What part of the science is being disputed by Global Warming deniers?

Question

It is clear that the earth is warming, that is not questioned by anyone. But I hear that people don't accept the science which shows humans are playing a part in the warming. So what part of the science is disputed?

1. Greenhouse gases radiate heat. The more greenhouse gases, the more heat is emitted to earth, thus the temperature rises.

2. Humans produce greenhouse gases through unnatural means (i.e. burning fossil fuels)

And don't give me any circumstantial evidence that doesn't have to do with these two scientific points. For example, people say the other planets are also getting hotter. Fine, all that points to is that some of our warming might also be caused by the sun. But this question is meant to deal with the specific science that suggests humans are contributing to global warming.

truthisback: It is hard to tell, but I am assuming you are saying scientific point 1 is wrong. So you don't believe greenhouse gases can cause an increase in temperature.

Santa Pinch-A-Loaf: I am assuming you don't agree that the global temperature is rising, which means the 2 scientific points are moot.

truthisback: Also, you need to learn what circumstantial evidence is. What I have given is hard science, YOU have given circumstantial evidence.

truthisback: Also, you need to learn what circumstantial evidence is. What I have given is hard science, YOU have given circumstantial evidence.

Fred P: I am not saying that humans are causing all the warming, or even most of the warming. I am saying that science shows we have a part. The size of that part? I'm not certain. I think we are in agreement here.

Fedup and Sean M: I am still finding is hard to get good answers from people, but I am assuming you also disagree with point 2, that greenhouse gases can cause warming.

DeusExMachina: thank you for being the first to give a definitive answer. You disagree with point 1.

Answer 1

From a PBS interview with Dr S Fred Singer. He is just one. Here is what he says re #1.

Let's go back to the basic physical principles. People like John Tyndall did experiments in the nineteenth century, where he filled tubes with different gases and found that certain trace gases--CO2 and also gases like water vapor-- had the ability to block infrared radiation. And that basic physics suggests the natural greenhouse effect takes advantage of this, suggests that part of the reason we have the climate we have is because of that, and that if you added to it continually and for long enough, you would increase the optical thickness of these gases and, therefore, would trap more heat in the system. From that standpoint, you don't deviate, do you?

There's nothing wrong with the basic physics. There's nothing wrong with laboratory physics, with measurements taken in the laboratory. They can be made very precisely, and under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is not a laboratory that you can put into a building and control. The atmosphere is much more complicated.

For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide.

I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. Much less. And I think it will be barely detectable. Perhaps it will be detectable, perhaps not. And it certainly will not be consequential. That is, it won't make any difference to people. After all, we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?

RE #2
But there's this argument: Yes, the aerosols are there and might counteract some of the enhanced greenhouse effect. But, they will be washed out within a few days and, therefore, wouldn't continue to accumulate in the way that CO2 does. CO2 stays around for 100 years. Therefore, the two things really aren't in balance. They might balance for a bit, but over a long period of time, if you go on producing CO2, this will concentrate, while the other will get washed out. And if you look ahead and project the use of fossil fuels, isn't it going to overwhelm the other forcing factors?

Aerosols have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, measured typically in a matter of a week, two weeks, something like that. And then they rain out, or they fall out. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime measured in decades. Some of it survives even beyond 100 years. So if carbon dioxide effects were important, then they would eventually predominate.

But the question is: Are they important in relation to the aerosol effects? Or, put it this way: Are the aerosol effects hiding the effect of carbon dioxide now? We can tell. We can find an answer to this, because we can look for fingerprints in the climate record. Since aerosols are mostly emitted in the northern hemisphere, where industrial activities are rampant, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warming less quickly than the southern hemisphere. In fact, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be cooling. But the data show the opposite. Both the surface data and the satellite data agree that, in the last 20 years, the northern hemisphere has warmed more quickly than the southern hemisphere. So it contradicts the whole idea that aerosols make an important difference.

This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse.

ALSO from PBS an interview with Richard Sommerville

What do you say to people, in broad terms, when you are asked the questions: Is the climate changing? Should I be concerned??

I would say yes. And "concerned" is a good word. Not alarmed, and not nonchalant. So far as we know, this is a phenomenon with a long time scale. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that there have been surprises in the past. The ozone hole is a wonderful example. There was a theory that ozone would be slowly depleted, but the discovery that half the ozone over the Antarctic atmosphere disappeared every southern spring, that was a huge surprise. And there's a lot of recent evidence that the climate system is capable of behaving like a switch rather than a dial, and producing surprises.

