Can you make your case re: global warming politely, and only with evidence?

Question

Whatever you believe about global warming, there are presumably reasons you believe this. At least some of these reasons are due to material evidence of some kind. Temperature measurements, atmospheric data, and so on. Presumably, there is some minimum set of this data that you feel should be convincing to others.

So, can you make your case without any name-calling, without basing your argument solely on "such-and-so is lying", without any insults, and so on? Pretend your elderly grandmother, or Sunday-school teacher, or other arbiter of politeness, is glowering at you and telling you to be nice.

If someone comes up with something you feel is incorrect, and you can offer *evidence* to the contrary, feel free to do so. But play nice. (hint: "I believe you are in error" is polite phrasing; "You're lying" is not)

Also, I am only interested in arguments based on either material evidence, or pure logic. No political arguments, no "Well, obviously" that you can't back up solidly, no "I don't see how we could possibly" or other statements that don't rely on experimental evidence or the like. And don't just link to blogs or other non-scientific sources. I want to hear the rational arguments that convinced you, not the bias they likely came packaged with. (and that is aimed at everyone, we all have our biases...)

I'm not asking for every piece of evidence that led you to believe what you do about AGW, just... a package you consider convincing.

(though you shouldn't need to significantly refer to those you disagree with, for the purposes of this question, consider the neutral terms to be "those who accept AGW"/"acceptors", and "those who reject AGW"/"rejectors". This way, we avoid any emotional baggage attached to other terms commonly used...)

Answer 1

The things that I trust add up to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt include:

1] changes in planting zones over decades;

2] earlier spring arrival, about 2 weeks earlier over the past 100 years;

3] later fall arrival;

4] peak flow changes in various river basins, like the Columbia;

5] migrations of insects into new ranges;

6] the changing migratory patterns of birds, including extending ranges into formerly too cool areas, and overwintering in northerly areas without migrating [see Canada geese];

7] the changes in boreal forests and the greening of the tundra;

8] the change in the ratio of record high-temp days to record low-temp days, as it is on the order of 10:1 hot:cold;

9] the increasing acidity of the oceans at the same time their temps are going up and the levels of CO2 in the air are going up;

10] that quantum mechanics works so well;

11] the isotopic signature of the CO2 in the air;

12] the measured increase in storm intensity over the past 3 decades;

13] the patterns of temperature change correlated with aerosols and greenhouse forcings for the globe, based on world-wide acceptable temperature data dating back to 1880 and earlier.



There's a baker's dozen of reasons that taken together add up to pretty convincing proof of AGW. All of these things I can understand, or understand well enough; basic quantum mechanics I managed the math for back in school, but I could not do it now. I'd probably need 2-3 years to relearn the math adequately to play with the Schrodinger Equation again, and I admit it wasn't all that much fun the first time, but I did it - passed the math, physics, and physical chemistry courses well enough to get a bachelor's in chemistry. For everything I've listed, I understand it well enough to be satisfied the information is good and shows human-caused global warming.



Most of what I've listed is pretty obvious stuff, and doesn't depend on computer models or even the temperature record - when everything that flies, walks, buzzes or greens does its best to head toward cooler climes, you don't need a really sophisticated computer model to tell you what's going on. It seems to me that basic observations and logic greatly favor the AGW theory [not even hypothesis, but theory at this point.]



If you wish, I could add more. I certainly have more evidence of various kinds. But I like this evidence because it's rather simple and easy to understand. It's actually the sort of evidence that you can use common sense on. You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand most of these things, much less a rocket scientist. Any reasonably intelligent person with decent general knowledge can certainly discuss at least most of the items and come away with a good understanding of the basic positions, if not complete agreement with the AGW positions.



And now it's getting late, so I'll post this and follow up later.



**************************************

Just told "too many sources", so I'll add the rest here:

7] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.B23C0401W

8] http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm

9] http://www.economist.com/node/16479264

9] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm

10] http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-1.html

11] http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

12] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html

13] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/



I could add more, but just looking up the references in what is already there should be adequate.

