Climate sceticism rebutted

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Sodafin, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. Sodafin
    Offline

    Sodafin Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +49
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Screaming Eagle
    Offline

    Screaming Eagle Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,859
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  4. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  5. Sodafin
    Offline

    Sodafin Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +49
    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.
     
  6. Sodafin
    Offline

    Sodafin Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +49
    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.
     
  7. Screaming Eagle
    Offline

    Screaming Eagle Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?
     
  8. Screaming Eagle
    Offline

    Screaming Eagle Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    Someone else had posted this the other day, but I love it.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    *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.:cool:
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  10. Sodafin
    Offline

    Sodafin Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +49
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

what do you mean by sceticism