "Is there climate change?" Many people, most notably U.S. Republicans, were convinced there was not. Today even they believe there is, but we didn't cause it, and the natural conclusion is that there is no need to do anything about it since we aren't causing it. There are people in other countries that believe carbon emissions had nothing to do with climate change, but they do not belong to a particular religion, political party or sexual orientation, the division cuts across all classes pretty evenly. You are correct that the science is not settled, but what defines settled science? In our world, apparently, it's settled when most of us, "feel" the same about it. Personally I think we've already missed our opportunity to "do anything about it." We've been heavily carbonizing our environment since the late 1950's, only now is any measurable evidence becoming apparent to our patterned minds. My concerns are the same as they were in 1970, burning coal pollutes the air with particulates and chemicals, the water with mercury, and the ground water with arsenic, lead and selenium. These problems are enough to do something about it, why do we need other data? I applaud you for doing your research at NASA, NOAA and such. I suspect that as you continue to look into it, you will continue to find conflicting results, until one day you can decide that it looks like one result or another. Just remember that what appears to be definitive proof to you, won't to most other people. Most of us are too busy legalizing marijuana and outlawing vaping, for scientific reasons of course. Take care Chester, Rudydoo
- 11 months ago
You can't find any, because none exists. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a man made hoax. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere, CO2 does not trap heat.
- David B.Lv 711 months ago
The fact is that there have been warming trends on the planet when mankind could not possibly be responsible in any way.