I am still skeptical...? And ever more so...?

Question

In the answer that got me into this debate, I stated: "I would have to dig an innordinate ammount of data to document a criticism." After going through a shower of links, it is clear to me that AGW proponents overestimate the "striking" accuracy of their models and predictions; that the overwhelming consensus they invoke, can be obtained by drying up research funds for un-PC scientists, and discard criticisms as oil and coal funded; and that belief is held as religious by people that do not understand the workings of science but see favorably any developments that vindicate their political views.

Of course it may seem calous to say to China and Canada today that the weather problems they are having is statistical fluctuation, or that human industry does not play a major part in climate change. Or that reducing your ecological footprint does not matter (it does no harm); or per capita pollution in China and India equal to Finland or the US, will inflate drastically our shadow.

Answer 1

Those that want to see what is happening today should find this interesting. Compare the satellite pictures of ocean temperatures of one year ago to todays temps.

temps. from 2/3/07:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

temps. from 1/31/08:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Note an temperature difference of 2 degree C in the 'hot spot'! This is FAR more important than an 2 degree C in air temperature.

Several months ago in 2007 solar cycle 23 ended and solar cycle 24 has not truly begun yet.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

If solar cycle 24 does not start - it would be a safe bet that we will be facing another solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum: (and you think it's cold now!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

This 'warm spot' is beginning to cool after several years of warm ocean waters emitting CO2.

Answer 2

gw has both natural and man-made components.  as humans -- the only species which can control what we do on this planet -- don't we owe it to future generations and other species to do whatever we can?  the more people we are, the more we pollute.  we can't do much about the natural cycles of glaciation etc, but we sure can and should do a lot about how we use non-renewable resources, reproduce, grow and distribute food, build and heat our homes, and transport ourselves and the goods our economy relies on.

progress has come at a very high price and the developed countries are the worst offenders.

Answer 3

When pursuing any new area of "controversial" knowledge it's important to apply skepticism equally to all sides of the issue.

Where's the evidence that research funds were withheld from any climate scientist based on what their work might find? That's an easy assertion to make, but I've never seen evidence to support it. That's simply not the way public research funds are granted (i.e. outcome based).  It would take some grand conspiracy to accomplish that to the level it would have had to be accomplished to produce what we see from scientific reports all over the world.  You should require the same level of evidence your wanting for AGW before assuming research funds are purposefully dried up for any un-PC scientists.

What is known without any controversy is:

1) Global CO2 levels are rising (probably at an accelerating rate) and are now probably at the highest rate in the past 600,000 years.

2) Human emissions (known because of isotope analysis) and deforestation are responsible for the vast majority of that. The increase indicates that 40 - 50% of the human emissions are absorbed, but the rest remain in the atmosphere.

3) Atmospheric CO2 has a radiative forcing which retains heat (at some level) on our planet.

Debating about hurricane intensity, sea-level rise rate, glacier mass decline rate,  how much a doubling of CO2 will raise the global temperature (1.5 C, 3 C, 6 C?) or how we should respond and mitigate things are all good and reasonable topics of discussion.  But the basic 3 points listed above are quite clear and accepted in the climate science community.

I'd encourage you to read the IPCC physical science report FAQ:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

And this article by Kerry Manuel (an MIT climate scientist) does an excellent job of presenting an overview of how politics got intermingled in the science (from both sides):

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd...

For each source of information, you should research any possible conflicts of interest, if the source has an appropriate level of training/experience (e.g. a Retired mining industry Chemist probably isn't the best source for knowledge about atmospheric CO2 radiative forcing - this was recently linked to by a doubter) and if the information has held up to scrutiny by others in the field (you probably lack sufficient training to detect errors or misleading information).

None of this is easy or quick.  But no one said determining the truth was.

Answer 4

Okay.  Congratulations.  So what's your question?

"it is clear to me that AGW proponents overestimate the "striking" accuracy of their models and predictions"

Okay.  It's clear to me that we don't.  For example:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

"that the overwhelming consensus they invoke, can be obtained by drying up research funds for un-PC scientists, and discard criticisms as oil and coal funded..."

I suppose it could be, if that's how research grants worked.  But it's not.

So...do you have any skepticism about the actual AGW theory?  Or just theoretical and model skepticism?

