Why don't the advocates of anthropogenic global warming back up their claims?

Question

Why don't the advocates of anthropogenic global warming back up their claims?

Answer 1

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.



1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. Almost no scientist in the 21st century has disputed this basic fact, even among the most diehard GW skeptics. Here is the data from NASA / GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

... and from the UK's Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/



As I said, even GW skeptics accept that it's getting warmer; the major dispute is what's causing it: human beings, through increased greenhouse gases in the air? Or natural causes, like the Sun? The dispute is more political than scientific, though, because the scientific case for increased greenhouse effect is rock solid.



If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.



In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_global_mean.txt

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html



2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.



In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf



3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html



4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf



5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html



6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74



So what's left to prove?

Answer 2

Dana and Bob have answered the question correctly, as usual.

Dr. Jello has it backwards, as usual.



byhiseello99, interesting analysis.



The asker is not framing a question. As Dana points out, the asker is showing great irony in accusing environmentalists of the very thing in which she is engaging.



I certainly don’t frame the discussion by stating we have complete understanding. Quite the contrary, I agree with you completely.



However, using your medical analogy, would not our guiding principle be “First, do no harm”?



I don’t understand how we can’t see that we are already “tinker[ing] with the world's most complex of complex systems without understanding what all of the implications of our actions will be”



We need to stop.

Answer 3

This site doesn't exactly represent the real world, but it gives you a sense of what's out there as far as support and opposition for human-induced climate change. You're right, though, the arguments are sometimes confused in many respects, so I often start by defining the terms to make sure we're on the same wavelength:



Global Warming is defined as an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanictemperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.



The Greenhouse Effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and several other gases in the atmosphere and then reradiated back toward the Earth’s surface. If the atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases rise, the average temperature of the lower atmosphere will gradually increase.



Climate Change is defined as a study dealing with variations in climate on many different time scales from decades to millions of years, and the possible causes of such variations. Human-induced climate change has the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extremes such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.



Then I provide a number of sites that I feel are reliable and substantive. They're either government sites or university-level research, for the most part, and it's actually impressive to sift through the information on these sites and see what's happening in the field. The "stabilization wedge" theory put forth by Stephen Pacala & Robert Socolow is fascinating to me, and I am planning to follow their work more closely than the rest.



I try not to resort to ridicule or name-calling, and usually give a wide berth to those expressing opinions other than my own. I do try to catch a few of those who seem taken with debunking any science or advocate and correct them when they pull information from a site and present it differently than it was intended.



The media is a business, and what can you expect from most sources there nowadays, since its run mostly by a few conglomerates?



Check the links, evaluate them on your own, and I hope you learn a thing or two, as I did.

Answer 4

ONLY THE MEDIA ACKNOWLEDGES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, NOT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY! How is this heard so far from the punch line? oooops, i forgot Al Gore says it has to be real, so it is. NO. Before either side can reach for the others' throat in defense of their own "GW Platform", how about doing a little SCIENTIFIC research instead of RESEARCHING cnn,fox, and mainstream news blurbs. The ignorant people of this country have been blind sided by the drive-by media every time. Let there be some light folks for flux sake.

Answer 5

i'm sorry, yet it rather is getting slightly unhappy This checklist, what ever the quantity, has been ripped aside many circumstances. (greater to Kens comments) The circle of those denier arguments starts to charm to slightly smaller as Marc Morano develop into additionally the biggest notice speaker on the phony long island climate convention prepare by utilising the Heartland Institute.

Answer 6

Jan C is probably the best example of the general misunderstanding of the question represented by the answers. I understand the poster's problem to be with how the discussion is framed, not with whether anthropogenic global warming is real.



Climatology is probably the most complicated of the disciplines that study complex systems. Our knowledge of the elements and workings of this complex system is pitifully small, our understanding is primitive at best, we have been aware of the complex system and studying it for only a very short time. By comparison, seismology is child's play. The number of elements of the system is comparatively microscopic, our understanding of them is still primitive but compared to climatology our understanding is fabulous. We have been studying the complex system for several thousand years, at least in Japan. And we knew and understood so little that a quarter million people died in the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.



The public discussion is framed in terms of "we have complete knowledge and perfect understanding, we have a plan that must be accepted without caution or dissent, only we care about the earth, those who counsel caution don't care about the earth and are selfish evil people." Reasoned discourse is impossible amid the noise.



