global warming advocates?

Question

i'm a skeptic. here's why:

the IPCC and those who agree with them that global warming is real based their conclusion off of about 100 years of recorded measurements, and base the global warming argument off 30 years of temp. increases (see below for source). they have guesses about what the temperature was before then, but those guesses aren't entirely accurate -- they are simply guesses. the earth has been shown to go through cycles, usually lasting much longer than 100 years. while this argument does not negate the possibility of global warming, it does show that global warming hasn't been proved conclusively.

i would go into why so many scientists believe in if it might not be true, but i don't have enough space. message me if you'd like me to explain. basically, it's if the teacher is all for X, and doesn't state the other side of the argument, the student is inclined to agree.

source for IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_Policymakers_Summary_criticism

your thoughts?

one more thing though: no offense, but please don't give answers like "you're stupid" or "you don't know what you're talking about". please provide real arguments and only answer if you know what you're talking about, and not simply agreeing with what TV tells you.

also, some advocates claim that when the temperature is up 2 degrees from last year, that that serves as proof for global warming. but no, that happens on the earth all the time. each year the mean temp. is a little different from the year before and after it, due to cycles. besides, it's not like we starting pumping CO2 last year, we've been doing it since the industrial revolution. by their calculations temperature should have raised to the point that no life could survive.

cosmo, CO2 only makes up 5% of greenhouse gases. with those measurements, temperature can only raise a few degrees, and no more.

Ted H, the thermometer hundreds of years ago was not very accurate. in fact, it could easily be off several degrees and, because global warming advocates base their evidence on such minute scales (a few degrees over stretches of time), the measurements back in those times are insignificant because they are not unequivocably correct.

same thing for CO2 levels -- it's not entirely accurate.

Answer 1

I am a scientist who is of the opinion that the peer reviewed scientific literature is very convincing that the large amount of carbon dioxide gases that we put into the atmosphere every year is making a contribution to the warming of the planet.

I see that you have read the scientific material yourself and you are not convinced.

Fair enough. I doubt that anything that I say will change your mind.

I do recommend however that you do not limit your discussion to only whether or not it is proven that carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere contributes to the warming of the planet.

I recommend that you also consider that if the IPCC reports are correct what should be the proper response.

For example as I read the IPCC reports, we must reduce the world wide production of carbon dioxide to less than one tenth of what it is today if we are to have any chance at all of stopping Global Warming.

Can we achieve that kind of reduction world wide?

Can we even achieve that kind of reduction in the United States?


What should we do if The People's Republic of China refuses to reduce its production of greenhouse gases and in fact dramatically increases its production of greehouse gases?


Can we even stop Global Warming?


What should we do if we cannot stop Global Warming?


How should we respond if the sea levels do rise 20 feet?


What should we do about flooding in the coastal areas? Should we build dikes? Help people relocate? Do nothing?


What should we do about stronger and more frequent hurricanes?


What should we do about droughts?


What is the cost versus benefit of the possible actions that we can take, including the possibility of doing nothing?


I hope that you will address some of these issues in your future posts.

Answer 2

cosmo has posted a very good, informed answer, I'll try to expand a bit.

First for some spots on the earth we have records going back far more than a hundred years. The thermometer was invented a long time ago. More importantly we know that when CO2 levels rise temperature rises. If you graph both on the same grid both lines are near identical. We can also get very accurate measurements of CO2 level going back thousands of years by looking at things like air bubbles in ice core samples, looking at sea bed sediments and corral reefs.

Answer 3

Nonsense. The primary case for anthropogenic global warming are these points, which you have not touched upon:

1) Temperatures have been observed to rise.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere has also been observed to rise, in a very smooth way that suggests an ongoing cause.
3) The observed rise in temperatures can be explained by the observed rise in CO2. (Yes, of course we understand that CO2 is only a small fraction of the atmosphere.) The effect of CO2 on radiative transfer in the atmosphere is well-understood and there is no problem of accuracy with this computation.
4) The excess temperature is caused by excess CO2 that has an isotopic signature that indicates it is the result of burning fossil fuel. Furthermore, the amount of excess CO2 is a fraction of the CO2 known to be generated by economic activity. (The amount of coal, oil, and gas unearthed is known, and is more than the amount of excess CO2.)


