Don't global warming skeptics know that , in science, numbers are more important than words?

Question

Scientists have proven, with numbers, that greenhouse gases are mostly responsible for global warming. Here are the calculations, short and (very) long versions. The long has reams of detail and hundreds of references.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Increased radiation from the sun, volcanoes, or "natural cycles" can't explain most of global warming. The numbers don't work. Greenhouse gases can explain most of it.

Skeptics debate. But scientists calculate. Which is why almost every scientific organization accepts man made warming as fact.

Note this, especially the crucial word "quantitative".

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOA

Harry H - not all of science is reducible to "controlled experiments". For example it is accepted scientific fact that the universe is about 13 billion years old, even though we haven't created another one to check. Of course some people think it is only 6000 years old. But they basically have to reject scientific data and science to do it. Same thing with global warming.

Harry H - The scientific literature about global warming is full of discussions of margins of error. It's in this discussion verbally (with detail in the underlying references):

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

Here it's the fuzzy gray area:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

and it's discussed in many places in the IPCC report.

Arctic ice loss is one of many predictions the theory made years ago that are coming to pass. As is the identification of the increased CO2 levels as coming mostly from fossil fuel combustion, through isotopic ratio measurements. More alarmingly, so is the alteration of the ecology and loss of species.

Brian T - It is very true that, in previous natural warmings (likely started by the sun) CO2 lagged warming by hundreds of years. It's one of many things proving this warming is not natural.

CO2 acts in two ways. It causes warming, through the greenhouse effect, and it is released during warming, as ocean waters warm and can't hold as much CO2. Even skeptical scientists accept those basic facts.

The numerical data shows clearly that this warming is different from natural cycles, that CO2 is not lagging behind, but moving up right along with temperature. That proves that this warming is not caused by the sun (mostly), but mostly by CO2.

Marc G - It's not all CO2, just mostly. The calculations I've seen (and I've looked at a lot) agree about that. Solar radiation is well measured and can't explain the present warming numerically. This well accepted graph graph shows all the major factors, and their relative importance.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

We've discussed the availability of the data you cite, I'll try to find it at a college library.

Matt - There is a natural "water cycle" which regulates water vapor closely, dramatically reducing its' impact on warming. The "carbon cycle" is more unstable, and is going out of control:

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/plot.php?file=co2/monthly/nwr440n1.dat&species=7/9&format=MON

CO2 does not act independently of the sun, it increases the sun's warming effect on Earth. Scientists can use physics to calculate how much CO2 causes how much warming. The results closely match the actual data. And, an increase of CO2, such as we have seen, from about .25% to about .4%, is sufficient to cause the observed warming.

Water vapor is not ignored, it is discussed in all the serious literature, including the IPCC report.

Much more about water vapor here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Jack - Where can I find the real numbers?

Eric c - See the ripples in the solar radiation shown on this graph? That's things like sunspots. It's not enough to explain the present warming as green house gases do, although it is a minor contributor.

Much more about solar cycles here - the Stanford (as in University) Solar Center, funded by NASA, doesn't seem like a political organization to me.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

Oops. Forgot the graph. You've seen it once or twice already:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

It's far from the only graph of its' type, just a nice clear peer reviewed one.

James I - don't give up. Some people here are actually interested in learning.

Pat j - You're right. It's a mistake to attribute any short term weather events to global warming. Only the long term trends are valuable evidence.

Answer 1

Well most skeptics aren't scientsts and clearly don't hold science in high regard considering that many believe that man-made global warming is some giant hoax perpetrated by a vast coalition of liberal politician and corrupt money-grubbing scientists.

Answer 2

Good point.. Scientists / skeptics or people who believe in Global Warming are not able to prove or disprove the phenomenon. So, the debate is on. Any change on a global level will take hundred of years, thus difficult to pin-point the cause and effect. Of course majority believe that there is a Global Warming, but I guess what is happening is the change in climate across the Globe. The cold regions are getting warmer say New York City, where as the warm places say Mumbai (Bombay) is getting cooler. Both brings good news for productivity. So, really not very sure if Global Warming is good or bad. Depends where you are staying. Coastal cities may have problem for sure in coming times, if glaciers are melting faster than expected. Cheers! MKJ

Answer 3

The notion of consensus is a ploy used by global warming supporters to deflect the arguments away from the weak science behind the theory. If all of the experts support it, you should support it as well, and there is no need to question the science. If I were to make a statement against a "no brainer" like the sun revolves around the earth, no one will use the consensus argument. they will take me aside and show me the errors in my ways. Any argument I make there is a counter argument. Is is because the science is so weak that you make this statement.

For example, what caused the mid century cooling for four decades? You counter argument is sulphates (smog) that is blocking the sun. Then shouldn't there be an increase in sulphates at around 1940 until 1975, and then a decrease? But what you see is a steady decrease in sulphates during the 20th century. Which begs the other question. Why is there high levels of sulphates during the early part of the 20th century, low levels of co2, but temperatures still rose?

But if you look at the sun spot record, temperatures started to rise at the same time sun activity started to increase. When temperatures started to fall at around 1940, so did sun activity. What is more since the invention of the telescope over 400 years ago, man has recorded sunspot activity. Because of these historical records, we can compare variations in sunspot activity to long term trends in cooling and heating in other historical records. Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature until about 1980. I do not care what some politicaly motivated scientists or organizations have to say. Do you want us to believe that is a coincidence? Remember you argument is that co2 is the primary driver of the 20th century rise in temperatures.

