Jump to content

Valid global warming criticism (looking for)


Recommended Posts

Are there any good arguements against the theory of global warming? I've heard things along the lines of "we're currently coming out of an ice age and the earth would be warming naturally anyway", "there is warming in some regions, not in others", "we only have records of temperatures over the past century from the USA and some parts of Europe", ...and perhaps some others I can't remember.

 

..are any of these arguements reasonable? Are there any other evidence/arguements contradicting the theory of warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Supposedly there is a debate over global warming... debates have two sides. I'm just trying to get some idea of what the skeptics are saying (and whether any of their arguements have any validity, or if it's just a case of not understanding the subject that they're criticizing).

 

I'd appreciate some help from those of you who follow this subject closely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I follow this subject closely, but you still cannot call me an expert or anything like that. Anyway, there are very few global warming skeptics out there who, I believe, actually view the evidence. Please view this thread for more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, no doubt about it, people are the cause of global warming. But only in a hypothetical sense. If anyone actually looked into the science of climate models you'd see that they don't actually tell you much; global warming is something that has been accepted by concensus not by sceince.

 

I think that climate models and their erroneous nature is perhaps the most compeling criticism of global warming. I mean, the fact that all it takes is a pretty graph to convince people of our impending doom seems a little silly, particularly if the model used to produce the graph is based on nothing more than asumption - I mean very few of the variables within the equations used to produce future climate models can be determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well ive read a couple articles that say global warming isnt real. they all say that many scientists have found out its not real but i never see any proof of why or any names.

That's because what you heard is a load of crap. Everyone should read Time Magazine's article on global warming. You can find it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a global warming skeptic. However, being a skeptic does not consist of denying reality. Yes, the world is warming up. That evidence is overwhelming and only a crackpot would deny it. However, other aspects of the climate change paradigm deserve querying.

 

Consider the following for a start.

 

1. The world has been warming up since approximately the year 1760 (Fact).

 

2. Human released greenhouse gases have been increasing in a non-trivial way since approximately the year 1920 (Fact.).

 

3. Conclusion. Human released greenhouse gases cause global warming.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is widely accepted by the scientific community, and meteorologists know enough that they've been able to make predictions based on the theory that later proved correct, while older predictions that were tossed aside were shown to be accurate as well when people actually took the time to seriously dig through the data rather than just look for glaringly obvious numbers.

 

The problem as I understand it is that the proofs that satisfy scientists are not sufficient to satisfy politics, which desires 100% inarguable proof and a smoking gun with fingerprints on it before they'll accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I1. The world has been warming up since approximately the year 1760 (Fact).

 

2. Human released greenhouse gases have been increasing in a non-trivial way since approximately the year 1920 (Fact.).

 

3. Conclusion. Human released greenhouse gases cause global warming.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1. The world has been warming up rapidly since the 1850's at the end of the mini-ice age. Whoa! That's when the industrial age started!

 

2. As we continue to add more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere global warming seems to accelerate faster and faster.

 

3. Conclusion. Humans releasing greenhouse gases, along with numerous other factors, is causing global warming.

 

You are not examining all of the evidence. You are just taking some of the evidence and saying that it is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any good arguements against the theory of global warming?

 

The specific nature of the earth's radiative imbalance is still unknown, however we are certain that an overall warming trend exists.

 

Supposedly there is a debate over global warming... debates have two sides. I'm just trying to get some idea of what the skeptics are saying

 

Mainly you'll see:

- The problem is not yet well-understood (therefore)

- Multi-decadal global climate forecasting is not yet skillful

- Our ability to predict long term climate vulnerabilities is not yet skillful

- More research on the problem is needed before action is taken

- Our ability to measure the global surface temperature is limited, and its usefulness as a metric in terms of diagnosing the specific nature of Earth's radiative imbalance is a matter of debate

- Our ability to discern warming from regional sources versus that incurred from forcings which are global in scope such as CO2 is still limited, and very little regionally focused atmospheric research is taking place comapred to the resources invested in understanding forcings which are global in scope

 

You're not going to find many credible atmospheric scientists who are going to argue against the idea that the world is warming and that CO2 (from anthropogenic sources) is the primary cause. These two matters are fairly well established. The devil is in the details, and that's what's really up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The world has been warming up rapidly since the 1850's at the end of the mini-ice age. Whoa! That's when the industrial age started!

 

2. As we continue to add more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere global warming seems to accelerate faster and faster.

 

3. Conclusion. Humans releasing greenhouse gases' date=' along with numerous other factors, is causing global warming.

 

You are not examining all of the evidence. You are just taking some of the evidence and saying that it is not enough.[/quote']

 

 

Actually, Herpguy, no-one examines ALL the evidence. There is a school of thought, led by Professor Michael Mann, that says what you are saying.

ie. That warming was minimal until (not the 1850's) but about 1890. Then accelerated. The problem with this is two fold.

1. The warming from 1750 to 1890 is de-emphasized. Records from glaciers make it clear that this warming was, however, very significant.

