Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

Of course it is natural. It's also quite deadly.

Why would we want to contribute to it, accelerating the effect?

.

 

Haha, I'm lying in bed reading that right now.

This link:

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Paths To Knowledge (dot NET)

Has some commentary on most of the points.

Very interesting! I'm sure it's only a matter of time before a AGW comes in here, proclaims that they know everything, and then fail to answer even a single question.

(The link is a great starting point to read a thread that demonstrates the complete obliteration of a AGWer. You can see that he was cheer leading and proclaiming profound knowledge of AGW, and yet could not answer a simple question, [a question he claimed to know the answer to!])

 

There is no solid evidence that we are accelerating it.

 

The linked "press piece" is filled with some pretty wild, (and uncited claims) like "Rising CO2 levels are seen as the "best hope to increase crop yields to feed a growing population" Huh??

But as has been pointed out to everyone, what do I know? I'm just a alarmist!

 

Just in case anyone mistakes "The daily express" as reputable news paper, consider that they also are one of the largest porn producers in GB and they have been criticized for running "advertorials", as well as loosing a significant number of libel cases. You think they make stuff up? You think they are paragons of journalistic integrity?

From Wiki:
In 2000, Express Newspapers was bought by Richard Desmond, publisher of a range of magazines including the celebrity magazine OK!. Controversy surrounded the acquisition because, at the time, Desmond also owned a selection of pornographic magazines such as Big Ones and Asian Babes — which led to him being nicknamed "Dirty Des" by Private Eye. He is still the owner of the most popular pornographic television channel in the UK, Television X. Desmond's purchase of the paper led to the departure of many staff including the then editor, Rosie Boycott, and columnist Peter Hitchens moved to The Mail on Sunday, stating that he could not morally work for a newspaper owned by a pornographer. Boycott, despite her different politics, had an unlikely respect for Hitchens.[7] Stars of old Fleet Street, like the showbiz interviewer and feature writer Paul Callan, were brought in to restore some of the journalistic weight enjoyed by the paper in its peak years.
Express Newspapers left the National Publishers Association in 2007 over unpaid fees. Since payments made to the NPA fund the Press Complaints Commission, it is possible that the Express and its sister papers could cease being regulated by the PCC. The chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance, which manages PCC funds, described Express Newspapers as a "rogue publisher".[8]
The Express group lost an unusually large number of high-profile libel cases in 2008-2009; it was forced to pay damages to people involved in the Madeleine McCann case (see below), a member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, the footballer Marco Materazzi and the sports agent Willie McKay.
The string of losses led the media commentator Roy Greenslade to conclude that Express Newspapers (which also publishes the Star titles) paid out more in libel damages over that period than any other newspaper group; although most of the individual amounts paid were not disclosed, the total damages were disclosed at £1,570,000.[9] Greenslade characterised Desmond as a "rogue proprietor".
In late 2008, Express Newspapers began a redundancy plan to cutting 80 jobs, with the aim of reducing costs by £2.5 million; too few staff were willing to take voluntary redundancy.[10] [11] In early 2008, a previous cost-cutting exercise by the group triggered the first 24-hour national press strike in the UK for 18 years.[12] In late August 2009, plans for a further 70 redundancies were announced, affecting journalists across Express Newspapers (including the Daily and Sunday Express, the Daily Star, and the Daily Star Sunday).[13]
Also in August 2009, the Advertising Standards Authority criticised the company for running advertorials as features alongside adverts for the same products. The ASA noted that the pieces were 'always and uniquely favourable to the product featured in the accompanying ads and contained claims that have been or would be likely to be prohibited in advertisements' [14][15][16][17][18]
In spite of cost-cutting and staff redundancies under Desmond's ownership, the loss of a large number of libel cases, and the concentration of front pages on arguably spurious news (see below), the Daily Express carries a banner on its front page saying "The World's Greatest Newspaper".

Has anyone read my rant on the well organized, well funded misinformation/obfuscation campaign? You wouldn't think this might be an example would you? Wanna bet it shows up on Fox news sooner than later?


But What do I know,, I am only an ignorant alarmist

 

Most of the problem is a gas, not a solid.

 

Icarus, if you want to change minds, you need to attack the reasons listed in the article and back them up with data. Attacking the source means nothing. Even if I was the biggest liar in the world, if I state a fact, it's still a fact.

I honestly do not think that the majority of you AGWers "get it." You can't go around spouting off lies and making things up (ie, that AGW is based on repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof. [still no answer huh?])

I have to admit, I find it amusing in these threads when AGWers call us (or just me) idiots, and yet they fail to answer a single question about AGW. They proclaim to know everything, but in reality know so little. Like the guy who said the Arctic would be free of ice in 5 years. It's a complete lie. You have really got to start reading and learn both sides of the argument. I would never prescribe medicine without being sure to know (and counsel my patient about) all of the potential side effects. Likewise when I am learning about something in science I want to know everything about all of the sides of the story.

