Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[rtwjunkie]

@silkstone I've been convinced not to unsub. No, I did not read the WH link you gave. The White House has never hosted a paper, study or link that doesn't support the President's views on a subject. And we know what the current president's views on the subject are. Therefore it's tainted.

As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so. Anyone who has ever read research grant requests to universities knows that scientists do indeed have an agenda and a theory, that they want money to try and prove. And those grants do not all come from universities. Many sources of funding come from politically affiliated groups and think tanks. To think that they have zero influence is the very essence of gullibility,

Perhaps you are confused as to what is being argued here. Perhaps you are under the assumption that we are arguing that the Earth is currently warming. On that point, there IS complete consensus. 30 years ago when I was in high school there was consensus that we were in a cooling period. The Earth has done this thousands of times over millions of years. It is therefore impossible to prove without a doubt that man is the cause now, because our existence on this rock is such a flyspeck of time, we have nothing to compare it to.

Now, were man around for 500,000 years it would be much easier to point to man being the causation or not. And on that point, there is not complete consensus. Even if that number were 97% of scientists thinking mankind is the culprit, which it certainly isn't, that still means that there is debate. Therefore, your assertion that there is no debate is false. Additionally, your expressed disbelief that anyone believed anything other than your belief, indicates that you have chosen to spend all your time among like-minded people, which certainly affects your viewpoint. It's a human trait, that people engage in all the time on any number of subjects, so I cannot fault you for that. The real challenge, is to overcome that basic trait, and acknowledge that there are views in the world that are not your own, and that just because you believe something to be right, doesn't make it so.

That's why I have called you out so much on here. You appear to be the one person in this thread that is thoroughly intractable in your belief. Prove that you can use the intelligence you have, and step one centimeter out of your corner, and admit that perhaps there is a middle ground. Maybe it's man plus the Earth's normal warming, or maybe it's just possible that man has no influence. We have a very small set of time to use for results, therefore it's hard to say for certain. Or maybe, you might even take a big step out of your corner and concede the debate is the wrong one.

Perhaps the debate should be what can we do to limit our pollution damage to the environment, and make our water, air and soil cleaner for breathing, drinking and eating. I for one, think our energies would be better served there than being pawns for two diametrically opposed political groupings, because this debate has always been politically motivated and funded by both sides.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Way to go supporting your arguments, attack the person. You have no knowledge of me personally nor my motivations to get into teaching but, please keep the ignorance coming as that's how arguments are won.

it was teachers in the plural.
I dont know you nor your motivations, i would hope that you are motivated for all the right reasons.

Our kids can easily be fed bullshit in schools, by teachers, but thats another debate.

The solution is our biggest problem. I am yet to be convinced that man is the sole cause or even a major factor in the long term. As whatever ultimately happens it will boil down to the survival of the fittest.

Even if the case was proved definitively that man is the only reason warming ids hapenning, so what? What does that actually give us? Nothing....someone to blame? someone to sue?

We in the Western world polluted the environment for years, pollution of all kinds, ok.....lets stifle development in the far East because they are polluting.
Double standards? Rational thinking? definitely political and economic reason there aplenty before you get into the moral aspect.

Ultimately the argument boils down to money. Is it worth spending money on it.

im so immature but this is relevant

 

[metalslaw]

a) the scientific community are corrupt (biggest scandal since the lunar landings!)
b) The scientific community disagree - Challenge: find how many peer review papers challenge the current model for climate change vs. those that back it.
c) They did some scientific mumbo jumbo to the numbers that I don't understand, so they must be false!
d) How dare you be so arrogant to suggest that humans have any influence on the planet we inhabit!

I'm,
e) It doesn't matter who is right. We are running an experiment right now, and over the next century or 2, we will know the result. A conclusion cannot be made til the experiment has run it's course.

i.e. This will play out regardless, as we burn every available non renewable resource available til they are exhausted. This may take only 20 years, or this may take 100 (i.e. by slowing down the change, it 'may' help).

But it all comes back down to this,

The climate change experiment we are running has sooo many variable, that deciding if the experiment needs tinkering really doesn't matter. We are burning everything available... and we will see what happens.

And because money rules the world... We Will Burn Every Fossil Fuel Til We Run Out!


On a side note, the amount of political rhetoric in this thread actually astounds me. I know we have similiar political debate over here in aus, but to me, politics isn't science, so I don't really listen to any political views on this.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so.

