Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

Once again sorry for being laconic in my last post, I will now do my best to discuss arguments in more detail. I will use numbering of sources from previous post to save space and new sources will start with no. 10. ==ARGUMENTS== CA1) SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS My opponent tries to convince us, that all serious scientists agree with AGW, that those who disagree are black sheep of science who cannot understand complexity of climate science. His contempt for meteorologists is unjustified. They are not just some TV weathermen, but specialists concerning atmospheric phenomena and they do experimental measurements in atmosphere. For example Prof. of meteorology Richard S. Lindzen is active and eminent climatic researcher and member of IPCC 2001 (note that many of scientists listed in IPCC actually disagree). Skeptics John. R. Christy (IPCC 2001) and Roy W. Spencer are PhDs in meteorology and atmospheric sciences winning NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal 1991 for global temperature monitoring work with satellites. There are Nobel Prize winner's skeptical of AGW Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin (and that was no crappy Peace Nobel Prize). I could waste my whole space just posting names of eminent skeptical scientists, but that would be pointless. Consensus can be easily crafted by selection of sources (Curious readers may see [10]). Everyone can search in presented sources and see for himself. Where my opponent argues for facts and evidence in opposition to opinions, he presents just a source with collected opinions. Lets look at the facts now... CA2) WARMING TRENDS, PAST Pro points at the cold period 16.000 years ago and Medieval Warming Period (MWP) 1000 years ago, but he unfortunately miss the point. What Prof. Carter presents is how can arbitrary choice data give arbitrary results. The emphasis is on the graph of recent 2000 years which gives enough detail to show temperature fluctuation trend. See 2000 ago, 1500 ago and 1000 ago and now and see the magnitudes and rates of temperature change. Pro also ignores the next cited graph including natural warm periods and little ice ages periodicity (in which 20th century warming fits) and graph of rates of change. These however conflict with his notion that recent warming cannot be blamed on natural phenomena so I challenge him to cover these. MWP will be dealt with separately in CA7. CA3) SURFACE MEASUREMENTS BIAS It is already in my sources, but I will point to paper [11] cited in [3] chapter 3 dealing with surface measurements and NASAs "homogenization" of data. See section 5 "Bias In Adjustments by NOAA and NASA". In section 6 Watts say: "...This means 89 percent – nearly 9 of 10 – of the stations surveyed produce unreliable data by NOAA's own definition." In section 7 he concludes: "The findings and recommendations of these highly respected and influential scientific and political organizations are now in doubt." and "Users of the current USHCN data should be advised of the quality-control issues so that they may reexamine results derived from such data." Those data are still used used by alarmists, notably the IPCC. It was also used to support "Hockey stick" graph. For history of satellite measuring and data corrections up to 2009 see [3] subsection 3.5. CA4) SOLAR CYCLES I fail to see Pros sources back his position on that sun spot cycles being constant. BTW second source ("data from thermometers") see CA3. [8] claims 0.1% increase in sun energy output, but also: Lower sun magnetic strength (-> less sunspots and) -> Less solar wind -> More cosmic rays -> More low-level cloud formation -> cooling. See also Svensmark hypothesis and falsification tests [12]. NASA actually acknowledges solar cycle being responsible for past warming [12] to some extent. CA5) GH FINGERPRINT Oh come on... so the IPCC CO2 model predictions are flawless, but the instrumental measurements that does not match are wrong? See [3] page 107, Fig. 3.4.2 (IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 675) and Fig 3.4.3 (CCSP 2006, p.116). Natural sciences unlike social sciences or mathematics cannot rely just on a priori axioms (see austrian economics epistemology ^_^). CA6) CO2 and TEMPERATURE CYCLES I don't understand how Pro mean to convince us of CO2 being the leader in the cycle with his extremely low resolution graph that is obviously not raw data but a significant simplification. See abstract [14] (unless you want to pay for full paper). CO2 lags behind temperature at least 200-800 years. For summary of other papers see [15]. I beg my opponent a pardon, my source [9] backs my claim: "As the sea temperature has increased, so has the carbon dioxide level. This reflects the normal solubility relationship between carbon dioxide and water. As the sea temperature increases, the oceans breathe out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." This also support notion of temperature being leader in the cycle. Perhaps Pro should pay more attention to sources, it would save us misunderstandings. CA7)MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD Pro shows graph that mostly consists of computer models. Direct measurements cover less that last 200 years and are dealt with in CA3. I made explicit citation of figures in [3] and I again make emphasis on figures 3.2.5 and 3.2.4. It shows how many studies say MWP was warmer then today (and how many say MWP was cooler) and how much respectively. I again beg Pro not to ignore my sources. At least not direct citations of figures. CR1) CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECT I accept CO2 is minor GH gas, I just argue its significance. I don't have space to describe fully the phenomena, but [16] very nicely describes the science behind hyperbolic relation between CO2 and GH gas forcing. Note: Fig.5 blue line is generous assumption that CO2 and H2O vapor are equally strong GH gases, which is not the cause [1b] Fig. 18. But there are some direct negative feedbacks on temperature caused by higher CO2 levels – notably higher use of NO2 and emision of carbonyl sulfate by plants [3] chapter 2 sections 2.2, 2.5. CR2) FOSSIL FUELS See [1b] Figs. 1, 3, 11 and 13 (especially 13 as it covers major phenomena during industrialization). CR3,4) FEEDBACKS Pro merely miss a point again. I just say there are minor positive and major negative feedbacks (to internal and external natural warming forcings) taking place in earth's climatic fluctuation. It means "natural climatic fluctuation happens and is moderated by negative feedback effects". If positive feedbacks had the potential to create warming apocalypse, it would have happened several times, yet it always cooled again despite high CO2 levels (see CA6, CO2 lags behind temperature). For weakening CO2 sinks see [16] Carbon Dioxide Levels: "..the carbon dioxide buffers are in dynamic equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide and are not in any danger of being saturated..." and as far as flora is concerned, see [3] chapter 7 at least in summary "Key findings by chapter". Plants are clearly not saturated. ==Conclusion== I am seriously out of space now and I cannot cover every issue in more detail with my words so I ask my opponent to actually look into presented sources. Pro's comments regarding my conduct and sources are hypocritical and unjustified rhetoric. ==SOURCES== [10] http://www.philosophical-investigations.org... [11] Watts (2009): http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... [12] Svensmark hypothesis: https://calderup.wordpress.com... [13] Dailytech cites NASA: http://www.dailytech.com... [14] Timing of Atmospheric CO2...: http://www.sciencemag.org... [15] Co2 cause or effect?: http://www.abd.org.uk... [16] Facts on Global Warming: http://brneurosci.org...