If global warming 'skeptics' have science on their side as they claim, can they answer these questions?

Question

When they're not busy claiming global warming is a massive hoax, global warming 'skeptics' are usually claiming that the science is on their side. Ignoring the fact that climate scientists disagree, can the AGW 'skeptics' explain these scientific facts?

1) The upper atmosphere is cooling, as predicted by AGW. If global warming were due to the Sun, all layers of the atmosphere would be warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

2) The planet is warming as much or more during the night as during the day. Again as predicted by AGW and opposite of the effect expected from solar warming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Are51BB_z.WjEFp39R0KO8gjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071219132421AA5qYKm

3) Global temps are no longer following total solar irradiance, which plateaued 30 years ago.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aowwp0O1l0_wmAAH_iiL3t7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071212090955AAzlZk8

Can the 'skeptics' explain these facts?

Answer 1

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist but there is no evidence that global warming is caused by humans.

I've got this video. Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYl4hkFRd...

Answer 2

Can you explain why there were at least 17 ice ages during the Pleistocene?  Why did the earth warm up between those ice ages?

Answer 3

They can't.  All they can do is make fun of Al Gore and engage in political name-calling.  When will you give up the idealistic notion that they care whether or not they're uneducated?

---

To explain #2 to some of the less scientifically inclined folks out there, the mechanism for trapping the heat is CO2 and other greenhouse gasses blocking outgoing heat (infrared radiation).  Since there is no other warming mechanism (sun) during the night, less heating during the day and more heating at night confirms that the observed warming is from CO2 not from the sun (a day-specific mechanism).  

Measurements of the earth's outgoing radiation have confirmed that the earth is receiving more energy from sunlight than it is emitting back to space in the form of heat radiation, so that outgoing heat is being blocked:

Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/imbalance_...

"Scientists at Columbia University, NASA, and the Department of Energy have found that the Earth is out of energy balance: the Earth is absorbing more energy from sunlight than it is emitting back to space in the form of heat radiation. This imbalance provides confirmation of global warming theory and a measure of the net forcing that human’s are applying to the Earth by adding greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the Earth’s atmosphere."

Answer 4

1. Solar radiation produces heat when it strikes a solid object i.e. earth, therefore it warms from the ground up so since there are no solid sufaces in the upper atmosphere I really don't know where they would expect that warmth to come from.

2. Where is the proof that overnight lows have been increasing in dry climates. I think the only places you could show these increases are in humid areas where water vapor would be retaining the heat, if it was the greenhouse effect that type of warming would be occuring in dry climates also and it isn't.

3. Global temperatures haven't been following CO2 either rather the graphs show CO2 following temperature so that premise means nothing.

Answer 5

the one that confuses me;

as you say, long term change in solar radiation seems to have plateaued after a steep rise, leaving the 11 year cycle to predominate.

we are currently at a solar minimum in the 11 year cycle, which could well partly account for the cooler weather over the last couple of years if you think solar forcing is still a considerable factor on the climate, but i have not heard anyone mention this...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/...

if we accept some solar forcing (i believe current estimate is about a third) it is then obvious that the next few years will show a much larger warming as agw and solar forcing combine. its going to be a big one;

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...

ooh, thanks for reminding me, i hadnt visited the met. office research site for ages.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/had...

Answer 6

Yes they can.  

By selecting their evidence, and presenting it in a not necessarily logical manner, they can prove any conclusion they want to to their satisfaction.  

Sadly, many people are unable to tell the difference between this and reasoned argument.

Answer 7

The Antarctic ice is actually expanding.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

This guy holds a extremely good argument against global warming.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_pl...

Watch all 4 videos.

Here is "all of what global warming caused" in under 1 degree of increase.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...

So this makes it a complete joke.

Here is a link to see the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is expanding.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...

Here is a 30 day period of Antarctica's ice.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate....

You can see that it is expanding.

Here are some good arguments against AGW.

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/gl...

Here is a more updated graph than yours about average temperature... Dana.

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/cli...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 8

First, I am not a global warming 'skeptic'. Being a skeptic means you doubt.  I have zero belief in the theory of g/w, so therefore am not skeptical.

1) The upper atmosphere is cooling?  No, it isn't.  The tools to measure it more accurately have improved.

2) The planet is not warming.  Where I live it gets cooler at night than during the day. Can you name a place where the planet has warmed due to g/w?  No.

3) The source of your data is dead wrong.  The earth's temperatures have not " accelerated rapidly over the past 30 years" as claimed. We are just finishing the coldest winter in the past 40 years in the northern hemisphere.  Top scientists (not these 'global warming crybabies') don't support g/w and say the earth has entered a cooling phase.  I choose to believe them over that idiot AG.  Toss the bonehead and his band of liars in jail!

Answer 9

Dana, another red-herring.  The alarmists are the ones trying to prove a point.  They are the ones who need to answer questions regarding their theories.  If a skeptic points out a hole in an alarmists theory, it isn't the responsibility of the skeptic to figure out how to resolve the inconsistency.  It is the responsibility of the scientist proposing the theory.

So, here are some questions for you because regardless of your points in 1 - 3, if the alarmists can't answer these, then how do we know whether we even have a problem?

#1  What is the normal global temperature of the Earth?

#2  How do we know we are warming above the normal global temperature and not just warming up to it from the last ice age?

#3  How do you calculate the global temperature?

#4  How do you calculate the global temperature of the Earth prior to the middle of the 20th century?

#5  What is the accuracy of temperature readings prior to the mid-20th century?

#6  For locations where temperature readings were not tracked regularly or accurately, what data is used?

#7  How do we know the data is accurate?

The whole basis for AGW alarmism is based on temperature data for a little over 100 years with truly accurate data only in the last 50 years or so.  If we don't even have accurate data for 100 years out of a few billion, are the alarmists so arrogant that they believe they know everything concerning our atmosphere?