Can you provide a point by point refutation with sources?

Question

A contact in Facebook sent me the "anti AHW" message.  He did not include attribution.  I know HE is no climate scientist.  I wondered if anyone has seen this and can provide his source for me, and if anyone has the time to give me a point by point refutation with sources.  Some of it I can see on the face of it is nonsense.  For example, if the debate were really a simple mathematical dispute, the thousands of climate scientists who support AGW would say, "Oh, right.  That's the math."  The claim is insulting to science and to scientists.  However, I don't have any background to argue substantively.  I'd appreciate any help you can provide.  
 
Substance of his messge:
"  1. CO2 does indeed absorb reflected sunlight returning to space from earth, having a warming effect.  However, this effect is a diminishing return — each successive increment of CO2 concentrations will have a much smaller effect on temperatures than the previous increment.  Eventually, CO2 becomes nearly saturated in its ability to absorb radiation.  The effect is much like painting a red room with white paint.  The first coat covers a lot of red but some still shows through.  Each additional coat will make the room progressively whiter, but each successive coat will have a less noticeable effects than the previous coat, until the room is just white and can’t get any whiter.

   2. In the 20th century, the UN IPCC claims Earth’s surface temperatures have increased by about a 0.6 degree Celsius (though there are some good reasons to think that biases in the installation of temperature instruments have exaggerated this apparent increase).  To be simple (and generous), let’s assume all this 0.6C increase is due to man-made greenhouse gasses.  Some may in fact have been due to natural effects, but some may also have been masked by man-made sulfate aerosols, so lets just call man-made warming to be 0.6C. 

   3. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is thought that man has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.038% of the atmosphere.  Since scientists often talk about the effect of a doubling of CO2, this historic rise in CO2 is 36% of a doubling.

   4. Using simple math, we see that if temperatures have risen 0.6C due to 36% of a doubling, we might expect them to rise by 1.67C for a full doubling to 0.056% of the atmosphere.  But this assumes that the rise is linear — and we already said (and no one denies) that it is in fact a diminishing return relationship.  Using a truer form of the curve, a 0.6C historic rise for 36% of a doubling implies a full doubling would raise temperatures by about 1.2C, or about 0.6C more than we have seen to date (see chart below).   This means that the magnitude of global warming in the next century might be about what we have seen (and apparently survived) since 1900.

   5. Obviously, there is some kind of disconnect here.  The IPCC predicts temperature increases in the next century of 4-8 degrees C.  Big difference.  In fact, the IPCC predicts we will get a 0.5C rise in just 20 years, not 70-100.  Whereas we derived a climate sensitivity of 1.2 from empirical data, they arrive at numbers between 3 and 4 or even higher for sensitivity.  The chart below shows that to believe sensitivity is 3, we would have to have seen temperature rises due to man historically of 1.5C, which nobody believes. 

      So how do they get accelerating temperatures from what they admit to be a diminishing return relation between CO2 concentration and temperature? And for which there is no empirical evidence?  Answer:  Positive feedback.
   6. Almost every process you can think of in nature operates by negative feedback.  Roll a ball, and eventually friction and wind resistance bring it to a stop.  Negative feedback is a ball in the bottom of a bowl; positive feedback is a ball perched precariously at the time of a mountain. Positive feedback breeds instability, and processes that operate by positive feedback are dangerous, and usually end up in extreme states — these processes tend to "run away" like the ball rolling down the hill.  Nuclear fission, for example, is a positive feedback process.  We should be happy there are not more positive feedback processes on our planet.  Current man-made global warming theory, however, asserts that our climate is dominated by positive feedback.  The IPCC posits that a small increase in temperature from CO2 is multiplied 2,3,4 times or more by positive feedbacks like humidity and ice albedo.