It would behoove you to do the same.

 

Haha!!!

 

The day I let people like you dictate to me how and what I say,,,,,

I will most certainly attack the "messenger" if the "messenger" clearly is not legit. I contend there is an organized misinformation campaign and this article is a perfect example of it. I'm sorry you don't like it.

As for calling you an Idiot,, I don't believe I have ever said that about you,,,,,,As for the biggest liar in the world I have no proof one way or the other. (your words again, not mine)

If you are the biggest liar in the world why should I believe you the one time you tell the truth and how on earth would I know?

 

I can't tell if you are disputing that CO2 is good for plants or not. I'm sure you honestly think that CO2 is bad for them, but when I explain how it is good you will act like you knew that.

Plants use a process called photosynthesis for energy. They take in CO2 and water, and using light they produce sugar and oxygen.

There is a lot of speculation that increased CO2 will cause increased growth of crops. Although I think some studies show that the crops would grow too quickly and have decreased protein levels in them. And I think some studies show that it would not help much at all, if not be harmful. I'm not entirely sure on the details of these as I have not read very much about them.

Do some research and get back to us.

 

If this article is misinformation please feel free to go through it and show which parts are grossly incorrect. Afterwards come back and post all your results.

Honestly, again, it's put up or shut up

You speak of a misinformation campaign, but the only misinformation I've seen lately is from you (ie, that AGW is based on repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof), "richard schumacher" (the Arctic ice lie), and the other AGWers.

 

What a hoot!

"33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere"

Never mind that for most of earth's history, nearly all life as we know it, did not and could not exist.

I have concerns that AGW is being seriously oversold, but the many simplistic assertions included in this list leave me with negative confidence that the rest of it is meaningful.

 

We could spend our entire day going around debunking rumors and still would not keep up. It's pointless.

Suggested reading:

Scepticism's limits | The Economist

 

Well, this thread seems to have it all. Let me start with this one.

If you really want an answer to your question, the first thing to realize is that 500,000,000 years ago, the earth was somewhat different from what it is today. Somewhat. All the continents were scrunched into one area along the equator, and the rest of the earth was one broad, shallow sea. The sun was almost 5% dimmer than it is today (see link below). The composition of the atmosphere (other than C02) was radically different. Ground cover was different. And so on and so on.

It was a different world. If you are a thinking person, just the dimness of the sun relative to today ought to give you pause before you make sweeping generalizations about what the climate of that era "ought" to look like, or to use the estimated mean temperature from that era to prove that there is no manmade global warming.

Second, you have to understand that these things matter for determining climate and global mean temperature. You'd have to know quite a bit about all those factors to be able to predict what the climate "ought" to have looked like. You can't just assume that the earth, with a 5% dimmer sun, broad shallow sea, different atmospheric composition, "ought" to have had the same temperature as the earth, now.

Third, you need to realize that when scientists run their general circulation (climate) models on the Ordovician, changing all the things that are necessary to change to match conditions for that period. And, by and large, they do a fair job of modeling what they believe to be the climate of that period. My point being that once you do, carefully, account for all the difference, you pretty much get that climate -- based on the same rules that underly the models used to analyze the modern climate. Here's one random example from Googling it, I could find a bunch more if required:

An atmospheric pCO2 threshold for glaciation in the Late Ordovician ? Geology

And yet, that ice age is a puzzler. It was abrupt, and older research placed it squarely in the middle of an era of high atmospheric C02. That really is a puzzle.

But it appears to be a puzzle that has been solved. If you look at the most recent research on that era, it says, in a nutshell, older research misdated the ice age by about 10,000,000 years, and, actually, no, the ice age occurred during an era of relatively low C02, and ended as C02 rose. In other words, the geological process that increased C02 in that era ended the ice age. The research is outlined here:

Study Bolsters Greenhouse Effect Theory, Solves Ice Age Mystery

I couldn't tell you whether or not that's the last word on that. It's a single piece of information that needs to be integrated with all the rest of it. But it does appear to make better sense of the data than the prior dating of that ice age.

In summary:
1) 500,000,000 years ago, the earth was a vastly different place with, at the minimum, a sun that was about 5% dimmer than currently.
2) Climate models, when parameterized to match that Earth, appear to do a plausible job of explaining the climate of that era. But they account for the many differences between the earth then and the earth now.
3) That great ice age was, uniquely among all ice ages, a real puzzler. (The others were not, so we could have played best-two-out-of-three if we'd cared to.) But recent research appears to resolve the puzzle: older research mis-estimated the timing of that ancient ice age by about 2% (10,000,000 years). Enough to move the events into a sequence that appears to make sense: Ice age occurring in a period of (relatively, for that period) low C02, and terminating during a period of higher (for that period) C02.

