Sites to address arguments of global warming deniers

by ishambat | November 6, 2010 at 08:01 pm

209 views | 0 Recommendations | 10 comments

http://www.skepticalscience.com
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/how-talk-global-warming-denier

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

JohnJB (not verified)

at 05:08 on November 7th, 2010

And if resounding rhetorical arguments and scare stories don't work, then you can always blow them up. ;)

ishambat

at 13:34 on November 7th, 2010

Where in the preceding have you seen an intent to blow anyone up?

JohnJB (not verified)

at 15:57 on November 7th, 2010

I was referring to that rather pathetic video by the 10:10 group, "No pressure". Hence the smilie. Seriously though, if you have any impirical proof that the hypothesised feedbacks and "tipping points" actually exist, I'm willing to see it. The simple fact is that we don't know the magnitude or even the sign of cloud feedbacks in the climate system, rendering projections "guesses" at best. I follow the scientific principles of Karl Popper, rather than the "post normal" principles used in some sciences today. His comment might you pause for thought; "Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

ishambat

at 17:12 on November 8th, 2010

I have a fairly good understanding both of the theory and of evidence for it.

The other theories that have been proposed (sun spots, warming-and-cooling cycles, New World Order conspiracy consisting of everyone except the Tea Party) are easily refutable.

Whereas unchecked carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation explains all the effects observed.

JohnJB (not verified)

at 21:59 on November 9th, 2010

It's the attribution question. The problem with the arguments from Grist and the others is that they are assuming the situation is either/or. It has to be CO2 or something else. This form of argument is called a "False Dilemma" logical fallacy. It doesn't have to be CO2 or something else, it can be CO2 and something else.
Rather than CO2 being 80%, land use changes 15% and everything else 5%. It may be CO2 20%, land use changes 30% and natural causes 50%. We simply don't know the answer to the attribution question.
Current attribution claims are not coming from experiments or science (in the strict sense) they are coming totally from computer models. This is not to say that models aren't useful, they are. But they are a model, they are not reality. They must be backed by hard, impirical evidence. So far this hasn't happened.
The assumption that the sceptics would like to see proven, and which so far hasn't been, is that CO2 is the major driver. If the current warming is 90% due to CO2 then we had better do something about it. however if it is only a minor contributor, then doing something about it won't have much effect.
The thing is that the warmer side of the debate don't actually have a theory, not in the sense that science uses the word anyway.The rock bottom basis of the scientific method is prediction and falsifiablity. A theory must be falsifiable. It must be able to make predictions that can be checked. If the observations don't match the prediction, then the theory is wrong.
The AGW crowd have made many predictions it is true, but they are so varied that the "theory" has become unfalsifiable because now everything "is consistent with" the theory. Ice caps melt and New York floods? Consistent with the theory. A stumble in the Atlantic Conveyor causing a new Ice Age and New York buried under a mile of ice? Consistent with the theory.
A "theory" that predicts everything is many things, but the one thing it isn't, is "science".

ishambat

at 03:16 on November 10th, 2010

The CO2 being the major factor is very much in line with observed reality. A significant rise in CO2 has been recorded; other suggested factors have not. One such explanation - the changes in sun's radiation - is dismissible right out of hand, since no significant change in solar radiation has been observed in 60 years. Another - cyclical fluctuations in the earth's temperature - do not explain why the oceans are turning to acid or why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere in recorded history. Global warming explains all the observed effects. Raising CO2 emissions while cutting down rainforests creates massive amounts of CO2 with nothing to absorb it and only two places to go - the atmosphere and the oceans. The heating of the atmosphere, the destabilization of the climate, the melting of the glaciers, the acidification of the oceans - the main predicted effects - have been observed and continue being observed.

To falsify global warming you would need to debunk these effects or find another explanation for all of them. No explanations suggested begin to explain the situation. Some, such as changes in solar activity, are easily dismissed as being inconsistent with observed evidence. Others, such as cyclical fluctuations, not only do not have any evidence behind them but also fail to explain vast aspects of the problem.

No explanation begins to explain the situation with any degree of comprehensiveness as does CO2-emission-led global warming. None has nearly as much data behind either. Glaciers melting and flooding the low-lying coastal areas is a possible effect of global warming. The ocean currents such as Gulf Stream being re-routed through the melting of the glaciers is also a possible effect. They are not inconsistent with one another; they are two different scenarios that can take place and for the same reason.

I suggest that you look again at both the theory and the evidence and see why 97% of legitimate scientists who have dealt with this matter have all come to the same conclusion. And no, it has nothing to do with satanic conspiracies or plans for a one-world government either. The solutions can be done just as easily by private sector as by public sector and with different entities putting this into place in different parts of the world.

