Climate change

The theory that CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming is based upon computer models that were derived under errant assumptions. The models have completely failed to predict the observed changes in climate. If CO2 was a significant cause of global warming, and CO2 theorists were correct that nothing else is presently affecting climate, then the predictions should have inescapably fallen into line. Over a period when the earth was supposed to warm by 5 degrees, it actually cooled by 3 degrees. In the history of the earth, the climate has warmed and cooled with apparent complete independence of CO2 levels. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were twelve times higher than at present. In the period of the Holocene Optimum, about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than CO2 models predict the earth will become in the future, but there was no human-produced CO2 to be blamed. The Holocene optimum was a time of human prosperity, and the polar bears paddled through it quite nicely. I presented scientific references in support of every one of these claims. Pro has not rebutted a single one of these assertions. He completely ignored most of them. Instead he focused on (1) asserting that the existence of the IPCC report proves a consensus among scientists, and that a consensus established scientific fact. He also (2) impugned the integrity of scientists who did not accept CO2 theory, claiming that the had all been bought off by the oil companies. Finally, he argued (3) that the climate on Venus proved that CO2 was a significant determinant of climate on present day earth. The IPCC Report The IPCC Report exists, however there is no evidence that it represents a consensus among climate scientists, or, more importantly that it represents the overwhelming consensus that Pro claims. I claimed that the IPCC was a political organization with only 30% of the members being actual climate scientists, that the report conclusions were written by a small number of people who required authors of individual sections to support their conclusions, that report was not subject to peer review, and that the contributing scientists were not allowed to vote on the accuracy of the report. Pro did not rebut a single one my claims; he only claimed that those criticisms were inconclusive. I provided reference to the book by Michaels on the IPCC process, the statements of John Christy (a lead author of the IPCC report), and the statement of Landsea, the hurricane expert who resigned in protest when the IPCC central committee changed his conclusion that hurricane activity was unrelated to CO2. Pro provided no contrary evidence. Climate change was recently debated by William Schlesinger and John Christy, both qualified climate scientists. http://www.johnlocke.org... Schlesinger claimed the IPCC report showed the kind of consensus Pro also claimed. Christy told the audience that as a lead author he knew it was political. After the debate, a question from the audience asked Schlesinger what percentage of the IPCC was composed of climate scientists. Schlesinger replied that there were many aspects to the science and that he didn't know for sure, but that "perhaps 20% had something to do with climate." This from a strong proponent of the theory. (Debate fans might find the whole debate worth watching. I think Christy won handily, and so did the audience.) The Integrity of Dissent Pro made the claim that the oil industry sponsored most of the research contradicting CO2 theory. I pointed out that NASA alone poured more that a hundred times Exxon's measly $1.6 million in the quest to prove CO2 theory. Counting all the sponsorship on both sides, the weight of sponsorship is undoubtedly many hundreds of times in favor of supporting CO2 theory. So I asked how it could be that opponents were easily corrupted, while proponents were immune. Pro did not respond beyond the implication that oil companies were evil. Beyond that I challenged Pro to explain how the peer review process for scientific journals allowed what Pro claimed to be bogus research to be published. Pro ignored my challenge and failed to provide any explanation as to how the peer review process was somehow corrupted. I think that scientists are subject to group think like others in society, but that the peer review process is fundamentally honest. Dissenting papers are published because they present data and analysis that stands up to scrutiny. Pro has no explanation that supports his theory of bogus science. The peer review process means that it makes no difference who sponsors research, the results stand on their own. Is Earth Like Venus? Pro originated the discussion of Venus, claiming that the temperature on Venus proved Earth's climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2 levels. I pointed out that 3500 times as much CO2 only produced a 150 degree rise, so it certainly didn't prove climate was sensitive to CO2. Pro responded that even though it wasn't sensitive overall, it might be sensitive at low levels. Yes, it might be, but is it? I presented a scientific paper that provided the physical basis for CO2 effects on earth, and then fit the actual data from the 20th century to the curve shape. The result showed that doubling CO2 on earth would produce less than a two degree temperature rise. In the detailed analysis, the curve on Venus would be different because (1) unlike Venus the dominant greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, and (2) the atmosphere on Venus is about 100 times as dense. One might expect Pro to respond with a scientific paper on the CO2 theory as applied to earth's atmosphere that derives a different result. He did not. Pro simply asserted he was correct. I have looked for such a paper and never found one either. This is consistent with my assertion that CO2 theory does not derive from any simple physical theory, but rather from tweaking multiplier coefficients in computer models. I also referenced climate scientists (Spencer et al) that tweaking is how CO2 theory is derived. Throughout the debate, Pro referenced dubious Wikipedia articles, blog posts, and popular press articles instead of articles written by climate scientists. I challenged Pro several time to reference scientists and to point out exactly where in his references I could find support for his claims. He did not respond to any challenge. --- Pro's asserts CO2 is "significant" if it justifies enacting cap and trade legislation. Since past warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the much warmer Holocene Optimum were prosperous times for humanity, by that criteria the resolution fails even if CO2 causes global warming in the amounts postulated by the latest IPCC report. Besides, cap and trade does not lower CO2 levels, so it is never justified. I would allow a lesser criteria for "significant," perhaps if half of global warming were due to CO2. If it were only half, that would be a devastating blow to the theory, since advocates claim there is no other source of climate change at present. If one looks at the observed climate data, it is unlikely that more than 10 percent is due to CO2. CO2 is increasing slowly and smoothly, but world temperatures are moving largely independently, with the last decade showing if anything a slight downward trend. If CO2 were to account for as much as half of climate change, the past decade would have shown a significant increase. The irradiance (heat output) of the sun also fails to explain climate change. Right now the best bet is that it changes in the sun's magnetosphere that drives climate. That tracks well with past and present climate. The Little Ice Age, for example, corresponded to a period of no sunspots. However, if that is not the significant factor in climate, then something unknown other than CO2, is. The resolution is negated.