AGW 'skeptics' - where is the flaw in AGW science?

Question

I've summed up the scientific evidence regarding the main causes of climate change and the reason we know humans are causing the current global warming in this wiki article.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-and-climate-change-causes

Before you dismiss this as "just a wiki", it's a wiki that I personally wrote which contains links to the source information - scientific studies, datasets, articles, etc.

So I ask the self-proclaimed 'skeptics', where is the error in this scientific explanation? 'Skeptics' are always saying AGW has no proof. Well, it's impossible to prove a theory, but here is a summary of the supporting evidence. This is the evidence which has convinced the scientific community that AGW is correct.

It's time to stop hiding behind semantics with the claim that AGW has never been "proven". Neither has evolution, and neither will ever be, because it's impossible to prove a theory.

So where is this accepted scientific evidence wrong?

Answer 1

I have developed an equation that disproves AGW:

((CO2 forcing+delta T) / ocean surface temp)x 3.14 all divided by tax increases squared = negligible GW.

Checkmate liberals!

Answer 2

Taking a scientific approach, I researched several scientific databases. After reading the NASA data where they talk about how the surface temperature of all nine planets in the solar system is rising in direct relationship to their distance from the sun (except Jupiter which is also warming from it's own internal heat), and how they measured that - I don't worry about global warming anymore.

I can't change the heat output of the sun nor the solar cycles, nor can I change the surface temperatures of the other planets. These things are simply beyond my power to even influence.

Answer 3

The following article makes some good points about some of the problems with climate sensitivity variables with the AGW theory as defined by the IPCC.

Radiative forcing ΔF;

The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and

The feedback multiplier ƒ.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters...

EDIT AdamC

Most people think the United Nations is a biased and corrupt lobby group.

.

.

Answer 4

The main flaw is that it's too complicated and too subtle, with climate variability running around and partially obscuring the longer-term trends of anthropogenically induced climate change.     If climate change were a sledgehammer, instead of a stiletto, maybe then skeptics would understand the magnitude of the problem.  But the cuts are too quick, and not quite deep enough, yet, to get everyone's attention.

Answer 5

The flaw is pretending that "theory" is indisputable fact

Answer 6

My problems with it:

1) The process - they didn't follow the facts where they led and just ended up arriving at AGW - they started out to prove AGW and fit the facts into the pre-conceived theory.  The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to "assess ... the risk of human-induced climate change" - - not "to examine climate change and determine whether there is any human involvement."   Or, as it should have been chartered, "to discern if the climate is in fact changing in an extraordinary way relative to the climate history since the last Ice Age, and if so and only if so, whether humans are involved."  

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

They put the cart before the horse.    

Can you see the difference there?    Digging up facts and following them where they logically lead is very different from starting with a conclusion and mining for facts that substantiate it, the latter of which is what the IPCC has done.    We know of instances where, when the facts were contrary, they were rewritten.  What rocks weren't turned over because they might reveal contrary evidence?   We will never know.

2) We don't understand the climate system and all its factors, and how those factors interact.   Yet a lot of AGW is based on a computer simulation that assumes that we do know all of the factors and precisely how each interacts with all the others - - it's not the direct effect of the CO2 itself, but the "feedback mechanisms" that drive the predictions of dire runaway warming.

3) That lack of understanding is part of the reason why the models keep spitting out wrong predictions.     They've been right only in a very general sense - overall the 2000s have been slightly warmer than the 1990s though not as warm as the peak temperatures in the 1990s.   The 1990s were in turn slightly warmer than the 1980s.     Generally that's been the pattern since the last Ice Age - intermittent multi-century warming and cooling - after 120 years of warming, a few more decades of warming would be consistent with the pattern.    Beyond that, none of the predictions have come true.   Every year, the next year is supposed to break the record set in 1998 - and every year fails to do that.    

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cf...