JohnJB (not verified)

at 17:26 on November 11th, 2010

As I said the question is attribution, but a few points first.
All the effects, shrinking glaciers, changes in weather patterns, changes in animal distribution are applicable to a warming climate. However they are not indicators to the cause. They would occur regardless of the cause and as such are in no way "proof" of the CO2 hypothesis. So what have you got left?
Solar radiation. You are correct as far as the fact that TSI at TOA has been roughly steady, but let's move past kindergarten science. Recent papers suggest that the while the TSI has remained constant the make up of that radiation has not. The spectrum has shifted with more coming from the ultra violet range than was experienced previously.
The ISR (incoming ultraviolet) has increased. After hitting the earth it is reflected as OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) or heat. Put very simply, if the incoming UV goes up, then the outgoing Infra red goes up. IR radiation is heat. (generally)
This means that if incoming UV goes up then more heat is sent back out and things heat up. Which seems to be what is happening. We didn't notice this previously because we didn't pay much attention to the makeup of the incoming radiation, only the total figure.
When looking at the make up of the TSI, things have indeed changed.
Cyclic fluctuations in the atmosphere may well have an effect on climate, but there is no logical reason to assume that they would have an effect on the PH level of the oceans. Why you attempt to put these two things together is beyond me. Apples and oranges.
On oceanic acidity. Since the oceans haven't passed the neutral point, then the correct terminology is that the oceans are becoming "less alkaline", but I guess that this isn't as scary as saying they are becoming "more acidic". I would point out that every time you adjust the PH level in your wimming pool (if you have one) you are doing exactly the same thing.
Like many in this debate, you are conflating multiple ideas into a single monolith. The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased during the industrial age and is closly correllated with with our use of fossil fuels only "proves" one thing. That man is most likely responsible for the increase in CO2. It does not prove, in any way that this is the cause of the warming.
Put simply the pro argument is often stated as "The world is warming and man is responsible" as if this was one statement. It is not, it's two. Proof of the first part, that the world is warming (and it is) is not proof of the second part.
Also, your "comprehensive" theory does not explain why the glaciers started to recede nearly 100 years before the warming started. An "Inconvenient Truth" you might want to consider.
I don't see how you can consider sea level rise due to warming and sea level drop due to a new ice age as "not inconsistent with one another". Sea level can't go up and down at the same time. However, that's neither here nor there. My point was that if a theory predicts everything between the two extremes, then it actually predicts nothing.
The only actual measurable prediction made so far was in IPCC Ar4. WG1 Chapter 9, figure 9.1 shows the large increase in temps predicted by the theory in the Sub Tropical Tropospheric atmosphere. This region of air should (according to the theory) show an increase in temps more abrupt than the surface. In fact up to 3 times the surface warming is predicted. Unfortunately no such amplified heating has been observed.
So when you expound on the theory just remember that it's only measurable prediction was wrong.
The argument that 97% or whatever agree means nothing to me. It means nothing to anybody with an interest in the sciences. "Argument from Authority" and "Argument from Popularity" are both logical fallacies and have no place in a scientific argument.
I add to that that 50 years ago 97% of Geologists thought the Earth was stable and that "Continental Drift" was bunk and that 70 years ago 97% of Astrophysicists believed the "Steady State" theory of the Universe and not the silly "Big Bang" idea.
You pooh pooh the idea of cyclical effects yet your theory cannot explain the very obvious 60 year cycle seen in the temp record. Warming 1850-1880, steady or cooling 1808-1910, warming 1910-1940, steady or cooling 1940-1970, warming 1970-2000, steady 2000-2010. Nor does your "comprehensive" theory explain the two earlier warming periods or the coolind periods. The closest it comes is with hand waving estimates of atmospheric aerosols in the 1940-1970 period, but if you read the IPCC reports, no actual figures are available and everything is a "best guess".
You suggest that other theories "fail to explain vast aspects of the problem", but cannot actually show that there is a "problem" in the first place. You are assuming that there is a "problem" that requires some sort of "explanation". Can you please tell me what the "problem" is that you see?
I put the conspiracy theories where they belong, in the rubbish bin. And that goes for the warmers "Big Oil" and "Denial Machine" ones as well. Don't you find it interesting that one side laughs at the others conspiracy idea while putting forward one of their own. I think that this shows deep psychological problems.
As to looking at the "theory and evidence", that's what I've been doing for the last 4 years. I've read all the IPCC reports, as well as hundreds of papers from the published literature. I've participated in debates where every single statement had to be backed up by peer reviewed papers. I dare say I'm far better informed than 99.9% of the warmers who seem to be unable to grasp the basic science and are reduced to parroting by rote what they read at Grist or Realclimate.
I note that virtually every "sceptic" site has a standing invitation for any of the "warmer" climate scientists to come and debate the topic at their leisure. This invitation has never been taken up. They appear to much prefer the climate controlled debate of the echo chamber and are afraid to venture where they don't control all aspects of the debate. IOW, they are afraid of open debate. If their science is as strong as is claimed, then they have nothing to fear. So why are they scared?

