Is nothing more than logic needed to disprove anthropogenic global warming?

Question

I find it quite odd that the "alarmists" would have the deniers propound their own scientific theories or provide scientific evidence at all when the burden of proof remains on them.

This is also considering that many deniers like myself just see this as an invalid theory and are waiting for them to show us what validity (if any) the theory holds. Basically we're not looking for other causes at the moment.

So if it's man-made carbon emissions which cause global warming as the premise then Empirical evidence is all that's required to prove the invalidity of that premise and thankfully you can't fudge what everyone can observe.

So now because of these variables some have changed the parameters and say that we just speed it up or else they accept other factors influence it. What exactly is the current theory and are we all arguing at cross-purposes?

Answer 1

The theory that co2 can cause warming is generally accepted as it is a mild greenhouse gas. It reflects almost as much energy as it absorbs hence why it is considered a weak greenhouse gas. Whilst on the level of physics or lab scale tests co2 can be shown to be warming, there are many negative and positive feebacks that could cancel it out, and some human emmissions also cause cooling and may also cancel it out. So to prove in the earths atmosphere it causes warming is much harder thing to prove. co2 only forms 0.054% of the greenhouse layer and is far outweighed by water vapour at 95% which is a strong greenhouse gas. To me it makes much more sense to monitor this greenhouse gas but its largely ingnored, as are other rising greenhouse gasses which are not caused by man.

Unfortunetly many people seem to fail to realise AGW is an un-proven theory. The IPCC states that the signature for global warming is a hot spot in the troposphere, but after 30 years of constant searching they have still not found it. So there is currently no proof that greenhouse warming is driving the climate.

Then theres the issue of showing man made co2 is contributing to the greenhouse effect that isnt happening. Man made co2 forms 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere, that 0.00162% of the greenhouse layer, well below the tolerances for natural fluctuation.

Even the IPCC stated in their draft science report that no link between man made co2 and global warming has yet been demonstrated or proven. This was later removed at the request of enviromental and business groups. This is well documented.

If the IPCC cant prove a link in over 30 years with $50 billion of research how can AGW supporters say its "proven science" or there is scientific concensus?

You are right to say the emphasis is on the AGW supporters to provide evidence when even the IPCC cant show proof of AGW.

AGW skeptics merely act to bring them back down to earth and point out its normal to validate a theory and provide hard evidence to back it up.

The IPCC choose to use the now debunked hocky stick and models instead as their proof. Models are never proof of anything as they are based on the same theory, they merely fudge values until they get an answer that backs their theory. The models are not calibrated or validated and to date are all off in their projections.

So I am with you, show me the proof!

The AGW believers will no doubt mention feedbacks, this is were the natural climate process is reversed to make the models actually predict some decent warming. There theory is, increase co2, earth warms a tiny bit, this intern warms the sea (that would take thousands of years in real life), the warming co2 gives off more co2 and more water vapour an serious greenhouse gas, and the poles melt and the earth absorbs more light warming further and releasing more greenhouse gasses, this creates an accelerated warming effect.

They ignore all positive feedbacks, like increased evaporation removing energy from the sea, increase precipitation at the poles increasing ice mass, melt water cooling the sea, increase could cover etc...they argue these are little understood so they are ignored, yet the models are 90 - 95% accurate??? There is also a huge co2 sink they have not yet found which is ignored.

They also ignore changes in the length of the day and solar activity which drives cloud cover, a major warming or cooling effect.

This is apparently the proof they normally talk about, but its nothing more than a buch of assumptions.

Then there is the scientific concensus of 2,500 scientists, this actually includes politicians, environmentalists etc... the all important chapter on global warming (chapter 9) was authored by a small clique of around 44 scientists, most of which are climate modellers who work for government agencies involved in climate change research , many of which work together and have all co-authored with each other.

Of those that reviewed chapter 9, only 6 were independant scientists and only 1 agreed with the conclusions. 60% of the comments against were dissmised without explanation. The scientists that disagreed were still listed in the 2500, some had to go to court to get their names removed.

In previous work by John McLean is was demonstrated that the majority of the IPCC's lead reviewers disagreed with the link of man made warming driving warming.

