What hard evidence do deniers of global warming have?

Question

Have scientific evidence to support answer

Answer 1

Go to www.surfacestations.org.  Look at the temp charts for Orland, CA and Marysville, CA.  These temp stations are 55 miles apart, and there is less then 200 feet elevation difference, and note the difference in their two charts.  The one that was set up in an area near blacktop, a cellphone tower, and air conditioning units recorded GLOBAL WARMING!!!   While the one set up over grass, away from any pavement or buildings recorded a few years of decline and then the temps didnt trend either way since 1900.  This just goes to show you how the measurements can be incorrect, and even skewed by the locations, their distributions over latitudes/longitudes/altitudes.  

Also, recent studies show very little net loss in land based ice in greenland.  Elevations above 1500m actually gained 3-6cm of ice per year while elevations below 1500m ( near the coasts where you see the melting!) recorded a loss of ice, big suprise.  All of this while the Antarctic ice masses slightly increased in size!   What global warming is happening?  Is it based on 29 years of satellite observation of the arctic?

Answer 2

you need evidence to prove its there..

the only evidence we, "deniers" (aka smart people) have is logic

Answer 3

None. Global warming is a roven fact. You can't have "hard evidence"  to deny it.

Answer 4

I'm not going to say I deny it. I'm waiting for all the voices to be heard, and I'm still listening. I'm not going to allow myself to get paniced because Gore started throwing around a bunch of unverified stats - stats that have now been discredited. I'm trying to look at the big picture here. And that picture includes the things that the alarmists won't talk about. Like North American glaciers that were mapped in the 1800s, but were gone by 1900. The fact that the Antarctica ice mass is increasing. And that this planet was extremely tropical for 300 million years - to the point that fern fossils have been found at the South Pole. Is that the normal, regular climate we should have? This planet changes, and of course, adding carbon monoxide can't be good. But I am also open to the fact that it's going to change again and maybe there's nothing we can do about that. Good question by the way.

I get so tired of Gore's attitude which subtly suggests. "You are Americans, and everything is your fault."

Answer 5

First let me say this, I believe that we as people should do the best we can to not hurt what we have, example moving to water based paints for automotive and other outdoor structures. We don't need lots o VOC's in the air they aren't good for us.  people have survived on this planet for some time in all kinds of climates hot and cold, so have other critters.  I will agree that there is a possibility of temperatures trending warmer.  But I do not believe that we as people are the undisputed and direct cause of such warming.  do we agree the earth is 4 billion years old? 150-even 200 years is just not enough data to prove anything, besides according to Darwin Don't the Strong Survive?

Answer 6

doesnt matter. It will be too late for anyone to do anything. Get out your bags of green stuff everyone.

Answer 7

Well you've got a good sampling of the standard denier 'evidence' here.  Basically the only one with an even remotely valid criticism is Tomcat.

It's true that according to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.  The thing is, we don't know whether or not it is.

In fact, Tomcat accidentally shows this in the data he provides.  In one dataset it shows 0.13 deg C per decade and in the other it's 0.05 deg C per decade.  That's a huge difference!

The problem with the tropospheric temperature measurements is that they're done by satellite, and satellites have various biases that need to be corrected for.  Just as a few examples, they have orbital decay and they have to look through the whole atmosphere just at one segment (in this case, the mid-troposphere).  But the stratosphere is cooling, so if you get any of the stratosphere data in your measurement of the troposphere, it looks like the troposphere isn't warming as much as it is in reality.

The reality is, we just don't know how much the troposphere is warming at this point.  It might not jive with what the AGW theory says, but then again it might.  A nice discussion of the atmospheric temperature data here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/m...

"All the analyses except UAH are compatible with computer model projections of tropospheric warming; the error ranges include the values expected from model simulations. The UAH analysis, however, is incompatible with model simulations, showing warming which is just too little to accord with model results.

Which of the data sets it to be believed? Frankly, I don’t know."

Shapeshifter's comments about the surface stations are simply wrong, as I discuss in my answer to his question here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Most other people said "it's up to AGW to prove the theory".  Well, virtually all scientific experts are in agreement that AGW has done just that:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

So now it's up to them to prove why the accepted theory is wrong, and the are unable to do so.

Answer 8

You and others of your believer ilk still don't get it do you?  In science, it is not the duty of skeptics of a theory who provide hard evidence, it is the duty of the proponents of the theory to provide evidence in support of their theory.  Unless sufficient evidence in support of the theory is present, the skeptics will remain skeptical.  Challenges such as yours have no place in science.  They are instead, the typical tactic of the zeolot or political activist.