4) We know that it has been warmer, or at least about as warm, during other multi-century periods, when CO2 levels were lower and/or were not rising.   There have been similar warm periods.    And species lived through it, and the runaway warming didn't occur.  More importantly, we don't know what caused all of those prior warm periods, so we don't know that whatever caused them isn't what caused the modest 20th century warming.

5) The efforts to mitigate 4) by re-writing the climate history based on a poor proxy (bristlecone pine tree rings) detract from the credibility of those on the AGW side of the debate.  

And that's precisely what the IPCC did.   The MWP and HM aren't concepts dreamed up by some Oklahoma Senator to disprove AGW.   They were the universally accepted climate history from the time they occurred until the climate had become a political issue on which the existence of those two warm periods got in the way of an agenda.    Their existence was exhibited by countless events from around the globe, events that have never been explained as having happened for any reason other than warmer temperatures, most of which couldn't happen now because it's too cold.

And the IPCC re-wrote them out of the climate history without explaining a SINGLE one of these events.  

6) The myriad contadictions in the predictions.     Boston will have the climate of Atlanta; the Northeast US, Northern Europe and North Atlantic will actually be colder because the THC will slow down; those areas will have extremes at either end - - which is it?   Seems like whatever's happening now.    Hurricanes will be worse or more frequent, less or less frequent, and now they'll be earlier - again the story changes seemingly to fit what's actually happening at the time.    Once it happens, your saying "this is what's going to happen" doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

7) The misrepresentation of the inability to prove it's something else as the elimination of other causes.  

8) The exaggerations.    The case for AGW is no greater than it was five years ago, yet they just declared victory.    The case isn't proven and it's no warmer than it was ten years ago, yet they say "we need to act now."    They say "we've got ten years" - they said that three years ago.    Doesn't that mean we've got seven years?     They insist that they need to be empowered right now - but all the plans are to reduce emissions over 50 years........    

And the sinking islands and "climate refugees" - there's no basis for any of those claims.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

9) The simple fact that yes, the warming has leveled off for basically a decade now.    That isn't a short-term trend - that's substantial given that we're talking about only a quarter century of warming.

10) Motive - the fact that a lot of the pro-AGW advocates have for countless other reasons made the same "shut industry down" / "shut energy usage down" / "tax consumption" / "limit consumption" / "the American lifestyle is evil" arguments.    UCS, Greenpeace, PIRG, Sierra Club, the UN, etc.....    Yes this is valid - if $19MM spent by "Big Oil" discredits its recipients, so does billions spent by governments and non-profits who have long argued for the restrictions now being sought to "fight global climate change."

These are groups that not only have an agenda and a motive to advance AGW, but have never conceded being wrong on most of the other environmental scares.    Ehrlich was WRONG and Simon right.   Veblen was WRONG and Schumpeter was right.    Malthus was WRONG and Ricardo was right.    

And it's just all too convenient - - there's a tentacle of the theory to address everything about the American lifestyle that they don't like - - even red meat!    Guns - they haven't come up with a theory that guns exacerbate global warming - but I'm sure they will.  

And for many of them, nuclear is "not the answer."    Right.    It's all about CO2 but nuclear's not the answer?    No, it's about forcing their lifestyle choices on the rest of us - it's about forcing everyone to use compost toilets, squeeze into tiny cars and ban strip malls, plastic shopping bags, bottled water and a whole host of things.       If it were about CO2 then nuclear would be a big part of the answer, there would be no debating that.

There is NO scientific basis for the conclusion that "nuclear isn't the answer, the only answer is to rein in our lifestyles" (meaning for them to rein in mine).  

At the end of the day, yes, CO2 traps heat - but it's a weak GHG and none of the "spiraling feedback effects" occurred during prior similar warm periods; the increase has been 1/11,000th of the atmosphere; it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower and, further back in the Earth's history, much colder when CO2 levels were much, much higher.

Simply put the closest thing you have to evidence of causation is the cooling upper atmosphere - but that's not completely aligned with where the CO2 ends, and it's also of very recent vintage - - meaning that even if that were irrefutable proof of man-made warming, man would be responsible for ONLY the warming from 1980 to today - net what, 0.4 degrees F?

