Yes Gravity has been proven to exist? Want Proof? Drop something... Defining exactly what the force of gravity comes from has not yet been fully defined, however we know of at least 12 of the variables involved.
Yes we have PROVEN Atoms exist. Want a demonstration? Review the periodic table.
Yes we have PROVEN electricity exists. You want a demonstration? Find an electric light or a motor or anything else that runs on electricity.
The real trip up here is what do you consider "detrimental?"
There are plenty of ways increased CO2 concentration in the admosphere impacts certain reactions in ways that are generally considered negative. But, as with any global systemic change there are bound to be advantages too. The real issue should be what is going to change, not wether you or I consider any of those things to be good or bad.
Life is all about change. No time in observable history has Earth's surface been free from environmental change. The Sun emits varying amounts and types of radiation and we are just beginning to understand how and why. Simply expect change, and adapt to it. The surface of our planet has been warming since the ice age, and has only fairly recently hit a bit of a plateau in this trend.
CO2 does trap a little more warmth in the atmosphere, changes the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry a little, and will certainly continue to rise in concentration a while longer. Is that bad? Is water bad?..
Dave, Too funny. The CO2 concentration on Earth has been as high as 7000 ppm and even the jurassic period saw CO2 concentration at 2200 ppm. Perhaps the sky is not really falling.
Pegminer,
There is also strong evidence that CO2 and a warmer climate would be beneficial to crop production which I would think is that main determining factor of its affect on man. Your strong evidence is for sea leve rise created problems and some species that would be slow to adapt to changes. You have some evidence (I consider weak) for increases in problematic weather (like hurricanes) and changes to some environments (like flooding or droughts).
Otherwise, I agree that there is no such thing as proof in science and this question is anthropomorphizing Earth. But that being said, I cannot count how many times I have heard that evolution is a fact. Or how many times I have been asked for proof God exists (as I am a deist). You know very well that they generally mean compelling evidence when they say proof. Of course, this is the problem with the entirety of this debate. How do you define compelling? How do you define "catastrophic"? What are the accepted facts?
You see Dave's answer. Surely you know he is wrong. Now why do you suppose that he would think this way? You may think I am wrong for attacking alarmism, but alarmism is every bit as wrong as believing nothing is happening. It is, however, more dangerous. Actions done in panic are frequently worse than no action at all.
There was once a consensus that everything in the sky revolved around the earth and there was math and science to back it up at the time.
The level and understanding of the cosmos back then is about the same level and understanding the AGW cultists have on our climate today. Back then religion was a major driving force of the theory that everything in the heavens revolved around the earth and today religion is a major driving force behind AGW theory. What the 2 have in common besides that is those ardent supporters of the religions think that humanity was the center of the universe. Only difference today is these people think humanity has the power of god over nature.
Oh the vanity.
As for the question there is real world evidence that the exact opposite s true. CO2 is a benefit to all life on earth in more ways than one. A warmer world is a more biodiverse world. Plants are the base of the food chain for almost every ecosystem and CO2 is the food for that base.
Jeff Engr illustrates very well the problem with the scientific illiterates: they think that dropping an item is proof of gravity or that the existence of the periodic table is proof of the existence of atoms.
There is no such thing as Scientific Proof. The validity of scientific claims (aka hypothesis; not to be confused with theories) needs to be tested with the Scientific Method. Only when that has been done numerous times and there consists a consensus (there's that 'terrible' word again) among all the scientists from all the scientific fields involved, only then can we speak of Scientific Evidence supporting a Scientific Theory (not to be confused with a normal theory).
The fact that an electric motor can run on electricity doesn't prove anything for 'electricity' stands for everything scientists know up until now about the phenomena involved. If tomorrow a groundbreaking discovery is made which overturns our understanding up until now of 'electricity', then surely that 'scientific proof' was false. It is a far-fetched idea, particularly given the scientific subject and the amount of research, scientists and scientific fields involved, but Science as a whole does not deal in Absolutes: therefor it does not use the term 'Scientific Proof' (only Law does) and it recognizes that nothing in Science has ever nor will ever be proven with 100% certainty. Even gravity or atoms or electricity.
Or high-levels of CO2 being detrimental.
To pegminer:
<< I wonder how well that "proof" will work at the international space station?>>
I am afraid he'll ignorantly argue that since one cannot drop anything inside the Space Station, there therefor is no gravity in Space (totally ignorant of course that it is mostly gravity keeping the space station around the earth).
Science rarely finds "proof". Rather it looks at the possible causes, and evaluate the probabilities. For AGW the only cause that still seems probable is Man. See wikipedia. It seems that all known causes of temp. change have been considered. The science could be wrong, of course.
James: For the Earth centric universe there was no math, just very primitive science, and strong theology. But yes, they were wrong. It took Newton to give a good theory as to a heliocentric universe.
