Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
Scientists dedicated to science. No exaggerations. No hype. Theses scientists work in the top science organizations around the world. They look at the arguments, the data, and the models and give an honest reasoned assessment of what we know, and what we need to learn.
Incorrect. The claim is based on the temperatures in the United States, not the global mean temperature.
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
This is a fascinating denialist argument. If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40's through the 70's, why would there be cooling?
Rebuttal to Lord Monckton: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His bio includes receiving a diploma in journalism from the University College, Cardiff. He performed as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. He has spent a great deal of energy lately attempting to establish himself as offering 'scientific' perspectives on human caused global warming. Rebuttal to Lord Monckton's arguments: his perspectives largely contain facts out of context, non sequitur and red herring arguments, as well as straw man constructions that are anything but scientifically sound when examined in context of the relevant science.
Does CO2 Lag behind warming and climate change in the natural cycle? Yes. Is it lagging today? No. CO2 normally lags in the natural cycle unless some abnormal perturbation occurs. If we were in the natural cycle, CO2 levels would be around 280ppm. We are now over 387ppm and therefore CO2 is now leading in our current warming scenario, above natural cycle.
Another interesting myth because it sounds logical that if CO2 is good for plants, more CO2 must be better. Some scientists have already begun to look at this assumption. Initial examinations indicate that more might not be better when it comes to food and nutritive quality. The US department of agriculture and interested scientists will likely be looking more deeply at this question.
That depends on whether it is generated from the natural system or from industrial waste. The dictionary is a good source for understanding words... Let's take a look at what Webster has to say.
The goal here is to provide a reasoned context and rebuttal regarding distorted views of the 'ClimateGate' emails. This is simply done by providing relevant context to statements of interest. The crime: A hacker illegally broke into a computer server at the University of East Anglia involving the Climate Research Unit (CRU). As always, context is key. Once the real context is understood, the emails make sense and the idea of conspiracy, scientific malfeasance, or fraud, is revealed to be unfounded.
Rebuttal to Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: Bjørn Lomborg intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated the political will to mitigate climate change and certainly gained recognition and made money on his assertions. He put together his own conference and called it the Copenhagen Consensus. He wrote a book called 'The Skeptical Environmentalist ' for which the Denmark Ministry of Science found him guilty of 'scientific dishonesty'.
Denialist vs. Skeptic: What's the difference? As usual, context is key: Those skeptical of established science are not skeptics, they are denialists. Science is skeptical by it's nature because science doubts opinions and science is not based on opinion or belief, it examines evidence and physics.
"The Denial Machine" was produced in 2006 but the denial machine behind the efforts to confuse the issue of human caused global warming started long before that. It's seeds were planted as far back as 1957 when Dr. Roger Revelle from Scripps Institute of Oceanography produced substantial work showing the implications and increased CO2 in the atmosphere. As the 'Keeling Curve' went up, the denial machine grew larger and more manipulative, and still continues today.
Even Dr. Roy Spencer, who is typically seen to be on the cool it side of the debate says Dr. Ferenc Miskolcz's claims are not supported by his work.
Many claim that in the 1970's all scientists believed the earth was cooling. Factual examination of the controversial report reveals that there was a consensus. The consensus was we don't know enough yet. The confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles indicated that we were to begin a cooling phase, the introduction of industrial greenhouse gases indicated we could interrupt the natural cycle. More study was needed.
Rebuttal to Glenn Beck on Global Warming: A common problem with media personalities is actually multifaceted. They tend to market to their base and they tend to not understand the science and confuse the issue. This results in a battle of science vs. rhetoric. Glenn Beck is an excellent example and exhibits the problem well. Unfortunately, in the media, he is not alone.
Global warming denialists like to say that global warming stopped in 1998. Is it true? No. The warming trend continues. To understand this, one needs to understand that there is a difference between weather and climate. Weather is short term and climate is long term. The long term trend is clear. We are continuing to warm.
The short answer is no, global warming has not stopped. Large amounts of additional heat energy is being transported to the deep ocean by significant recent changes in the OHC (Ocean Heat Content) overturn mechanisms in our climate system. Large scale increases in the tropical zonal winds combined with natural cycle variance such as a negative phase PDO are measurably moving large amounts of heat energy into the deep ocean.
This is an interesting myth because it is very ambiguous. Which part? What percentage? How much warming is human caused v. natural cycle? The problem is it's part true, and part not true, so context is needed. One needs to understand the difference between natural variation and the new path that the climate is on.
The Martin Durkin Film, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', made so many mistakes that after the film was released, the filmmaker was forced to reedit the film. In that process, he removed some of the most blatant mistakes that he had made, but left in some other claims that were also entirely wrong.
Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions: Svensmark has received a fair amount of attention in the denialist world. But why? He says he is being ignored. But Why? Is it because there is a great conspiracy of scientists trying to hide the truth about galactic cosmic rays? Or is that that Svensmarks conclusions were not supported by the work presented? As it turns out, his conclusions were not sufficiently supported.
