Question:
Can you provide a comprehensive list of the empirical evidence supporting AGW?
Dana1981
2010-02-19 09:15:44 UTC
AGW deniers continue to claim there's no empirical evidence supporting AGW, even when such evidence is put right in front of their noses.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100218132212AAmAkld&r=w&show_comments=true&pa=FZB6NWHjDG3N56z6v_2wWED_bcUXme3fFywhzrKrZFc8lGLKrWcbWg--&paid=add_comment#openions

And then they wonder why we call them deniers.

So I thought for future reference, perhaps we could have one question to refer to where we provide a comprehensive list of the empirical evidence supporting AGW. What would you put on that list?
Eight answers:
Benjamin
2010-02-19 12:11:12 UTC
I. Humans are responsible in the nearly 40% recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.



We know this because (A) humans have burn enough fossil fuels to raise the atmospheric CO2 level to above 500 ppm. The only reason why the concentration is not as high as this is because the ocean acts as a buffer, or a sink, that swallows up some of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses. As the oceans become warmer, they will absorb less gas and will begin to release more of their stored greenhouse gasses.



(B) Burning fossil fuels changes the ratio of naturally occurring carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this is an unstable carbon isotope. Carbon-14 is usually formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.



Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, when compared with the atmosphere. This is because fossil fuels are derived from plant matter. Plants preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.[1]







II. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.



The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier nearly 200 years ago. John Tyndal published laboratory results[2] identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements[3][4].



The greenhouse effect is caused by an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation. This energy first reaches Earth in the form of visible and UV light. Some of this light is reflected back into space by clouds and light-scattering particles before it reaches Earth’s surface. The light energy then reaches Earth providing warmth for sunbathers and energy for photosynthesis in plants.



Once this energy warms the planet, it is then reflected off of Earth and back towards space in the form of longwave energy, or infrared light. Some of this infrared energy escapes into outer space, and some will be absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere. Most molecules in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen, can not absorb this infrared energy. Greenhouse gases (CO2, H2O, and CH4) are "tuned" to absorb energy at infrared wavelengths. Absorbing energy "excites" these greenhouse molecules.



The excited molecule can reemit the infrared wavelength. Or, the energy is released from "excited" greenhouse molecules through collisions with other molecules. Such collisions will transform the energy to heat; some of the heat is lost to space, some is directed downwards and warms earth's surface even more.







III. The Troposphere is warming faster than the surface.



Because greenhouse gases interact with infrared radiation in the atmosphere, the Troposphere should warm faster than the surface. According to NOAA, the mid-troposphere is warming 20% faster then the surface.[5]



Now, originally, the UAH analysis of the satellite data showed the troposphere to be cooling globally (which contradicted the surface record) and this was a major "skeptic" talking point. Then, a longer record and corrections for problems in the analysis, such as the neglect of orbital decay of the satellites, turned the global cooling trend into a global warming trend. However, the troposphere warming trend wasn’t measured to be as strong as at the surface. Again, this was still a major "skeptic" talking point. With a still longer record and further corrections (along with a completely independent analysis of the satellite record by the RSS group) show that the trend found by satellites matches that predicted by AGW theory. Now, the "skeptic" talking point has become the trend in the tropics because there is still uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. No doubt, when that is resolved, they will find something else to point out. No matter how little the "gaps" in our understanding of the data, there will always be someone there be say, "The evidence disproves AGW!"[6]







IV. The Stratosphere is cooling



The temperature of the Stratosphere has been measured by weather balloons from the 1950’s to 2000, and by satellites since the 1970’s. The lower stratosphere appears to be cooling by about 0.5°C per decade. This cooling is the result of less infrared radiation reaching the Stratosphere because greenhouse gases have been “captured” by greenhouse gases lower in the atmosphere.[7]







V. Downward longwave radiation has increased



A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide[8]. More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect[9].



Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases[10]. The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."[11]
2016-04-15 14:03:39 UTC
Empirical evidence can't generally be used to support necessary truths, which can only be axiomatic or analytical. I can give you a reverse ontological argument if you like. Strictly defined perfect terms fail to refer to things which literally exist, i.e. which have an instance. For instance, there are no true spheres and no perfectly flat surfaces. Such things only refer to mathematical or logical objects. It is a mistake to use language as strictly in the physical world as in mathematical or logical realms. They are purely conceptual and cannot exist. The concept of God is as a perfect being. Perfection only exists in the imagination. Therefore, God only exists in the imagination. Here's another more empirical one. Quantum physics holds that facts such as location, direction and spin are not determined until they are observed. Since they are undetermined before being observed by an experimenter, there is no omniscience. Therefore there are no omniscient beings. Another possibility: God is not part of the physical Universe because it depends for its existence on God. Hence God is not physical. A non-physical substance cannot interact with a physical one without an intermediary substance, but in order to do that, there must be another intermediary substance, and so on ad infinitum. A concept of God is a relationship between a physical object, the brain, and God, so it's an interaction. Therefore, God cannot interact with the brain and there can be no true concept of God. Therefore, God cannot exist. There is a possible world in which God does not exist. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, and there is no God. Not really empirical, but they're works in progress.
MTRstudent
2010-02-19 13:50:30 UTC
I believe that 3 things need to be demonstrated.



1) The rise in greenhouse gases is caused by humans

2) This causes an imbalance in heat flow (a 'radiative forcing')

3) The climate sensitivity, or equilibrium change in temperature to a given change in heat flow, is of the order of 2-4.5C for a change in heat flow equivalent to a doubling of CO2 under current IPCC models.







If these 3 are true, then the conclusions and proejctions of IPCC working group I are correct.





1) is pretty obvious.



2) can be shown with both model results relying only on basic physics and with observations from ground stations (eg Philipona et al, 2004) and satellites (eg Trenberth, 2009). Links to references here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm



3) is still up in the air, but I think there's a lot of compelling evidence for it from model results, observed temperature changes and palaeoclimate studies. References here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Eric c
2010-02-19 11:19:55 UTC
Here are some interesting quotes from the book "When Prophecies Fail". Sentences in brackets are my commentary:



"Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions or beliefs."



”A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources.(He is not a real climatologist, Richard Lindzen is a liar, He is in the pockets of big oil etc etc) Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. (No theory can be considered full proof if the data does not match the theory ie no statistically significant warming since 1995. You still maintain that it is full proof)

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong convection, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. (you believe that decarbanizing the economy is good for humanity regardless is AGW is true or not) Qw are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.



"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that has irrevocable actions because of it; finally suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge , not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting others to his view."



Let us begin by stating the conditions under which we would expect to observe increased fervor following the disconfirmation of a belief. There are five such conditions:

(1) The belief must be held with deep conviction and must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves

(2) The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. I general, the more important such actions are and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief

(3) The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.

(4) Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding that belief.



The first two conditions specify the circumstances that make the belief resistant to change. the third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand point to factors that would exert a powerful pressure on the believer to discard the belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation. We must therefore state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.

(5) The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of discomfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to prostelyte or persuade non-members that the belief is correct.”



(Which is exactly what this question is attempting to do)
Don't Panic
2010-02-19 10:44:15 UTC
I would demonstrate these things:



1) the scientific fact that is the greenhouse effect along with man made greenhouse emissions.



2) measurements of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses.



3) measurements of temperature



4) the fact that temperature measurements are consistent with predictions



5) measurements of solar radiance
~QT~™
2010-02-19 18:13:53 UTC
I. The oceans are warming:

If the Earth is warming the majority of the excess heat is expected to go towards warming the oceans. Because the oceans have a very large heat capacity (1,000 times that of the land and the atmosphere) their overall temperature is not easily affected. Hence, any short-term weather pattern wouldn’t affect their temperature. So, if the oceans have been continuously warming over a period of about 50 years we can conclude that the earth is experiencing a long-term warming trend.