And water is good for life, until you drown.
Sagebrush: The Earth will still be here, despite the Co2 level. At issue is whether life on Earth will remain relatively unchanged.
It is ironic that Jeff Engr--who blatantly lied about science in this question:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
would attempt to lecture Gary F (an ACTUAL scientist) about what "proof" is in science. Don't you love the way he "proves" that atom exist--because there is a periodic table! That's great Jeff Engr, so if I make a chart that classifies something, such as music type or my mineral collection, does that prove that music and minerals are atoms also? And his "proof" of gravity--drop something! I wonder how well that "proof" will work at the international space station? If they do that, can they prove that gravity doesn't exist?
Actual proofs only exist in mathematics--and even those proves rely on the existence of postulates, which are NOT proven.
Asking for proof that CO2 is detrimental to Earth is anthropomorphizing the Earth in the first place. High levels of CO2 can be detrimental to human existence, though. There is strong evidence that increased levels of CO2 would only come at huge costs--both financially and in human lives. I wouldn't expect Sagebrush to understand these things, though--he's the one that claimed that colder climates occur toward the poles because they're farther away from the sun!
EDIT for Raisin Caine: Good point, I am sure there are lots of California farmers that are praying for CO2 at this very moment.
Define high level.
Define detrimental.
You mock people for their low standards of 'proof', so kindly define exactly what you mean by these terms so we might provide an answer that meets your high standard of scientific rigor.
High CO2 levels are detrimental to the health of shell-forming lifeforms living in the sea.
as CO2 levels go up , so do global temps . earthshottest period was the 100 million year carboniferous epoch when even the arctic was tropical , CO2 levels went as high as 363 ppm .
on 12 21 12 atmospheric CO2 hit 400 ppm . this is the point of no return . the earth WILL go into an irreversible , permanent greenhouse effect . we turn into venus - 800 degrees F at noon . it will happen rather fast . by 2023after 5 years of worldwidecrop failures , food will be made from people . b the 2030s the seas will boil off into space and humanity turns to dust . mone won't help , the secret government bunkers won't help , the deniers die too .
see you on the other side
You're probably not understanding what scientific proof is, and what a scientific theory is. Scientific theories make predictions. These predictions can be tested, measured, etc.
Scientific theory predicts increased CO2 emissions increases global warming.
"Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2." http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirica...
Is increased warming detrimental to the earth? I assume you mean life on earth. One example - Australia's already stressed Great Barrier Reef, which not coping with increased temperatures:
"Not only will shrinking coral reefs diminish the annual $6 billion reef tourism industry and the 63,000 jobs it supports, there will be other impacts..." http://interactive.guim.co.uk/next-gen/e...
Science is always contradicting itself. That's why we don't depend on them to define what our Constitution means.
Just because they have reason to believe that the planet was more arid and had much more life 250 million years ago when CO2 levels were 5 times higher doesn't mean that it was good for the planet according to them.
What if more CO2 was proven to be more beneficial because it does warm the planet and help all of life out? Will they continue to refute that evidence?
No one has ever proved the existence of atoms, electricity, or gravity. Try asking a question that makes sense.
=====
Jeff Engr –
There is nothing as hilarious as the arrogance of a scientifically illiterate nitwit Denier shamelessly flaunting their ignorance.
>> Yes Gravity has been proven to exist? Want Proof? Drop something...<<
That is an observation:
---Newton’s Law describes it;
---Einstein’s Theory explains it;
---Neither proves it.
>>Defining exactly what the force of gravity comes from has not yet been fully defined<<
If by ‘defined’ you mean ‘proved’ that will/can never happen (see below)..
>>however we know of at least 12 of the variables involved. <<
Wow, that’s amazing – and Kentucky Fried Chicken has 11 secret herbs and spices.
>>If Gary F demonstrates the level of scientific knowledge for AGW proponents, then for the sake of humanity I hope there are truly very few of them... <<
At least I know that the scientific method does not contain any procedures, tests, or rules for proving anything. While you, on the other hand, do not know the difference between observations, data, law, theories, or anything at all that involves science.
Well I think 5000ppm could be a bit uncomfortable, but no they have proved nothing as yet, the only proof there is, is 14% increase in plant growth greening our planet.
Theories and experiments in a laboratory don't count, it is a big dynamic world out there, dominated by water.
Hell they still havent worked the effect of clouds yet
It is the primary driver of AGW and is accepted science that CO2 causes warming. The only objection is not whether or not CO2 causes global warming, but is it caused by humans. Although deniers continue to refute it, AGW is human induced.
Not at this time. The Warmers claims of "Catastrophic", Man-caused Global Warming if we don't cover every square inch of the World with Windfarms and Solar arrays, has no basis in honest, ethical science......Period!!
you mean the hundreds of scientist that have perform experiment to verify it and also those that have done the research and written papers on it don't count.