Answer 9

Skeptics generally don't believe that alarmists are credible.  It is up to alarmists to prove their alarmism is justified.  Even if they prove humans add a little warming, they still need to prove that the warming humans add will be significantly harmful.

Answer 10

No one denies we are warmer than we were 10,000 years ago.  But there is no need to invoke mankind to explain it.

Go to the following source:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...

Ice age temperature anomalies are plotted versus time.  Our current temperature is within the highest and lowest shown on the graph.

Therefore our current temperatures are within the NORMAL  variance of the earth, and requires no other extraordinary complicated explanations at this time (Occam's Razor).

There is your "hard evidence".

(You will note the data are also extremely noisy, with A LOT of variance, that makes comparison of rates of change more than a bit challenging.)

Now, as a courtesy, can you provide the definitive evidence that mankind has a significant effect on global temperatures?

Not "suggestions", beliefs, proxies, climate simulations, sea levels, "consensus", or carbon dioxide measurements.

Global temperature data to a precision and accuracy of 0.1 C going back 100,000 years.

Yo,  Dana1981 ... what happened to your explaining away the Vostok, Antarctica graphic?

What is most amazing about AGW "embracers" is how they have to explain away every single piece of conflicting data.  Statistically speaking, there will be data that doesn't fit a model because of imperfect data and imperfect models.

Other areas of science accept this.  But AGW enthusiasts don't.  No matter what the data, if it doesn't fit AGW it is not significant.  Or it is just for one part of the world.  Or there are problems with the measurements.  Satellites seem to have lots of problems, ground stations don't seem to have any problems.

And lets not forget that any contrary evidence is "uncertain", but urban heat island "adjustments" are without error or uncertainty.  Mankind's contribution to CO2 emissions are quite certain, even if carbon cycle estimates of sources and sinks have HUGE uncertainties that completely dwarf  mankind's contribution.

Answer 11

NONE!

Answer 12

What hard answer do believers have? I have misplaced thermometers, and prior occurrences of global warming before ice ages.

Answer 13

Actually, there is little actual proof that man-made emissions significantly change the natural cycling. There is a good theory that CO2 may be adding to the natural cycle based on the observation that as the temperature rises, so does CO2. This theory may prove to be accurate, or it may not.

CO2SCIENCE.ORG

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Techn...

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

Answer 14

Honestly they would not believe it no matter what evidence they are given. If you look on here you can see all the evidence posted that shows the truths of global warming and that it is happening. Many scientific groups agree that it is happening. The deniers flat out lie and make up information.

Answer 15

For starters the mid troposphere according to global warming should have warmed faster than the surface, a look at the graph below shows the surface with a gradient of .17 degrees per decade and two different atmospheric satellite data surveys which show warming of 0.13 and .05 degrees per decade, both of which are less than the surface. According to this data CO2 in the atmospheric could not have caused surface warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

Now the alarmists are always going to have an excuse, and their excuse is the pathetically weak statement that stratospheric cooling has caused a bias in the mid troposphere data and needs to be corrected for. That is a load of bull, there has been no cooling in the stratosphere for 14 years, and in fact there has been a warming trend, which also is another major indicator that there is no accelerating greenhouse effect occurring in the mid troposphere.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog/popup_sli...

.

It is more than likely that the theory of radiative transfer needs to be modified to compensate for other energy transfer mechanisms such as convection, evaporation and condensation. It is also likely that much of the surface warming over the last thirty years is more than likely a warm bias proportional to urbanisation of the planet, and the sattelites are telling the truth, yes the planet has warmed, and the majority of it can be explained by natural forces.

EDIT Dana:

The UAH is the correct satellite dataset, RSS uses a climate model to compensate for the correction caused by the orbital decay of the satellites. Since climate models do not work very well is expected the UAH and RSS datasets would be very different. Itis interesting that the satellites are put under such scrutiny, while the surface record which is plagued with problems has seen no such efforts. By 2030 global temperatures will have fallen by over 1 degree C. because of a decline in solar activity, it is unavoidable, stop misleading people, they deserve the truth.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_...

Answer 16

Don't confuse "deniers" with 'skeptics'.  Those of us who are skeptics are still waiting for the hard science to support AGW...... it's still not there.  Currently, there are a number of scientists who THINK that AGW MIGHT be occuring.

Along with the "FACT" that surface monitoring stations have been found to be providing flawed temperature data..... data used in large part to support AGW.... there is enough mis-information...and politicizing.....out there to warrant caution before embracing the AGW cause.  

The AGW cause is currently losing support with each passing day as the faulty 'science' supporting it is exposed.

Answer 17

http://www.savage-productions.com/debunk...