About that, there was a conference about climate change of climatologists and it was focused on how they speak about the topic. He made the issue clear with one simple question: How many of you here identify with conservatives? Two or three out of a hundred or so raised their hand. He then, talking to the rest of the room, told them they need to consult with those guys before publishing their paper to push the publication towards neutrality.

This is a huge problem, especially in this field of research. I wish I knew where I saw that--it was great.

On a side note, the amount of political rhetoric in this thread actually astounds me. I know we have similiar political debate over here in aus, but to me, politics isn't science, so I don't really listen to any political views on this.

*cough*political science*cough*

Science delivers the facts; politics delivers the response.

 

[SK-1]

Second hand smoke is also harmless, right? And evolution is a lie?

Hear are some straws...now you do the grasping.

 

[silkstone]

@silkstone I've been convinced not to unsub. No, I did not read the WH link you gave. The White House has never hosted a paper, study or link that doesn't support the President's views on a subject. And we know what the current president's views on the subject are. Therefore it's tainted.

As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so. Anyone who has ever read research grant requests to universities knows that scientists do indeed have an agenda and a theory, that they want money to try and prove. And those grants do not all come from universities. Many sources of funding come from politically affiliated groups and think tanks. To think that they have zero influence is the very essence of gullibility,

Perhaps you are confused as to what is being argued here. Perhaps you are under the assumption that we are arguing that the Earth is currently warming. On that point, there IS complete consensus. 30 years ago when I was in high school there was consensus that we were in a cooling period. The Earth has done this thousands of times over millions of years. It is therefore impossible to prove without a doubt that man is the cause now, because our existence on this rock is such a flyspeck of time, we have nothing to compare it to.

Now, were man around for 500,000 years it would be much easier to point to man being the causation or not. And on that point, there is not complete consensus. Even if that number were 97% of scientists thinking mankind is the culprit, which it certainly isn't, that still means that there is debate. Therefore, your assertion that there is no debate is false. Additionally, your expressed disbelief that anyone believed anything other than your belief, indicates that you have chosen to spend all your time among like-minded people, which certainly affects your viewpoint. It's a human trait, that people engage in all the time on any number of subjects, so I cannot fault you for that. The real challenge, is to overcome that basic trait, and acknowledge that there are views in the world that are not your own, and that just because you believe something to be right, doesn't make it so.

That's why I have called you out so much on here. You appear to be the one person in this thread that is thoroughly intractable in your belief. Prove that you can use the intelligence you have, and step one centimeter out of your corner, and admit that perhaps there is a middle ground. Maybe it's man plus the Earth's normal warming, or maybe it's just possible that man has no influence. We have a very small set of time to use for results, therefore it's hard to say for certain. Or maybe, you might even take a big step out of your corner and concede the debate is the wrong one.

Perhaps the debate should be what can we do to limit our pollution damage to the environment, and make our water, air and soil cleaner for breathing, drinking and eating. I for one, think our energies would be better served there than being pawns for two diametrically opposed political groupings, because this debate has always been politically motivated and funded by both sides.

There was more than one link. I purposely provided more as you might think that the WH one was biased. How about the AAAS short article? How about searching out some research papers on climate change rather than just news articles and blogs? The research is really quite easy to understand and you can get the main findings from the abstracts and conclusions without delving in to the deeper science. If you only choose articles from reputable journals, you'll know that the science will be sound.

You seem to mis-understand my position. Could the theory of human driven climate change be wrong? Of course it could, but it is an accepted theory* and has yet to be disproved.

It's the best we have until someone comes up with better, and people have been trying. So far, none have come close.

*Note I'm using the scientific definition of theory, which is quite different from the everyday usage.

Do I think it will be dis-proven? Not likely. Once something has risen to the level of a theory, the science is generally quite accurate, but it will definitely be expanded upon and new details will emerge once the research has progressed further.
Kind of like Newtonian mechanics. Not false, but there is more to it.

Also, very rational how you have to disagree with something just because the opposing political party holds that view. Really no analysis needed? "He thinks this way, it would be blasphemy for me to agree?"
But, from what I understand of US politics, that's how things are done there. Even good ideas are rejected by the opposition just because.

Hear are some straws...now you do the grasping.

