There’s nothing new in this attempt at debunking the science behind climate change.
The points brought up in this article are refuted by the scientists here: www.realclimate.org
If there are any specific points you would like to debate, please provide them.
LilShieste
Yes, Augie Auer is smarter than thousands of other scientists. He figured out the largest conspiracy this side of 9/11. Did you know he also sells a large line of exclusive and stylish Hats made out of aluminum foil?
Jim
One of the posters (and they are working climate scientists BTW) at realclimate.org had this to say (Augie Auer is fond of grabbing local cold reports and apply them to the bigger picture, not a very scientific way to do things)
No.
Hey, that’s as much effort as was put into the argument, so that’s as much effort as I’m going to put into the rebuttal.
These guest-posted climate-change-skeptic threads appear in this forum periodically. (Usually a mod flushes them right down the memory hole.) I kind of wonder who’s behind it.
Shh! Do you want to give them evidence that these poor scientists are being suppressed and discriminated against?!
There is no memory hole.
LilShieste
The only threads that get flushed are those by known trolls and sock-puppets or those that are spamming the board for money.
Most one-trick-pony climate debaters who show up, leave on their own when they find no receptive audience.
[Billy Ray Valentine]
May I suggest using a nightstick, officer!
[/Billy Ray Valentine]
Someone (the OP, possibly, possibly this Auer person) needs to learn the difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist - at least, there was a difference between the two at my uni.
Not that I’m buying any of this stuff, but does anyone want to take a shot at addressing some of the points raised in the cite? I’d be interested in learning more myself if anyone would like to take the time:
I sort of know the answer to this one, but if someone would like to give the details?
I’m sure this is misdirection. Is the -18 C correct though? Just curious.
Here’s the thing. Simply stating that, no, GW hasn’t been debunked is like simply claiming that Evolution is true…end of story. Sure, there are some folks (like the OP probably) who simply can’t be reached. However, there are a LOT more folks on the fence, who are silently lurking out there. By dismissing this question because you think its a no brainer you lose the oportunity to reach those folks with real, measured and accurate information that may sway them off that fence. For my part, its mainly due to the efforts of some on this board that MY opinions on this subject have shifted…and I’m always looking to learn more about this subject.
You folks who are simply handwaving this away are (and who actually know something about this subject…enough to talk to it from more than a faith based approach yourself) are, IMHO, missing an oportunity here to talk to all those lurkers and fence sitters out there. Has all this been addressed before? Probably in other threads. So…link to specific posts that address the questions raised.
I think great strides have been made in educating the population about Evolution because people didn’t back away from doing it again…and again, and again and again. GW is going to take that same level of effort. Luckily folks like Al Gore don’t seem to EVER get bored giving the same dog and pony show, over and over again. 
-XT
He probably thinks its kinda important.
I agree, it doesn’t hurt to take these “debunkings” at face value and then discuss them, though I certainly can see where its annoying to respond to every driveby OP
But using the articles numbers, the total warming due to Greenhouse gas is ~32 degrees, and manmade CO[sub]2[/sub] accounts for about .12% of that, or ~.032 degrees. According to Wiki, manmade global warming is supposed to have been ~.7 degress over the last century, so we’re looking at at least an order of magnitude descrepency.
Like most dopers I assume that this been overlooked by a thousand climatologists, and so assume there’s a fallacy in the OP’s article. But what is it? Are the numbers wrong or is “extra” CO[sub]2[/sub] somehow more effective at raising temps then that from natural causes.
I notice that the Wiki Globalwarming aritlce (obviously not the best cite for such a contentious issue) gives much different numbers. CO[sub]2[/sub] is cited as accounting for 9-24% of total warming and as having increased by a third due to human activity. This gives numbers for total temperature rise at a degree or higher.
Water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, with CO2 being variously estimated at between a third and a fifth as potent in terms of the infra-red wavelengths absorbed by its molecular motions. However, the thing about water vapour is that it can easily condense back into liquid, while CO2 remains a gas. And the warming caused by the CO2 allows more water to remain gaseous. This is called a positive feedback, and climate skeptics very rarely account for such feedbacks in their models.
