Please post in this thread a better refutation of climate change than "it is really cold today"

Bring it, oil boys wrote:

-505. The point is to have a responsible discussion of the science from credible sources. Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician. As is Lord Monckton. A debate about the political debaters is not worth anything. Also the point is that deniers lack the science to back up their climate myths (CO2 lags, solar output, etc.). So the challenge is for deniers to come up with the science, not to point fingers at Al Gore. The former is difficult, the latter is easy.

Its pretty easy to win an debate when you are trying to frame the argument so that the other side has to prove a negative. The burden of proof should be on those that believe climate change is man made, not the other way around.

+15,000.

I was a cop thru 1979 to 2001 in Salt lake Utah. Thru early 80's it was burning hot in the summer. On traffic accidents, it was 104 or 105 all day. So we did the accident, 3 of us cops jumped in our cars raced to a back lot under massive trees and stripped our shirts and vests off. Sprayed down with ice spraywater, put on new tee shirt and vest and back out in the 104. Winters all thru 80's and 90's were all over the place. We had several winters of NO SNOW. Then like in 87 two feet every other day. ALL WINTER.. Be 48 traffic accidents holding all day. I remember 93' 5 feet one night fell. Next year 94 or 95 NO SNOW ALL YEAR. Last few years in Utah, and this year, just perfect in between. Summers high 88 stuff with medium winter. Weather was a big deal to us. Global warming trends arguments could have been made for centuries each decade. Scientists can always argue this or that with weather trends, just now we need leaders who are liberal...cause they are the only ones that can handle such horrible new change in our world. All balony.

"+15 for trying to cite to science as evidence to support your refutation."

I wasn't trying to refute the fact that climate changes. But I am refuting the theory that people cause it, and its corollary that people can control it.

"-5 for repeating the climate myth that because warming has preceded CO2 increase in the past, increases in CO2 does not drive warming."

If the theory is "accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to warm up", you only need to find 1 instance of this not happening to prove the theory is flawed. The graph I linked to shows several instances of temperature falling while CO2 levels remain elevated or even rise. If CO2 drives warming then temperature MUST remain high while CO2 levels are elevated. This is not the case.

"-5 for citing a study that actually refutes your contention. The conclusion of the Vostok ice core study was that the current accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented."

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows 2 instances of higher CO2 levels than what they label as present (1950). The planet is at least 4.5 billion years old. For 4.2 billion years, CO2 levels were far higher than they are today. They fell to near modern levels 300 million years ago, but then rose again 220 million years ago. During that rise temperatures remained stable but then fell precipitously WHILE CO2 WAS REACHING ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN THE LAST 300 MILLION YEARS. So not only are modern CO2 levels not the highest ever, there's no correlation between temperature and CO2.

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

"The lag in CO2 increases at the end of the last ice age occurred over hundreds of years. The current accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature rise associated with it have occurred in a fraction of the time span. Hardly a valid comparator to enable anyone to refute CO2 as driving warming."

Showing that CO2 levels are high doesn't imply that CO2 drives warming, especially when changes in the two don't correlate, as I've shown they do not.

"-5 for linking to a web page that refutes your position. The well accepted conclusion of the ice core studies is that climate has historically been very unstable. The past 10,000 years have been relatively stable. Green house gases may bring the climate back to a period of instability, not just a linear warming trend."

The Vostok Ice Core indicates that CO2 levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. The temperature trend during the last 10,000 years is flat, and is DOWN over the last 8,000 years. There is no evidence to support the contention that green house gases cause climate instability. If anything, they actually act to cause stability.

"-5 for believing that warming will be linear and not taking into account the effects of la nina ocean current patterns."

I don't believe warming is linear - THE IPCC DOES. They're the ones telling us the world will get too hot and an environmental disaster will result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png

Their models have been wrong for 10 years now, and historically civilizations respond better to warm conditions than to cold.

The climate changes. People don't cause it and they can't control it.

Its pretty easy to win an debate when you are trying to frame the argument so that the other side has to prove a negative. The burden of proof should be on those that believe climate change is man made, not the other way around.

