A third question for global warming / climate change skeptics?

Question

I've studied climatology / climate change etc and it's a subject I know something about. What credible arguments would you use to convince me that anthropogenic global warming / climate change is either fabrication or of little consequence.

Please, credible arguments only.

Thanks to everyone who has answered but I'm still waiting for sight or sound of the elusive evidence that disproves anthropogenic global warming.

Here's some feedback...

ASE: 2.3 or 2.9 trillion tons of carbon in the carbon cycle (can't recall off the top of my head). In 2006 humans emitted 29 billion tons of CO2, that's 1% of the total IN A SINGLE YEAR.

I've read many books, maybe you could suggest some that have credible evidence to dispute AGW.

I've studied climate change for 23 years and have a degrees from three universities not that that has anything to do with the question.

TOMMY: Credible evidence?

BOB: Thanks Bob, I agree that we're messing the natural carbon cycle up. As mentioned in above comment, we added 29 billion tons of carbon last year, the natural cycle can remove an excess of 3 bn tons but the remaining 26 now resides in the atmosphere.

BACK2SAYSTUFF: Not heard the telegraph poles analogy before and I agree with you about slewing data. However, there is a great deal of climatic data accumulated from many different independent sources each using different methodologies and the crucual factor is that the results concur.

We are tiny but then so is the atmosphere, so tiny that every bit of it has passed through many human bodies before you or I get to breathe it. There isn't much atmosphere per person and it doesn't take much to mess it up.

Volcanoes contribute 500 million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere, that's about the same as the states of Florida and Virgina. Oceanic CO2 exchange is in equilibrium.

Attribution of climate change to natural disasters is compared to a baseline figure for volcanic and seismological events, such events are not affected by climate change. Whilst numbers of volcanoes and earthquakes has remained steady there has been a dramatic (over 100% in some cases) rise in the...

...number of floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves, wildfires and similar events.

Global warming data is not extrapolated from local events but from satellite telemetry across the globe.

BYDERULE: I can't think of one and it looks like we're not alone. Congrats on top enviro.

JIM Z: Understand your point but temps and CO2 are inexorably linked via a feedback process - one leads to the other irrespective of which comes first. For example: temps rise, permafrost melts, methane (from methanogenesis) is released, GHG concentrations incresase, temps rise etc etc, the cycle could be started by any of those events.

CO2 may or may not be the most important GHG, next to water vapour it's the weakest and has the lowest GWP (global warming potential) so it's pretty ineffective but exists in far greater concentrations than all aother AGHGs combined. It's total copntribution to GW is surpassed only by that of H20.

TRUTHSEEKER: You also make good points. We know why and how the world is heating up (that's straightforward science) but we don't know what to do about it. Many schemes are being considered, there are four frontrunners which singularly or in combination could offset global warming, this is what I'm currently involved in. I'm not a Christian (or any religion) so I won't comment further on the religious points you make.

KM: You state it's a myth but don't citate or substantiate your comments. Following the money leads nowhere, if it was about money people wouldn't have gone into climatology but would have chosen other aspects of research instead where there is money to be made - pharmacuticals, medicine, petrochemicals etc.

(why can't we have more than 1000 characters to work with)

There are normal cyclical changes, there always have been. They can not account for the unprecedented rise in tempoerature's we've witnessed in the last 200 years. The shortest cycle the Earth goes through is a 19,000 year precessional cycle, the sun has shorter cycles but the difference between insolation maxima and minima is a variation of less than one thousandth from the mean. Over long periods of time these cycles do make a difference but we're talking thousands oir millions of years.

DANA1981: A detailed scientific argument that holds water, but it supports the global warming theory and not the other way around. Still, there are more answers I've yet to

read and maybe the elusive science to refute global warming will turn up as I read on.

3DM: We can't quantify or qualify God but can do so in respect of AGW through measurement, analysis and experimentation.

Whilst I agree that a consensus in itself doesn't prove anything you have to establish why there's a consensus. It's easy to point to historical events where a consensus has been wrong, but they were consensus (pl) of opinion not established through scientific process. As a for instance, the consensus thought the world was flat because that was the present Biblical interpretation (there being four corners of the Earth, supporting pillars, ends of the Earth etc). I'm not aware that any scioentific consensus arrived at through due process has been wrong before.

