Any evidence to refute global warming / climate change?

Question

Been a while since I last asked for any evidence to refute GW / CC, nobody came up with anything on the previous occasions, perhaps something has since come to light.

If you don't buy into the GW / CC theory please provide credible evidence that disproves it or an alternative explanation. Alternatively valid arguments indicating what we know may be wrong.

Answer 1

It is tough to provide evidence to refute GCC when you are unsure of the evidence that supports GCC. But let's see if I can get the basic premise right: the current trend of observed global warming is caused primarily by an anthropogenic-enhanced Greenhouse effect. The proposed mechanism through which this is happening is increased release of GHGs originating from fossil fuels (mostly CO2), overloading the carbon-cycle (since it represents "old carbon" on extended "hiatus" from the cycle) due to the inability of natural sinks to compensate fully for the increase. The annual excess carbon adds up to an increasingly large carbon "debt" from which it is unlikely that nature will be able to adjust (and still remain within a reasonable range of the current levels of human habitability) without intervention by man.

Pretty close?

OK.

First, was there a Little Ice Age? Sometimes we see it included in the data, sometimes not. Most of the time it seems incredibly downplayed. The point is that the end of this period corresponds coincidentally with the Industrial Revolution and mankind's first large-scale utilization of fossil fuels (coal). Assuming for whatever reason, the coal was simply not there, the Industrial Revolution never happened, petroleum and the internal combustion engine were science fiction: would we still be in the Little Ice Age? If not, what would be the increase in temperature from that time to today? And no conjecture here - if scientists are convinced of man's hand in this global warming, then it should be quantifiable. If average global temps have risen only 0.8 C since 1850, how much of that is due to anthropogenic greenhouse warming? More? Less?

The Greenhouse effect: exactly how much warming does it provide today? Back in 1850? We are getting into quite an uproar over less than 1 degree, but I have not seen a value for the total amount of greenhouse warmth within 1 degree. The range of values seems to be about 10 degrees, although I've seen a few outside of this range. My point is that it should be reasonably quantified such that we can make a verifiable attribution. Otherwise, temperatures seem to lie within the range of normal variability.

Within the radiative forcings that make up the Greenhouse effect, what is the quantified value given to water vapor? To clouds - all of them, not just stratospheric cirrus? I always see CO2 and every other greenhouse gas, but not water vapor or clouds. Why is that? Water vapor only seems to get any mention as a feedback, but at less than a degree of warming, this disregards the vast range of evaporation, or to be more precise, equilibrium states of water vapor, since you well know that ice can sublimate to water vapor at well below 0 C. Simply put, what portion of the current warming is due to water vapor? Have there been any studies that demonstrate global absolute humidity remaining constant since 1850? 1950? Unless it is demonstrably certain that absolute humidity has not risen, then it should have a quantifiable effect.

As long as we're talking about warming feedbacks, what portion of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to feedback? And what portion of the warming is due to this feedback? This would include not only normal loss of CO2 from sea surface due to rising temps, but also increased plant and animal respiration because of higher metabolism rates, increased rates of decomposition globally, and increased sources of decomposing biomass through warming of permafrost. And once again, feedbacks don't simply kick in at a certain level. If we have predictive models that can tell us the consequences of the feedbacks, then we should know how much of the 0.8 C is attributable to CO2 feedback.

How much, if any, of the current increases in atmospheric CO2 is due to deep ocean outgassing/degassing? Given that most claims show the oceans to be a net carbon sink annually, I'd assume that the attribution is also zero or negative. Does that mean that the thermohaline currents don't play a part in CO2 sequestering or release? Have any studies demonstrated either the presence or absence of an effect on atmospheric CO2? If yes, is it quantified? If not, what is the scientific basis for determining a negligible effect on current CO2 levels?

Well, we could go on and on about methods used for computer models, CO2 measuring of ice cores, IR-spectra and actual CO2 absorbance, land-based monitoring bias, known errors in ocean temp sensors, known errors in measuring sea level increase, etc. But I want to take this 0.8 C pie, remove every piece that is not DIRECTLY attributable to man, then demonstrate how we arrived at this current temperature and how we will proceed into a more dangerous range of temperatures.

