http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
OM
If you take into account solar activity and the Asian Brown Cloud, are they still diverging?
The phrasing of the question is interesting. You start with "Climate Change" (CC) then specify "human induced climate change". In fact, the problem is Global Warming (GW) and not just GW but Dangerous and Anthropogenic GW (DAGW). I say this because the science linking to CC seems to be AGW only. If the climate cools they have to pretend it is caused by GW. If it gets wetter it is GW. The only science they can quote is GW.
CC, on the other hand, is not measured. There is no CC index. In fact, as you point out, it has always happened. So stating DAGW in terms of CC can be seen as an attempt by the politicians and activists to skew the argument.
The sceptic view is summed up quite well by Dr Bob Carter in this link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/gl... the main points are below:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consider the following tests:
(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.
In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.
Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.
One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
You are correct, the debate is about "man-made" Global Warning --- not global warming. It's true there has been a little natural warming over the last several decades but it was NOT caused by human activity.
The fact is, man-made Global Warming advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:
1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.
2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:
3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.
4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.
5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2013 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.
6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.
7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)
8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.
9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And good science has revealed that no correlation exist to show CO2 drives warming. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.
See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.
Polar Bears are doing fine:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...
Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...
Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)
http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...
Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...
Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...
Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...
For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The main argument I use is that CO2's warming effect logarithmically diminishes with concentration, it is the first 0 to 100ppm that has done nearly all the warming, double our CO2 now would hardly have a noticeable effect, fractions of a degree C only.
When you realize that, you can see that all the talk of water vapor and positive feedbacks, tipping points and hotspots is all B.S.
Climate models vs observations are diverging:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/blogupl...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/u...
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/figure-142.png
no valid arguments against it exist
I ONLY want some answers from people who don't believe in Climate Change. The climate is always changing, it has gone in cycles for centuries, but I'm talking about human induced climate change. We wouldn't be trying to reduce our global emissions (CO2 etc) if we thought it was natural.
I want to hear some good arguments from you anti-climate change people.
no valid arguments against it exist
I ONLY want some answers from people who don't believe in Climate Change. The climate is always changing, it has gone in cycles for centuries, but I'm talking about human induced climate change. We wouldn't be trying to reduce our global emissions (CO2 etc) if we thought it was natural.
I want to hear some good arguments from you anti-climate change people.
