Global warming doubters, what is it that you doubt?

Question

Some people on this website, influenced by various news and opinion sources, have expressed the idea that there is no scientific basis for possible danger due to global warming. The scientific argument has several parts, what part of this argument do you doubt?

1) Humans are extracting and burning about 6 billion tons of fossil fuel each year.

2) In the past hundred years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 to 380 ppm.

3) (1) is the cause of (2), as indicated by 14C isotope levels

4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, transparent at visual wavelengths and opaque in the infrared. As an isolated factor, addition of a trillion tons of CO2 will increase average global temperatures by 3 C.

5) While global temperatures are driven up and down by many effects, the cumulative addition of CO2 will come to dominate these natural effects, and significantly raise temperatures.

6) Burning all fossil fuel reserves may raise temperatures to truly catasrophic levels.

Anecdotal examples of cold temperatures are not a reason for doubt. The expected effect of global warming is about 0.03 C/year, whereas natural factors drive the average annual global temperature randomly by 0.1 C in a year.

The amount of warming caused by a given addition of CO2 is a matter of laboratory measurement and calculation, about which there should be no doubt. The fact that there are other drivers of global temperatures is irrelevant. The fact that there are other greenhouse gasses is irrelevant. The fact that CO2 as a temperature driver is not seen in the fossil record is irrelevant---nothing like the wholesale burning of fossil fuels has occurred naturally.

The argument that there may be feedback mechanisms that mitigate the effect of added CO2 may be correct, but these are based on complex (computer) models. Perhaps we should not risk the future of the planet on that basis.

The evidence in the fossil record, that warming causes the release of natural CO2 from natural non-atmospheric reservoirs, is not a hopeful sign. This indicates warming from any source (including anthropogenic CO2) may result in an instability.

Answer 1

While no one disputes 1, 2, and 3 above, it is 4, 5, and 6 that we have a problem with.

1) There is almost ZERO correlation between CO2 levels over the last 100 years and Global Temperature. There is a 95% correllation between Solar Activity over the last 100 years and Global Temperature.

2) The "cumulative addition" of CO2 will be, at most, 1 to 2 degrees C, if you double it from it's pre-industrial revolutionary figure (that is, drive it to 560 ppmv). Each Doubling after that (560 to 1120, 1120 to 2240, etc) will only achieve 1 to 2 degrees C. So...if you drive CO2 up to 1120 parts per million, you will only get a net 4 degrees C (at most) temperature increase. This is NOT catastrophic. This is barely a noticeable blip on the radar.

3) The dominant "greenhouse gase" is, has been, and ALWAYS WILL BE Water Vapor. Period. End of story. This idea that "CO2 is a major greenhouse gas" is pure bunkum. It accounts for less than 7% of Global Temperature, and we contribute less than 5% by volume to the Atmosphere.

4) As the SUN warms the EARTH (and Mars, and Jupiter, and Pluto, and most other major planetary bodies in the last 50 years), CO2 will naturally go up because the warmer oceans will not be able to absorb as much. This is proven by Al Gore's graphs in "an Inconvenient Truth." CO2 tends to LAG warming by 800 years - not LEAD warming!

5) Since CO2 has never, in the past, been seen to force temperature changes, why in the world should we believe that now, suddenly, it will?

6) Given that there are billions and billions of dollars currently at stake (people are making a living doing "global warming studies," and running "carbon offset businesses," and making policy recommendations) why should we believe anyone who produces a study paid for by AGW Advocates?

Answer 2

A few more points to ponder:

Global temperatures have in the past been much warmer than they are currently, previous global maximums have been on the order of 3 deg C higher than current temperatures. These maximums have occured without any anthropogenic CO2 to blame.

The current IPCC best estimate for maximum global temperature increase in the current warming trend is 3 deg. C (I wonder where they came up with that number).

Global temperature trends over the past 200 years do not correlate well with the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. There are in fact recorded 10-15 year periods of global cooling even though CO2 levels show a consistent and monotonic increase over these periods.