Answer 2

jim --



>>Here is a non tree ring proxie of climate in the northern hemisphere over the last 2000 years that agree with history and just about every reliable proxy I know<<



That "you know"? Name them. And while you are at it, why not look at these dozen peer reviewed reconstructions. The graph presented by Spencer is from a paper by Loehle (Loehle, C. (2007). A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058) that failed peer-review because of errors so outrageous that Loehle repeated his work and concluded that (unlike the flawed graph you referenced), the MWP was actually 0.5 C colder than today.



http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf



And, maybe you should also look at the 2008 Mann et al. peer reviewed paper that used 283 (almost 16 times as many as used by Loehle) non-tree ring proxy series.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html



<


Have you really? Have you really studied it "as a geologist?" Unless your geology education and professional work is directly relevant (e.g., paleoclimates),it does not necessarily make you more informed. If you are going to play the "argument from authority" card, the least you could do is to cite a real authority.



<


That is not only outrageously cynical, but incorrect and hardly the opinion of an informed "scientist."



In fact, the evidence supporting AGW is predominantly empirical (modern, historical, and proxy measurement and records) data and the explanation based on physics.



The computer models of climate are constantly evolving simulations of system behavior based on multivariate dynamic variables defined by the scientific analysis of empirical data. Numerous independent climate models show generally similar results. For all the whining about these model by some people, if it is so easy to generate models that "spit out whatever the programmer wants" then why haven't they produced equally valid counter examples?



=============



Jerry --



<<... do a little research on the Internet...debunking the Global Warming theories<<



Do a little "science" research and you will not find that.



<<...convincing statistics showing that Global Warming is simply part of a cycle that occurs naturally...<<



They are either lying or ignorant. Every known natural cycle has been tested and found NOT to be the cause of the current warming.

Answer 3

"Can you make your case re: global warming politely, and only with evidence?"



I can certainly make it politely, but I can't make it with evidence, and that's the point... I should be able to.



One of the big issues re AGW is that it is not adequately defined. AGW means different things to different people. Most will agree that it's about anthropogenic GHG emissions causing adverse climate change, but that's where agreement stops. Where things fall apart completely is when we discuss how serious an issue it is, and what, if anything should be done about it... science completely falls short on these issues.



We do not know how much climate change has been caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions. Stop and think about that statement. If you disagree with it then try this... identify a single example of a change in climate and demonstrate that it is caused by anthropogenic GHG's. i.e. it would not have happened without the anthropogenic GHG emissions.



IF AGW is a big issue... do we stop building by the beach? Do we give up meat? Do we stop flying to go on holiday? do we only shop local and only buy local?



We do not know how much causes how much. At what point do anthropogenic emissions become damaging? What benefits do we get for what reduction? If we don't know how much GHG emission causes what damage then we don't know what mitigation effort is effective.



I am routinely accused of being a liar and denier of AGW, but since AGW is so loosely described I am not certain of quite what I'm denying or lying about. So I'll try and approach this question from the other end.



To be an AGW proponent I would have to hold ALL of the following as TRUE;



1. Small changes in Atmospheric CO2 content cause significant changes in climate



AND

2. Increasing CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 380 ppm has caused significant warming and other climate changes; changes which are adverse for humanity.



AND

3. Increasing CO2 concentration further will cause more adverse warming and more extreme adverse climate change



AND

4. The warming and other climate changes caused, and to be caused by CO2, have such serious consequences for humanity that they must be remedied.



AND

5. Adverse climate changes will be stopped and reversed by greatly reducing global CO2 emissions.



AND

6. Humanity, is capable of acting in concert to sufficiently reduce global CO2 emissions to reverse adverse climate changes.



AND

7. Humanity, is willing to endure the changes in way of life and 'standard of living' required to sufficiently reduce global CO2 emissions to reverse adverse climate changes.



I simply cannot accept that ALL of these statements are true, AND that they are all true without reservation.

... therefore I suppose I remain a 'denier'.

