As I really don't wish to do the deniers' reading for them, let's zero in on just one of the main planks of their platform - CO2 does not trigger temperature increases, it's the other way about, therefore human agency does not contribute to climate change."It is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them - and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change."
Look at this pdf for a fuller explanation and this site for a summary. The graph above reflects this data.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
As the pdf said:
"The sequence of events during this termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter."
As well as that, it would be further exacerbated by "out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils, and methane from melting permafrost."
In other words, with human contribution to CO2 and methane levels [even through animal husbandry] and the connection between these and temperature, then "human agency" on this basis alone cannot be ruled out as a major factor, let alone all other human activities vis a vis drinking water, over-cropping, erosion and so on.
To raise this objection was "fair debate". To call someone a "climate porner" is moronic. To say that no evidence is provided is less than scholastic.
And does the opinion of these people count for nothing?
You are absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteI recently found an excellent website with very clear explanations addressing the most common (and incorrect) arguments used by global warming deniers. Thought you might be interested to take a look...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Actually yes, the opinions of those people do indeed count for nothing ;)
ReplyDeleteI can find you a chart and paper that says whatever you or I want James.
And Lord N why do you think I should listen to you. Sorry but saying that there is a chart to prove everything si right- but quite what does that prove. The scientists working on climate mostly seem to have the same opinion- do you disagree in which case what are your qualifications to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI think these last points made here really frame the debate, i.e. there is no debate.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we all dig our heels in at times and otherwise rational people refuse to budge.
Now either that means great wisdom or great foolishness but I have neither the skill nor omni-knowledge to decide which.
Don't know why this particular topic provokes such reactions.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct: the opinions of those people count for nothing.
"The year 2005 was the hottest on record, he said. The 13 hottest years on record all have occurred since 1990. Twenty-three out of the 24 hottest years have occurred since 1980. The sort of heat wave that killed 35,000 people in Europe in the summer of 2003 is expected to become normal by 2050, he warned."
Crap. As we now know, NASA's chief warming guy, James Hansen, was caught fiddling the figures. Actually, 1934 was the warmest year last century, and the four hottest years of last century all occurred in the 30s and not in the 90s, as previously claimed.
Coupled with satellite data, that shows that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998, and the shocking revelations exposed by surfacestations.org (where temperature stations are positioned right next to air conditioning heat exchangers, etc.), there is actually considerable doubt that the earth is warming at all.
If it is warming, then the sun is the most likely culprit as the driver of warming. I suggest that you go and look up the concept of the 800 year lag in order to educate yourself as to driving mechanisms over the past 650,000 years.
Whilst the theory is that CO2 does provide a feedback loop, no one has actually been able to describe satisfactorially how we get out of that loop.
I have a lot more to say, and a lot of links to insert but, you see, I just cannot be bothered. I have written thousands of words, highlighted huge numbers of studies, and I cannot be arsed to do it again: it seems to go in one ear and out the other anyway.
I suggest that you search for "climate change" at The Kitchen, or visit the Bishop Hill blog and search for Climate Cuttings.
The most that we can say is that we just don't fucking know, and the opinion of some moron at the AAAS that we are heading for "permanent" warming is so ill-informed and arrogant as to be easily dismissible.
DK
There will most certainly be a reply to this, DK - it can't be left unchallenged but it's the end of the weekend, RL beckons and so if I can take a rain check on that until next weekend?
ReplyDeleteJust one comment - since 1978 it most certainly has not been cooling in Russia. The winters are warmer than they've ever been and so someone cooking the books hardly alters the basic premise, which was my point in the first place.
However, if it can't be answered, your comment, I'll most happily eat humble pie. I don't actually want this stuff happening, of course.
Am I missing something? Why the change of name again?
ReplyDelete