Man has produced a net cooling effect in the past through high levels of relective pollutants (primarily SO2) in the mid 20th C.

Not sure why the claim that CO2 is not the primary driver of AGW, the NASA article shows that the CF of CO2 exceeds that of the other AGHGs. It has a lower GWP but that's more than offset by atmospheric concentrations.

As previously mentioned, there are natural cycles at work and they are responsible for at least some of the current warming but at most this is 20% and probably less than 10%. All natural variables are taken into account when determining NGW and AGW contributions to overall GW.

I agree that this isn't a black and white issue even though there are many people who see it as such. There are some credible scientific reasons to question some aspects of AGW, they don't disprove it, just mean we may have to rethink some of it - a bit like having some peices of a jigsaw wrong, they fit into place just not where they are now.

I agree that this isn't a black and white issue even though there are many people who see it as such. Contrary to the question I asked there are some credible scientific reasons to question some aspects of AGW, they don't disprove it, just mean we may have to rethink some of it - a bit like having some peices of a jigsaw wrong, they fit into place just not where they are at the moment.

OPOOHWAN: Good points. The world is old (as old as you say) but we have several techniques at our disposal for evaluationg the historical climate, we can go back 542 million years using oxygen isotope analysis and whilst not exact it gives us a pretty accuarte picture of what's happened before. More recently (last 750,000 years) we can use more accurate techniques including ice core analysis.

The global warming issue is something that recently has been taken out of context. It was never a big issue back in the 70's and was more media sensationalism than documented science. There are several online articles that put things into context - just search for Global Cooling.

-----------

The end (finally)

Answer 1

So, you want someone to disprove something that hasn't been proven - as if the inability to do so validates your proof? Well THAT'S good science!!

Oh, brother...

Prove that God doesn't exist. If you cannot, does that prove God's existence?

And how many times do you guys have to roll out the "consensus" argument? Works great in politics, but has little value in science...other than to illustrate the greatness of scientists throughout history who went against consensus beliefs to achieve "breakthroughs". What do you think they were "breaking through", if not the consensus of their time?

BTW, if 99+% of Christian theologians believe in God's existence is that proof?

Getting to your question :AGW is NOT a fabrication in the sense that it can be proven that man can add or subtract energy to the environment either directly or indirectly through processes such as the greenhouse effect. However, accepting this means that everyone accepts the notion that man may actually produce a net cooling effect, that the current warming trend may have been diminished due to man's unwitting actions. Even such high-profile AGW proponents, such as James Hansen, admit that the primary driver of AGW is NOT the current popular villain, CO2.
( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/ )
Then again, Hansen also conveniently overlooks water vapor's effect as a GHG - a glaring dismissal.

Additionally, global warming is of GREAT consequence, and could ultimately be DISASTROUS. But that doesn't warrant us assigning it an anthropogenic cause. Quite the contrary, if the world is warming on it's own, it is going against nature to try to decrease or delay this warming. From a scientific standpoint, it is our responsibility as a species to adapt to this changing environment, evolve, or perish. I can't imagine a more shamelessly selfish act than radically altering a natural global process just to eek out a few moments of existence. Those are possibly the stakes here.

How many environmentalists would be willing to risk the present and future environment on a hunch that AGW accounts for ALL the warming?

So...fabrication? I don't see how you can say that there has not been fabrication. Omission of proven scientific processes, such as I cited in Hansen's article above, amount to fabrication. Does that amount to complete fabrication? Of course not. But it is only a small example of the blanket strategy employed by AGW alarmists to try and make this an all black or all white issue that ALIENATES folks like me who drives a hybrid or rides a motorcycle, employs passive heating/cooling and other energy-conserving practices in the home, recycles, decreases consumption, plants trees, etc.

I'll sit here and watch the parade of ecofascists vote thumbs down. That's open-mindedness! Extinguish all opposing points of view!!!

Answer 2

So the best arguments so far have been unsubstantiated & irrelevant (3% claim) and inaccurate & many times debunked (800 year lag). That's pretty sad.

To address the latter (again!), in the past there has been a lag between temp and CO2 increases. That's because CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. When there's another cause, it can lead to a CO2 increase which will amplify the global warming. However, the fact that CO2 isn't always the primary cause of global warming does not mean that CO2 cannot be the primary cause. That is a logical and scientific fallacy. Any contributor to global warming can be the primary cause under the correct conditions. In this case, humans burning massive amounts of fossil fuels is making CO2 the primary cause. There are then feedbacks such as an increase in atmospheric water vapor which also contribute to global warming as a consequence of our greenhouse gas emission forcings.