Again, the IPCC report is more than sufficient authority to satisfy proponents burden of proof. Further, even deniers acknowledge that there has been a rise in temps. They just claim that climate change theory does not account for the change. Thus, it is more than fair to require deniers to bring their own evidence to the table instead of just saying "no it isn't." In fact, the current trend in polls in the US is away from proponents and towards deniers. This is largely because deniers get a free ride when it comes to presenting opposing science. And, again, the point of my thread is that the deniers do not have the science to back themselves up. So, in a way, you have conceded my point.

Bull crap! Climate increases are all over the decades for centuries! Real climate increases. Even massive ones in the USA. They are documented and can not be explained. A very massive one a few hundred years ago in the East during the first settlers. Massive and devastating. You could argue this crap every few decades for centuries and the evidence is there and has always been a major scientific discussion. Except now there is just silence. Why, cause you liberal insects are doing your usual bull. No change there,! always the same insanity with liberals. Then it soon fades away and no accountability.

Great link.

Bring it, oil boys wrote:

[quote]

So, in a way, you have conceded my point.

Nope, me (not a scientist) not providing evidence doesn't mean there isn't plenty available. I'm just pointing out that you (and many others) try to rig the debate in the way you frame it.

Bring it oil boys..... I have an honest question for you.

Do you think that humans will be able to affect global climate by reducing consumption of fossil fuels?

The Earth is approx. 5 billion years old. We have gone through ice ages, volcanic ages, meteror strikes, and an oxygen less environment. THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING. The climate is always changing but it is not because of us. It is ridiculous and arrogant to propose that the last 100 years of industrial and combustion use is going to irreversibly shift the climate of the Earth. Yeah 100 years is an extremely long time to men but it is a spit drop in the evolutionary timeline of Earth. Any recent trends noticed are nothing more than statistical deviations.

Hide The Decline wrote:

Bring it, oil boys wrote:

The reasons for global warming are in the IPCC report. The 2007 report is exhaustive:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

This thread is for the deniers.

Al Gore is off limits because it is always an ad hominem attack. The point is to talk about science, not the easy political cheap shots. Every point on Al Gore could be turned around on guys like Inhoffe, Lindzen, etc.

IPCC report is a complete fraud, as are any scientists supporting Global Warming. It has been debunked already by their own emails. Thank you Russian hackers, you are true global citizens.

The IPCC is not made up of climate scientists. There, just threw your whole argument into question. It's that easy.

RedFred wrote:

It is ridiculous and arrogant to propose that the last 100 years of industrial and combustion use is going to irreversibly shift the climate of the Earth.

But enviros think it is reversible, hence all the cap-and-trade and carbon footprint crap you keep hearing about. Conservation of fossil fuels is a great idea, but the scare tactics of global warming aren't doing anything to help the issue. If anything, it makes the topic more polarizing.

The IPCC report does not constitute proof of a damned thing. You can't just the climate change activists and expect everyone to assume you're right then try to disprove you. You're not having an intelligent debate. You're establishing yourself as the authority in the debate. If you really knew anything about science, you would know this is not the correct way to go about debating. But of course, climate change proponents do it all the time.

1. This wrongly assumes that there are no other causes of climate variation. Sure, there are plenty of examples in the geological record of CO2 not forcing warming. However, that is because some other natural process was at work (solar output, earth wobble, etc.). The reason we can point to CO2 now is because none of the other natural processes have shown any correlation with the current warming trend. Plus, the physics behind CO2 as a green house gas are undisputed.

2. Again, you assume that all things are constant. They are not. There are many other natural processes that can change the climate, and do so in such a way as to negate the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. None of those natural processes have been detected in the current rise in temperatures.

3. Physics shows that CO2 drives warming. It blocks the release of the sun's radiation. The more CO2, the more radiation is captured in the atmosphere. This has also been confirmed by the observation that the upper atmosphere is cooling as less radiation is being reflected back out into space.

4. But look at the study. The rise in CO2 over the past few decades was observed to be unprecedented. Not all rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere are created equal.