I don't see how. The man is a crock ...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As I pointed out in my last post, there's two huge unknowns with the current theory:
1) clouds, or more broadly, weather
2) the trapped component in permafrost and the ocean floors
Both have the potential to break CO2 as the primary culprit. #1 will take decades yet to answer; #2 has no timeline.

 

[silkstone]

As I pointed out in my last post, there's two huge unknowns with the current theory:
1) clouds, or more broadly, weather
2) the trapped component in permafrost and the ocean floors
Both have the potential to break CO2 as the primary culprit.

But, you can't argue that they are until models can account for it. So far, all the models/theories/descriptions point to human activity and they are backed with reliable science. There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).
I could say it is caused by whale farts because that seems quite logical to me, but unless I have something to back up my claim, no one is going to take it seriously.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Your words Silkstone: an accepted theory. A theory is not an accepted fact. At least you have finally relented from your hardcore assertion that the only accepted view is that man is the cause of global warming. I commend you for taking that brave step.

But I assure you, nothing will ever get accomplished to cleaning our air, soil and water as long as the debate centers on "whodunnit." All sides need to agree to disagree, accept that each side has good points, and then work toward making our world safer for our bodies. Imagine what could be done if the great minds set aside the current debate and focused on action.

Also, you keep going towards the assertion there is no debate. Even Ford's post about the 100 scientists points to the fact there is not a consensus. Wherever there is not 100% agreement on any subject, there is debate.

 

[silkstone]

I don't think you understand the word theory.

Can you define it?

Whodunnit is an integral part of it. Stemming the source is an important measure.
If it were up to the political eggheads/industry lobbyists, people would still be denying that climate change (irrelevant of the cause) was a thing. That used to be the argument.

Urgh, I just found out that these people still exist! http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ange-exist-the-senate-is-about-to-let-us-know

Edit - Here's an easy read for those that are unwilling to wade through academic research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I generally don't like quoting Wikipedia as it's not the most reliable source of information. But, it's written for the general audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[rtwjunkie]

I don't think you understand the word theory.

Can you define it?

Whodunnit is an integral part of it. Stemming the source is an important measure.
If it were upto the political eggheads, people would still be denying that climate change (irrelevant of the cause) wasn't a thing. That used to be the argument.

Finding a culprit does nothing to fix something, if all the energy is spent arguing who that culprit is. If the source this one time out of thousands of warming periods IS humans, it would not make the assumptive fix any more palatable. Assuming that, we would have to reduce our population by half, and go back to living as prehistoric humans pre-fire, in order to stop emitting CO2 in the amounts that alarmists think we are influencing global warming with. Are YOU willing to do that?

You're assuming I am not a well-educated man. You know nothing of me. A theory is a scientifically acceptable general principle or principles offered to explain certain phenomena. Junior high school stuff.

What do those key words point to? Not fact. It indicates it is plausible, which I have never said it wasn't. I merely point out that it's not the only accepted viewpoint. And as to people still denying it, you're not paying attention. This thread and the poll is an indication that people still deny humans as the cause, in great numbers. Try as you might, you cannot separate this from the political eggheads. They have the agendas on both sides, and they fund the research. As I said earlier, I wish all scientists could be neutral, but alas, they are human.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Lets say coal didnt burn, if mans only source of heat through history was timber we would all have been doomed long ago with the rates of deforestation during the 15th 16th centuries.

Its ironic that if man hadnt burnt coal we would never have had the technology to detect it in the atmosphere anyway.
Coal was the making of us and it could be the breaking of us too.


I once spent a year with a gang of men all with heavy machinery digging out and replacing the ground that a town gas site used to sit on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas rampant pollution in every town across the Britain til North sea gas came along. Not entirely relevant but from an historical point of view interesting. They had a lot of these in the States as well. I learnt a lot about pollution while i was doing that.
I worked along side a Canadian scientist who verified/classified the shit we dug out. He had spent the previous 5/6 years cleaning up contaminated sites in the Arctic, abandoned fuel depots left behind by US forces after the cold war.
The pollution he saw in this site was worse than anything he had seen anywhere, these sites were everywhere. I bet your town has or used to have a Gas Street, thats where they made the gas by cooking coal.

A by product of gas production was coke which we all know was necessary to produce steel rather than iron.

There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).

wrong.

If it were upto the political eggheads, people would still be denying that climate change (irrelevant of the cause) wasn't a thing. That used to be the argument.

couldnt agree more.