Answer 4

Temperature measurements show a warming trend. See GISS, HadcrutV3, RSS, and a few other data sets.



Solar input has been rather steady outside of the 11 year solar cycles and has actually begun to decline while temperatures have steadily increased. (See link 1)



Satellite and ground based measurements show trends indicating a growing greenhouse effect due to specific gas types. (See links 2 and 3)



Many of those attributable gases are emitted by human impact such as CO2, methane, CFCs and a few others. CO2, being the major player as demonstrated by links 2 and 3, has grown by approximately 40% since the industrial revolution began. Recently it has been growing at a rate of about 2ppm or roughly 15.6gigatons per year (See link 4). Humans emit more than twice that amount (See link 5. From 2010. Emissions have exceeded that since.).



The link JimZ gave dealing with the proxy from Roy Spencer ends in about 1930. A scientist looks at the cause and tries to come to a conclusion based on that data. JimZ merely states, "Well there's been warming in the past and even though I don't know what is causing the current warming I'm going to say it's natural anyways." He even states in his own answer that he does not know the cause and can't find a a natural oscillation, along with the data, that would meet his beliefs. This is why I believe he's in error.

Answer 5

If you watch TV you're probably very worried about the prospect of Global Warming - every day a different study confirms that the world is heading towards global disaster, and man is the main factor in creating this dangerous change in climate.



Heavyweight politicians like Al Gore chime in with their un-disputed facts, presenting convincing evidence that Global warming is a fact.



However, do a little research on the Internet, and you'll find thousands of web sites dedicated to debunking the Global Warming theories, claiming that it is all a myth made up by government to force us to change, and to create wealth for many people. These doubters point to convincing statistics showing that Global Warming is simply part of a cycle that occurs naturally.

Answer 6

I started here it's simple to understand http://globalmicrowave.org/microwaves.php

http://broadcast.homestead.com/Cover.html I seen this process as being the possible cause for atmospheric heating so I started out researching how the natural magnetics work and the way the sun solar rays carry nanoparticls and the way these particles interact with earths atmosphere http://www.crystalinks.com/earthsmagneticfield.html anyway all you have to do is create a solid starting point and start looking for yourself there's plenty out there on the subject Oh and I thought this would interest you it's how microwave frequencies excite CO2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1

Answer 7

I reject the idea that CO2 raises temperatures based on ice core data that has shown an 800 year gap between a rise in temperature and CO2 levels (temperature changes first then CO2 follows 800 years later) It is known that when temperature increases the oceans release CO2 and when they cool they store CO2. The explanation for the lag is that the oceans are so vast and deep that they require centuries to warm up. (caillon et. al)



Modern temperature trends don't match the hypothesis that CO2 causes temperatures to rise with rising concentrations. The post-WWII industrial boom should have shown a rise in temperature along with the rapid increase of of CO2 production from rapid global industrial growth. The temperature over a 35 year period showed a decrease in temperature. The rise in temperature occurred before the 1950s in the early 1900s when most of the world was pre-industrial and economic conditions crippled activity. Arctic temperatures were also shown to have decreased over the post-WWII boom.



I reject that increasing temperatures cause more storms. A meteorological textbook will tell you that weather disturbances are caused by the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. With increasing temperatures the difference becomes less and so weather patterns should become more stable not less.



I support that solar activity is the main driver of climate change. Solar activity when compared to historical temperature data shows a startlingly close correlation in comparison to CO2 which shows no obvious correlation. (Friis-Christensen & Svensmark)



The modern climate change hypothesis claims that the rate of temperature increase should be higher in the troposphere than the surface of the earth. Studies have shown that a rise in temperature at the surface did not show a dramatic rise in the troposphere and does not support the theory that climate models are currently showing. (Professor John R. Christy, known for first successful development of satellite temperature record)



I believe that the IPCC has a political agenda. They claim that 2,500 of the world's top scientists support a particular study. That number is inflated with non-scientists including government people, reviewers, and anyone that came in contact with the study even if they did not agree with the study. They even include specialists, that have resigned from the IPCC due to their disagreements, on the author list of the final draft. (Paul Reiter; WHO expert advisory committee, CDC employee 22 years, specialist on mosquito-borne virus control/epidemiology; resigned from IPCC due to his concerns of blatant misinformation and had to finally threaten legal action to get his name removed from final drafts. "I said no I had not contributed because they had not listened to anything I've said.")



