args

Climate change

We have agreed the global warming exists. I know of no scientist who dissents from CO2 theory that denies that global warming exists, although perhaps there is one somewhere. The idea that the claim of "no global warming" is common is nonsense thrown up by CO2 theorists for the purpose of claiming victory when they prove that global warming exists. It was never in dispute. Pro wonders how it can be that temperatures can be claimed to stable or even decreasing for the past decade while conceding that global warming exists. There is nothing mysterious, it depends upon the time scale. For example, the overall trend has been warming since the last ice age, decreasing since the Holocene Optimum, and increasing since the Little Ice Age. The last decade has been about stable. Pro apparently grants that the IPCC is 70% government bureaucrats, that the conclusions are not subject to peer review, and that the scientists involved to not get to vote on the report. Pro objects only that the scientist, Landsea, who resigned in protest only suspected political motivation but didn't actually observe it. Landsea's exact words were, "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized." Landsea spelled it out separately: "The lead author of the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global warming. It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus" of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."" http://www.aei.org... I never said the IPCC leadership had a secret agenda. They are sincere in their beliefs and aim to save the world by suppressing dissent. Look at the past scientific consensus that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, or that the Steady State Theory was correct. No doubt their were strong beliefs involved, but what ultimately won was the science. There is perhaps a thousand times as much money in supporting global warming as opposing it. Tens of billions billions flow from governments into the global warming industry every year. Al Gore alone has made $100 million off of it. If there is suspicion about motivation, it should be directed at advocates. Exxon puts about $1.5 million per year into dissent, which is nothing by comparison. Dissent from CO2 theory is viewed by proponents as heresy, which is why they make such a big deal about in being evil. The book "The Deniers" documents in detail the abuse levied upon anyone who does not toe the line. Dissenting scientists have absolutely impeccable credentials and publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals. Pro made a string of assertions about CO2, but he didn't make a single scientific reference in support of his assertions. In the previous round I provided a link to an article by a climate scientist that explained the weak dependence of temperature on CO2. In addition, "All of the IPCC climate models reduce low- and middle-altitude cloud cover with warming, a positive feedback. This is the main reason for the differences in warming produced by different climate models (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009). I predict that this kind of model behavior will eventually be shown to be incorrect. And while the authors were loathe to admit it, there is already some evidence showing up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that this is the case (Spencer et al., 2007; Caldwell and Bretherton, 2009)." http://www.drroyspencer.com... Con produced an excellent reference in the last round, http://www.geocraft.com.... In particular, the graph http://www.geocraft.com... shows the long term relationship between climate and CO2. In the long history, there is no relationship. Note that on the graph, the last 600,000 years is a collapsed to a point. The author of Con's reference describes the lack of a relationship relationship between CO2 and temperature: "Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20� C (68� F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12� C (54� F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today! ... Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. ... To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today." CO2 levels have been dropping for 600 million years, and temperature has been going up and down independent of the CO2. There was an ice age with 12 times the atmospheric CO2. Right now we are both CO2 deprived and temperature deprived relative to the history. It's worth noting where most of the carbon has gone. It is not mainly in fossil fuels. It is in the carbonates in limestone formed as the skeletons of sea creatures accumulate on the ocean floor. Pro's reference disproves the theory that the earth's temperature is very sensitive to CO2. There is no possible consistent rationalization for having an ice age with 12 times the CO2 if temperature depends strongly on CO2. In fact, the temperature on Venus proves *insensitivity* to CO2. The earth has 380 ppm of CO2. Venus has 960,000 ppm. The surface of Venus is 867 F, which about 737 K. Earth is 288 K. Venus is 0.7 of earth's distance to the sun. Since radiation falls as the square of the distance, if Venus had no increased greenhouse effect, it would be twice as hot as earth due to being closer to the sun; it would be 576 K. So having roughly 3500 times as much CO2 on Venus produces a rise of about 150 K = 150 C. If the effect were linear, doubling earth's CO2 would therefore produce a temperature rise of 150/3500 = 0.05 degrees or so. That is extremely insensitive. There is a factor of several thousand to be explained between what CO2 global warming theory predicts and the observation of Venus. The rest of Pro's references are the equivalent of blog posts in which non-scientists state their faith and proclaim victory. Pro is quite right that there are many factors affecting climate. Pro's burden is to prove that right now the most important factor is CO2. Global warming advocates are adamant that for the past few decades the Sun has been inactive, and so there was nothing to explain the rise in temperature from the 70's to late 90s except CO2. The test of the theory is whether it would predict the future. It has not. Temperatures have remained stable or decreased slightly for the past decade, despite CO2 rising and continued claims that CO2 is dominating climate. What CO2 theorists overlook is the activity of the solar magnetosphere, which tracks recent climate quite well. It's not CO2, it's the sun. The resolution is negated.

Climate Change is man caused

Thank you for clarifying on that. I think you were hoping to win the debate just on that title, which in itself speaks indefinitely. I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, climate change is happening. But at the same time, we are putting planks for a global cooling, in a sense. As of right now, I can safely say we are utilizing more renewable energy than at any other time in our existence. As for my opponents sources, I don"t see any of them mentioning that. I"m sorry, but the subject of your sources (yubanet, epa, time, scientific american) either state what global warming is, or are in redundant in stating "2014 is the hottest year". None of them are the subject of human activity causing global warming. If you still insist of debating the topic, I would be glad to, although as I"ve mentioned, there really is no debate.

Climate change

We have an unresolved disagreement about what contribution of CO2 to climate is "significant." CO2 theory advocates generally attribute all of climate change to CO2. They argue that there is no significant solar activity of any kind, that arctic ice could not have melted due to the Pacific Oscillation by which it has melted regularly in past times, and that hurricanes that used to run in cycles no longer do so. So for debate purposes, I'd say that if half of global warming were due to CO2, that would be significant. Pro suggested in round 2 that "significant" ought to be judged as enough to make enacting cap and trade worthwhile. By that standard, then if all of global warming is due to to CO2, it still wouldn't be significant. That's because Europe enacted cap and trade some time ago, and CO2 was not reduced at all as a consequence. The Holocene Optimum (3000-5000 years ago) was warmer than CO2 theorists claim it will get, and that was one of the most prosperous periods of human history. The polar bears survived as well. If Pro understood that no scientist opposed to CO2 theory maintained that global warming did not exist, then why did he put it as the first contention of his debate argument? Whether Pro believed the error of fact or not, it appears in Pro's argument, and is therefore relevant to the debate. Having the contention implies that those who deny the theory is completely out of touch with reality. Therefore is was relevant to refute the implication. I did the analysis of CO2 effects on Venus correctly. I acknowledged that 380 ppm (I should have said 368 ppm, which is more accurate.) of CO2 leads to our present temperature. I claimed that the sensitivity to CO2 above 380 would be small. Pro claimed that the sensitivity above present levels was high, and that Venus showed that sensitivity. To disprove Pro's assertion, I started with the assumption of what temperatures would be if both Earth and Venus had 380 ppm of CO2, compensating for Venus being closer to the Sun. The rise above that baseline that is actually observed is about 150 degrees and it is due to adding (960,000 - 380) ppm of CO2. That's 0.05 degree per extra 380 ppm. That refutes Pro's contention that because Venus is hot, it shows that temperature is sensitive to CO2. Note that the main greenhouse gas on earth is not CO2, it is water vapor. That allows CO2 proponents to tweak the computer models so that when CO2 fails to explain warming, an induced multiplier effect from water vapor is claimed. Pro responds by producing an unlabeled graph from an unknown source that shows that while overall there is low sensitivity to CO2, that early may be in a portion of the curve where there is still some sensitivity. The x-axis of the graph appear to be logarithmic, but it isn't stated, so we don't know for sure where the 380 point should be plotted. There is no clue as to whether the y-axis (temperature) is linear or logarithmic, so even if we knew the 380 point, we couldn't read of the temperature increase claimed for going to 760 ppm. What Pro's graph concedes is that CO2 effects are extremely non-linear. What Pro seems to disputes is the exact shape of the curve or where we are on the curve. The non-linearity of the CO2 response is calculated from physical principles by T.J. Nelson http://brneurosci.org... "What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics.... doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase." Nelson continues by fitting the CO2 data from the 20th century to the known temperature rise. "This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer." Pro gives references, but they are a mess of blog-like conclusions from non-scientists and biased Wikipedia articles. Moreover, Pro frequently fails to claim what it is in the article that he claims to be supporting his claim. Other times I cannot find and match at all. His [12] is supposed to support a claim about Mercury, but I cannot find any reference to Mercury. He cited an article claiming to temperature for the last decade that showed no such data. Pro should reference articles written by credible scientists and quote or say what it is that supports his point. The second graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com... compares actual temperature with climate model prediction. Temperature have been level for the past decade, and "August 2008 was 3 C below June 1988, rather than projected 5 C above" Pro claims that there is a consensus of the "vast majority of scientists" that CO2 theory is correct. The main evidence he cites supporting that claim is the IPCC report. However, the IPCC itself is 70% non-scientists, a small elite determines the conclusions and edits the chapters to match their conclusions, and none of the contributors are allowed to vote on whether the report is valid. There is no evidence that if there is a consensus at all, that it is anything like a "vast majority." In addition to the hurricane expert who quite in protest, "Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC's expert reviewers' panel asserts, 'There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.' " and "the [2001] report's lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, "The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen." http://townhall.com... Recently, Christy identified the clear ideological beliefs of several authors and noted, "The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group ..." http://news.bbc.co.uk... Pro also cites the bogus study by Naomi Oreskes, a historian who searched scientific articles and claimed to find no articles contrary to CO2 theory. Oreskes only looked to for certain key phrases in certain journals, phrases basically related to political stance on the issue. Most scientific articles don't make any conclusions one way on the other about global warming, they just report on a study of some aspect of the science. It's easy to make a list of hundreds of scientific articles providing evidence contrary to CO2 theory, but none are included in Orestes study. Separately, I have compiled a lengthy critique of the Oreskes study, http://factspluslogic.com... Pro provided a reference that shows no relationship between CO2 and global warming over the past 600 million years. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were 12 time present. Pro responds that over history there were many things going on in climate. That's true, but it also shows that whatever the CO2 effect upon climate it has been insignificant relative to all those other causes. So for 600 million years, CO2 at levels a dozen times greater than now has been insignificant, but now we are supposed to believe it is dominant. Physical theory, past history, and current observation should CO2 has no significant climate effect.