On a side note your use of

a)
b)
c)

was commendable, only a teacher...


the Guardian link is an interesting read.

 

[silkstone]

The definition is kind of paraphrased, but that's the gist.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

As to the culprit. How can you justify to an industry to stop burning coal, if you can't prove that coal is one of the driving forces?

@ CAPSLOCKSTUCKON The big debacle is that poorer nations don't want to spend a disproportionate amount of money on climate change mitigation as they can reliably say that they are not the cause. More heavily industrialized nations can deny that they are the cause so they won't have to face the brunt of the costs.

I concede that removing the threat of legal action against the biggest perpetrators would hasten the response. No company want's to ever have to pay damages.

 

[64K]

Well, there is this

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

but I don't think it matters a lot how the climate is being affected by humans. The Earth cycles through hot/cold periods anyway. If humans had never existed that would still be true.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But, you can't argue that they are until models can account for it. So far, all the models/theories/descriptions point to human activity and they are backed with reliable science. There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).

In reality, the DOE puts new emissions of CO2 since preindustrialization at ~85% from "natural" sources. You're effectively arguing that 15% is going to make or break the ecosystem and that, bluntly, is unrealistic. Excusing preindustrialization, that number falls to 3.225% of the sum that is in the ecosystem. CO2 is currently rising at a rate of about 2 ppmV/year (0.5%).

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well, there is this

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

but I don't think it matters a lot how the climate is being affected by humans. The Earth cycles through hot/cold periods anyway. If humans had never existed that would still be true.

Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause. 97% is not 100%. That indicates there is not complete agreement. Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.

It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?" line of thinking. We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.

@silkstone Thank-you for your exact definition of a theory, which is better than the simpler version I know/remember

 

[silkstone]

In reality, the DOE puts new emissions of CO2 since preindustrialization at ~85% from "natural" sources. You're effectively arguing that 15% is going to make or break the ecosystem and that, bluntly, is unrealistic. Excusing preindustrialization, that number falls to 3.225% of the sum that is in the ecosystem. CO2 is currently rising at a rate of about 2 ppmV/year (0.5%).

They actually seem to be purposely misquoting Dr. Wallce Broecker. He is talking about massive climate shifts in history, not the current one that we are seeing now.

I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.

The reliability of that link is highly dubious, not to mention stupidly outdated.

Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause. 97% is not 100%. That indicates there is not complete agreement. Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.

It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?" line of thinking. We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.

@silkstone Thank-you for your exact definition of a theory, which is better than the simpler version I know.

Okay then, there is overwhelming conscientious. We live on a planet where people believe all kinds of ridiculous things, there are always going to be people that disagree on any issue you look at.

After all, even common sense is not that common - Voltaire

 

[64K]

Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause. 97% is not 100%. That indicates there is not complete agreement. Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.

It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?" We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.

Well said and I will just throw this in from my own experience. My Brother in Laws Daughter has a Masters in Marine Biology and the University that she went too offered to pay her tuition to get her PhD and she turned them down because of the pressure to take up Liberal views if she became involved with them.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Do humans affect climate change? Yes

If humans didn't exist would there still be climate change? Yes

Seems moot to me

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I generally don't like quoting Wikipedia as it's not the most reliable source of information. But, it's written for the general audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Need I remind you that Galileo Galilei was in the scientific minority when he published Dialogues and that got him put in house arrest after an 8 month long trial. Morale of the story: one or more of those in the minority may be absolutely right and gets shunned for being so. You know, like Tesla/Westinghouse vs Edison/GE. Time is ultimately the decider. Tesla, despite being shunned, won out over Edison, Einstein beat out Newton's theory of gravity, and so on.

When all of the indicators are pointing in one direction, it's nigh impossible to determine which actually started the ball rolling until one of them deviates. CH4, for example, did deviate so in a few decades as that CH4 is broken down in the atmosphere, we should learn how much of an impact it has or didn't have.

They actually seem to be purposely misquoting Dr. Wallce Broecker. He is talking about massive climate shifts in history, not the current one that we are seeing now.

I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.

The reliability of that link is highly dubious, not to mention stupidly outdated.

Don't see how that is relevant to what I was talking about. I was citing the DOE figures on that page on the analysis of man-made versus natural sources of various greenhouse gases.