Sorry I didn't answer your question Trevor, because I can't! Clearly neither can anyone else. I like the "because I don't believe it" answers. Now that's credible!

Answer 3

Have you heard the example used in statistics classes that "telephone poles got rid of Polio?" The argument goes, that back in the 1890's there were practically no telephone poles and polio was rampant everywhere on the globe. Now, there are telephone poles everywhere and polio has nearly vanished. It's the act of skewing data and finding relevance in numbers that may have little or nothing to do with the mechanism under study. I use the argument from Semantics 101, that "The map is not the territory." Meaning that no matter how detailed a map you create, it will still not be as detailed as the territory. Now the climate scientists have a very short period of measurements (compared to geologic time) and they're assigning connections from very limited dots to dots that they say correlate. I look at the Google Earth and I can't see any sign of civilization, which tells me, in the total scheme of things, we are such a tiny speck on the ecosphere there can't possibly be a larger connection to mankind than there is to oceans and underwater volcanoes, for instance. When the oceanographer Ballard was surveying the Pacific (before he found Titanic), in the one, relatively small area he sent his robot diver cams, he reported discovering more than 1,500 unknown volcanoes! That astonished me, considering how much of the Pacific he didn't examine. And his findings fit the question of El Nino a lot better in my mind, than a can of deodorant spray or a butterfly sneezing in China. Every day that the weather is comfortably normal, no one claims that it's because of global warming. But let a freak storm blow up and since civilization has expanded into so many zones with homes that are cheap and tacky...well, global warming is causing all the local damage. Local warming may play a part in local weather, but to extrapolate to global proportions is asking for cries of "red herring" and "wicker man." I think that whether there's a consensus of opinion among the "cognoscenti" or not, a consensus doesn't make it true or a fact. There was a consensus of thought that said Columbus was out of his mind when he sailing to the edge of the flat earth. I hope some of this seems credible to you and it needs more detail that I left out, just to give you the idea.

Answer 4

Well given that fact that Global warming is not a credible argument it will be hard to reciprocate in kind.

Trev, your background is really impressive and all, but tell me how, on a planet as old as earth (what does science age it at? 4.57 billion years old?) can we really judge any comparisons on climate with the little historical data we have? especially when in the 70's environmentalist were crying about a coming ice age? I am a simple man, but in 30 years we go from cooling to warming, on a planet that is in her billions of years old. Kinda seems silly to be crying about warming don't ya think?

Answer 5

Hmmm? Fabrication? It is a fact that the earth is heating up. What the world is truly taking issue with or arguing about is why and what should we do about it...if we should do anything or can anything be done. Having studied climate, are you led to believe, by using data from having affected climate in a positive way yourself of what consequence can you be?
As far as "little consequence". If you're a Christian you may believe in the end of the world....you may disagree with how or why or what the bible says will happen...will it be started by a nuclear bomb? or perhaps global warming??/
But you would agree the world as we know it will end.
Nothing in life is "of little consequence".
If not a Christian, consequences shouldn't matter.

Answer 6

CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator with temperature. Temperature may very well result in increasing and decreasing CO2 concentration and not the reverse. There is a lag of about 800 years because the ocean stores much of the CO2 and when it cools, CO2 is absorbed into the ocean and when it warms CO2 is given off. Because the ocean is so large there is an approximate lag time of 800 years. It is difficult to prove causation with CO2 when it is lagging. I wouldn't deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it isn't the most important one. There are many more important factors that are conveniently ignored by the GW alarmists in my opinion.

Answer 7

Humans may create only 3% (I don't know if that number is accurate. But that 3% is messing things up. Data that proves it:

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels (in addition to the shape of the graph, the increase numerically matches the increase in fossil fuel use). The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

Answer 8

How about the fact that humans only create 3% of the CO2 produced on the planet ?

Just one of hundreds. Read some science books for more.

Answer 9

GW is a myth. It's a political posturing move and seems to be working with all the sheeple here that believe it's true.

Follow the money!!

Normal cyclical climate changes are occurring as they have for thousand of years.

+

Answer 10

Sorry cant think of one.
Congrats on top glob.
Its making you bite .
Ace