2. The 'faster' warming after 1890 is obtained by changing the method of measuring. Prior to that, such things as tree rings are used. Afterwards, it becomes actual thermometer measurements (they were rare before 1890). The problem is that the vast bulk of thermometer measurements were madfe in cities. They create their own warmer micro-climate, and cities have a habit of getting bigger and warmer.

 

If you study glacial retreat, and historical records of this retreat, you will find that glaciers were galloping backwards (by the standards of glaciers) way before 1890, or even 1850.

 

Also note that greenhouse gases, in spite of the industrial revolution, did not start to increase in any meaningful way until 1920, not 1850.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SkepticLance, my point with examining all of the evidence was that you clearly looked at 2-3, if even that, pieces of evidence and said that this is not occuring.

 

 

Have you ever been to a glacier? Have you ever talked to a global warming expert? I have. Come back to this thread when you are ready to admit you are wrong about your "facts". And please, I'm begging you to look at more of the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that the world is warming and that CO2[/sub'] (from anthropogenic sources) is the primary cause.

 

Is there no argument on this fact? I thought climatologists were still unsure of exactly how much warming CO2 causes. Not that it doesn't cause warming just that we don't know if its the primary cause. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever been to a glacier? Have you ever talked to a global warming expert? I have. Come back to this thread when you are ready to admit you are wrong about your "facts". And please, I'm begging you to look at more of the evidence.

 

To say you've spoken to an opposing expert doesn't make his comments invalid. I haven't seen you provide all the evidence either. All you've said is a few comments to support warming, then say you've spoken to someone who is on one side of the debate and therefore you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there no argument on this fact?

 

If there are any papers advocating that anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, I have not seen them. From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (who, to be fair, have been accused of being almost dogmatic in their approach), here is a figure of the relative effect of radiative forcings in the climate system as presently understood:

 

IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.gif

 

I thought climatologists were still unsure of exactly how much warming CO2 causes.

 

Yes...

 

Not that it doesn't cause warming just that we don't know if its the primary cause. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

We are quite certain it is the primary cause...

 

The boss of my old research group is often touted by the press as a "global warming skeptic" (much to his chagrin) and he certainly conceeds that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bascule' date=' you seem to be very knowledgable on this subject. What do you think are the best papers and studies on climate change?

 

(This is open to anyone else who's read something of interest too)[/quote']

 

I've found two decent papers in the past.

 

http://individual.utoronto.ca/bhavin/warmingdebate.pdf

 

Abstract—A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper. The

term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface

temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the

increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the

atmosphere...

 

http://individual.utoronto.ca/bhavin/warmingsummary.pdf *BIG*

 

Abstract. Prior to the 20th century Northern Hemisphere average surface air temperatures have

varied in the order of 0.5 ◦C back to AD 1000. Various climate reconstructions indicate that slow

cooling took place until the beginning of the 20th century. Subsequently, global-average surface

air temperature increased by about 0.6 ◦C with the 1990s being the warmest decade on record.

The pattern of warming has been greatest over mid-latitude northern continents in the latter part of

the century. At the same time the frequency of air frosts has decreased over many land areas, and

there has been a drying in the tropics and sub-tropics. The late 20th century changes have been

attributed to global warming because of increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations

due to human activities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to time zone differences, I have been out of this for over 12 hours, and a lot of replies have come in.

 

I am really replying to Herpguy's earlier posting.

 

Herpguy.

Sorry, but my facts are real. Yes, I have been to a glacier (in fact, many). The pattern is widespread. When a glacier moves forward (with increasing cold), it pushes a pile of rubble ahead of it. This includes many fragments of organic matter which can be carbon dated. When climate changes, and things start to get warmer, it leaves this large pile of rubble in place (now called the terminal moraine). By carbon dating lots of organic matter in this rubble, and using the youngest as the date, we can be pretty sure when the glacier started to retreat. ie when things began to warm up. By repeating this test in many places world wide, we get global warming beginning about the year 1750.

 

Admittedly, if a different method of measuring temperature (eg tree rings) is used, we get weird differences in results. This allows people to 'select' their science to suit their politics.

 

Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere suffers no ambiguity at all. The results are very clear cut. Before 1920, there was very little change. From then, there was a major change.

 

We are still faced with the incongruity that global warming began in 1750 and greenhouse gases in 1920. No-one has yet given the explanation. If greenhouse gas increase causes global warming, the increase MUST come before the warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to time zone differences' date=' I have been out of this for over 12 hours, and a lot of replies have come in.

 

I am really replying to Herpguy's earlier posting.

 

Herpguy.

Sorry, but my facts are real. Yes, I have been to a glacier (in fact, many). The pattern is widespread. When a glacier moves forward (with increasing cold), it pushes a pile of rubble ahead of it. This includes many fragments of organic matter which can be carbon dated. When climate changes, and things start to get warmer, it leaves this large pile of rubble in place (now called the terminal moraine). By carbon dating lots of organic matter in this rubble, and using the youngest as the date, we can be pretty sure when the glacier started to retreat. ie when things began to warm up. By repeating this test in many places world wide, we get global warming beginning about the year 1750.

