Is the real question whether the AGW theory is right or fundamental physics is wrong?

Question

Here is the fundamental physics supporting the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas.

2) Greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm.

3) Humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 37% over the past 150 years by burning fossil fuels, to levels higher than they have been in millions of years.

4) The planet is warming as much or more during the night as during the day, which is an expected result of AGW.

5) The upper atmosphere is cooling, which is an expected result of AGW.

I have asked 'skeptics' to explain how the AGW theory is wrong considering this scientific evidence, and they usually come back with 'Al Gore', 'scientists are communists', 'my ExxonMobil-funded scientist says you're wrong', etc. They rarely even attempt to address the science.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221100306AAHmluu&r=w

Is the real question whether the AGW theory is right or fundamental physics is wrong?

Answer 1

1. CO2 is a minor green house gas as compared to water vapor.

2. Sure they do.

3. What you fail to mention, is that of the greenhouse gases, CO2 makes up only about 3 to 4% of the total green house gases, with water vapor making up the majority. So to say we increased CO2 by 37% may be a true statement, but that is 37% of about 3 to 4%. So, humans add to the total green house gases about .111% of the total greenhouse gases. In other words, if you pee into the ocean, will the temperature rise?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

4. As far as I know, the global temp is taking the high and low of a temp monitoring station and averaging them from multiple stations. I have never seen anything referring to night/day temps. Also, if night temps are warming, good. Let's hope the winters are more mild as less people will die (as has happened recently al over the world).

5. That's nice, but then the troposphere was not warming as it should.

Seriously, models are worthless in a system as complex as the climate. Take any model you want, feed in all data up to 1900 and let it run. None will give a consistent answer. Only after tweaking the models do the models show CO2 as driving climate. Give me a result, and I can program any number to reach it. If you want ice cream sales to drive temperature, I can build a climate model to do so. It really is laughable.

And according to YOUR rules, NO scientist who works for a government agency (IPCC)  can be credible as they have an agenda.

Answer 2

Based on the research I have been doing it appears that the AGW theory is wrong and that they only thing causing the planet to warm at this point in time is natural causes.

Answer 3

1) Yes carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but it is not a very efficient one.

2) Greenhouse gases warm the planet, especially water vapor, it handles about 95-98% of the process on Earth.

3) Yes humans have increased CO2, as well as nitrous oxide, chlorine, CFC's, methane, carbon and water vapor by factors much greater than 37%.

4) Urbanisation causes the same thing.

5) Ozone recovery, flucuations in Earths geomagnetic field and changes in solar wind also cause the same phenomena in the mesosphere. The stratosphere has been warming for fourteen years which does not support the AGW theory.

Next...

Answer 4

My opinion is that the rigorous way to state this is that there is nothing in the fundamental physics that would suggest that the theory that the accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is radiatively forcing the planet and changing climate is incorrect.

Yes, I know that's a mouthful but it does make sense.

Answer 5

You forgot the religious 'believers' on here! When the phrase "It's just part of the natural cycle.",that's just code for "god" made the world,and man can't change the world.

Some people are proud of their own particular form of ignorance,because it tends to define their individual identity. That seems to be the majority of 'deniers' on here. Some on here are really honest ,curious students,or concerned people. Those postings are easy to distinguish from the trolls. I think it's very important to always respond. Thousands of people may read these posts,even if they don't chime in. A little bit of knowledge is a fun thing to share!

Answer 6

Your five points are all correct, in fact I have never argued these points.

The effect of increasing CO2 is roughly logarithmic, not linear or exponential.  This I have seen in not only in recent papers but in papers that date back into the 1980's.

I think it was Schwartz (most recently) that estimated the maximum effect of CO2 doubling to be in the 1.1 degree C range.  I have seen other estimations that is in the 1.5 degree C range.  These numbers seem reasonable given the logarithmic nature CO2 radiative forcing with concentration changes.

My skepticism arises when I see estimates of 2.5, 5, or even 10 degrees C due to CO2 doubling.  What leads to these higher estimates?  Positive feedbacks and amplification.  By what mechanism do these feedback systems work?  Have we seen them in the historical record?  

Natural systems generally do not exist as positive feedback systems, as such systems tend to be unstable.

So no, the fundamental physics isn't wrong.  The assumption of positive feedbacks and tipping points at this point is unsubstantiated, thus estimates of temperature increases beyond 1.5 degrees C in the next century are highly questionable.

Answer 7

i see nothing wrong with all the answers from the linked question. In fact, I see ample proof against agw. so ur statements about them not adressing science are definitely unfounded; kinda like the big bang theory and gravity.(lol jk about gravity)

Answer 8

As a scientist, I'd caution everyone here fro making blanket statements. First off, while I may or may not agree with anyone's ideas, NONE of the statements above are remotely associated with fundamental physics. Rather, statements 1-5 are a combination of highly selected observed data and politically-biased analysis of that data.

1. "Greenhouse gas" is a jargon or slang term. Bad for credibility.

2. This is the central theme of AGW dogma. No argument from me, except that the debate isn't over on this by a long shot, so the grown-up way to put this is "...may cause the planet to warm."

3) Percentages and historical references are useless. The point of statistics is to prove your point or imply relatedness between factors, not to unveil a higher truth. That confuses statistics and philosophy.

4). Again, this is far from proven. There is better and more reliable data out there. No matter how you state it, it's not fact, but data. Highly manipulated and selective data chosen to prove a point.

5). Again, no argument. This is probably the best argument for GW there is, but also the most prone to variation. in years when there is a 5-year high in volcanic eruption, atmospheric temperatures go off average. The current models are going to be kick-*** in 10 more years when we can account for this more reliably.