Answer 2

Both of your points are right. Greenhouse Gases do keep heat inside the earth and humans do produce greenhouse gases artificially. On paper, there appears to be a good case for the mainstream theory on Global Warming. However, there are inconvenient facts that falsify the theory. There's the well-documented Global Warming on Mars and Pluto that is roughly the same as that on Earth (are there any humans on Mars emitting greenhouse gases artificially?). There's the fact that temperatures have been higher in the past (the Medieval Warm Period from about 1000 years ago and the Holocene Maximum during the Bronze Age) and the polar bears survived through it. There's the fact that most of the Global Warming occurred between 1900 and 1945, which included the Great Depression, and then there was a slight decline in temperatures during the post-war economic boom of 1945-1975 that led to a Global Cooling scare 30 years ago. The current wave of Global Warming ironically started during the Hyperinflationary Recession of the 70s. Then there's the problem that under greenhouse warming, you'd expect temperatures to increase more at the troposphere where the greenhouse gases are, but the opposite has occurred. There was even a story that broke this week that NASA had a Y2K bug in their computer system that falsely stated that 1998 was the warmest year on record when 1934 actually remains the warmest year on record (ironically, 1934 was just about the lowpoint of the Great Depression). All the empirical evidence points to the theory laid out in Inconvienient Truth not being accurate.

The name Global Warming "deniers" also doesn't make any sense to begin with. Most of the critics of the theory of Man-Made Global Warming don't deny that there has been Global Warming. The main point being debated is what the cause of the Global Warming is and to a lesser extent, what should be done about it. Even if you accept the complete theory laid out by Al Gore in "Inconvenient Truth" that global warming is entirely caused by CO2 emissions from industry, that does not imply that we should abandon all industry and return to the Middle Ages to keep temperatures down (as some Greens suggest). It can hardly be argued that abandoning the wealth which Capitalism has brought about to prevent a slight increase in temperature is a worthwhile tradeoff. Even if the Greens are absolutely right on every point, we should not abandon industry, but rather we should adapt to our warmer environment and accept Global Warming as a suitable price to pay for the unprecedented prosperity which we live under.

Answer 3

Some Simple Facts:
Yes, there is Global Warming. It has happened before and it will happen again. Example: Middle ages, the global warming was obviously caused by man then also.

The Ice caps have melted, on average, an insignificant amount, causing the sea level to rise an insignificant amount. I have heard claims that 40% of the ice caps are already gone. If that were true, the sea level would have risen 3 feet. Serious misinformation.

Man contributes only minimally to global warming. I have heard claims that 90% of Climate scientists say man outright caused the global warming. That is an outright lie. The figure is more like 10%. Maybe 90% percent believe that Man CONTRIBUTES BUT NOT CAUSES global warming. Misinformation.

Global warming is a political tool used to divert attention from Big Oils raping of America. It is the latest in a line of intentional distractions by politicians. As others have said the “flavor of the month”. What has your politician done about Big Oil. Probably nothing or misinformation.

Global warming is real but used by Alarmists by horrific exaggerations and careful misinformation. These Alarmists spout various facts and figures with little or no truth while denouncing anything that contradicts their views. I often think their actions remind me of psycho sports fans who freak out if you dare to say anything is wrong with their team.

There is good in the global warming debate. It will reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency. I don’t need lies and misinformation to get me to believe that.

Answer 4

To make a long question shorter: What part isn't being disputed? It's funny to learn that these same people were calling it global cooling in the 1970s. Look at geological records for events which occur on a geological scale and you will also see that the theories do not agree with the earth's past. Talk to geologists outside of academia (and therefore removed from the partiality of making a case for funding on global warming research) and they will tell you about the solar and climate cycles.

Basically, the geological story shows that solar activity correlates with climate and that carbon dioxide appears to lag far behind the trends as a consequence and NOT a cause of climate change.

1. Greenhouse gases trap heat (not radiate it) by yielding slower heat transfer mechanisms.

2. Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible; analyze the contributions of volcanoes, and forest fires around the world.

The geological data supports these theories very strongly, but Nobel prize-seeking anti-industrialist continue to go around the world crushing less-developed nations with our more expensive, cleaner energy solutions. They suffer greatly because they cannot obtain cheap forms of electricity. Thus anti-industrialism, under the cloak of environmentalism, makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and famished.

Answer 5

To truthisback –

That is incorrect. There is no comparable period or scale of warming in last 10,000 years.

During the mid Holocene 5-7,000 years ago (what has been called the Alti-thermal or Hypsi-thermal or Climatic Optimum warm period), it is true that summers were warmer; however winters were colder. Further, we understand the cause of that variability and it lies in fluctuations of the earth’s orbit.

We also know from empirical evidence and the Milankovitch theory that the high summer temperatures did not occur consistently in the northern hemisphere; and in the southern hemisphere there was no increase at all. It is a ‘Western’ bias to believe that just because something occurs where you live, it must be the same all over the globe.

In any event, the overall mean temperature was not as great during the mid-Holocene as it is today (particularly the last 50 or so years), and current warming is not the result of the earth’s tilt or variability in solar energy.

---------------------

afratta437 --

'Weather' and 'climate' are not the same thing.

-------------------

racerkeith --

The earth’s climate 550 million years ago is irrelevant to the current problem.