How is that bolded statement inaccurate regardless of the timeframe it refers to? I do admit it does have a lot of inaccuracies on the analysis but not the raw facts. Case in point, water vapor is responsible for 36–70% of the greenhouse effect, not 95%. I can't be arsed to dig through 20 PDF files to find those numbers at DOE.

Only five years and not much has changed in that period other than IPCC making everyone angry that wasn't a fanatic then backpedaling.

Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause. 97% is not 100%. That indicates there is not complete agreement. Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.

Also bare in mind that these are not direct opinions of the scientists but rather a synopsis of the papers they published. Whomever did this study did incorrectly classify some of these. As far as I know, a polling of the actual climatologists has never been done in very specific terms ("earth is warming yes/no", "is it predominantly caused by human activity yes/no"). The only poll I'm aware of was of all types of scientists and not just climatologists and the result was about 55% yes to the question of just warming, not who caused it. Granted, this was years ago so it probably would have changed by now.

When you just look at studies, you have to look at the money and the money is really only flowing to CO2 studies that all more or less confirm what satellites tell us: CO2 is rising 2 ppmV. There's other fields of study, arguably far more important to this problem (like weather) that are getting virtually no funding. This minority doesn't get many papers published because there simply isn't resources (money) to drive up enough interest to do it. As such, that 97% figure is very, very biased and I wish people would stop using it to prove a point. The only conclusion can be drawn from it is that most of the research money has gone to CO2 (which shouldn't surprise anyone).

 

[silkstone]

There are also people that believe homoeopathy, it doesn't mean that modern medicine doesn't work.

Looking at the references on the page, there are some that are 20 years old. That is pretty old.

Galileo was basically the father of the scientific method and strictly speaking it wasn't his theories that he was jailed for, it was his beliefs. Before his time, we had philosophy, not science as we know it today.

Edit - That linked article is from "plant fossils of West Virginia" That should tell you all you need to know irrelevant of the fact that it is a blog article.

Edit 2: They even state on one of their pages "this page contains facts and figures about U.S. coal resources that every American should know. If you dislike America or capitalism you should not read this page. Go instead to this page."

Translated "If you don't agree with us, you are an unpatriotic commie and should go read some socialist shit"

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I made a big edit that you probably missed.

Looking at the references on the page, there are some that are 20 years old. That is pretty old.

Off topic but IPCC was formed in 1990 with >50% certainty of warming and CO2 being connected to it.

Galileo was basically the father of the scientific method and strictly speaking it wasn't his theories that he was jailed for, it was his beliefs. Before his time, we had philosophy, not science as we know it today.

He was jailed for believing Copernicus was right about heliocenterism and he refused to deny that belief, therefore insulting the Catholic Church. FYI, Copernicus would have suffered the same fate but he died of internal bleeding and paralysis before the Inquisition could get their hands on him. Both men waited until after the age of 70 to publish their works knowing what awaited them if they did.

Edit - That linked article is from "plant fossils of West Virginia" That should tell you all you need to know irrelevant of the fact that it is a blog article.

Edit 2: They even state on one of their pages "this page contains facts and figures about U.S. coal resources that every American should know. If you dislike America or capitalism you should not read this page. Go instead to this page."

If you find a better source that breaks down natural and man-made greenhouse gas emissions, let me know. I did some searching and found nothing.

 

[SK-1]

So, is the "science" of climate change still viable after the data has been shown to be manipulated and the "scientists" proven to be more corrupt than politicians?

It seems to me that if the people who believe in the catastrophic c02 driven global warming theory should probably address all those stories that constantly drip out of the media about falsified data, adjustments, and poor methodology to the temperature figures.

Oh, and someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn't melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April 2014, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center(NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But the sky is falling and climate change is more dangerous than Islamic terrorist.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So, is the "science" of climate change still viable after the data has been shown to be manipulated and the "scientists" proven to be more corrupt than politicians?

I think so...about CO2 and temperatures anyway. Satellites fixed most of the issues there and since the satellites launched, they paint a convincing trend. There's still a lot of aspects that are underserved though.

 

[silkstone]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Impacts_on_the_overall_greenhouse_effect

Some of the data in the link you provided is referenced, but a lot of is not. I can not see where they are getting a lot of their numbers from.

The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has actually decreased:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/

and there is also a very complex relationship between CO2, CH4 and where the water vapor ends up in the atmosphere
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

We do not have the complete picture yet, of that I am sure. However, all current evidence points to human activity as the cause of the current change in climate.