 

Actually, I don't believe that you could debunk any "rumors."

If you start reading here you will see a little thread that shows this exact story. An AGWer making a bunch of claims, like AGW is based on repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof, but when challenged to show one repeatable scientific experiment that leads to conclusive proof, they completely fail.

Likewise, you claim that you could debunk skepticism all day, and yet you can't debunk any of it. You showed this already. You challenged me, and you said that the earth would never have warmed without human intervention, that it would have remained at the 1850 temperatures. Then I stomped on you in this post, and this post, and then completely wiped the floor with you in this post.

And what was your reply? You had none. You just pulled the old "Oh I'm too busy to argue" routine. You failed in every way possible. You came in there, acting like Mr. Scientist, saying "most experts agree" and speaking very definitively on the subject, and you were demonstrably wrong in everything you said.

So, this seems to be a theme among you guys. You run around claiming to know everything, saying how "denialists" are all morons, and yet you really don't know what you are talking about. You have *got* to learn the facts and details before you go around talking down to people. How can you talk down to someone as if they don't know anything, when in reality it is you that is deficient in knowledge?

Another one bites the dust.

 

Well, it's already been pointed out that the source is a rag. If these really were significant points proving that the recent temperature increases were natural, somebody would have gotten a Nobel (or at least earned their Ph.D.) by demonstrating that fact.

Near as I can tell, reading the first 20 or so, they're all crap. Largely they are misdirection -- correct facts that have nothing to do with explaining or failing to explain climate change. Do I really have to spend time debunking them? Can I just pick a few?

OK, I'll do a few:




"10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years."

Here's a collection of articles on what that statement is wrong:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It's_all_just_the_sun

And since they're Brits, let's cite the British Meterological Office separately:

"3. Recent warming cannot be explained by the sun or natural factors alone. "

Met Office: Live Earth

So, whom should I believe? I think I'll trust the guys who actually know something about climate, not the newspaper.


"11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago"

Just look at that: they friggin' misspelled activist, and they mixed up CAUSE and CONSEQUENCE. They're a newspaper and didn't even proofread their own posting? Either that or they are genuinely confused about CAUSE versus CONSEQUENCE. What does this tell you about the quality of the work here?


"12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds"

Yes, correct, classic straw man. See my just-prior post. Nobody says that climate can be explained by just one factor.

"13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the worldâ€.

That's supposed to be a reason why climate change is natural? Hey, OP, did you even read this listing before you posted it?

"14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions"

Again, they need a proofreader. If I'd written that sentence in my former job, my editor would have politely asked me to restructure it without the non-sequitur. That aside, wind farms displace fossil-fuel use, they have a positive EROI, so the statement that they do nothing is wrong. That they do little is a consequence of that fact that very little of our power is produced by wind.

"15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdityâ€

Same response as 12, with the addition that if you want to understand climate, ask a climate scientist, not a geologist.

Have I done enough? The list is crap. There are interesting things we might talk about regarding global warming and natural variation, but it would not be based on the stuff in that list.

 

I agree that a lot of these points are weak, but you should re-read this one. It says the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change in the past 100 years. I can see this going two ways.

1. Most papers I've read agree that the sun is responsible, for the most part, for driving temperature change for a very long time. Most papers say that the sun is responsible for driving temperature change up until about 1975-1980, and at that point they believe the warming becomes too great for the sun alone, and they attribute it to anthropogenic causes. (This simulations are done on a computer model ...) If the sun drove the first 75-80 years of the 1900s, as scientific literature has agreed, then that is indeed the greater share. (75/100 or 80/100 is indeed the majority.)

2. The way you would rather see it (which is an entirely legit way of looking at this bullet point), that climate models attribute the majority of the warming we have seen in the last hundred years to anthropogenic causes instead of the sun. They still agree the sun is responsible for warming up until about 1975-1980. Again, this is based on computer models (the entire theory of AGW is based on computer models - ewwwwwww!)

I don't see where you debunked the point. I see where we are (understandably) laughing at their writing skills, but I don't see where you debunked anything.

I agree and disagree with you. His talking point is entirely valid. But a lot of alarmists do believe it is solely due to our CO2 production. After recent conversations with some of the "alarmists" on this message board, I would bet I could take them in a room and ask them to list all the GHGs they can think of and they would only be able to list CO2. But I agree it's a weird point to be on that list, but it's also a weird one to attack.

I agree it's a strange choice to list in their 100 reasons. Just because the majority of people believe it does not make it necessarily true. Totally agree with you.

Agree.

Ehhh, but we really have demonized CO2. That's all we ever hear about. I agree that any body well versed in climate science thinking that we are only looking at one gas is being ridiculous, but it sure is the only thing we ever hear about.

There's still a whole lot of them left You kinda picked the ones that aren't really scientific.

Ie, we can start with the first 25. Look at points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 9, 16, 17, and 23.