AGW Proponents: Does this alter your view of global warming?

Question

Please respond only if you believe that man is the cause or one of the causes of global warming. Also, please read the article before you respond. If you provide evidence contrary to this article, please cite the source. The more information in this debate, the better!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html

Even if you are not a proponent of AGW, READ the article ANYWAY. No need for you to respond because this will only be further evidence of your views.

Answer 1

Wow, all who demand that he's wrong are sourcing left-leaning blog sites, some of which they wrote themselves.  Simply stunning.  They just hate it when there's dissent in the ranks that could possibly shoot holes in their argument.

Answer 2

read the article, also read the posts by the proponents of AGW...fortunately, none of these 'Einsteins' are involved in medical care, as the patient population would definitely be at risk...good question, ps, I do deny the premises of the 'Church of Global Warming',...the opinions expressed from that pulpit are too weird for me...good question.

Answer 3

How in the world could an article be refuted hundreds of times when it  was just published -- in Australia-- last month!

Instead of demonizing the author how about specifically stating why he is wrong. Sounds like the same argument made by learned people in Galileo's time "this new invention- the telescope, is causing people to have ILLUSIONS" . Virtually every "scientist" of that time agreed with this statement.

Answer 4

1. "Missing" greenhouse signature? Evans claims "The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." This is false. Both increased greenhouse AND increased solar should cause increased temps at 10 km -- although the greater increase should be for greenhouse.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

(Fig 9.1, p. 675.)

Apparent issues with warming between 8km and 10km have now been resolved -- just a couple of months ago. Apparently "scientist" Evans doesn't read scientific journals?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

The REAL signature difference between greenhouse and solar forcing is in the stratosphere, above 20 km, where solar forcing shows increasing temps and greenhouse forcing shows decreasing temps. And the greenhouse forcing (cooler stratospheric temps) is unambiguously present, and has been for as far back as we have records.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

BTW, I have posted this critical little factoid dozens, yes dozens of times on YA over the past two years, and have never gotten a credible response to it from any denier. Not once. Zero. Zip. Nada. So what's your answer?

2. "There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming." This is so utterly untrue one hardly knows where to begin. Is Evans saying there is no greenhouse effect? Is Evans saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Is Evans saying increasing greenhouse gases do NOT increase the greenhouse effect? Is Evans saying that increasing the greenhouse effect does NOT increase a planet's temperature? Every one of those propositions has a mountain of evidence to deny Evans' view. Take a look at Venus, where the air is 97% CO2 and the surface temp is 480 C. Doesn't that count as evidence?

3. The temperature in any one year doesn't tell you squat about the long-term trend. This is so obvious I'm surprised Evans has the gall to suggest it. There is ALWAYS a lot of weather in the climate signal, which means it is ALWAYS possible for an unscrupulous liar to cherry pick the data to get apparently anomalous results. And, as a matter of fact, the global temperature HAS increased since 2001. Here's the data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealte...

4. Natural CO2 increase in the atmosphere is both a cause and an effect. Natural CO2 increase takes decades for a 1% increase. Today we're seeing a 2% increase in ONE YEAR. The current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not natural. It is ONLY a cause of climate change, and we're responsible.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.ht...

Answer 5

Not at all.

Argument #1: False.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Argument #2: False.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc20...

Argument #3: False.  His claims about the urban heat island effect impacting surface temperature measurements are wrong:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

And 6-7 years of data isn't enough to form a meaningful tend.

Argument #4: Hey, this one actually has some truth to it!  Of course, it doesn't disprove man-made global warming in the least.  See 'Carbon Dioxide Feedbacks' here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

So that's oh-for-four.  Pretty much what I would expect from an electrical engineer trying to disprove climate science.

Answer 6

Nope, this guy is a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, and scientists know his arguments are bogus, as described here by others.

My source.  The National Academy of Sciences, an elite organization chock full of Nobel Prize winners, etc.

Answer 7

At least the forth time this lemming has been posted

He is a programmer who wrote models, you know the things deniers reckon don't work, and the article is an opinion piece written by the guy about himself, lifted straight from his own website

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

Mikey's comment (not answer) is a fine example of the denier cult take away the insults and references to churches and whats left, nothing!

Answer 8

No, this article has been refuted many times before.[1] I'll not watse my time doing it again.

David Evan's four alleged "facts" are simply wrong, pure denial, and straw mans.

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/...

Answer 9

No.

For the same reasons the others have given.

I do, however, find it strange that the AGW doubters jump up and down and demonise Al Gore as a non-competent, non-expert, non-scientist thus not qualified to have an opinion about other people's work but then gaily trot out their own non-competent, non-expert, non-scientist individuals and expect us to change our entire world view because of this person.