 

Admittedly, if a different method of measuring temperature (eg tree rings) is used, we get weird differences in results. This allows people to 'select' their science to suit their politics.

 

Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere suffers no ambiguity at all. The results are very clear cut. Before 1920, there was very little change. From then, there was a major change.

 

We are still faced with the incongruity that global warming began in 1750 and greenhouse gases in 1920. No-one has yet given the explanation. If greenhouse gas increase causes global warming, the increase MUST come before the warming.[/quote']I believe there are a few explanations for that. It is true that carbon dioxide levels started rising, perhaps 1750, before fossil fuel burning really go underway, perhaps as late as 1950. One possible reason is that from 1750 to 1900 there was a lost of deforestation, charcoal burning, and in general, biomass destruction. The other possible reason for the anomoly is that up until recently, like the last 20 years, carbon dioxide levels have not been high enough to cause global warming that was sufficiently high be statistically significant compared with background variability and noise. But today 380ppm is proof enough of global warming.

 

This is perhaps the simplest proof of global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prime-Evil.

You have quite missed the point, probably because you have adopted a false bit of data.

 

No. Carbon dioxide did NOT start to increase in 1750. We have excellent data on carbon dioxide levels in the past. Air bubbles trapped in glaciers.

 

There was a trivial increase from 1850 to 1920, and a relatively massive increase since. No greenhouse gas increase before 1920 is sufficient to explain the global warming that has been going on from 1750.

 

This is a real problem for those pushing the current paradigm.

 

However, if we look further into the past, we see that global temperature change is not unusual.

 

In latter Roman times, there was a warming period. So much so that grapes were grown, and wine made in northern England (in fact, in York). York is currently too cold to do that today. Then came the Dark Ages, which represent a relatively cold period.

 

The came the medieval warm period from 900 AD to 1400 AD. During this time, Nordic settlers occupied Greenland and grew 5 different crops. We cannot do that today, since it is still too cold. After 1400 AD many settlers died from crop failure, and the rest had to leave. The world went into the Little Ice Age, which ended with warming from 1750.

 

5000 years ago, temperatures reached 2 Deg. C more than today. By comparison, total global warming in the 20th Century averaged 0.6 Deg. C.

 

During the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago, temperatures reached 5 Deg. C. more than today. Go back further. In the Cretaceous, 10 Deg. C. more than today.

 

To support the current paradigm, many people have claimed that the Medieval Warm period, and the Little Ice Age, etc., were only small scale local events. However, the total evidence for their global spread is rather massive.

 

Now, let me make myself clear. I do not deny either global warming, or the effect of greenhouse gases. However, it is also clear to anyone who is not intellectually blind that this is not the whole story. The current era of global warming was kicked off by another factor, rather than human released greenhouse gases. This Factor X was rather powerful, and was probably either the same, or similar to whatever caused previous warming periods. Greenhouse gases may have played a part recently, but can only have been significant since the year 1920.

 

Even since 1920, other factors have been present. From 1920 to 1940, greenhouse gases increased to a lesser degree than subsequent years. Yet temperatures increased till 1940, and then dropped, till 1976. This small scale global cooling occurred while greenhouse gases were increasing markedly. Another influence MUST have been at work.

 

My skepticism is mostly aimed at the arrogance of those who believe they understand what is going on. The short answer is that we do NOT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prime-Evil.

I have never argued that humans have no influence on global warming. Increasing carbon dioxide since 1920 could well be playing a significant role. My argument is more about the degree of ignorance we all suffer in relation to this subject.

 

Your wikipedia reference is not much help, since it is just a summary of the process of deduction used to support the paradigm. I am not a great fan of deduction. It has been described as the best way of making gross errors with total confidence. I am far more interested in objective empirical evidence, which is seriously missing in the argument. Yes, heaps of evidence for both greenhouse gas increase since 1920, and for global warming since 1750. However, evidence to show one causing the other is weak.

 

I have been following this debate for the last ten years. I read heaps of material on both sides of the argument. When I read articles supporting the greenhouse gas/global warming link, I look for their empirical evidence. So far, it is close to zilch. Instead, we get a barrage of predictions from computer models.

 

I would have more confidence in computer models, except for a couple of points.

1. They have never successfully retro-actively predicted the climate change pattern of the 20th Century. They always exaggerate the warming trend, and they never predict the two cooling periods - one which lasted 36 years.

2. As pointed out in an international conference in 2003, current computer models cannot make allowances for changes in cloud cover. Yet cloud cover is actually a more potent determinant of global temperature than greenhouse gases.

3. Even the modellers themselves admit that computer climate models are unreliable.

 

Since it is clear that at least one other potent factor, besides greenhouse gases, is at work, perhaps there are more. For example : How about this piece of speculation?

The world warms up. The air takes up more water vapour (basic physics).

More water means more clouds. More clouds mean more heat reflected into space. A cooling effect.

The above is a classic negative feed-back mechanism which reduces the impact of an effect - in this case reducing global warming.

Sure, this is just a piece of speculation, and could well be totally wrong.

However, again my point is that we just do not know what is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.