   7. There are three problems with these assumptions about positive feedback.  One, there is no empirical evidence at all that positive feedbacks in climate dominate negative feedbacks.   The 20th century temperature numbers we discussed above show no evidence of these feedbacks.  Two, the long-term temperature record demonstrates that positive feedbacks can’t dominate, because past increases in temperature and CO2 have not run away.  And

Dana1981 · Accepted Answer

1) This one is almost true, but as you increase atmospheric CO2, it has *slightly* less effect on global warming, not *much* less.  The relationship is logarithmic.  It's not like if you double the amount of CO2 it will halve the effect.  The saturated gassy argument is debunked here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Also good point by Keith - atmospheric CO2 levels are not just increasing, but accelerating.

2) The myth that the surface temperature record is biased has been totally debunked, but since he doesn't harp on this, I'll move on too.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArpIhFkblq.v6DLoA2U0U0MjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090708092313AAo1USK

3) Basically right, although the CO2 increase is closer to 40% now, but tha'ts nitpicky.

4) This is fine.  He's ignoring feedbacks, but gets to that later.

5) "Whereas we derived a climate sensitivity of 1.2 from empirical data"

Whoa whoa whoa, where did this come from?  There have been dozens of studies on climate sensitivity and almost none have been as low as 1.2.  They almost all center around a sensitivity of 3.

*edit* now that Dawei found the link to the origins of these arguments, I can see this particular one is grossly oversimplified.  Basically he's ignoring feedbacks in this claim, saying the planet will continue to warm along the same logarithmic curve as CO2 continues to increase.  Like I said, this ignores feedbacks, as discussed below.

6) This is basically right.

7) "One, there is no empirical evidence at all that positive feedbacks in climate dominate negative feedbacks."

This is wrong.  First there's the physical reality.  We know of many positive feedbacks, from decreasing reflectivity as ice melts to methane released from melting permafrost and warming peat bogs to oceans absorbing less CO2 as they warm, etc. etc.  There is only one possible major negative feedback, which is a possible increase in low cloud cover (which would increase reflectivity), but even that may be a positive feedback.

So right there we've got a bunch of known strong positive feedbacks and only one possible significant negative feedback, which the jury is still out on.  On top of that, if there weren't positive feedbacks and the climate sensitivity were low like 1.2, the planet couldn't have had major climate transitions in the past.  These negative feedbacks would have prevented the warming from the end of an ice age to an interglacial.

And studies of other major climate change events like the PETM show climate sensitivity may be even higher than 3:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnxOBhNzN2DqRqxhUsgxTOkjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090717124657AA1yvsK
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/

Here's a good discussion of how we know sensitivity is around 3:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html

"The 20th century temperature numbers we discussed above show no evidence of these feedbacks."

Each feedback is triggered at a certain temperature.  The fact that we haven't yet reached the temperature for most of these feedbacks doesn't mean they don't exist.  Does the fact that the permafrost hasn't yet melted (actually the melting has recently begun) mean that it won't melt if the planet continues to warm?  Obviously not.

"Two, the long-term temperature record demonstrates that positive feedbacks can’t dominate, because past increases in temperature and CO2 have not run away"

An 8-10°C warming from an ice age to an interglacial is a pretty big runaway.  So was the 6°C warming during the PETM.  If the planet could warm 6°C during those periods, why can't it now?

The confusion here seems to be with the term 'runaway global warming'.  A runaway warming doesn't mean the planet keeps warming forever.  Each feedback increases the warming a certain amount.  Eventually the runaway effect stops.  There have been large climate changes in the past which were as much of a 'runaway' as the projected warming over the next century.  Our warming will just be faster, but not necessarily larger.

"And three, characterizations of stable natural processes as being dominated by positive feedback should offend the intuition and common sense of any scientist."

The global climate is in no way a stable system.  It lurches between ice ages and warm interglacial periods on a regular basis.  There have been many large climate changes in the past (like the aforementioned PETM) which have resulted in major extinction events.  This is just an ignorant statement.

8) "An expected 21st century increase of 0.5 or even 1 degree C..."

False premise.  The expected warming under a business as usual scenario is around 6°C.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

"massive imposed government interventions that will be costly both in dollars and lost freedoms."

