Climate sceticism rebutted

[Sodafin]

I think this feature from BBC is exceptional - explaining exactly why many of the main arguments presented by climate sceptics are based on false assumptions of scientific errors.

Here are a couple of positions I've seen posted recently:

Sceptics: It's about the sun.

Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.

Rebuttal:

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

Sceptics: There is no warming

Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming.

Rebuttal:

1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.

There is more - much more - in the link.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | 629 | 629 | Climate scepticism: The top 10

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since 1960? Yeah nothing like extrapolating a 40 year or so timeline over a 4 billion year horizon.

This is why no one takes Warmers seriously.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

I was told once by a Global Warming supporter that water-vapor and the Sun can't possibly be the primary cause of warmth in the atmosphere.

The effect man has on climate is so negligible that it's impossible to nail down the causes. But this really is about a massive money transfer. Obama talked during his campaign about $900 billion going to the world's poor from the Treasury. This Global Warming crap is that program.

 

[Sodafin]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

 

[Sodafin]

I was told once by a Global Warming supporter that water-vapor and the Sun can't possibly be the primary cause of warmth in the atmosphere.

They are influences - but it seems your friend was right in saying they can't possibly be causing the current trends.

Water vapour is essentially in balance with the planet's temperature on annual timescales and longer, whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries. The statement that water vapour is "98% of the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Someone else had posted this the other day, but I love it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

*Expert Analysis*???

The Sun heats the Earth. The changing of the seasons is caused from the tilted axis of the Earth. Surface temperatures are directly related to the position of the Sun and where it is in the sky and dictates how warm the atmosphere will be at any given time and how many hours it is able to warm the atmosphere like a battery. Water-vapor not only warms but also cools the Earth. How much it's able to depend the volume of vapor. CO2 is only a tiny fraction of Green House gases. Of the total amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere man only pumps a small fraction of that. Nature does the rest.

Now folks are telling us that cattle and dog farts are worse then a friggen Hummer. I guess whatever these loons what to target at any given moment dictates what they tell us effects Global Warming the most.

 

[Sodafin]

If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?

Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago.

 

[Sodafin]

Mudwhistle -

I think it might be worth your while reading the material that has been posted.

Posting the same fallacies again and again doesn't help anyone.

 

[Sodafin]

This is why no one takes Warmers seriously.

You have to laugh, don't you?

In an era where we see the CONSERVATIVE parties of not only England, France, Germany and Holland but of countries like Kenya, Bangladesh and Mozambique all having released policies on tackling climate change, and in an era where there is total academic consensus on the collapse of glaciers, on rising ocean levels and changes in ocean ph - here is a guy with a high school understanding of science to tell us they are all wrong.

I feel so much better.

Honestly, Frank - why not step back from your ego for 5 minutes and actually read what it being posted?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

We have seen a consistent rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 since 1900. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.*

We have not seen a consistent rise in global temperature since 1900. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.*

We have seen global temperatures drop many times since 1900. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.*

1940-1970 was a notable period of temperature decrease. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.*

If something causes an effect, it should always cause the same effect. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 failed to effect a rise in global temperatures from 1940-1970. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.*

This list of facts brought to you by Screaming Eagle, thank you for your attention.

 

[Sodafin]

Eagle -

You are some very silly and ill-informed questions here.

If something causes an effect, it should always cause the same effect

Why should it? We all know that influences such as La Nina/El Nino and a half dozen other facts can negate or exaggerate the effect?

Using words like "consistent" in relation to climate and weather, or asking "We have seen global temperatures drop many times since 1900", is not sensible. You know climate is not consistent, and you also know that a brief drop in temperatures is neither meaningful nor improbable given the impact of La Nina.

You also know as well as I do that temperatures have risen dramatically during the past hundred years, meaning that the past decade has been the warmest on record.

I sense you spend more time trying to second guess scientists than you do listening to them.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Eagle -

You are some very silly and ill-informed questions here.

If something causes an effect, it should always cause the same effect

Why should it? We all know that influences such as La Nina/El Nino and a half dozen other facts can negate or exaggerate the effect?

Why should it? Seriously? That is the basis of the scientific method.

Using words like "consistent" in relation to climate and weather, or asking "We have seen global temperatures drop many times since 1900", is not sensible. You know climate is not consistent, and you also know that a brief drop in temperatures is neither meaningful nor improbable given the impact of La Nina.

There was a consistent, long-term drop in global temperature for 30 years while atmospheric CO2 was increasing.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You have to answer the postal price graph. It does show a more positive correlation than the carbon number.

There are lots of factors that can drive climate. the carbon data do not fluctuate as much as the temperature, the numbers don't even come close to correlation on the graphs, there are as you say many many many factors involved, so saying one factor that doesn't show much of a relation is responsible makes no real sense.

Also the BBC didn't address the main issue, which is the temperature data was deliberately manipulated and anyone who dared asked questions was stifled.

People have dug into the data sets available in Russia and Australia and in the first case found they deliberately used bad data and ignored good data, and in the second case there was deliberate manipulation. (They were supposed to adjust down because one station got moved and showed an anomalous increase in temperature, so they adjusted by raising the temperature even more.)

If I had the resources I would love to dig into these numbers myself.

The problem with the numbers now is no longer what they are supposed to demonstrate. the problem is we just can't trust them because they have been shown to be several different kinds of dishonest.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

Because you are telling lies.

While the sun provides the energy, the GHGs in our atmosphere determine how warm we are within the boundries of the supplied energy.

With no GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear to the equator.

With a lot of GHGs in the atmosphere, that would be alligators living on the north slope of Alaska. As there were in the PETM.

Of the ten warmest years on record, all but one are in the last decade. The exception is 1998.

And you are stupid enough to call that cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have to answer the postal price graph. It does show a more positive correlation than the carbon number.

There are lots of factors that can drive climate. the carbon data do not fluctuate as much as the temperature, the numbers don't even come close to correlation on the graphs, there are as you say many many many factors involved, so saying one factor that doesn't show much of a relation is responsible makes no real sense.

Also the BBC didn't address the main issue, which is the temperature data was deliberately manipulated and anyone who dared asked questions was stifled.

People have dug into the data sets available in Russia and Australia and in the first case found they deliberately used bad data and ignored good data, and in the second case there was deliberate manipulation. (They were supposed to adjust down because one station got moved and showed an anomalous increase in temperature, so they adjusted by raising the temperature even more.)

If I had the resources I would love to dig into these numbers myself.

The problem with the numbers now is no longer what they are supposed to demonstrate. the problem is we just can't trust them because they have been shown to be several different kinds of dishonest.

Complete crock, Baruch. And real scientists have pointed it out repeatedly.

No, people have not found what you claim. In fact, for what you claim to be true, there would have to be an international conspiracy involving all the world's scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities.

Now that you are jointing Eots, have you been fitted for a little tin hat?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

I was told once by a Global Warming supporter that water-vapor and the Sun can't possibly be the primary cause of warmth in the atmosphere.

The effect man has on climate is so negligible that it's impossible to nail down the causes. But this really is about a massive money transfer. Obama talked during his campaign about $900 billion going to the world's poor from the Treasury. This Global Warming crap is that program.

Well, when all your peers are as ignorant as you are, what do you expect?

 

[Sodafin]

Eagle -

You seem to have misunderstood one very key element here - CO2 is NOT the only influence on our atmosphere.

Hence, looking for a day-by-day 100% correlation between C02 levels and temperature simply does not work.

We CAN definitely chart C02 levels and temperature, but one has to be rational here and realise that because of the influence of La Nina, methane, the sun etc etc etc these are decade vs decade trends, not week vs week ones.