So there is no real scientific consensus, its just PR speil for the media.

The NIPCC provide a much more un-biased report into climate change as they are not influenced by funding or political pressure, and consits of independant sicentists with no conflicts of interest. They apply a very logical common sense approach to the evidence for and against and come to a logical conclusion that man made co2 may make a very small contribution but there is no evidence supporting the theory to date and that the climate is primarily driven by natural processes.

Dana 1981:

1) Co2 has been higher than today in relatively recent times

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

Ice cores were proven to be inaccurate for measuring co2 in 2007 (see NIPCC report) and stomatal data is the best we have to go on.

2) "Humans are responsible for the entire 37% increase."

Err... no. Actually humans account for around 3% of current co2 (highest figure ive seen), most co2 is produced by the sea, as it warms it produces more co2 as it can hold less gas.

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I agree with this point theortically (though it is scare in the troposphere and a mild greenhouse gas) though the evidence of global warming due to increase co2 isnt there (warming of the troposphere) so in reality it isnt doing what it is believed to.

4) Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause the planet to warm.

Yes they do to varying degrees thank god, it keeps us alive. Co2 reflects almost as much energy as it absorbs hence its a very minor greenhouse gas (see "global stability, an inconvenient proof", an excellent paper which cover the energy process of the atmosphere as its currently understood).

Answer 2

So far, yes, facts and logic.

And by the way, models, especially ones that can't predict anything, aren't evidence.

Answer 3

They don't have any empirical evidence that CO2 caused the warming we experienced. In fact there's more evidence that the PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation: http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pd...

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/...

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bro/pdo.htm

Is a hugh driver for our planet's climate.

That's why scientists are starting to claim we are going to be experiencing declining temperatures over the next 20 to possibly 30 years. That's also why they changed for saying Global Warming to climate change, even though I noticed in the Democratic convention that most of the speakers mentioned Global Warming in their speeches.

Answer 4

No, you'd need more than that.

The basic physical properties of CO2 mean that it MUST cause warming.  It passes visible light (sunlight down) and blocks infrared (heat radiating up).

Did you think the vast majority of scientists in the world were not logical?

Answer 5

There is no model that explains our current ice age and periods of glaciation.  None.  Lots of theories, but nothing close.

According to Occam's Razor, pick the simplest explanation among two competing theories.  Current global temps within natural variability fits the data as well as the most convoluted AGW theories, and takes a lot less taxpayers dollars to fund.

Answer 6

There are multiple lines of evidence, independent of climate models, that show that manmade emissions are causing global warming. The logic is as follows:

CO2 is rising

Rising CO2 levels are based not on one station but over 300 stations in 66 countries (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases). Isotope ratios show the increase is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Ghosh 2003). CO2 is rising and mankind is causing it.

CO2 causes warming

Climate sensitivity is commonly defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. So what is our planet's climate sensitivity?

    * Annan 2006 uses a variety of independent methods and results from many studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C.

    * Tung 2007 calculates climate sensitivity to between 2.3 to 4.1°C using a model-independent analysis of observations.

These studies, using a variety of independent methods studying different datasets, estimate a climate sensitivity around 3.0 degrees. More on climate sensitivity...

Expected warming

Many lines of evidence show that the Earth has in fact warmed by an amount consistent with theory. Some aspects of the warming are unique to CO2 warming - the carbon "fingerprint".

    * Surface weather station measurements

    * Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming

    * The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability)

    * Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters

    * Sea level rise

    * Gravitometric measurements of Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss

    * Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating

    * Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years.

    * The rise of the tropopause

    * Poleward migration of species

    * Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures

    * Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world

    * Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost

    * Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska

    * Changes in ocean circulation as predicted by climate models, for example, with temperatures rising more quickly overland

    * Disintegration of permafrost coastlines in the arctic

    * Changes in the altitude of the stratosphere

    * An energy imbalance - the earth is receiving more energy than it emits (Hansen 2005)

    * Poleward movement of the jet streams (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

    * Widening of the tropical belt (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

Conclusion

There is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed. This poses two problems for those who deny anthropogenic warming:

Answer 7

No, logic clearly supports AGW (as shown below).  Most people who doubt AGW cite "common sense" as their reason.  The thing about common sense is that it doesn't work when it's based on ignorance.  You have to base common sense on correct information for it to work.