5. The IPCC states that there will be non-linear warming. That means that over time, the planet will get warmer, but not uniformly. Changes in ocean currents, cloud cover, natural feedback processes will mean that there will be great climate instability. But, the overall trend will be warming. The point is that an occasional plateau (2008 la nina) or spike (1998 El Nino) does not disprove the theory. Over time, the temperature will rise, just not uniformly, year in and year out.

6. There is nothing in human history that can compare with the present. The Vikings may have done well during a warm period, but there weren't 6.6 billion of them using most of the world's arable land for food production (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/22/food-biofuels-land-grab). Also, the problem with warming is that there is a potential for a catastrophic climate event if the Artic permafrost melts. That would send many times the amount of green house gases into the atmosphere than are currently being put their by man made processes.

Average temperature on Mars has increase at the same rate as Earth. Look it up. Sun is just getting hotter, it's not anything humans are doing

bring it... the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 has been demonstrated in a laboratory setting, not on earth where numerous outside variables cannot be controlled. An increase in temperature is going to produce a a lot of extra CO2 (primarily from photosynthesis), but an increase in CO2 will have a very minor effect on temperature due to the greenhouse gas effect. So sure, physics shows that CO2 drives warming, but you're ignoring the fact that biology and chemistry show that temperature drives CO2 levels.

Which do you think is greater... the effect of CO2 on temperature, or the effect of temperature on CO2?

Please read this

Earthlings have created a very precarious existance relative to thier environment. Any sustained change in climate affects stuff, like crops, water etc..

Yes the Earths climate has changed quite a bit since the dawn of time, but now we earthlings are susceptable.

So thats why we worry about a couple of degrees on average......?

"1. This wrongly assumes that there are no other causes of climate variation."

You and the IPCC are the ones assuming CO2 is the only cause, not me (or hundreds of scientists). I also don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere. But there's nothing in those facts that indicates greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm up. There are hundreds of inputs that cause climate change, and many of them correlate with changes in temperature. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not.

"2. Again, you assume that all things are constant."

You need to go back and read what I wrote. Describing how temperature and CO2 levels change (without correlation) cannot be construed as meaning "all things are constant".

"3. Physics shows that CO2 drives warming."

It does no such things. The planet has cooled during periods of elevated CO2, and warmed during periods of low CO2.

"4. But look at the study. The rise in CO2 over the past few decades was observed to be unprecedented. Not all rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere are created equal."

The Vostok Ice Core data stops in 1950. I agree CO2 has risen since then (it's not unprecedented), but temperatures fell from the early 40's to the late 70's. The have fallen again (from a higher level) in the last 10 years. It doesn't make sense to extrapolate future climate scenarios based on 30 years of data while ignoring the previous 400,000 years.

"5. The IPCC states that there will be non-linear warming."

Neither their models nor their predictions indicate that. They only indicate more and endless warming.

"6. There is nothing in human history that can compare with the present."

The history of the planet's climate has been repeating for at least 400,000 years, ever since the last glacial period ended. People have been thriving since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800's. The world is fed better, has better sanitation, and double or triple the life span of just 100 years ago (when it was colder). There is no evidence that supports your doomsday scenario. BTW, the Arctic permafrost has thawed several times in human history without a catastrophic result.

You can impose all the restrictions you want on greenhouse gases, but it won't stop the climate from changing. However, it will make food, energy, and everything else more expensive causing suffering worldwide and hobbling efforts to adapt to the changing climate.

The medieval warming period was warmer than today (with much lower CO2 levels). Moberg et al 2005.

A confirming report that the medieval warming period was warmer than today with much lower CO2 levels). IPCC report 1990, Figure 7c

Briffa Yamal tree ring study (when reconstructed to include actual data rather than proxies over the past 50 years.)

Over half of 20th century temperature increases can be explained by "adjustments" made to NOAA temperature readings due to due to improper placement near heat sources, like parking lots, air conditioners or nearby buildings. Anthony Watts, ICCC 3. Follow Watts on his website wattsupwiththat.com

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.

There is another interesting study that finds a correlation between cosmic rays (due to changes in solar irradiance) and temperature changes. I can't find it at the moment, but it was a very compelling argument. Simply put, the sun affects clouds. Major cooling periods are associated with more cloud cover over the globe.

A decent explanation of some of these studies can be found at

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html