What Scientific Evidence Do You Know Of That Does Not Support Climate Change?

Question

I'm not really sure there is any but I need some answers, thank-you!

Answer 1

There is absolutely loads, but to state a few of the simpler points.

a lack of co2 is the current limiting factor on plant growth if they're given sufficient water,light, warmth and nutrients.-basic high school biology.

Co2 is one of the heaviest parts of the atmosphere so it concentrates near ground level, not in the upper atmosphere where you would imagine the greenhouse effect to occur.

carbonic acid is a 'weak' acid so it has a specific disassociation constant entirely dependant upon temp and pressure so oceans can't just get more acidic.

The North pole floats so is irrelevant (archimedes principle) and the South pole is so cold 1 degree rise couldn't possibly have a effect ie if it's minus 20 and it rises to minus 19 ice still won't melt.

Science shows co2 concentration from ice core samples is seen to follow climate not drive it.

There is a close correlation between temperature and solar/sun spot activity.

No significant warming for 15 years.

Us Navy pips data showing arctic ice thicker than 2.5 metres has increased in recent years.



etc etc, then think about all the bull from the warmist camp and how their solution of relocating industries to China and the third world and taxation could possibly affect the planets climate.

Then have a big dose of common sense and realisation and see the scam for what it is ! a power grab that plays on the gullible.



Haha Jeff M lol. Seems so clever but can't get his head around basic biology proven time and time again experimentally (unlike his whacko religious beliefs). And Jeff your so brilliaint ,thats right the heaviest gases defy the laws of gravity and physics and live in space ha.

Why can't you just answer the question instead of attacking your intellectual superiors. If all you can do is use insults then maybe you shouldn't be on here spouting your nonsense.

Here are the facts http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Answer 2

First, let's dispense with some false information in one of the previous posts:







This is both false and misleading. The warming in the 20th century has supposedly averaged about 0.6°C per century. This is positively *crawling* compared with the warming at the recovery from the Younger Dryas, a period of cold and drought, that occurred about 13,000-11,500 ybp. Greenland warmed 10°C in a *decade* at end of the YD.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html



McKitrick (2007) showed that the IPCC's 'gold standard' surface temperature dataset shows statistical evidence that it is contaminated by the urban heat island effect:



“Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half" (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007)



Multiple studies back up the finding that UHI accounts for about half of the warming trend.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/uhinorthamerica.php



The so-called 'current' warming isn't. The RSS data show there has been no statistically significant warming in at least 15 years. The sea surface temperature trend is flat to down for the last 10 years. All of this contradicts the IPCC climate models.

http://www.c3headlines.com/



The correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is weak (r^2 = 0.44). The correlation with solar activity is stronger, and with ocean temperature oscillations it is much stronger (Carlin, 2011).



Soleheim et al (2011) expanded on other research which found a statistical relationship between surface temperatures on solar cycle length, and found that ...“More than half the HadCRUT3 global temperature rise of 0.0046°C yr−1 since 1850 can be attributed solar activity"



Shaviv (2010) also found that solar activity accounts for about half of the global temperature changes.



If half the rise is an artifact of UHI, and half is driven by solar changes, what is left as evidence for CO2 being a climate driver?

Answer 3

Notice how Pindar states "a lack of co2 is the current limiting factor on plant growth if they're given sufficient water,light, warmth and nutrients." This is exactly what those who support AGW know as well. What this has to do with showing scientific evidence for climate change is beyond me. If CO2 all accumulated at ground level the human race would soon be non existent as would almost every other oxygen breathing animal on the planet. It does not congregate at ground level and is fairly steady throughout the troposphere. I mean you don't exactly have 1 layer of nitrogen, 1 layer of oxygen, 1 layer of CO1, a layer of water vapour, and so on.



http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/move4.html



Info on ocean acidification: http://sio.ucsd.edu/Ocean_Acidification/



Pindar mentions only the north pole and the south pole leaving out the Greenland ice sheets as well as thousands of mountaintop glaciers around the world and what is known as Thermal Expansion or matters tendency to increase in mass as warming occurs.