I don't know what "lost freedoms" this guy is babbling about (the freedom to emit as much CO2 as we want??), but the cost of carbon emissions reductions is very low.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ast9Xi4A3iHMqz0wb_kNq6fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090813105842AAHxi50

And the cost of global warming mitigation will be far, far higher if we do nothing.  See Myth #11:
http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-myths

"There is no evidence tornadoes or hurricanes or disease or extinction are increasing as the world warms"

Wrong.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/nature-hurricanes-are-getting-fiercer-and-its-going-to-get-much-worse/

And it's kind of obvious that a rapidly changing climate will lead to extinctions.

Basically this guy has built up a house of cards where each argument is based on the last, but the basis is totally wrong.  The entire argument is essentially based on the supposition that the positive feedbacks we know exist don't actually exist.  Based on that false premise he then tries to argue that the planet won't warm much so we don't need to worry about it.  When you realize the low climate sensitivity argument is bogus, the whole house of cards collapses.

Note that it's theoretically possible that he's right, that as the planet warms, low cloudcover will increase and reflect sunlight and keep it from warming much further.  However, it's highly unlikely for the reasons discussed above.  This guy is arguing as though climate sensitivity is definitely around 1.2 (degrees Celsius warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm).  The most likely value for climate sensitivity is 3, and it's more likely to be higher than lower.

So yes, if we're very very very lucky, he's right.  But is it worth betting the future of life on our planet on it, especially when CO2 regulation is relatively cheap and we're running out of oil anyway?  To me the answer is obviously not.

*edit* jim, you know I'm a scientist, and Dawei is a science student.  Why would you lie like that?  I swear, the dishonesty of deniers is really getting old.  As for political bias, every other word out of your mouth is "leftist".  I'm also getting tired of denier psychological projection.

And just because *you* don't know or understand something doesn't mean nobody knows or understands it.  The 100+ ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 by humans is well-establised, as is the physics behind how much warming it causes.

Keith P · Answer

1. True, but misleading. The amount of energy forcing is logarithmic, IF carbon dioxide increases linearly. But carbon dioxide is not increasing linearly; it has been increasing exponentially since about 1950 or so. That means that the rate of CO2 forcing is actually increasing about linearly, not logarithmicly.

Simplified equation of CO2 forcing:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/222.htm#635
CO2 increase:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

2. Nope. The 0.6 C warming (actually 0.55° C) is for the 1970's to the present, not for the whole century. The period 1910-2008 experienced 0.9° C warming. Check the IPCC FAQ 3.1:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf

There is no good reason to believe that biases in the installation of thermometers have exaggerated the temperature increase. Scientists are well aware of the urban heat island effect, and remove that effect from the data as part of normal processing. Further, the rate of temperature increase is the same in urban areas as it is in unaffected rural areas.

NASA/GISS temp processing:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
UHI effect:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/36231/title/Dont_blame_the_cities

3. Note the difference in timescales: the CO2 rise is since 1750 (beginning of the industrial revolution), while the temperature rise in the previous point is only since 1975. This will become important later.

4. Here's where the uneven timescales in parts 2 and 3 come into play: he's counting ALL the CO2 increase since 1750, but only that part of the temperature increase since 1975. Therefore he gets the wrong answer. 

So let's do it the right way: using the equation given in the first link above, the current forcing (above pre-industrial levels) is 1.8 Watts per square meter. Since we have seen about 0.9° C increase from that, we can estimate that each Watt per square meter gives about 0.5° C increase.

Using the same equation, the CO2 "doubling point" of 560 ppm will give us 4.0 Watts per square meter of forcing, for a total rise of 2° C. We have already seen 45% of that with only 38% of the CO2 rise, which is exactly the logarithmic effect he's talking about.

5-6. There is a disconnect, and if you read the IPCC report, you would discover what that is. It's called "feedback". That's what happens when warming causes more warming. One simple example is this: when it gets warmer, there is more evaporation so more water vapor goes in the air. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, so that increases the warming even more. 