Like the writer, I am prepared to believe that anthropogenic global warming is a problem that requires drastic and immediate action. I simply want the proponents of drastic action to confess that their knowledge may be less than complete and their understanding less than perfect. And I want them to encourage, not stifle, reasoned discourse on the topic. When we tinker with any single element in a complex system we affect every other element. Failing to acknowledge that we do not really know what the global consequences of our action will be is far more dangerous than any delay in implementing a specific plan. For example, the primitive science of medicine has known for several decades how to eradicate the scourge of rheumatoid arthritis. Yet, medicine has failed to implement this simple fix. Is that because physicians don't care about people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, don't care about people's health, have personal agendas they want to forward at the expense of the general population? Or is it because medicine recognized that the human body is a complex system, allowed for reasoned discourse and contradictory data, and finally concluded that the simple radical fix would work perfectly, except that everyone so cured would die within a few days of infection.



The proof offered by the "complete knowledge/perfect understanding, immediate drastic action with incalculable global effects" crowd is remarkably consistent. That in itself is suspect. Where are the out-liers? Every other discipline that deals with a complex stystem produces data with far less consistency than the infant discipline of climatology. Anyone who attempts reasoned scientific discussion that allows for contradictory data is pilloried and labeled an enemy of the earth. This is not science, it's something far less honorable.



I understand the writer's question to deal with framing the discussion. I do not understand the writer's question to imply that global warming is unreal. I do not understand the writer's question to imply that he/she opposes scientific inquiry, or any of the other tripe trotted out by the majority of answerers. I, too, ask for reasoned discourse and allowance for consideration of contradictory data before we tinker with the world's most complex of complex systems without understanding what all of the implications of our actions will be.

Answer 7

Well... what do you want to happen then? Haven't you any concern with the environment? Is it because you're too blind to see the logic behind the anthropogenic causes of global warming that you want other people to stop giving a damn about the world? if people want to believe that humans somewhat have done something to exploit their world and that they want to reform and do something (maybe reverse the effects of their actions, because I believe there are), it's their choice. You see it's a moral issue... it's just seeing what is right or wrong with the way you act vis-avis the environment. But don't blame them with their advocacies or convictions...

Answer 8

You're obviously new to the Environment section. You've got it exactly backwards - essentially the only ones who back up their claims here are anthropogenic global warming acknowledgers.



Please take some time to learn about the science behind global warming, and please ask scientific questions instead of making gross generalizations with no evidence to support them.



It's just a tad ironic that you're asking a question about people not backing up their claims while simultaneously failing to back up your claim.

Answer 9

I can't follow why anyone would anyone absolutely believe that AGW is 100% guaranteed to be true.



To believers, if someone 'smart' tells them to believe something, that's enough. That's not so illogical, but they also have to disregard everyone that doesn't support AGW and have faith that they are either stupid or have some kind of evil agenda. They also need to keep their faith in spite of climatologists not being able to predict anything before it happens and climate is yet to do anything obviously man made.



Bob, Vce Admiral Truly is humouring you.

He doesn't believe in climate change - he just knows that other people believe in climate change so he uses it to justify increasing military spending.

Answer 10

OK. This will be very long, because there is so much proof from so many perspectives. And the real proof is in the links, one of which is a thousand pages long, with hundreds of references to the scientific literature.



This is science and what counts is the data.



"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”



Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command



Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf



It's (mostly) not the sun:



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html



And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.



Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:



http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html



There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:



"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"



"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."



Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona



“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."



Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont



There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=



And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."



Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA



Good websites for more info:



http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"



EDIT - Ben O - That's OK. Some people humor me (and I'm truly honored the Admiral cares), others try to pull my chain by spouting nonsense. It's all good.

Answer 11

Right, clearly the believers just are followers. If this politician or that one says global warming is a problem, then they believe as well. They require no proof at all.



And when they receive conflicting data, they just toss it out, claiming that oil dollars bought that science.



It makes you wonder how much they get paid for being on these boards to spread the word. Looks like George Soros may be passing out a few more bucks to the AGW believers.

Answer 12

They don't back up their claims because they can't. They choose to believe Hollywood and the media.