DeSmogBlog Debunks the Global Warming ‘Skeptics Handbook’
December 31, 2008 · Print This Article
Global warming skeptics love to make ill-informed, illogical claims borne from a total lack of understanding of actual scientific concepts. So, it’s no surprise that many of them are now waving around print-outs of “The Skeptics Handbook” by Joanne Nova [PDF] in an attempt to back up their point of view. DeSmogBlog debunked the main points in “The Skeptics Handbook” in a series of three posts, including the old “temperatures haven’t warmed over the last decade” argument.
From DeSmogBlog:
The real measure we should be keeping a close eye on is how much heat the oceans are absorbing. And, wouldn’t you know it, their heat content has steadily increased since 1999. That’s a problem because, as Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt explains, ocean heat content trends reflect “the planetary radiative imbalance” – that the planet is absorbing more heat from the sun each year than it is losing.
Oceans exert a moderating influence on the climate by soaking up extra heat; therefore, if they take in a little more heat then usual, surface temperatures will tend to fall slightly (even though the planet’s overall heat content is going up). On the other hand, if the oceans absorb less (something that could happen more often if we keep the heat on), surface temperatures will increase.
But, wait, skeptics will say: All of that is beside the point because the Vostok ice cores have now clearly demonstrated that temperature leads CO2 – so rising CO2 emissions can’t be blamed for higher average temperatures. Not quite.
“The strongest evidence for the radiative effect for CO2 (and CH4, N2O, etc) is from laboratory experiments,” said Dr. Schmidt. “The strongest evidence for a significant climate sensitivity is from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), when ice sheets covered the planet (about 20,000 years ago), and that has not changed.”
The lead/lag issue that Nova is referring to is only evidence of a strongly coupled system – not evidence that CO2 has no effect, he explained.
DeSmogBlog also tackles the “CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t cause global warming” argument and the greenhouse signature argument. The explanations are refreshingly scientific, considering that so much discourse on global warming is based on a few oft-repeated sound bites that reveal a lack of understanding of the topic at hand. Check out parts 1, 2 and 3 and be sure to click on the links to the RealClimate.org articles as well.
Link [DeSmogBlog]
- Have a lights out day at your school
- Stop Global Warming!
- Stop Global Warming: We Can't Take the Heat!
Related Posts:
“30,000 Global Warming Petition” Debunked45 Scientists on list of ‘500 with Documented Doubts’ Say F-You to Global Warming Deniers [Updated!]
Is it Time to Kick the Term ‘Global Warming’ to the Curb?
CNN Meteorologist Calls Man Made Global Warming ‘Arrogant’
Global Warming Deniers are on Thin Ice
There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. Results from the planet computer are archived in the Vostok and EPICA ice cores. Global average temperature anomalies and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been extracted from these ice cores and are widely available. Repeatedly during the last and previous glacial periods, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was increasing. Alarmists are unaware of that part of science that proves, using the archived data, that added atmospheric carbon dioxide can not cause significant global warming. Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming is a mistake and puts freedom and prosperity at risk.
I’m a global warming skeptic as well as a scientist. All of the points this individual mentioned in the pdf handbook are things I’ve been trying to tell global warming believers for years. I am all about investing in alternative fuels and harnessing wind and solar power, simply for reducing our dependency on foreign oil reserves and run-away speculation bubbles on a single commodity dependency to satisfy our energy needs. I would be all about reducing CO2 and our carbon footprint, if I could see concrete evidence that it caused climate change. But, so far, in as much as skeptics are told they are ignorant and illogical, I have seen no logical evidence on the side of global warming theorists. None.
Sorry, climate change models are no substitute for scientific data collected in the field, ice core data is extremely inaccurate, and even if it was it displays a carbon dioxide increase trending with temperature no the other way around, benchtop experiments at ground level do not necessarily simulate what occurs in the atmosphere thousands of feet in the air, CO2 saturation point in the atmosphere could mean it has no effect beyond a certain point of equilibrium, scientists operating as a consensus is no substitute for scientific proof. The last point brings to mind that the work Galileo and Copernicus was discounted by peer reviewed assessments from renowned scientists of that time. Science is not democratic, as the author pointed out.
I am criticized harshly all of the time for my beliefs, and this article gave me some confidence when confronted with the obstacle of sticking to my guns or buying into the green marketing brain washing machine.