CO2 is .054% of all atmospheric gas. The portion contributed by man would be even less. Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas and makes up a much larger portion of the atmosphere. It is more to blame.

Answer 8

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it traps heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space. Simple bookkeeping will show that mankind burns enough fossil fuel each year to produce about twice as much CO2 as shows up in the atmospheric increase. This adds up to manmade global warming.

Any theory that attempts to explain earth's climate has to include this forcing.

Answer 9

I am a skeptic of significant human caused warming. It isn't really logical to attempt to prove my skepticism so I will explain it.



1. The earth warms and cools naturally.

Evidence for this:

Not that it is really disputed by scientists but it seems that alarmists like to ignore this fact.

Here is a non tree ring proxie of climate in the northern hemisphere over the last 2000 years that agree with history and just about every reliable proxy I know

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

Since Baccheus likes Dr. Spencer so much I thought I would be sure to link to his site.





As a geologist, I have studied the effects of natural climate change over and over again to the point that it would be impossible for any geologist not to see it.



OK we established that climates vary naturally.

Now let's look at that chart and see if there is something in it that varies from the natrural trend from 300 years ago to 50 years ago and from 50 years ago to most recent. It is pretty hard to tell.

I don't know that it wouldn't have taken a sudden dive in the last 50 years if not for our CO2 emissions but neither does anyone else.



OK we established that there is really no significant known warming from humans except maybe in some models that are programed to spit out whatever the programmer wants. I could go on but I have made it too long already.



When I see ridiculous unsubstantiated claims such as those made by the non-scientist Ricardo, how am I as a scientists supposed to respond except with skepticism if not disgust at our education system. It doesn't even rise to the level of something I would be skeptical of. I simply dismiss it easily on a number of counts. A reef is obviously composed of mostly dead material and a "veneer" of living organisms. These organisms have not been harmed by warming except when natural El Ninyos or warming occurred such as in 1998. The corals have evolved to deal with this. .... What is the point in trying to correct garbage like that that is believed due to a religious conviction and not because of a knowledge of science.



Oops I forgot to be nice. It is hard to be trueful and not be blunt.

Answer 10

The Northwest Passage is ice free for the first time in recorded history. Some one told me that all it has to do is have the temperature raised to 35 degrees. She was absolutely correct, and it happened on a global scale hence the term "global warming". The 2 largest living creatures on earth, the Great Barrier Reef and the Barrier Reek along Belize and Honduras are both dying from excessive heat, again heat on a global scale raising it over thousands of miles, again global.

Answer 11

Sure.



Every single prediction of doom by "climate scientists" has failed. (let's start with the extreme and destructive 2006 hurricane season...)



www.surfacestations.org (needs no explanation)



Plants suck up much more CO2 than we could emit, and our share of global CO2 emissions is trivial.



The record of sunspots over time compared with global temperatures shows an amazingly consistent correlation.



The sun is more powerful than we are.

Answer 12

Missing heat, for me, proves that climate scientists still have a lot of work to do before they can proclaim they know how Earth will handle the relatively minuscule amount of extra CO2 that man is putting into it.

Answer 13

97 of the top 100 climate scientists agree that it's real and at least partially man made. So, either you believe this....or.... it's a massive global conspiracy by the evil progressives to punish corporations and to redistribute wealth. Take your pick...

Answer 14

How scientists figured out global warming is explained in:

Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, 2nd edition, 2008. http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319059932&sr=1-1



Most of the information in this book, in a more scattered but usefully searchable form, is on the website for the book: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm



A short and dated but still relevant summary of a few aspects, is in this article by the same author: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm