A question for climate change skeptics and deniers?
A lot of evidence is put forward that ‘proves’ humans are causing climate change. We have for example, the rising sea-levels, the melting of the ice-caps, the increase in adverse weather events etc.
If we assume that all these things have other explanation there still appears to be one piece of evidence that can’t be explained away and I’m wondering how skeptics and deniers get round this. Please read the following and indicate where the process falls down and / or highlight the errors.
• Greenhouse gases occur naturally • Humans emit greenhouse gases • Greenhouse gases from both natural and human sources are found in the atmosphere • Greenhouse gases have the ability to retain heat • Natural greenhouse gases create a habitable climate on Earth by retaining heat • Human emitted greenhouse gases retain heat
If you don’t accept that human emissions of greenhouse gases can contribute to global warming, can you please explain why it is that natural greenhouse gases can but human ones can’t.
On the other hand, if you don’t accept that natural greenhouse gases can cause warming, please provide an explanation as to how Earth has a habitable climate given it’s distance from the Sun.
Junuxx2010-06-28T18:23:14Z
Favorite Answer
I'm not a climate change denier but I think I can answer your question regardless. They would probably say that although human emitted greenhouse gases do retain heat, their contribution to the total is minimal. They'll claim that natural variations in solar activity or volcano emitted gases cause the change in the composition of the atmosphere.
Anyway, observing rising temperatures etc. is not sufficient proof for human responsibility. You need lots of data and complicated models to determine that. But, with all the data that has been collected over the past few decades it has become very likely that humans are the principal cause of the problem.
All your statements are true. The problem is your reasoning is terribly simplistic. Yes, increasing CO2 will increase the amount of solar radiation (heat) trapped by the atmosphere. The glaring omission here is that there are many, many other factors which influence terrestrial temperatures. One only needs to look at an historical graph of temperature and CO2 levels. In previous warm periods, CO2 levels lagged temperature increases. So the temperature increased and a CO2 increase followed. You know very well why- more CO2 left the ocean due to heating, permafrost melted, etc. Then temperature slowly drifted down while CO2 followed. Apparently, there are certain natural feedback mechanisms which keep the temperature stable within a narrow range.
Historically, temp goes up first, CO2 levels follow. And temperature didn't spiral out of control. But your statements are still correct as written.
i like to quote a meteorologist colleague of mine on this topic. The human carbon emissions contribution to global temperature lies in the second place of decimals of a degree centigrade, they may reinforce natural warming, or mitigate natural cooling by some fraction of a degree, but they are not the principle driving factor. Given that it is the AGW lobby who are demanding huge sums of money and political power on the back of their hypothesis, it is their obligation to prove their case, not the other way around. Simply declaring the case proved and refusing to acknowledge any of the skeptic's scientific criticisms only strengthens support for the skeptics in the general population
I believe our point, skeptics that is and me in particular, accept that mankind contributes to the global climate. What we question is the amount of influence humans have as compared to nature.
Those like myself do accept that man contributes to the total GHG in the atmosphere. However I believe that nature almost completely eclipses the human contribution.
I also believe that the SUN is the primary driver of the earth's global climate. I know and understand that solar irradiance has only varied by a couple of percentage points since we've been able to measure it. However, the sun has many more mechanisms that effect the earths climate than irradiance.
1. Solar wind 2. Interplanetary Magnetic Field 3. Shifts in the IR content of Irradiance
Also, more research, and not just about carbon dioxide emissions being the ONLY culprit of alleged man-induced GW.
It's like a damages case:
The globe (the one filing for damages) is allegedly warming extraordinarily, and we are looking for suspects. And it's like the prosecution (alarmists) are insisting on convicting humans on being the earth's sole cause of distress hence the damages claim, when it should also consider other factors, because it is NOT FAIR to limit accusations and investigate just one possible suspect.
One should also consider of the earth is just a hypochondriac, insisting it is sick (the alarmists' usual analogy) when in fact is happening to it is actually normal and infact healthy since it is the norm.