The ice core data used in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, when examined more carefully (and Al knew about this at the time) shows that temperature changes first and then CO2 reacts many years later.
There is also evidence in the past of high levels of CO2 and extreme cold.
Yes.
There is a good summary with links back to the original scientific studies on Skeptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirica...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fi...
Satellites directly measure the stronger CO2 greenhouse effect trapping more heat. Meanwhile everthing else that we measure is not causing warming. The Sun, for example, has been cooling for the past 30-50 years.
There are also other 'fingerprints' you expect from CO2 caused warming, like warming down in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. If it were the Sun then you'd expect the upper atmosphere to warm, but it's cooling as predicted if CO2 is the most important feature.
We know how much heat CO2 is trapping, and we can see what the climate impacts of this are by looking at how the climate responds to other changes in heat. This lets us calculate something called 'climate sensitivity', and estimates of this from both theory and measurements show that global warming is being caused by CO2. This includes things like seeing how temperatures changed after volcanic eruptions, or how ice ages happened in the past.
Two interesting papers are Harries et al from 2001 which used satellites to directly measure the strengthening greenhouse effect:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...
"Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
and Knutti and Hegerl from 2008 which brought together lots of different observations of climate to work out how much warming you get from CO2 (if 'climate sensitivity' is above about 1.5 C, then most of the recent global warming is man-made):
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1...
"Climate sensitivity, [is] the global equilibrium surface warming after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration"..."Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C."
Well CO2 does cause some warming at very low levels, but at 396ppm nearly all the warming is done as CO2 is saturated, the models are obviously wrong, and it also said that there should a tropical troposphere hot spot with global warning, and there is not, so no evidence.
The planet Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2 and its a balmy 467 degrees C at the surface.
Well we just had the warmest decade since record keeping began 133 years ago. This was based on real time temperatures from 1300+ monitoring stations around the world and satellite measurements. So, models weren't needed
The models hopefully we give us indications about what to expect in the future. granted, they aren't very accurate, that is why only you DA deniers bring them up. The rest of us don't rely on them. Quit before you get further behind
"This was based on real time temperatures from 1300+ monitoring stations around the world and satellite measurements. " This from Big Syph.
When you ask where they actually were, who collated them and other very basis questions you end up with a blank wall of silence.
yes, the paleo record. look up PETM and ice cores for example.
EDIT: Kano's claim of saturation does not work well on Venus which provides a great non-model example of global warming on another planet.
Yes Al Gore's movie, which I might add, is also a proven fraud.
The glaciers are melting.