I'm sorry if I didn't attempt to refute GCC. I'm not one to go about carving a marble elephant by starting with a block of marble and chipping away everything that doesn't look like an elephant. I feel that there is too much at stake to make broad assumptions. If scientists have not made assumptions, then all of my questions should have a scientifically sound and quantifiable answer...and maybe something that begins to look more like an elephant.

Answer 2

First, for your claim that they "replaced global warming with climate change". This is a common misconception people have, but it is easy to see why it is wrong. Realize that "global warming' and "climate change" actually refer to two different but related things; global warming means only a rise in temperature. Climate change refers to many things that occur as a result of this rise in temperature, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation patterns, etc. "Climate" refers to much more than just temperature. Realize too the IPCC has been around since 1988; it was never known as the IPGW. The terms have ALWAYS been used interchangeably (though during the Bush administration it was advised that they always call it 'climate change', since this name doesn't seem as bad) Now, as far as whether it is a scam or not, think about it for a moment. Why do you really think this? Is there really anything that unusual about the way that politicians have reacted? Isn't it natural for governments to take action (assuming it was a real threat)? What specifically are they doing that is suspicious? Personally I would be more suspicious if they were NOT doing anything--it would tell me it were not actually a real threat--don't you think? And finally, you seem to have another belief that global warming supporters vs global warming skeptics are a 50-50 deal. This misconception is also common, since most TV shows still try to be "balanced" by showing both a skeptic and a supporter at the same time. But the fact is 97.5% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and human caused; is it "balanced" to give both sides such equal coverage when the supporters are clearly among the majority in the scientific community?

Answer 3

Hey American patriot you do realize you just said that the earth has only warmed by 1 degree in the last 100 years and then said that it was hotter 100 years ago than it is today. The guy you got that data set and subsequent scientifically tested and accepted finding from must have been on the ball.

Anyway none of the above things you mentioned can be found in any of the climate science journals i found and don't say they have been censored because the only way that a good scientific theory would not get in is if it was ludicrous or used incorrect or out of date techniques and data. Every climate scientist in the world would love to prove that his theory of sun hotter or mars melting was real and could be shown using historical data or whatever but NO ONE HAS so stop quoting absolute rubbish and read some journal articles.

The facts are put in to the journal in a manner that is easy to understand and not misleading or incorrect. The language may be above that of the non believers but if you take an objective approach and read the facts you will understand. If you read about most of the scientists in the articles they have spent most of their lives trying to disprove the anthropogenic climate change theory but have failed and and now accept the theory.

Even a 1 deg c increse would be significant given the global average temperature couldnt be any higher than 15. If it was 15 deg c it would still be a rise of >5%. Im sure when you take into account the antartic region the average temp would be lower but i am not 100% sure.

Answer 4

Polar ice caps on Mars are melting (Our CO2 didn't travel that far did it?)

The Antarctic Ice Mass is growing, not shrinking

The sun is getting hotter

The earth goes through cycles

The earth has only heated up 1 whole degree in the last 100 years

It was warmer a hundred years ago than it is now

Answer 5

Read Michael Crichton's State Of Fear.

It is a work of fiction but is written by a good friend of Al Gore who is far more educated in the field and says that his good friend is 180 degrees wrong on this one.

Read about Crichton, his education, his personal and professional experience, his areas of specific brilliance and then read his book.

Answer 6

I think you should make the distinction between climate change and the human-induced global warming theory.

Answer 7

Global warming is happening, it just isn't man made as the general population believes it to be. Earth goes through cycles of ice age, rising temperatures, cooling temperatures, and another ice age constantly and consistently in million year cycles. This is natural, the climate is rising on it's own. There is no reason to follow Al Gore and honor and praise his judgement like it's so amazing when he is a hypocrite environmentalist living the life he wants people to condemn. Another thing, those pictures of the "drowning/starving" polar bears aren't really as bad as they are made out to be. If you actually know polar bears, mother bears purposely go out onto small ice floes with their cubs to protect them from the males who will eat them. On the floes, the mother is still thin from supporting her cubs and giving them all of her food as she teaches them how to hunt and survive on their own. These pictures are real, they are just used as a prop for global warming.

Answer 8

I've seen so many people asking question about global warming.

What actually is global warming? Can I literally interpret the word as warming up the globe?

Seriously, I am really ignorant about the meaning of the word.

Answer 9

There's more evidence in an ice core than what most 'climatologists' are telling us, IE; we are experiencing nature.