Answer 5

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets. Yes, the climate goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. No, the current warmth is not natural. We know this because we know what causes natural cycles and can rule those causes out.

1. Ice ages, and inter-glacial periods, are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles, or "orbital forcing." Since we can compute Earth's orbit for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago during the Holocene Maximum, and is slowly cooling the planet right now. Here's the science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

2. Other than orbital forcing, the other cause of natural cycles is variations in the Sun's output. But it's easy to tell if the current warmth is caused by the Sun or by increased greenhouse effect. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

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

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

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

3. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

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

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So what's left to prove?

Answer 6

all you have are baseless emotive arguments. you seem to be using the shotgun approach. just keep blabbering on and eventually something has got to stick.

models are fairly accurate but the further ahead they predict the larger there Conference Interval will be but they are still fairly accurate.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

my proof that we are causing warming.

humans emit greenhouse gasses.

although humans emit only a fraction of natural emissions human emissions don't have sinks to balance it out.

this leads to increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

greenhouse gasses lead to the enhanced greenhouse effect which prevents more heat from escaping from the earth.

this leads to a build up of heat and warming.

(give me a shout if you want sources or there is a flaw in my logic)

Answer 7

You should always be skeptical of an as yet unproven theory-AGW.

Answer 8

The effect being measured in AGW is about the same amount as the variance in the measurements.  The data are usually extremely noisy, and uncertainties in the carbon cycle dwarf mankind's contribution.  Making definite pronouncements like hurricanes are going to get worse when no such inferences can be made, is what gets AGW in trouble.

Yes, we are warmer than the little ice age, CO2 in theory should increase the greenhouse effect, and CO2 levels have risen since the start of the industrial revolution.

Everything else predicted about the world going to heck in a handbasket is just WAG speculation.  Yet scientists publish peer-reviewed paper after peer-reviewed paper that attributes virtually every change to AGW.  AGW has made a joke of the environmental movement, where people are questioning and joking about lead poisoning.

The political realities are that people like warm weather, China and India are not going to trash their economies, and there are more pressing issues facing everyone day to day.

Answer 9

Complaining about a lack of links on a science topic, but offering none yourself?

"...the overwhelming consensus they invoke, can be obtained by drying up research funds for un-PC scientists?"  Why would anyone need to do that if the science supports AGW?  Why would unlikely or discredited areas of inquiry, or unqualified scientists outside of their area of expertise, be given funding?  A conspiracy is not the most likely or credible explanation (far from it).

"Discard criticisms as oil and coal funded"... that's how propaganda works.  The tobacco industry did it, now the oil and coal industries are doing it.  They even use the same think tanks and PR firms to get their manufactured messages out.  Complain about it if you want, but it matters very much if the message is "paid for" or not.  In this area a premeditated campaign (conspiracy) is very, very well documented.  Their message is very positive and attractive (don't worry about AGW), but unfortunately their results are poorly thought out and easily discredited.

"Per capita pollution in China and India equal to Finland or the US."  Per capita is a Latin phrase meaning for each head.  Your statement is incorrect, although you may mean to say that their overall inpact is equivalent, which is true.  I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning that if we truly have a worldwide problem that affects all people, all people and countries need to be on board for the solution.

Answer 10

You have an unusually good idea of the complexity of the problem it seems to me. Good luck with that, because about 99% of the people in the world will never understand. They will say silly simple things like how we are all doomed unless we stop driving cars or plant more trees or whatever.

Answer 11

No matter how right you are, it is completly hard to do it as a solo job.

Answer 12

Exactly - They brag about how accurate their computer models are because they can accurately "hindcast" past climate, then they dodge the issue about making a future prediction by claiming that anything that can be measured is just weather.  But since their models are 100% accurate, we should believe that their predictions will come true in the distant future, but they have no idea what this summer will be like because that's just weather.

It sounds like they want to get credit for knowing the future while not being held accountable when they are wrong.

They can't see that the Emperor has no clothes.

Answer 13

That's not really a question, but I agree with the sentiment.

Answer 14

IMHO it seems you are confused.  Science is closest thing to truth we have by virtue of the scientific method.  It -is- about being right, getting to the truth, that is the whole point.  AGW theory has withstood the test of time.  You can't make the results go away with a rhetorical argument; and there is no compelling counter argument.