Answer 3

i don't know why people feel they have to ignore the problem. Global warming now is like tobacco some years ago. when people first started saying that tobacco was bad for a person, there was much disigreement. Tobacco producers would say they didn't think it caused a person any harm. Now we know it can kill you. It's the same with global warming. We've been burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 for so long, some people just can't seem to grasp the concept of us having an impact on the Earth. Humans emit 24 BILLION TONS of CO2 EVERY YEAR. We know for sure, without any doubt, the the greenhouse effect is real. If it wasn't, life wouldn't survive on Earth. But with all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere, much more heat is getting trapped in the atmosphere. Yes, there are natural warming periods. But this is much worse than it has ever been before. the difference in global temperature between 1900 and the last ice age was only 5 degrees celcious(i just know i spelled that wrong). the one degree rise in temperature in the past century has caused:
1)artic ice to melt at a much faster rate than expected. there was a certian chunk of ice not expected to break off from the rest of the ice in the artic for five years. it recently broke off
2)as a result of the ice melting, seas levels are rising. this means many coastal areas will be flooding, making the world dangerously overcrowded. much farm land could be lost as well, which could result in famine. in very overcrowded places disease could easily spread as well.
3)The rise in temperature has already begun to kill coral reefs. this results in the death of many fish, which could result in the extinction of many species.
4)the rise of water levels would also destroy habitat for many land animals, which might kill off land species.

life won't be very fun if we let global warming continue, would it?

(By the way, that last line is mainly for anyone who doesn't belive global warming is real.)

Answer 4

Your point 3 has been refuted. We have indeed put 'old' CO2 into the atmosphere, but the CO2 in the oceans is also 'old' although not as old as fossil fuel carbon. There is a definite feedback regarding CO2. Warming, whatever has caused it, causes CO2 to be released from the ocean. The CO2 in the ocean has a different isotope signature than atmospheric CO2. This wasn't accounted for in isotope verification of added CO2.

The overall effect of CO2 is coming under question as conclusions are scrutinized.

Answer 5

a million) There HASN'T been a year hotter than 1998. 2) per chance that's no longer honest considering that 1998 replaced into an El Nino year. yet then, that's both unfair to study median earnings or federal tax sales to 2000, the height of Greenspan's greatest money bubble, and maximum AGW supporters make that evaluation in the Politics section. 3) yet superb - enable's use 2000. Temps were flat considering that then. 2008 up to now is on the bubble for "accurate 10 warmest years." 4) 2005 replaced into no longer hotter than 1998. in undemanding words GISS concluded that and GISS' everyday is Northern Hemisphere-biased, as a outcome land-temperature biased.

Answer 6

Is jbtascam a bot? I have never heard so much mindless gobbledeegook at one time in my life.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing point by point, I'm just going to pick my favorite one and "blow him out of the water".

#2 "... you will only get a net 4 degrees C (at most) temperature increase. This is NOT catastrophic. This is barely a noticeable blip on the radar."

(326,000,000 cubic miles of water X (5280 ft/mi X 12 in/ft X 2.54 cm/in)^3 X 1cal/cc/degC) / 10^15 cal/MT of TNT =

1.3 billion atomic bombs worth of energy per one degree rise in the ocean temperature. Expressed in the water cycle as disasterous weather.

That isn't a blip. That is a reason for insurance companies to go bankrupt. Entire cities displaced with no aid in sight from their governments (oh wait, that has already happened in several countries around the world, including the US).

I don't care what you believe or what you doubt, the disjointed illogical arguments you put forth aren't fooling anyone but you.

Answer 7

The sanity of the people who suffer from the Chicken Little Syndrome and squawk about "global warming" all the time.
I have better things to waste my time on.
Get a life!

Answer 8

Certainly. Totally agree with you buddy. I cannot understand why people take it for granted.

Answer 9

I don't know why people don't believe it...it seems to me the evidence is there

Answer 10

We had a cold winter here.Coldest ever.