Science does show CO2 concentration rising after temperature increase. We know CO2 concentration isn't rising as a result of temperature increase this time because both the oceans and the atmosphere are increasing in CO2 at the same time via what is known as Le Chatelier's Principal (We are increasing the partial pressure or weight of CO2 in the atmosphere) and human emissions at 33.5 billion tons per year are greater than atmospheric increase at 15.6 billion tons per year.



The 'no significant warming for 15 years' is a misunderstanding and deals with a Phil Jones interview where he stated 'no STATISTICAL warming for 15 years' which deals with statistics not the amount of warming.



The 'trend' in arctic ice has not increased: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/



You want bull, take a look at Pindar's post and any other post from the denial crowd. Maxx even goes so far as to bring forward conspiracy theories about a global government tax and bases his opinion of the matter on what Al Gore says. Al Gore is not a scientist and should not be brought up in a scientific discussion. To answer your post there is no scientific evidence against climate change, a warming climate, or man's hand in that warming. If you want to call into question the science you can try and discuss the possible future effects of AGW as that is less certain than the reality of it. Specifically, changes to the water cycle in a warming atmosphere and increasing CO2 concentration and changes in the intensity and frequency of storms.

Answer 4

Well some that come into mind are:

1) Earth's average temperature has been fluctuating ever since the start of Earth, many times above the temperature we are at now

(graph is here along with some other proofs http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=3990)

2) Sea level has varied greatly over the 3.6 billion years the earth has been around

(graph is on this site http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/coastal.html)

Answer 5

To Nickname?:



<<1) Earth's average temperature has been fluctuating ever since the start of Earth, many times above the temperature we are at now (graph is here along with some other proofs

2) Sea level has varied greatly over the 3.6 billion years the earth has been around>>



If you believe that those 2 points are evidence against Climate Change then you do not understand what Climate Change is all about.



The current observed Climate Change is NOT solely about high temperatures nor high sea levels but about the RATE at which both have increased.



As you correctly state, both temperature and sea levels have always fluctuated during earth's history. But the BIG difference is that then those fluctuations happened over THOUSANDS of years while now similar changes are happening in just a few decades.



During past climate changes, earth's temperature changed roughly at 1 degree Celsius every 1,000 years which comes down to a half a degree Celsius warming/cooling in 500 years. Such a slow rate gave populations (animals, humans) sufficient time to adapt to (ie. by not living next to coastal areas at risk of flooding). The BIG difference now is that the earth has warmed the same amount (0.5 degrees Celsius) in just 30 years and scientific predictions show we are heading for a 5 degree Celsius increase since the Industrial Revolution during the 21st century.



To put that again into perspective: during past climate changes it took roughly 5,000 years for a 5 degree Celsius cooling or warming to occur.



"The rate of change today is rapidly increasing to the point that scientists are concerned that life on Earth, including humans, will not have time to adapt to the changing conditions. " The National Center for Atmospheric Research



Edit @ Caliservative:



<>



You are misleading as you refer to just one episode of known rapid warming/coaling (Younger Dryas) whereas I was referring to past climate changes in general.



<>



The BEST study (done by climate scientists) confirmed once again that the urban heat island effect has no effect on average global temperatures as McKitrick (an economist) alleges.



<>



And then you provide a link to a site by the Idsos and which has received fossil fuel industry funding in the past. How reliable!



<>



Says who? You link to c3headlines, an anonymous site which makes no mention of who writes their posts, let alone their analyses. That is not very scientific.



<>



Solheim et al. are pretty much alone on their views. BTW, the linked study is not peer-reviewed.



<>



Real, comprehensive science. Not cherrypicked nonsense by industry funded economists or scientific outcasts who moonlight as skeptics to pay their mortgages.

Answer 6

Here's some facts for you. The man-made Global Warming advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:



1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.



2) Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:



3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.



4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.



5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2001 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.



6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.



7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)



8) Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.



9) Al Gore and other Warmist have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.



See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.



Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm



Perfect example of Warmist propaganda using polar bears to try and glean sympathy for their global scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA



Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/



35 errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors



No Correlation between CO2 and Temperature Graphs

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/



Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544



Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_the_warmists_hate_debate/





For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:



The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk



Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#



-----------------------

Answer 7

Last year had record snow fall in Idaho. Enough said

Answer 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622?hpt=hp_bn11