President Obama is speaking at the unprecedented UN Climate Conference today. It’s great to see a US President taking a stand on the great issue of our time, but inevitably the Glenn Beck crowd will be out with the usual talking points. “It’s been cooling since 1998!” (It hasn’t.) “Climate change is natural!” (Not this time.) You may even hear these arguments from your friends. So I thought it would be helpful to outline the case for global warming, and explain why it’s so bulletproof.
Surprisingly, it can be hard to argue back to climate change deniers, because anyone who cares enough to actually defend the position that global warming is not real has likely spent time amassing an array of talking points to muddy the waters - talking points that have been repeated and reinforced by Beck, Jim Inhofe, and others. It's nearly impossible to prepare for all of them; some will likely stump you, and some sound so scientific that doubt may even begin to creep into your mind.
Don't let it. The problem with climate change denial arguments is not only that they're wrong, but that they are plain illogical – climate deniers suffer from a cognitive bias called the “Dunning-Kruger effect,” a lack of self-awareness that prevents them from seeing their errors, so don’t let their false confidence fool you. Thus, you don't have to understand the complex science of climatology to speak intelligently on global warming - as long as you know four key facts and have a basic grasp of logical reasoning, you can make a bulletproof case that no skeptic can answer.
None of the evidence here is new, but it's helpful to put it together this way to show how simple the case for global warming really is. So here we go...
FACTS
When I say "fact," I mean it in the scientific sense, "that which is observed." These are the raw observations that no research scientist disputes.
Fact #1: Global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) since records began, with the ten warmest years on record all occurring from 1997-2008. This is not disputed.
Fact #2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; a basic physical property of CO2, repeatedly measured and confirmed since the 1890s, is that it absorbs and emits infrared (heat) radiation, so CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun. This is undisputed.
Fact #3: CO2's concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since the Industrial Revolution, and is now at its highest level in at least 450,000 years (measured in bubbles of air trapped in ice cores). CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii shows an uninterrupted increase since records began in 1959. This is undisputed.
Fact #4: The amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere matches almost exactly with the amount released from fossil fuels (minus the amount that would be taken up by natural carbon sinks). That sounds like a big claim, but miners, drillers, factories, and utilities are, after all, businesses who keep careful records of the fuel they burn, so it's relatively easy to measure. So we know with 100% certainty that the extra CO2 comes from human emissions. This is undisputed.
(If you need further proof, the CO2 released from fossil fuels contains only one isotope of carbon, C-12, because the radioactive C-13 and C-14 atoms found in "natural" CO2 have, in fossil fuels, all decayed over millions of years; sure enough, as you’d expect if the extra CO2 was coming from fossil fuels, the concentration of "natural" C-13 and C-14 is steadily declining.)
So we know for certain that humans are adding significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, that CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, and that temperatures are rising. The logic is inescapable. If you’re a lawyer in a monkey trial, to logically prove that humans are NOT causing the observed increase in temperatures, you would need to prove both of two things:
First, you need to show how it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing. How can the earth absorb more energy from the sun without its temperature rising?
So we know for certain that humans are adding significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, that CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, and that temperatures are rising. The logic is inescapable. If you’re a lawyer in a monkey trial, to logically prove that humans are NOT causing the observed increase in temperatures, you would need to prove both of two things:
First, you need to show how it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing. How can the earth absorb more energy from the sun without its temperature rising?
Second, if CO2 is not causing the observed warming, you need to show what IS. Long-term global temperature change is only caused by an external forcing that causes either more energy to come in from the sun, or less energy to escape back into space; absent a forcing, there’s no temperature change. We know that temperatures are rising, so if it's not the greenhouse effect causing that increase, what is?
The first question regards the sensitivity of the earth's climate to changes in CO2, which requires a scientific background I don't have. If you're interested in learning more, check here and here.
The second is easier to deal with, as long as you can read a graph. The most common alternative to greenhouse gases is the sun. Solar activity, the argument goes, is correlated with past climate changes; therefore, the sun must account for the global warming we see today. The problem is, solar activity has decreased since the 1970s, just as global temperatures have risen the most. So while the sun may have caused PAST climate changes, it cannot be causing TODAY’S.
Remember, a climate skeptic must answer BOTH claims to have a credible point.
Questions? Think I’m an idiot? Leave a comment and I’ll respond or send you a link to the appropriate source.
This is great. I've been arguing with skeptics for awhile, but the discussion usually meanders all over the place.
ReplyDeleteBy sticking to the strict logical argumentation, they can't go off into tangents that don't relate to the premises. Even whether the MWP was warmer or not than today is irrelevant.
Thanks for this!