Logical support for AGW:

1) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 37% over the past 150 years to levels higher than they've been for millions of years.

2) Humans are responsible for the entire 37% increase.

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

4) Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause the planet to warm.

I can prove any of the points 1-4 if you don't believe them.  Really that by itself is sufficient logic.  Based on the observations and these logical points, the expected result from the CO2 increase we've seen is a warming planet.

Of course the question remains how much the planet should warm based on this 37% increase in CO2 and whether other natural factors could also be contributing to the warming.  But that's not what you asked, though I would be happy to go into those issues in a different question.  However, the answer to this question is that logic completely supports AGW.

Answer 8

If you want a logical link between man-made emissions and temperature:

1.) Greenhouse gasses let light through, but trap heat in the atmosphere. (definition of a greenhouse gas)

2.) Trapped heat warms the climate. (basic physics)

3.) Therefore, greenhouse gasses warm the climate.

4.) Greenhouse gasses warm the climate. (conclusion from above)

5.) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (a property of CO2)

6.) Therefore, carbon dioxide warms the climate.

7.) Carbon dioxide warms the climate. (conclusion from above)

8.) Human activities release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (fact)

9.) Therefore, human activities warm the climate. (but exactly how much is not certain)

Answer 9

Grovesmuk and others covered the major points very well as to Co2 basics. Co2 in and of itself is such a minor player in the quantities present that we might as well discount it entirely. Now in the quantities present on Venus and Mars that could be a different story. Water vapor is several hundred times more a global warming gas than Co2 could ever think of being because it soaks up heat and holds it all through the night even when the sun is down. I have been in several different areas of the desert southwest during the summer months on many occasions. In areas with small populations and few areas having pools and such when the sun goes down it gets cold rapidly with Co2 as the major gas present because of the less than 20% humidity of the area.

Now go down to Palm Springs or similar areas where there is more heat island effect and higher humidity in the 50% and higher range and it virtually never cools off and you roast all night in your own juices. Co2 is not a problem today, has never been a problem in the past and will never be in the future because the only argument against it is religious/political in favor of the Limits to Growth political religion that is against all forms of high technology. The more they press the Co2 argument the more ridicules their argument becomes because like the drowning polar bears thing there are no solid facts to support the conclusions.

Thus it is easy for any person of average or better education to see the fallacies in the AGW pogrom, it is just not easy to hit a constantly shifting target that the supporters keep moving because they will not admit they have given their faith to a false religion.

Answer 10

I'm not sure I totally follow your statements.  Regardless of what you want to call me, here's the science:

Please note that each paper cites numerous other scientific studies.  So each paper is a unique scientific investigation that builds upon past scientific investigations (attempting to support or refute past scientific conclusions).  I urge to to follow each citation in each paper and continue the investigation on your own.

Answer 11

Since we are not in an Ice Age, one can accept that the Earth is now warmer. Since there were no cars back at the end of the Ice Age, I'd say it is a naturally occurring phenomena.

If one considers that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, almost 30 years ago, did more harm to the environment than ALL humans throughout history. Our contribution to AGW is negligible at worst. Add to that nugget, the FACT that many volcanoes have been erupting for thousands of years.....! Who in their right mind could EVER seriously consider human efforts, pro or con, to be more than a spit in the oceans?

Al Gore is an IDIOT!!!!!!

Answer 12

You need to make a leap of faith.    There is plenty of proof that excess salt causes heart disease and plenty of proof that heart disease causes heart attacks, but no absolute direct link that excess salt causes heart attacks.      There is no absolute proof that guns kill people.   The gun only causes a piece of lead to fly out the barrel.   It's the lead that does the damage.   Even then, the lead doesn't cause death.   It only causes the heart to stop beating.   The heart not beating is what causes death.  

Carbon Dioxide has been shown, beyond a doubt, to trap heat.   Trapped heat causes the earth to warm.   If people cannot make any connection between the two they will never be convinced.