But there are more slowly acting feedbacks that take decades to kick in -- and some of those are kicking in now. When we have warmer winters, the area of snowcover decreases, making the land surface darker, which absorbs more sunlight. And, when the permafrost melts, it releases trapped CO2 which cases more warming. And, when the oceans warm enough, they stop absorbing CO2, leaving more CO2 in the air. And, when the oceans warm even more, they emit CO2 from previous decades back into the air. Most of these feedbacks are slow. Most of them are difficult to quantify. But they are very real. So is the IPCC out of line? Not in my book.

7. Certainly there is evidence that positive feedback works in the climate. The entire Pleistocene is a history of glaciations and deglaciations, rapid climate changes that, while triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit, can only have proceeded from there to climate change by the very feedback mechanisms this author incorrectly claims do not exist. So I would be very, very interested to hear this author's explaination of how ice ages occur without ice/albedo feedback at work. Because remember, when the northern hemisphere gets less sunlight, the southern hemisphere gets more. So, unless there is ice/albedo feedback at work, the ice ages wouldn't exist.

You can see the ice ages advance and retreat in the ice core data here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

... and you can see ice/albedo feedback in the rapid loss of arctic sea ice extent, here:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090804_Figure3.png

... both of which chronicle changes too rapid for CO2 alone to have been responsible for without feedback. Note also that the Pleistocene temperature record, with its wild temperature swings, is exactly the kind of instability that ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND with positive feedback in the climate system.



8. If freedom means you get to destroy the only planet we have, I don't want you or anyone else to have that "freedom". Hard experience has shown that strict regulation is the only way to avert the "tragedy of the commons" and if there is any "commons" for all mankind, the atmosphere is certainly it.

Money spent on taxation is not "lost". It goes for useful things that generally increase employment and economic activity. Further, the cost of climate mitigation is quite reasonable IF we start now, when the problem is still managable. Most studies put the total cost of mitigation in fractions of a percent of GDP. The cost of doing nothing is far, far higher. For example, the Pentagon now believes that climate change is the biggest threat to national security the US will face in the 21st century, bigger than terrorism.
Mitigation cost:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf
Climate change and national security:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Anonymous · Answer

He is amazingly accurate and your synopsis is good enough to show he has done some serious study to arrive at the conclusions he has. Basically there is no single source for every answer and you would need to construct the full picture from pieces like doing a large complex jig saw puzzle as all skeptics have to. This link illustrates some of the basics without directly addressing your specifics.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm


And this is a list of the study sites that I have reviewed in just tke last year looking to see if anyone had yet provided any confirmation the world was getting warmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_climate

There is no such proff only political verbage and the only actual warming that can be found is less heat loss at night from the heat island effect and water vapor not allowing night time cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index

So actually days have been getting cooler because of increased cloud cover while nights have stayed warmer from this same cloud cover. By manipulating the math the warmers are able to use the warmer nights to claim the world is getting warmer even though the daytime highs are actually cooler than they were several years ago.

andy · Answer

Over the weekend I did a search on CO2 gas concentrations looking for the baseline amount that would be from nature and then the increase from there.  I found a really good one that talks about all of the green house gases and the amount that is man made.  I wish that I wrote down the site for you, but it is a real eye opener.

As for some of the IPCC models, we are suppose to be in the middle of the out of control cycle where every year is hotter than the previous and the rate of change is suppose to be going up quicker also.

Bad Moon Rising · Answer

Sorry Karen! You have a smart Facebook friend. He is basically right on all counts. The problem with refuting something this complex, is that it would take pages of point by point links and arguments. The same holds true for "proving" the statements.
My guess is that your friend has a Masters Degree or higher in either Physics or Chemistry and probably Physical Chemistry. To explain it in detail to you in detail would be impossible. The statements he makes are basically very true and cover a lot of ground! He is thinking for himself and has obviously reviewed the scientific arguments and firmly identified the major pitfalls in AGW "science" that the IPCC are unwilling to discuss and indeed have a LOT of internal conflict over.

