More questions for global warming skeptics?

Question

Eariler I posed some questions for global warming skeptics as to how they could explain the high temperatures and large numbers of extreme weather events we're currently seeing. Everybody ignored the extreme weather events and dismissed the high temperatures, saying that either 2000 years is an insiginificant amout of time or that high temps aren't necessarily due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus I have some new questions:

1) Do you admit that we're currently in a state of global warming?
2) Do you admit that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
3) Do you admit that greenhouse gases cause global warming?
4) Do you admit that humans activities create a lot of carbon dioxide?

If you answered 'no' to any question, please explain why (with evidence).

If you answered 'yes' to all, please view the following graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

And explain to me what could cause such consistent CO2 increase other than humans.

Or if you have no explanation as to what else could have caused a steady increase of atmospheric CO2 over nearly 4 decades, then how can you be skeptical that humans are the main cause of global warming?

Sorry, I meant 5 decades, not 4.

Jim - the lag you mention is not universal. CO2 can be an amplifier of an existing warming period or it can cause warming. Please read the following link for further details:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

For the extreme weather events plot over the last century, see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather

Also, you didn't answer my questions.

Han - very interesting link, thanks.

brain - not that my credentials are relevant here, but I'm an Environmental Scientst with a BS in Astrophysics and a MS in Physics. Yes I read about the global cooling from several different sources, who all lived in the 70s. Your teachers, I presume, were not scientists and certainly not experts in climatology.

I notice that once again most skeptics aren't answering my questions...

MC and everyone else - if you're going to attempt to provide evidence, then actually provide it. Don't pull numbers out of your *** and expect me to believe them. Look it up somewhere so I can see where you're getting your information from.

For those suggesting that global warming is due to water vapor, why do you suggest that water vapor concentrations have been increasing? There has to be a reason for it. How about this explanation )from Wikipedia)?

"In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2"

Water vapor is not the initial cause, it's the symptom and amplifier of already existing global warming.

Eric, global cooling in the 1970s is well-modelled by a combination of volcanic eruption particulates and human aerosol emissions.

Answer 1

1) Do you admit that we're currently in a state of global warming?

I do admit that the globe is warming, however, I attribute that warming more to the natural cyclical nature of world temperatures and less to human causes.

2) Do you admit that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

I am not sure how to answer this. I am not familiar with the proper definition of "greenhouse gas."

3) Do you admit that greenhouse gases cause global warming?

Here's a question for you: Couldn't global warming cause greenhouse gases? The ocean releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as its temperature increases.

4) Do you admit that humans activities create a lot of carbon dioxide?

Yes.

And explain to me what could cause such consistent CO2 increase other than humans.

I don't know.

Answer 2

My evidence comes from the links provided in my starndard GW answer, I didn't want to post the whole thing.

First of all storms are cyclical, not even the IPCC says that global warming would have dictate the number of storms.
Also recent weather events like hurricane Katrina/European heat wave took so many lives because of government mismanagement/unpreparedness not because they were particularly bad. Also another fact that sometimes comes up is that hurricanes cause more damage that is because more and more wealthy people live by the coast.
now on to your current questions

1) Yes and no. The northern hemisphere is warming, the southern is not warming as much. The southern hemisphere is warming so little lets assume its not for the purpose of this answer. Take a look at a globe, most of the landmass is in the northern hemisphere. We as humans have paved huge amounts of our land for roads/sidewalks with concrete which absorbs more heat than normal grass. When temperature measurements are taken they are the surface temperature, since so much land is paved the surface is hotter, not because of any additional warming but due to what the ground is made of. The southern hemisphere has little landmass and much of the land it does have contains third world countries which have little to no pavement. The temperature measurements do not take into account this disparity between normal grass and concrete.

2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
You have done exactly what the IPCC and global warming scientists have done. Yes humans produce CO2 which is a greenhouse gas but no one has shown that warming is linked to this increased activity. Humans produce a small percentage of greenhouse gasses which may or may not have an effect on the global temperature, no one has proven it to be so and some studies have shown it to false. Humans produce 3% of CO2, 18% methane, and 5% NO. All the rest is produced naturally, no one has shown that such a small increase could have the effect we are seeing.