It's your burden of proof and causation remains unproven.  

It's not impossible to prove a theory - that's how theories become laws.   There are plenty of scientific laws.

Can I add - the belief on the part of the AGW believers that by voting "thumbs down" on a response, you've rebutted it?

This is a pretty comprehensive answer, Dana - you really can't just dismiss it.    If you do, then clearly you're the denier.

Answer 7

It is not true just look at Gore. He talks out of one side of his mouth , that the world will be destroyed. Then he lives as if none of the info is true.

Answer 8

Another good question that got a few good answers although none unequivocal.

Randall obviously put a lot of thought and effort into his answer although I found most of his response to simply be a reflection of his doubt as to the validity of the data (I also have doubts about some data but obviously his doubt is greater).

Doubting the strength of evidence presented is fine (as long as it doesn't drift into irrational denial). For example, expressing concern that we cannot "understand the climate system and all its factors" is perfectly valid.

But some of his denials do drift... (the link in pt 8 doesn't support his claim and isn't concerned wth islands that have been flooded).

And then, unfortunately, he drifts away from a basic precepts of AGW (i.e. speed of change is more important than absolute change) - his point 4.

Overall, I have to give Randall an 'A' for effort but a 'D' in answering your question - he points out concerns (i.e. the data may only be 80-90% accurate) but not flaws (i.e. the data is <50-60% accurate).

Tom cat's link looks quite rigorous but a) again doesn't demonstrate a flaw and b) turns out to be from a  biased lobby group.

And then the usual suspects, sputing cr*p.

BUT - you've prompted some thinking to take place and a few points brought up should keep us proponents on our toes but I'm still not seeng the smoking gun that shows the flaw in AGW...

Answer 9

You just used liberal sources please look at fair and balanced sources too. That wiki is very liberal and slanted.

Answer 10

Those YouTube links brought up more questions for me than answers.

Hey,I consider myself a liberal and totally believe in the scientific method in finding answers to complex issues. But I'm still on the fence about global warming and whether the earth is really getting that hot. There's a lot of things about this that don't add up.

I'm puzzled by when my weatherman states a record temperature currently around 95 degrees where I live in hot and humid central Texas and then right afterwards states the last record was back in 1917 or somewhere around there. Heck, I remember it being 95 degrees for some time as far back as 20 years in this area.

Then he goes on to complicate things even worse by stating a temperature index that makes it feel like 100 degrees. OK, so whose thermometer do we go by in determining global warming? These are normal temperatures for my area. When's the global warming suppose to start kicking in?  

Also the chart analysis methods used to define the speed at which temperatures are rising doesn't coincide with the speed at which it's affecting our environment. Take for instance the rate at which the ice caps are melting. It seems all of a sudden in the past few years since we've been hearing about it in the media the ice caps on mountains and at the poles are suddenly melting. But yet temperatures in my neck of the woods have remained the same for at least 20 years. Why weren't the ice caps melting then?

I would like these kinds of questions answered and a debate on similar issues and questions by both sides of the global warming fence but I have yet to see this even by the media.

And just an afterthought, most of the home thermometers I find at the store state an accuracy rating of 1 to 3 degrees plus or minus. Now that's nailing it when you want to measure to see if the world's temperature is rising by 1 degree within a expanse of say 1000 years. GEEZ!

Answer 11

Actually I don't think "AGW science" is wrong. It's simply an oxymoron, like "Jumbo Shrimp" (thanks, again, George Carlin), "Alone Together", "Congressional Ethics", etc.

