args

Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

Thanks for the response, Con. == Counter Arguments == CA1 - Scientific Consensus) Con, once again, lists limited examples of dissenting scientists, which is ultimately meaningless. I could list hundreds of scientists whom reject the theory of evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus on the matter. 82% of all Earth scientists accept AGW, which Con has not accounted for. Also, I never claimed that Meteorologists and other skeptics are "black sheep" or simple-minded. Instead, I pointed out that Meteorology is a field that studies local and short-term phenomena, which may be ill-suited for climate research. CA2 - Past Warming Trends) Past warming trends are important, but Con is ignoring important data sets. I linked a number of independent and governmental studies that largely arbitrate the Hockey Stick figure, but Con decides to ignore such evidence and refer back to the limited study poised in his embedded video. By limiting his data collections, Con is limiting his ability to arrive at an honest conclusion. I'll link the studies again: http://www.newscientist.com... Con also demands evidence that natural phenomena cannot be responsible for the current warming anomaly, which is supposedly happening at a normal rate. But once again, this ignores the importance of carbon sinks, which have absorbed vast amounts of CO2, essentially slowing the rate of warming. Moreover, the little ice ages did not have near the amount of CO2 that is currently present in Earth's atmosphere, which points away from that event being the cause behind *current* warming patterns. http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu... CA3 - Temperature Bias) NASA and other scientific organizations have already addressed the issue of temperature record bias, but Con has ignored the rebuttal. Yes, temperature records have been slightly affected by Urban Heat Islands, but when the data is adjusted for such changes, it largely produces the same outcome. In other words, the problem is rather meaningless, for the effects are statistically insignificant. Con needs to demonstrate otherwise, or this will remain a moot point. Source relinked: http://www.grist.org... CA4 - Solar Cycles) The source, which I'll link again, shows that solar cycles have not changed over the last century or so. This does not match up with Earth's rising temperatures, and even if NASA says solar cycles have a slight effect, the results are marginal. This natural phenomenon cannot be responsible for such rapid Global Warming, which leaves human activities as the only viable culprit. Con has not addressed this matter; he keeps reposting the same arguments that have already been refuted. http://www.ucar.edu... CA5 - Greenhouse Fingerprint) Nobody is claiming that CO2 models and records are flawless, but that they are reliable. However, Con is attempting to make the God Of The Gaps argument: Scientists don't understand why there aren't any heat signatures where they should be, so that must mean AGW is false. Contrarily, the more scientific attitude would be to wait for more evidence before jumping to conclusions. However, what scientists DO know is that the Stratosphere is cooling, which is perfectly indicative of the Greenhouse Effect, so if anything, these two combined results remain inconclusive. CA6 - CO2/Temperature Relationship) Con is actually correct; CO2 lagged behind temperatures throughout the last few ice ages (last 400K years). However, Con is misapplying these observations to current warming trends. During these ice ages, changes in Earth's orbit and axis forced slight warming, and as a result, oceans gave up more CO2, which ended up being the driving factor behind deglaciation. The process can work in either order, but CURRENT warming trends show CO2 levels rising BEFORE temperatures, which will only be amplified by the weakening of oceanic carbon solubility. In essence, CO2 is the driving factor behind Global Warming; rises in CO2 can spur natural warming events, but so can the direct release engaged by the burning of fossil fuels. The key is that right now CO2 levels are preceding surface temperatures, which implicate human activities. http://www.skepticalscience.com... CA7 - MWP) Con's source asserts that the temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago, but it does not provide the evidence to substantiate the claim. His [3] source also refers to the Urban Heat Island Effect, among other statistical factors that have already been addressed and accounted for. Ultimately, most results of warming patterns taking place over the last millennium conclude the same outcome, all being from different sources. The conclusion is that Earth is at its warmest point right now, and the MWP is largely a myth: http://www.newscientist.com... == Con's Refutations == CR1 -- Greenhouse Effect) So, Con accepts that the Greenhouse Effect is enabled by CO2, but he does not feel that it is significant. Again, his reasoning relies on the effects of clouds, yet he hasn't addressed my arguments, which is that clouds are largely neutral feedbacks -- not negative feedbacks. Moreover, Con's source mainly abides in the assumption that negative feedbacks will counteract warming, but it does not sufficiently describe how and why CO2 is, in itself, insignificant. The argument is unsubstantiated. CR2 - Fossil Fuels) Con needs to elaborate on his arguments rather than just post sources. I pointed out that recent warming explosions coincide with the CO2 explosion initiated during the Industrial Revolution -- a phenomenon that Con has glossed over again, disregarding its importance. CR3&4 - Feedbacks) Con claims that negative feedbacks regulate Earth's climate, otherwise a warming apocalypse might happen. What isn't realized is that these warming explosions have happened, and they were ignited mainly be positive feedback amplifiers, such as CO2. In fact, the past glaciation periods were slightly triggered by Earth's orbit, and as surface temperatures rose, oceanic CO2 exploded, which took over the warming process. If such powerful negative feedbacks were in place, these vast fluctuations wouldn't exist. The point is that Earth's temperatures will only get warmer as positive feedbacks are triggered by human activities, and they won't be significantly slowed by clouds or anything like that. == Conclusion == Con has failed to break the scientific consensus, he has not accounted for the effects of fossil fuels, and his arguments that blame natural causes have been thoroughly dissected by the science community. Solar cycles have remained constant, and feedback loops are not going to keep Earth's climate in check. The reality is that human actions are accelerating Global Warming, and Earth's temperatures have already rocketed to historic highs. With CO2 levels being the highest in hundreds of thousands of years, and continuing to rise, the current warming trend will only continue at an increased pace. Con has not adequately addressed this issue in detail; he has only listed sources while giving vague explanations, which don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. I again thank Con for this debate, and wish him good luck with his next response.