Answer 3

What's interesting is that all evidence shows we should be sliding towards a glacial period (ice age) over the last couple of thousand years and the only thing holding the earth back from that fate is man-caused global warming! See the Sci American article...particularly the last page graph which shows how the advent of human agriculture and subsequent increased release of methane (potent greenhouse gas) kept the earth stable until the last 200 yrs when the industrial revolution and the fossil fuel burning caused temperatures to soar more quickly. It is interesting because it is one reason global warming was so controversial 30 years ago; a lot of scientists thought we were headed for an ice age. Look at that last graph again in the article.........when the fossil fuels are all used up in another 100 years or so, the earth will start back to where it was headed all along...pretty quickly! Too bad so many of the earth's species will be unable to adjust to all of these fast climate changes (way hot...man induced, then way cold) instead of the natural, slow steady cooling one that was happening anyway. We are in the middle of a mass extinction.

Answer 4

1) Yes. But the earth has been in a state of warming and cooling for hundreds of million of years. o

2) Yes it is a greenhouse gas, but a minor one. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas consisting 95% of all greenhouse gases.

3) If it does it would be a very small amount, nothing that we should be concerned about.

4) That is unknown. Estimates put the human portion of greenhouse gases at 1/3 of 1%.

If you want to claim that the hypothesis that an increase in greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic consequences on Earth, it is up to you to prove it. The job of sceptics is to point out the possible problems with the hypothesis. It is up to you to account for these possible problems. For example.

why is there a better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 and temperatures? Explanation and study. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

Why did the temperature fall during the mid 20th century when co2 levels started to rise? This is the pro global warming rebuttal "During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution." Since when is "perhaps" proof. "Perhaps" is I do not know for sure. So you have a situation where the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, you do not know why, but you still claim that the evidence is overwhelming.

Answer 5

Dana, do you know of the theory that higher temperatures result in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There is an 800 year lag in the CO2 concentrations relative to temperature. In other words, CO2 is a lagging indicator. Your theory that we are having more storms is anectdotal. Explain how they could count hurricanes 75 years ago. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is a minor one compared to water vapor. Why do you chose to ignore the effects of water vapor? Humans may be responsible for 50 ppm CO2 of the 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Explain your evidence how much warming that 50 ppmV CO2 accounts for. Most biased models show no more than a degree or two. The ocean contains dissolved CO2. When it is warmed, it releases CO2. Unlike many substances, CO2 is less soluable in warm water. Because the ocean is so large, there is a lag of about 800 years before effects of warming or cooling are translated into the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There is a pattern that is very regular moving into and out of periods of glaciation. Currently, we are on a warming trend, though we are coming out of an unusually cool period.

Answer 6

We are no warmer than we've been before. Receding glaciers are revealing human artifacts. The calculated effect of human added CO2 is negligible. There are many parameters affecting climate. It is impossible to predict the effect of subtle changes to these parameters. CO2 pales in comparison to water vapor as a greenhouse gas contributor.

A follows B, therefore A caused B is faulty logic.

Answer 7

Could you please tell us what your credentials are aside from reading wikipedia.

Were you born in 1981. If so, how are you an expert on the ice age scare of the 70's. Did you read about it?

I lived through it and remember it. Your account in your previous question is wrong. When I was in school I remember the teachers telling about how the environment was changing and how animals living in warmer climates would all die before my children were old enough to see them. They actually told us that rabbits and squirrels would only be available in zoos. Of course, it was all backed up by "science." It was the same nutty crap people like you are spreading today. I have been there and done that regarding this stupid " sky is falling" nonsense.

Oh yeah, don't forget to give us all those credentials.

Answer 8

1) No. Based on one hundred years of recorded data? (Anything more than a hundred years is pure theory.)

2) In a greenhouse. Not in the Earth's atmosphere, at least not in the present concentrations. (Have you seen just how big this planet is?)

3) No. This is one you will have to prove to me, and don't bother if you are going to use theories or guesswork. If you have no concrete proof, let it go.

4) No. That is to say not in relatively significant quantities. Fungi for instance probably produce far more than we ever will, and that's just one naturally occurring source.

Answer 9

A good thermonuclear war would help eliminate some of the human population. Now tell me what is wrong with global warming. I don't like the cold and if it was warmer, we wouldn't need to use carbon to heat our homes. What is the problem if the ocean rises 200 ft. It seems all the low lifes live on the lowlands. I live at 300ft elevation and I would have oceanfront property. What is your problem?

Answer 10

1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes
i agree with all of those

and to the last part you must see that humans do everything bad to the earth the earth will not purposely harm itself. humans manufacture and use a abuse everything that is killing the earth and as we go on in this consumerist society of ours we buy what we are told to we do what were told to if you opened up more recycling centers had more community projects and parks to help the people the will grow and adapt to a cleaner life but that's not what makes money so company's shot down such ideas