Thanks. I'm not qualified to get into the details of the science, but I can at least present the logical case based on the science I do know. A couple more posts like this on cap-and-trade are in progress
ReplyDeleteWAG, check out carbon 13 and stable isotope methods.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon-13/
will get you started.
Pete Dunkelberg
Thanks Pete
ReplyDelete"Fact #1: Global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) since records began, with the ten warmest years on record all occurring from 1997-2008. This is not disputed."
ReplyDeleteGlobal temperatures have risen, but poor station siting, station drop out, and urban heat island effect, as well as homogenization of data all contribute to an overstatement of the actual heating. Go look at surfacestations.org to see how poorly sited most of the USHCN stations are. So, as a matter of fact, the temperature record is disputed.
"Fact #2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; a basic physical property of CO2, repeatedly measured and confirmed since the 1890s, is that it absorbs and emits infrared (heat) radiation, so CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun. This is undisputed."
CO2 absorbs radiation in three wavelengths, two of which are also absorbed by water. Nearly all the radiation in these wavelengths is already being absorbed by the atmosphere. As CO2 concentrations increase the marginal increrase in radiation absorbtion decreases asymptotically to zero. You can't absorb more energy of any given wavelength than the sun emits no matter how much CO2 you put in the atmosphere. So while the point is undisputed, it is also of limited utility to understanding the full nature of the situation.
"Fact #3: CO2's concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since the Industrial Revolution, and is now at its highest level in at least 450,000 years (measured in bubbles of air trapped in ice cores). CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii shows an uninterrupted increase since records began in 1959. This is undisputed."
Undisputed, but not particularly relevant. See above.
Also CO2 is not an undisputedly harmful substance to release into the atmosphere. It is, after all, plant food. A significant portion of increase in agricultural productivity and of overall global biomass in C20 is attributable to CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Who's to say, Dr. Pangloss, what is the best of all possible global tempertures or CO2 concentrations? Is 350ppm really the optimal CO2 concentration? Prove it.
"Fact #4: The amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere matches almost exactly with the amount released from fossil fuels (minus the amount that would be taken up by natural carbon sinks). That sounds like a big claim, but miners, drillers, factories, and utilities are, after all, businesses who keep careful records of the fuel they burn, so it's relatively easy to measure. So we know with 100% certainty that the extra CO2 comes from human emissions. This is undisputed."
Base stealing. This is too complex a system to substantiate the claim made. Also, in light of point 2 above, this is a trivial assertion.
SurfaceStations.org actually does not dispute the temperature record. It disputes whether temperature stations have been sited properly, but does not offer evidence that poor siting impacts the temperature record - those are two different points of logic. But scientists have assessed temperature stations in response to SurfaceStations.org, and found that there's no impact on temperature:
ReplyDeletehttp://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Do you really think that Anthony Watts was the first to think that UHI could impact temperature readings? Despite us laypeople thinking that we're uncovering things that climatologists have never thought about, they are well aware of UHI and adjust for it in their temperature readings.
As for "CO2 is plant food," that's the sort of logic a 5 year old might use. Just because CO2 is plant food does not mean it is not warming the planet. The two have nothing to do with each other.
While "CO2 is plant food" does not make any difference concerning whether it is contributing to the temperature of the surface of the earth, it does mean that it is wrong to call it a pollutant.
ReplyDeleteSkeptical Science makes the point that correlation does not always mean causation when looking at the correlation between solar activity and temperatures, but you are bouncing up and down saying "Correlation is proof" when looking at the correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
The 800 year lag in the Vostok Ice Cores proves that CO2 has not been the main force behind climate change in the past; CO2 change is a response to climate change. While CO2 might give a slight boost when it increases, it is not able to keep warming trends going. Temperature starts to drop, and 800 years later, CO2 follows it.
While this shows that CO2 never drove the climate before the 20th century, you seem to need proof that physics hasn't changed.
On ClimateScience.gov, there are two documents that together provide conclusive evidence that the warming of the 20th century was not due to the greenhouse effect. On page 11 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf , a simulation is shown of how different levels of the atmosphere at different latitudes would have changed in temperature over a period of time. Because the greenhouse effect works by gasses in the atmosphere absorbing energy, there MUST be a hot spot a few kilometers up, that has been warming faster than the surface of the earth. If the greenhouse effect caused all the warming.
On page 28 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf , there is a graph of data from radiosonde balloons which have been monitoring the temperatures at different altitudes and latitudes, and it is striking - there is no hot spot.
This essentially proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming.
For further persuasion that carbon emissions did not cause the warming and that the sun did, take a look at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf , especially the graphs on page 1.
Please don't use red herrings to argue against this; the response to the previous anonymous post has no meat.