All the data collected since 1955 shows that the oceans are warming quickly, with a great amount of increase just recently. Lyman et al. (2006) report a measured increase in the heat content of the upper 750 m of the world oceans by 8.1 (± 1.4) x 10^22 J between 1993 to 2003, followed by a decrease of 3.2 (± 1.1) x 10^22 J between 2003 and 2005. Willis et al. (2007) corrected this with the finding that the cooling was an artifact attributed to instrument bias. Incorporating this correction to their data they found the oceans experienced a warming between 1993 and 2005 that required an average rate of warming of 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 over the Earth’s total surface area. An important note is that while the cooling was attributable to an artifact, the measured heating of the ocean reported by Lyman et al. between 1993 and 2003 was real. [1]



Levitus et al. (2008) compared several independent studies of the ocean's temperatures. All the studies agreed that the ocean’s temperatures were rising. [1]



II. The atmosphere is warming:

The greenhouse effect occurs because greenhouse gases let sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms, then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn reradiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.



A recent study analyzed data collected by NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. Researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect.



Another study found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.



2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. [2]



III. Weather isn't climate:

Many deniers argue that global warming can't exist because of the cold temperatures. What they don't understand is that weather isn't climate. The weather in an area is always changing. However, the climate of a region generally remains the same.

Due to the atmosphere's low heat capacity, its easily effected by short-term weather patterns, unrelated to global warming. Even though the ocean has a higher heat capacity, it too is sometimes effected by short-term weather patterns.



For example, many deniers believed that global warming stopped in 2008.Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York City, found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. However, most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm. Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. [3]



The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña. [3] However, temperatures would rise again in 2009, even though 2009 wasn’t a El Niño year. This shows that the recorded cooling (in 2008) was only a short-tern weather effect.



"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated." [2]



IV. Global warming isn't caused by Earth's internal heating:

Many deniers of AGW argue that global warming is caused by Earth's internal heating, which is caused by radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. We can assume that these isotopes are not uniformly distributed within the Earth’s interior and that they move around as internal convection occurs.



Deniers argue that there is a possibility that isolated concentrations of radioactive isotopes are brought together by this convective motion and this would lead to increased levels of radioactive decay.



However, upon further examination this is clearly not the case. The global warming effects we are witnessing have been widespread and have been occurring on a short time scale, even by human standards. This does not lend itself to the idea of a large amount of convective activity bringing isolated concentrations together within the Earth’s interior, an activity that would require a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.



Even if this activity had occurred in the past such that the effects were now being witnessed, this effect would not be something that manifests itself suddenly or uniformly. Infrared measurements of the Earth’s surface have not revealed widespread areas of unusual heating. There are isolated hotspots, but they are limited in scope, both in spatial dimensions and in temperature variations. Spots such as these do not produce enough heating to have resulted in the temperature increases, or to even produce anything other than an extremely small fraction of this observed heating. [1]



V. Global warming isn't caused by solar irradiance:

Measurements show that solar irradiance has decreased over this period. [4]



VIII. Man-made emissions, not natural emissions, are causing GW:

Studies have shown that approximately 45% of all anthropogenic emissions are absorbed every year [Barker and Ross (1999)]. Every year, humans release 30 billion tons of CO2.This would increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by approximately 165 billion tons between 1993 and 2003. This would mean that during a ten-year period, manmade emissions have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by an amount equal to the total amount of gases emitted by all volcanic sources over a period of more than 650 years. [1]
Richard the Physicist
2010-02-19 11:39:15 UTC
Here you go Dana. This is probably more than people can handle, but it is the science. So much for not having enough data to act.



http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/pdf/ngeo338.pdf



http://www.nature.com/earthsciences/index.html



http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp



http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=climate+change&submit=yes&go.x=0&go.y=10



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html
andy
2010-02-19 10:00:45 UTC
Considering Dana that all your side has is raising CO2 levels and the assumption that it causes the raise in temperature. Can you proof that it isn't natural with man just adding to the temperature increase? Also, how come the GISS data uses one of the cooler periods of the 20th Century as it's baseline instead of say a 150 year rolling average?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...