Global warming

sidicks

Insisting that only scientists that believe in global warming are'credible' weakens your argument.  There are vast numbers of credible scientists on both sides of the debate.

Science does not work by concensus!

Irrelevant facts?

1.  There is strong evidence that CO2 levels were much higher in the past than they are currently
2.  There is strong evidence that temperatures have been much warmer in the past than currently (Medieval warm period)
3.  There have been other periods where temperatures have been much lower than previously (little ice age, Dalton minimum, Maunder minimum etc)
4.  There is strong evidence that suggests that temperature changes influence CO2 levels (with an 800-year lag), NOT the other way around.
5.  The recent warming trend occured long before the industrial revolution when man began burning fossil fuels - what caused these changes?
6. There is strong evidence that links temperature with sun activity i.e. solar flux, sunspots etc

Which of the above do you dispute?

Climate modelling and measurement:
1. We do not have a long consistent record of temperature measurement, so numerous proxies have to be used, which introduces considerably uncertainty
2. Recent measurements are often not directly comparable with earlier measurements due to changes in the weather stations used - frequently 'cold' weather stations have been removed from the records therefore showing a warming trend where none exists (6000 weather stations reduced to around 1000).  Plenty of weather stations are sited in inappropriate locations inevitably leading to perceived warming (89% of land-based thermometers overseen by the (NOAA) fail to meet the official siting requirements because they are too close to an artificial source of heat (including artificial sources of reflected or' radiated heat).
3. Ocean temperature readings from 'Argo' show a slight cooling trend from 2003 - 2008
4. Correlation does not imply causation
5. Climate models make an assumption about CO2 and temperature (and ignores other factors) and then project that assumption into the future.  If that assumption is incorrect then the projections will also be incorrect.  Previous projections have proved woefully inadequate to explain the temperature / climate over the last 10 years.

Do you dispute all of the above?

Impact of CO2:
1. Water vapour is the key contributer to the "greenhouse effect" > 95%
2. Total CO2 contributes just 3.6%
3. Of this, just over 3% is man made
4. Taking into account other man made greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, CFCs etc), the total contribution from man-made greenhouse gases is less than 0.3%

do you contend that the 0.3% of man-made greenhouse gas emmissions have a greater impact on the earth's temperature than the activity of the sun???

Yes, of course, man made global warming and evolution are very similar and the evidence for both is equally strong......??!

Next you'll be referring to man made global warming deniers as holocaust deniers too....

DPinBucks

I knew you'd be wasting your time posting this.

As I say, I'm no longer going to argue with him. We've answered his points one-by-one, in some cases more than once, we've done as he asked and showed him quite clearly that the science is correct, but we're simply ignored.

He may or may not understand basic physics and the science of global warming, but the signs are not good. Without that understanding, of course, all that's left is wishful thinking.

Don't waste your time, but do as I do and quietly give thanks that the forces of wishful thinking are rapidly losing global credence.

sidicks

You've answered nothing, and certainly not my points 'one by one' - you've not responded to ANY of the comments in my previous post.

All that has been 'shown' is that IF the earth was a greenhouse, then increased CO2 might lead to higher temperatures in the absence of any other feedback loops.

(By the way, the earth is NOT a greenhouse).

You've not considered any negative feedback loops and explained why these wouldn't apply, neither have you looked at the importance of CO2 in the greenhouse effect or the proportion of CO2 that man produces.

I have science qualifications, so this is not true.

If none of my points were valid, a scientist could take each one and demonstrate the errors, but you haven't done so (or more likely, can't) .

That's how the debate should work - if you are to convince me that you are right, you need to tell me where I'm going wrong.   Simply saying 'scientists' say so is meaningless.

I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the population is becoming more and more sceptical as the actual experience diverges from what the warmists predicted would happen.

sidicks

sidicks

Let's take the key points from your original post:

1)The greenhouse effect is real. Certain gases, notably CO2, water and methane, trap the sun's heat.

No-one is disupting that.  What is in dispute is:
a) the impact of man's CO2 (less than 0.2% of total greenhouse gases, and vastly outweighed by natural sources) and
b) the impact of other compensating factors (CO2 is, after all, plant food) as well as negative feedback loops.
c) at best, what you describe is a huge simplication of a chaotic system

•The Earth's temperature at any time is a balance between energy received from the Sun and energy radiated away.

Indeed - how reliably can we measure / predict the energy being received from the sun (solar flux, sun spots etc?)

•Greenhouse gases mediate this process by trapping more energy than would otherwise be the case, thus making the planet rather warmer.
As above, this is a huge simplification, ignoring plenty of feedback processes.

•Increase the atmospheric CO2 levels, no matter by how little, and the planet will warm to a new, higher, stable temperature.

a) ignoring any natural compensatory factors
b) assuming that the energy received from the sun is unchanged
c) recognising that man made CO2 is minimal in comparison to other greenhouse gases, and hence the impact is likley to also be minimal

•That is Global Warming.
•Mankind has unnaturally increased the Earth's CO2 levels.

a) By a miniscule amount
b) what is a 'natural amount'?!

•The Earth is thereby being warmed

Well except that:
a) it has not actually been getting warmer in the last 10 years according to the (unbiased, untampered) data
b) it was much warmer in the past when there were no man made CO2 levels
c) historically temperature changes have occured well before CO2 emmissions have risen, not the converse
which suggests that CO2 is at best a second order factor in the process

•That is Man-Made Global Warming
That is the simplified version, which ignores lots of factors and hence fails to adequately explain what has happened recently, and what will happen to the climate in the future.


1) If scientists believe that the energy from the sun is likely to be lower over the next 10-30 years, would you advocate deliberately increasing CO2 output to increase the 'greenhouse effect' thereby 'protecting' the climate??

2) What caused the huge temperature fluctautions the earth has seen over the previous thousands of years?



Sidicks

Stephen Wilde

This is my latest thinking and many new papers are coming out along similar lines:

How The Sun Could Control Earth's Temperature

DPinBucks

Too qualitative to be convincing, I'm afraid.  Can we see your calculations?

Why have you ignored greenhouse CO2?

Stephen Wilde

The data is not yet available but the observed sequence of real world events requires something of that nature. I'm sure that modern sensing techniques will soon confirm or rebut my propositions.

I ignored CO2 because I was writing about the sun. If the solar effect proves to be real then that is the timne to compare it with the proposed CO2 effect. In fact I think the CO2 effect will prove to be miniscule in comparison and probably cancelled out by negative water cycle based responses.

DPinBucks

I look forward to reading it when you are able to publish your calculations.

In the meantime, I wonder if you could explain the origin of your conjecture that anthropogenic CO2 is countered by water cycle responses so exactly as to maintain more-or-less perfect thermostasis; and how such responses have proven ineffective against the CO2 from other sources which contributed to warming/cooling cycles in the past? Also, how you assume that the effect will be 'miniscule', by which I suppose you mean that such effects are linear? Again, sight of your calculations would be a great help.

sidicks

I wonder if you can explain why you are solely focussed on CO2 when:

1)  there is so much evidence to suggest that the temperature has varied hugely in the past unrelated to CO2 levels (which have been much higher than current levels)

and

2) there is much evidence to show that C02 changes lag temperature changes by around 800 years, which implies temperature drives CO2 rather than vice versa.

Surely these are fundamental issues?

Sidicks

DPinBucks

I have already answered these in detail in posts 18, 19, 20, 28, 32 and 34.  I suggest you read them.