Answer 12

Your main problem is your need to focus of CO2 feedback.  You look for any variations to blame on CO2.  Preconcieved notions have a way of building facts to support them, especially if other facts are ignored.   There have always been climate variations whether you talk about time intervals in decades or millenia.  You cannot explain any of those in terms of CO2 feedback over 200 years ago since there wasn't any or certainly not from humans.  There is nothing special about recent increases.  Just because the exact reasons for these increases and decreases are not known, it does not provide a vacuum, where any convenient explanation can be inserted to explain it.  The truth of the matter is we don't know.  Some of us simply know we don't know.

Answer 13

Theory just validates/supports fact, though I've seen others argue the other way. Simply stated, it's relativity new, but is progressing quite fast. Maybe in 8-10 yrs modeling will be fine tune to compensate for environmental factors. That's what most areas of climate science is striving for.

Answer 14

Here is a short three minute video.  He explains it a lot better than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHLWwbN0...

For those who can spare nine minutes, here is a more detailed analysis.

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

Here is an article by some Harvard professors who have studied the peer reviewed journals and have come up with a different conclusion.  (Listening to you there are no peer review papers that doubt AGW)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Answer 15

The flaw is simple.  You want people to believe you can predict the future.

This is a scam that is the worst form of "science".  It's no different than the scientist telling us planes would just drop out of the sky at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31, 1999

Answer 16

Dana

It is all unproven or disproven opinion. I have looked over your evidence for some time now and everything you have presented has been shown false not just once, but multiple times. What you are presenting is no more than the religious doctrine of the Club of Rome that was initially presented in their bible called Limits to Growth. This doctrine of faith that you and others like you have bought into with your hearts and souls is simply a big fat con job to enable the billionaires that control the club and the democratic/socialist/communist agendas world wide to return this world to the middle ages where they were completely in control of the lives of all and did not need to have a vote on anything.

You like other suckers that have bought into this con find yourselves like fish gasping out of the water when presented with cold hard facts that anybody that took any basic science or history course in high school can debunk with little or no effort. Yes somebody who took home economics instead of history or geography their freshman year of high school might fall for the con. But anybody that got a c or better knows better Dana so go out and get a better education before facing down people who have got one with religious pap that even those who wrote it know is lies.

Answer 17

According to Reid Bryson, in the first 30 feet of atmosphere the % of reflected energy absorbed by water vapor is 80%, while CO2 is 0.08%[1].  He eloquently notes that "you can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

PhysicsWorld in 2003 had a good summary of the role of water vapor in global warming [2].

How does the extra water vapor alter cloud formation?  Why rule out water vapor and cloud cover blocking more energy from the sun as water vapor increases?

Solar magnetic warming is left out of models used by RealClimate and IPCC/NASA.  Evidence that solar magnetic warming increases cloud cover can be found here[3].  When Gavin Schmitt leaves this out of his models, it stops being science and starts being advocacy statistics.

It wasn't the Industrial Revolution that started the warming, but the end of the Little Ice Age.  Some groups in Europe have blamed the Industrial Revolution for all the ills of the world long before AGW came along, and they will find a new reason to if AGW stops working.

Swiss cheese has less holes than AGW, and believers cannot deny that politicians will mis-use to it increase taxes.

It's not that it has no proof, it's just that AGW believers use critical thinking against every scenario but their own.  The models are not realistic at all!

Answer 18

The flaw in AGW science is it formulates data to fit the hypothesis (quite backwards to the true scientific method).

Answer 19

See thats the thing....there is no flaw...the science that backs it up is overwhelming....THANK YOU for writing that great article....we need more people like you in this forum.....There is no huge panel of scientists coming out with thousands and thousands of pages refuting global climate change, but there is the IPCC stating tremendous amounts fo evidence for the arguement.....some people just dont want to change their way of thinking....

Funny thing (and mark my words)...the people who answer this question and are AGW skeptics will not have the same answers....you would think that there would be one thing that everyone would state, but they cant even agree amongst themselves...while us believers all agree in the truth...

you're going to get answers on everything from ice ages, to natural cycles, to sun spots, to the fact that CO2 isnt even a GHG.  Its amazing what they cook up.

Thank you for the article and thank you for putting up a fight in this forum....