All this is well established. The real question is, what will happen in the future? That is not so clear---the future depends on feedback, both positive and negative, of greenhouse gasses. This is not well understood. But the majority of models suggest that there may be a real danger to the Earth. The worst-case scenarios are very bad indeed, a thousand years from now. If the entire infrared spectrum becomes blanketed with greenhouse gas spectral lines (this requires positive feedback of other gasses besides CO2, such as methane released by methane hydrate, plus increased water vapor), then the temperature could rise by 30 C.

I certainly agree that negative CO2 feedback *may* save us. It is possible that there is no real problem. I hope, for posterity's sake, that this is true.

We must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels within the next few centuries in any case. The possible serious danger they may cause suggests that this be done sooner rather than later.

Snoonyb: There are many "drivers" of global mean temperature, some more important than others. These include variations in the Sun, variations of the Earth's orbit and tilt, variations in cosmic rays, variations in vulcanism, variations in natural release and sequestration of greenhouse gasses (effects which are much larger than anthropogenic greenhouse gas release). The size of these effects is well understood for the 35 years there have been satellite observations, and less well understood for earlier times. After taking all these effects into account, the current warming trend is almost entirely attributable to humans burning fossil fuels.

Answer 4

I'm not a skeptic, and here is why:

I've been to Alaska and I've seen what's happened to the glaciers.

I supposed it's possible that some guy in the U. S. Park Service just put up all those monuments in Kenai Fjords National Park showing how much further the glacier extended in the past just to fool everyone, but somehow I doubt it.

I suppose you could also argue that the worldwide retreat of glaciers is not indicative of global climate change, but how would you explain it otherwise?

Answer 5

Your question contains several things that are scientifically wrong:

"they have guesses about what the temperature was before then, but those guesses aren't entirely accurate -- they are simply guesses"

No, they are measured values of known accuracy. See:

Folland, C.K., N.A. Rayner, S.J. Brown, T.M. Smith, S.S.P. Shen, D.E. Parker, I. Macadam, P.D. Jones, R.N. Jones, N. Nicholls and D.M.H. Sexton (2001). "Global temperature change and its uncertainties since 1861". Geophysical Research Letters 28: 2621-2624

whose results are summarized at:

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

"by their calculations temperature should have raised to the point that no life could survive"

No, their calculations show that we should be experiencing just about the temperatures we're experiencing. See:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

whose results are summarized at:

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

"same thing for CO2 levels -- it's not entirely accurate"

The CO2 rise has been measured at many different sites, by many different people. They all get about the same results. See:

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

Richard Lindzen is one guy. Here's the opinion of thousands of scientists who disagree with him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Note also that, as the scientific evidence has mounted up, Lindzen has shifted his position. At first he denied we were the main cause of warming. Now it's "warming is happening mostly because of us, but it won't be as bad as they (most all other scientists) say".

Answer 6

cosmo;
"The excess temperature is caused by excess CO2 that has an isotopic signature that indicates it is the result of burning fossil fuel. "

And what caused the mid evil warming period, when the earths temp was 3deg C higher than it is now?

"The observed rise in temperatures can be explained by the observed rise in CO2."

From what established levels, where and when and by who?

"All this is well established."

By who?
A consensus?
A consensus is a lack of leadership.
A consensus is not science, science either is or is not.

Answer 7

For me, the question is not "is global warming real" or "how much do humans actually affect climate change", but "what does it hurt to take care of our planet/resources"?

One may argue economic impact, but we know that the things that "cause" global warming have other negative impacts as well, on our planet and those who inhabit it. Why not conserve what we can?

Answer 8

what the GW advocates are trying to do is akin to watching 2 seconds in the middle of a movie and telling you how it's going to end.

the same was with global cooling. 30-40 years meant an ice age was coming.

very simply, they can't predict what the weather is 10 days in advance, let alone 10 years or more.

Answer 9

Global warming is nothing more than a liberal political ploy
to exert more control over your life. Anyone who listens to
the Al Gores of this world need to do some serious research
on global climate going back thousands of years. Any other answer stating so called facts is 'hot air'!

Answer 10

I think we should try and live our lives like global warming really is our fault .(weather it is or not)
living a fresher and cleaner life would definitely not be a bad thing!