I don’t know, but it sounds feasible.
False. CO2 concentration has increased an enormous 30% in mere decades from digging up carbon stores and burning them, from a long-term average of 280ppm all the way up to over 380ppm today, with the annual rise topping an astonishing 2ppm every year. That is a heck of a lot more infra-red absorbing gas up there which is increasing every year.
The point being that these are also increasing incredibly quickly, and that these gases are far more powerful IR-absorbers molecule for molecule.
Can I trust you to receive the torch from here on, xt?
And note that this figure assumes a zero time lag, such that the warming for all gases released before midnight on 1/1/2000 was bundled into the 0.7 degree figure. For all we know (and the skeptics won’t stop harping on about how uncertain the models are!) we might not yet have measured the all the warming effectively caused by those released gases over 7 years later.
Looked around some more, and almost every cite that I found had a rise in Carbon Dioxide levels of about a half (from 200 to 300ppm), far higher then the 3% claim of the OP’s article. I’m far from an expert, but I imagine the general size of this figure would be pretty well established, measuring CO[sub]2[/sub] levels over recent times doesn’t seem like it would be too difficult in the scheme of things. Again, its interesting that if you use the argument suggested by the author, but replace that number with the generally accepted value, you find that you’d expect a temperature increase similar to that which Global Warming experts claim to observe.
NASA lists the Black-body temperature of the earth as 254.3°K. That’s -18.85°C.
Earth’s average temperature is 288° K (15° C).
The difference comes from internal heat, and the greenhouse effect.
Depends on how you mean that. I’ll be honest…I don’t know enough about this stuff to make more than a faith based assertion that GW is real…and bad. Thats why I look to these threads as oportunities for my own education.
-XT
xtisme is not the only one who does so. I find the rebuttals of the most recent meme usefull in counterarguing some of my relatives.
<raises hand> Meteorology degree holder here, FWIW.
The main problem I have with the OP’s cited article is that this professor seems to me to be making incredibly simplistic arguments for someone who supposedly has a background in atmospheric science. Just as an example, the point about “if there were NO greenhouse effect, the Earth would be at -18 C!” Well, duh. I don’t think there is a global warming “believer” who is well established in climatic science circles who is making the argument that ALL greenhouse effect is bad. The contention has always been, is mankind upsetting the Earth’s already precarious balancing act? I don’t think we’re going to have a runaway greenhouse effect and end up like Venus any time soon, but there is still the question of, how much do we really want to mess with a system (the Earth, its atmosphere) that we don’t fully understand?
On the other side of the coin, something that worries me about the global warming activism group is exemplified by a recent controversy that Dr. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center recently went through:
From: Christopher Landsea - Wikipedia
Aside from the Republican bit, which doesn’t really surprise me, this whole situation troubled me. Landsea is a very respected, very well-established researcher among tropical meteorology circles. The very idea that there may be some over-politicization among a group (the IPCC) that is supposed to be the most impartial panel on climate change issues is cause for concern, as there is the potential for a “cry wolf” syndrome to develop among global warming activists if they’re not careful. Blaming every single hurricane or warm spell or violent tornado on global warming is scientifically irresponsible since climate change can only be perceived, with current research methods, over long periods of time. Considering only the hurricane record since 1970 (which at least one well-debated research paper has done) looks like cherry-picking when the reliable Atlantic hurricane record goes back into the 19th century. Making fantastic but easily refutable arguments for the sake of whipping the public into a frenzy of concern can hurt in the long run, since there is the potential for lost credibility, the support of politicians and, eventually, the support of the public itself. Global warming is a definite cause for concern, but both scientists and politicians need to go about environmental research and regulations in a rational way, and avoid grandstanding for the sake of popular support as much as possible.
So, what are our chances of being hit by a meteor again?
D&R