Global warming denialists claim 'the data is hidden' and 'scientists won't show the code so no one can verify what they are doing. This page has links to all the hidden data and code that has been available the entire time denialists have been claiming it is hidden.
Many denialists have claimed that the Hockey stick was wrong and they can prove it because a congressional subcommittee said it was wrong. Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't think a congressional subcommittee can be wrong? Nevertheless, here we show, and reference, the facts regarding 'The Hockey Stick' and the argument.
John Coleman has claimed that global warming is a hoax and the greatest scam in history. This article is direct rebuttal to the false claims John Coleman has made, and his position on global warming. In summary he simply has no science to support his argument. He uses non sequiturs, red herrings, false dichotomies, and straw man arguments. Our current global warming event is human caused and John Coleman is wrong on so many points that he simply can't be taken seriously on this subject. John Coleman was one of the founders of the weather channel, and is now a weatherman at KUSI 51 in San Diego California.
Ian Pilmer, an Australian geologist, wrote a book of which its premise is described as pointing out that climate research is driven by the prospect of research funding. Generally speaking, institution and government scientists make the same amount of money no matter what they study. Grant funding, unlike bailout money, goes to equipment and research work, not salaries and golden parachutes.
The Loehle Temperature Reconstruction is a narrowly scoped loosely constructed picture that due to its limitations, is deceptive in its depiction of past climate. When placed in context of more strongly validated science it's weaknesses become more obvious. In that sense, one may go as far as to say the paper, in and of itself, is scientifically inappropriate with regard to what it is claimed to represent.
This is a common myth. It sounds sort of logical if you don't understand the contexts involved. The fact is that we receive most of our heat energy from the sun and a little bit from the heat stored in the earths core. But does that mean this global warming event is caused by the sun? No. Here's why:
Was the earth warmer during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than now? No. Regional temperatures do not represent the global temperature. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) temperature graphs that people use to claim otherwise, do not represent the global average temperature.
It's a common mistake people make... the point is not that models 'can' be wrong. The point is models are 'always' wrong. But that does not mean that they are not relevant and useful for understanding how things work.
Did the ocean actually start cooling and global warming stop? The data showed that the Atlantic had gone cold. But the scientist that was looking at the data knew that the inertia of the system should not allow such a thing to happen. But there it was... in the data. Knowing the models and the forces involved he did some more investigating and found something... he looked at his wife and said "Oh, no,". What's wrong?" his wife asked? He replied, "I think ocean cooling isn't real."
Did S. Fred Singer trick Revelle into an association to achieve an agenda? When the sequence of events is examined, the intentions seem to implicate his agenda. "The energy companies reportedly began taking steps to prevent the public from believing that humans are warming the planet" ... "as early as the 1980's". It looks like even then, Singer was working with Michaels, Balling, Ellsaesser and Lindzen.
Rebuttal to Richard Lindzen: In general, to support his contentions that global warming is not a serious threat, Lindzen relies on largely unsupported claims pertaining to well reasoned science regarding forcing and feedback's. Some of his contentions have been reasonably contested and in some cases the opposite of his claims have proven true. He tends to say it won't be so bad, but seems to be largely ignoring the economic costs of moving infrastructure and resource scarcity issues.
Rebuttal to Dr. Pielke Sr. and his opinions pertaining to human caused global warming: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has published a number of respected papers during his scientific career. What is in question is not the body of his scientific work, but rather the lack of substance in his personal opinion. This raises important questions about what to believe when a scientist gives his biased opinion as opposed to what the body of evidence says.
Rebuttal to Ross McKitrick, an economics professor sowing the seeds of doubt regarding human caused climate change and global warming? Much like John Coleman, McKitrick uses red herrings and appeals to your 'the living the good life' theme in order to say the climate scientists are wrong and that they can't really prove anything. Like others, he uses facts out of context to support his unsubstantiated opinions.
S. Fred Singer's early career includes a string of respected positions in the progress and advancement of science. Somewhere along the line, it seems something changed. His efforts apparently turned to advocacy of the agenda of the tobacco, and the fossil fuel industry. The latter part of his career seems to fall in the vein of what might be called a sort of serial denialism with respect to his positions on second hand smoke and human caused global warming.
Many in the denialist camp like to talk about the fact that many temperature reading stations were taken out, and that is why the temperature readings showed global warming. But in reality, this is "Pure disinformation". According to Gavin Schmidt (NASA/GISS) "You can do the same analysis with only stations that remained and it makes no difference."
This is a common denialist/skeptic meme. The reality is that while there are significant complexities in the tropospheric measurements and models, homogenized analysis indicates that the troposphere is doing what is expected of it in accord with the various models and general expectations.
This is a pervasive myth that continues to circulate. The idea that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind through human industrial output is patently false. The facts are clear and measurable. Humans put out on average around 27Gt (Twenty Seven Gigatons) of CO2 per year. Volcanoes put out around .2 Gt (200 million tons of CO2).
Antarctica is losing land based ice and increasing sea based ice.