For crying out loud, at that time most of the land mass found in our southern hemisphere was all one giant continent located in the northern hemisphere. The thing caused the earth to tilt and wobble, sliding the continent around and eventually breaking it up.

It should be obvious that you cannot use that as a model for modern (the last 10,000 years) climate.

-------------------------------

landen99 –


I love geologists. Shoot, some of my best friends are geologists. However, Holocene climate is not exactly a principle focus of most geologic research; they do not deal with century- or millennial-length cycles; or synoptic climatology - and they are not really in this game.

-------------------

afratta437 –

The - “increase of intensity and frequency of storms. is that climate” – is climate, but if it happens where you are, then your weather may suck.

In fact, I was one of the last to climb aboard the ‘Warming’ boat, having held out even through the late 1990s when the evidence hit the ‘overwhelming’ threshold.

I have, somewhat uniquely, been in the bizarre position of having been attacked both by Gore’s Senate committee in the early 1990s because some in Washington interpreted our research to be anti- doom-and-gloom; and having been attacked by Exxon hired assassins McIntyre and McKitrick in the early 2000s because I co-authored an article with one of the ‘Hockey Stick’ authors and provided some of the data in the study that gave the temperature curve that name.

You are right about one thing – the politics sucked. I quit and got a job in the private sector. I work less and make more money. Go figure, huh?

And, that's the fact, Jack. Cheers.

Answer 6

greenhouse gases keep the heat in earth.

2 is correct

anyways, the earth has been going through cycles, in the mid 1500's the earth underwent a minor ice age, and today we are still coming out of that. people act like, with just about 100 years of recorded temperature, we can predict what will happen for centuries. not true. the cycles last longer than that.

as for CO2, it has only been proven to encompass 1/20th of greenhouse gases, it therefore can only raise the temperature a couple degrees if it is constantly emitted and, after those few degrees go up, can do nothing else to change the climate.

Answer 7

Science, by definition, is not 100% accurate. All it's doing is taking a bunch of like-minded opinions and putting them together. There are WAY too many variables to point at a single source - and way too many differing opinions that don't point conclusively to a single source.

While humans do have a part in climate change, what proof do you have that they are causing global warming in your statement of "...it is clear that the earth is warming..."? What happened to the threat of the coming ice age in the 1920's and 1970's?

My feeling is that much of the global warming hysteria is politically-based. Why wasn't the issue raised 5 years ago? The computer modeling was nearly the same and the data was nearly the same. The only difference is that you now have politicians and the liberal intelligentsia preaching about it - you know why? Because it CAN'T be proven!!!!!

Fred

Answer 8

The Earth has been and will continue to change in the same cyclical manner in which it has always done. We have only been keeping records on this topic for a hundred or so years. Do you truly believe that we can ascertain the workings of the planet in that time? Just 30 or so years ago it was "Global Cooling, Oh no, what are we going to do?" Do some research into how much greenhouse gas is pumped into the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption. I think you will find that this natural occurrence far out-shadows any human driven carbon footprint in the grand scheme of things. Start thinking for yourself and turn in your Al Gore Fan Club Membership Card.

P.S. Guess who owns major stock in the Carbon Credit Industry? I'll give you a hint, his last name rhymes with "Whore".

Answer 9

Global warming will not be helped much by efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Climate experts have concluded that temperature variations are due more to cosmic forces and natural occurances than to the actions of man.

There is a correlation between past cosmic ray flux – the high-energy particles reaching us from stellar explosions -- and long-term climate variability, as recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its atmosphere is reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.

Peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over the past 550 million years have coincided with lower global temperatures, apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud formation (hence blocking out sun warming). No correlation was obtained, however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The conclusion is, therefore, that celestial processes seem to be the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces which are beyond our control.

In practical terms, "The operative significance of research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man." Thus, the Kyoto accord of 1997 -- which was aimed at tackling the global warming phenomenon through limitations on carbon dioxide -- is not the panacea some thought it would be.

Taking the long-range view, experts believe that fluctuations in cosmic ray emissions account for about 75 percent of climate variation over millions of years. It is generally acknowledged that this position pits this theory against prevailing scientific opinion, which still places a heavy emphasis on the negative role of greenhouse gases.

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Al Gore and others would suggest.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Even if people attempt to mitigate the effects of pollution on the planet, global warming will continue. In fact, if all the humans were taken off the planet tomorrow, global warming would still continue because humans are only partially responsible for it.

Answer 10

You know, global warming is questioned by hundreds of scientists. Many of those scientists espouse a very likely theory that the earth's temperature fluctuates, and always has, even before mankind or the car.

With that stated, just how many degrees increase do the "scientists in complete agreement" believe the humans are responsible for? Will their solutions for a remedy be off the pages of the Sierra Club or other environmentalist groups? If their remedies are the same, why shouldn't we be suspicious?