Dana's contention that the Temperature "data point" issue is resolved is complete nonsense. You cannot "normalize" bad data and then massage it into a pristine data set. When bad data contaminates a data set it is supposed to be eliminated period! The inclusion of massaged data, even if done correctly, creates a statistically fraudulent result. If there are no reliable data, then there is no conclusion or recommendation to derive, other than "get better data"!

EDIT: To Dawei..good pickup on the plagarism! When you are right you are right! I do disagree with you on the factuality of the author's (whoever he is) comments and arguments. My biggest beef with the AGW debate rests with 1. Quantification of anthropogenic CO2 levels versus the "norm". 2. Inclusion of data points as being "corrected" when they would normally be thrown out. 3. The diminishing effects or "decay" of the greenhouse effect and lack of verifiable quantification. 4. The highly probable logarithmic relationship of CO2 and Temperature. 5. The complete ignoring of the fact that ice core data, although meticulously gathered, are still subject to Boyles Law and Charles Law and there is no reliable way to apply a linear correction to the data. What would be the appropriate mathematical transform to be applied to a pressurized data set with varying volumetric expansion? 6. The flip flop arguments associated with the historical role of CO2 in natureregarding cause and effect. The "amplification" argument seems to have no basis in fact since in the core data it seems that following the so called amplification, the temperatures drop systematically following the CO2 (no coincident temperature )spike.

David · Answer

Is your friend's name Warren Meyer? If not, then he plagiarized the entire email from here: 
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html

You can tell by the guy's arguments that he's not a scientific skeptic, just your run of the mill anti liberal blogger, who believes that he can read two books and have more knowledge than 97% of climatologists (or alternatively, he believes that those 97% of climatologists are involved in a massive conspiracy). 

Scientists argue in favor of an idea. They don't attack the hard work of others from every angle they can think of. That's what a politician does.

Hempington · Answer

A tip of the hat to you Karen for attempting get a better understanding of the problem. A tip of the hat to Dana for providing an excellent response. And a tip of the hat for being civil :-).

JimZ · Answer

Dana and Dawai are not scientists are simply politically biased.  The fact is we know there is a dimishing return on increased CO2.  We don't know how much the CO2 increased warming in spite of assinine claims to the contrary and we obviously therefore don't know the amount of dimishing returns.  You have to be able to acknowledge our shortcomings in knowledge and technology.  Alarmists like Dana and Dawai dare not admit their ignorance.  The fact is they don't know.  I don't know either but at least I know enough to know that.  The article he quoted was a general summary. If anything, I think it was too pro AGW.  It suggests we know we added 100 ppmV to the CO2 concentration.   We don't.  It suggested we know that increase caused a warming of .... degrees.  We don't know that either.  Climate is far to complex and our understanding of certain factors including water vapor and clound formation prevents us from knowing.

titou · Answer

Heavens, karen star!  You're as garrulous about this as I am when I'm on my soapbox about the banks!

I was surprised yesterday to go to an AA meeting and hear someone announce that a member who I took to be particularly smug and bootless was giving a book-signing at a fine library that evening.  Went and his book was just beautiful.  All the time I'd been grinding my teeth about him, he was writing.

Don't know why this is apropos -- just my flow of consciousness inspired by your question and the responses here before me..  Which leads to recalling a familiar phrase from AA: "We can't think ourselves into right action; instead we learn to act ourselves into right thinking."

tatimsaspas · Answer

Ice ages have come and gone for billions of years long before people, It is simply silly to think you in your little suvs are changing the temperature of the entire planet. Of all "green house gases" human pollution accounts for less than 3%. The rest is natural from animals, fire  and volcanoes. It is like saying throwing ice cubes in a lake will  kill fish because the lake will get colder. When you know the lake will completely freeze on its own every winter.

If every human died tomorrow ice ages will still come and go

Trending News

Can you provide a point by point refutation with sources?

12 Answers