illconsidered | September 20, 2007Ok, so this is not my first blog post ever, but it is my first post as a member of Science Blogs. Unlike Groucho Marx, who did not wish to join any club which would accept him as a member, I am very excited to be here and very flattered by that invitation.
So some breif introductory messages...
To fellow Sciblings, I would like to say hello and I look forward to getting to know you as people and writers. I am already a fan of Tim Lambert at Deltoid, William Connolley at Stoat and Chris Mooney of The Intersection and I have come across many excellent articles from others here, so I am eager…
illconsidered | December 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Answer:
The problem with this argument is that it relies on an implicit assumption that there is some particular climate that the earth needs to be at and that given a period of globally lower temperatures, an eventual rise is inevitable. What is the scientific basis for such an assumption?
There is no evidence that such a situation exists. The climate is influenced by many factors…
illconsidered | June 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
According to the latest state of the art satellite measurements from over the Arctic, sea levels are falling! Guess all that ice isn't melting after all.
Answer:
Yes, a new study using Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite has determined that over the last ten years, sea level in the Arctic ocean has been falling at an average rate of around 2mm/year. This is very new and very interesting news, though it is preliminary and not published…
illconsidered | June 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature, the 35% increase we have already seen in concentrations represents about 3/4 of the total forcing to be expected from a CO2 doubling. Since we have warmed about .7oC so far, we should only expect about .3oC more for a doubling from pre-industrial levels, so about 1oC not 3oC as the scientists predict. Clearly the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is much too high.
Answer:
Even…
illconsidered | June 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Some stations, in the US for example, show cooling trends. If there really were global warming, it would be warming everywhere.
Answer:
Global Warming refers to the long term increase in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures. It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions, let alone all weather stations, on the globe will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns. There are in fact many stations…
illconsidered | May 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Scientists claim that Global Warming from GHG's is actually being countered somewhat by Global Dimming from aerosol pollution. They even say that's what caused cooling in mid-century. But, GHG's are evenly mixed around the globe while aerosols by far impact the northern hemisphere where they are produced more than the southern hemisphere. This means that warming should be greater in the southern hemisphere, which is the opposite of what is…
illconsidered | May 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
More and more the models share all the same assumptions, so of course they all agree! And every year fewer scientists dare to speak out against the findings of the IPCC, this is a clear indication of the pressure there is to conform.
Answer:
The improving agreement of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like just sharing code, or tweaking til things look…
illconsidered | May 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer:
Global Warming is not an output of computer models, it is conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places, in England for example, that have records going back several centuries, the two major global…
illconsidered | May 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end.
Answer:
Overall, it is true that sea ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing. Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming, the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf break ups. But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming…
illconsidered | April 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The United States actually absorbs more CO2 into the land than it emits into the air. The world should be grateful.
Answer:
As often is the case, at the heart of this talking point is a grain of truth, though it is no longer equivalent to what it has been forcibly grown into. According to the US Department of Energy the land use changes taking place in the United States between 1952 and 1992 have resulted in a net absorption of CO2, but…
illconsidered | April 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if its our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably", "likely", "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?
Answer:
Unfortunately, "likely", "evidence suggests" and "probability" is the language of science. There is no proof, there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always…
illconsidered | April 27, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Climate science can't even fully explain why the climate did what it did in the past. How can they then claim they know what is going on today?
Answer:
There are two requirements for understanding what happened at a particular climate change in geological history. One is an internally consistent theory based on physical principles and the other is sufficient data to determine the physical properties involved. It is very hard, in some cases…
illconsidered | April 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
In 1988 Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
Answer:
While it may well be simply ignorant repetition of misinformation in some instances, at its source, this story is a plain and simple lie.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the US Senate on the danger of Anthropogenic Global Warming. As part of that testimony he presented…
illconsidered | April 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Answer:
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Clouds are a very large negative feedback that will stop any drastic warming. The climate models don't even take cloud effects into account.
Answer:
All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.
It is true however that clouds are one of the largest sources of…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
In the geological record it is clear that CO2 does not trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
Answer:
Given the fact that the human species and our industrialization is rather unique in the history of planet Earth, do we really need to see some kind of historical precedent for CO2 triggered climate change before accepting what we observe today? Surely unprecedented consequences are not far fetched in the face of…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
All those institutional position statements are fine, but by their very nature they hide the debate and the variety of individual positions. The real debate is in the scientific journals.
Answer:
This is a fair point. Group position statements are designed to smooth over debate and unite the different points of view that individuals may have. The best indicator of what individual scientists think is in the current scientific literature,…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global Warming is over.
Answer:
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Sure, some glaciers are melting. But if you look at the actual studies, most of the ones that have data are actually growing!
Answer:
This is simply not true, rumours on "the internets" aside (that link is very worth reading, BTW). According to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page they report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier…
illconsidered | March 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that haven't ever had a prediction confirmed ? Talk to me in 100 years.
Answer:
Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature projection today? Well, we can't, but does this mean that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't thinks so.
The climate is a very complex…