Edit: Bob answer my question. Do you want me to believe it is a coincidence the historical correlation between co2 and temperatures? And isn't Standford in San Fransisco the hot bed for political correctness?

Answer 4

Yes, it's true that greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect that heats up the earth somewhat. However, the fact is that there is no scientific concensus that humans are responsible. There is only a concensus in the minds of those who want to cut CO2. Almost all skeptics are silenced or not published (if you note: Hurricane Expert Greg for the Weather Channel points out that global warming actually produces fewer hurricanes [warmer temps produce more wind shear, which tears apart hurricanes] contra to Al Gore). If you would like a better argument about greenhouse gases note that 99% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor. So we should be sucking water vapor out of our atmosphere which will kill us. Those who try to affect the 1% of CO2 are so arrogant in believing that man can alter the atmosphere of our entire planet and change the earth when we have a sun that produces more energy in one second than mankind has produced in history. Also, take a look at the ice caps shrinking on Mars. Maybe the sun is doing something. Like another answer pointed out, CO2 follows temp, not vice-versa. More CO2 means more plants, which take in more CO2, helping to balance.

So there are some numbers for you, CO2 is 1% of the greenhouse gases. We don't just have words. (what's the difference anyway?)

Answer 5

Please.

Wikipedia? Well THERE'S the source for the best science has to offer. IPCC reports? Bias is there from the outset. A non-elected governmental panel created to validate it's own existence. Hmmm...I wonder if that will have any influence on their findings.

You talk about "numbers" being more important than "words" - numbers are useless without words, and I have seen no evidence that you can handle either with any scientific or logical honesty.

Take Dr. Mahlman's quote: where does he say that man is the primary cause of "Global warming"? All you can infer from his statement is that the globe is warming. Wow, tell us something we don't know. When the other choices are cooling and temperature stasis (and stasis has never happened for any geologically significant time that we know of) it's easy to see how it's "almost a no-brainer at this point".

Answer 6

I think more and more people are finding it hard to take scientists seriously when these days no matter what the adverse weather conditions are it's put down to global warming, whether it's hot , cold, wet or dry.
Here in New Zealand, last month was recorded as one of the hottest on record. In the very same report, this month has been one of the coldest.
When heavy snow falls in the South Island, the explanation is "The adverse weather conditions are thought to be from climate change due to global warming".
Pretty hard to make sense of "double dutch" statements like that.

Answer 7

Hasn't been proven. How many controled experiments have shown that the theory is correct? Calculations alone don't mean a thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY

- Science 101


(climate scientists can't even predict next week's weather or temperature with any accuracy with their models so how can we take you guys seriousley. In a couple years they'll be looking at all those climatologists as a joke)

EDIT: We know the age of the universe but we also know there is a margin of error that we include in our calculations. Everyone who does quantum mechanics knows what I'm talking about when I say margin of errors. The Schroedenger Equation doesn't accurately predict outcomes but probabilities of outcomes. Climatologists are claiming that they know that there has been a 1 degree difference in temperature which they claim proves global warming.

Many theories are not tested directly but are tested by inference. This is how quantum mechanics is done. Even much of astrophysics is done in this manner. Theories like String Theory have no way of being tested, that's why many scientists hesitate to call String Theory a science.

Testing by inference is to test individual componant data that makes up the greater theory to see if they can support the theory. Why hasn't this been done, and if it has, why hasn't any of this been published?

Answer 8

Sorry but to compare the reading of an inaccurate thermometer to today thermometer. They were possible + - 2 deg. F. There are problems with the CO2 also. God put plants here to recycle the CO2 . And the plants have done a great job. If the CO2 had increased as much as u want ,people would be Dieing. Then there is methane . It is a very light gas so it goes very high . How do u think they measured it. It is not data it is garbage.

Answer 9

If words aren't important, why bother quoting Mahlman?

The skeptic crowd does seem to be a bit of a motley crew and many of them do not expand their research beyond the GGWS, regretably.

However, papers that look at mechanisms other than CO2 are readily available. They vary greatly in attribution of warming to human causes. Some even offer up OTHER human activities (land use changes) as a reason for significant amounts of change in global temps. I have repeatedly offered these up and won't do it here in the question.

What we see is a complex problem that has been boiled down to a very simple explanation (CO2). I think the reality of the situation is that the multiple mechanisms and feedback systems all work in concert to produce our current warming trend. CO2 is not eh only source of warming, it may not even be the main source of the warming that we have seen over the last 125 years.

More science is needed before governments ram us into the law of unintended consequences.


------------------------EDIT------------------------

Here is a link to Roger Pielkes blog at CSU. He just posted a rather lenghty breakdown that estimates CO2 contributes about 26.5% of the total warming seen. I find this to be important, not so much to poo-poo AGW, but rather in its implications for those that make policy. I have long maintained that we do not have the full picture and that enacting policy to fix a poorly understood problem is not the way to go.

Answer 10

Yes they do. But real numbers always trump made up numbers. Hence forth why a majority of people don't believe in the global warming Lie.

Answer 11

Sure numbers are important, and the numbers show that for the past several million years the climate has been swinging from cold (ice ages) to global warming (nice periods between ice ages) all without the affect of humans