Cheers.

ishambat

at 20:28 on November 11th, 2010

Most likely they are not scared but do not see the need, are too busy, or prefer to do science rather than activism. Deniers have plenty of time on their hands; legitimate scientists do not.

Cyclical fluctuations do not have effect on acidity of the oceans. Unchecked carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation does. Carbon goes into the oceans and makes them acidic. This too has been observed.

Carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation is therefore a problem by itself.

There are plenty of measurable predictions besides the one you have quoted, and they have been met. They include rising temperatures across the world, acidification of the oceans, melting glaciers, and climate destabilization.

The 60-year cycle that you have talked about has far smaller amplitude than the consistent rise we have seen in world temperatures. It's a lot like looking at the Standard and Poor's over the last century or so and seeing small cyclical changes against the backdrop of a consistent upward trend.

What I wrote about the glaciers stands. Glaciers melt, ocean levels rise. Glaciers melt and re-route ocean currents, temperatures change in places affected by the ocean currents. The first is happening; the second has a strong chance of happening if this goes on.

Depending upon how much time I have I will visit the sites you are talking about if you provide the links.

JohnJB (not verified)

at 23:39 on November 13th, 2010

I've given this a bit of thought as to what to suggest and I think I've got an idea, but a bit of background first.
It's not as clear cut between believers/deniers as you might think. I classify as a "Luke warmer", which means that I accept that CO2 does cause warming but I don't think it's the major climate driver.
The first link I'll give you is to 800 peer reviewed papers that counter in one way or another climate alarmism.
Some show that the current temps and the rate of rise are not all that unusual and therefore counter the idea that the current situation is in any way "unprecedented". In other words, what has happened in the last 150 years is actually well within the known limits of natural variation. This type of paper do not address the greenhouse theory per se, but they do counter the idea that what is happening is unusual and we therefore need to run around like headless chooks "doing" something.
Some deal with the knowns and unknowns of radiative physics which has direct relevence to the output and predictions of climate models. If the models are overestimating the warming and the forcings, then the problem is far less acute and immediate. This type of paper will also deal with the attribution question and whether or not CO2 is the major driver in climate. They will also deal with feedbacks and the physics thereof.
Another type of paper will deal directly with attribution. This is where the standard theory has really been losing ground. When first proposed the CO2 theory was pretty simple. CO2 was the major driver and everything else followed from there. Roughly put, CO2 provided 30% of the warming, feedbacks provided 60% and natural forcings maybe 10%. But since then we have learned about the PDO, ANO and ENSO and their effects on the system.
Susan Soloman published a paper earlier this year that showed up to 30% of the warming from 1970-2000 could be attributed to lowered water vapour in the stratosphere. This 30% has to come from somewhere. It's existence means that we have overestimated the the forcings due to CO2 or the known feedback levels, or both. It can be shown, using peer reviewed papers, that CO2 is responsible for less than half of the warming. Simply by starting with the idea that CO2 is responsible for 100% and subtracting other forcings, etc as they are identified.
I don't know your background and so I have no idea how far through these papers you can wade. I've been reading them for years and I often find my grasp of radiative physics and statistical analysis unequal to the task. Some are very heavy reading.
The second link I'll give you is to Anthony Watts site. The articles and guest posts are often interesting, but the comments section of most posts is an echo chamber. Sometimes worth trawling through for links to relevent papers and articles, but otherwise a sceptical echo chamber. The main reason for choosing AWs site is his blog roll. He divides the blogs into "Lukewarmers", "Political Climate", "Pro AGW views" and "Skeptical views" so that if you follow a link, you'll know what you're in for.
I do recommend the Lukewarmer sites as there will always be in depth discussions about the science there. (Lucias Blackboard is very good) You'll find in depth arguments and articles about the statistics used in climate science at ClimateAudit and to a lesser extent the Air Vent. I know that we sceptics are painted as uneducated fools that have been duped by some propaganda "machine", but you might like to have a look at the "Reader Background" at the Air Vent. I guarantee you'll be surprised.
As you travel around the blogs take note of the blogrolls at each one and you'll notice something interesting. Virtually all of the Sceptical blogs have links to the Pro AGW ones. The Sceptics want people to read both sides of the argumant and become informed. Virtually none of the Pro AGW sites will link to a Lukewarmer or Sceptical site, they will only lonk between themselves. They want you to only hear one side of the story. (Noticing that was one of the reasons I became suspicious in the first place and decided to look into things more deeply. Reading comments on blogs has shown me that I'm not alone in this.)
One side is behaving like Fox news and a bunch of creationists the other side isn't. I'll leave it to the evidence of your own eyes as to which is which.
The two links