Obviously, I’m not asking you for your personal position in the debate (nor am I stating mine here.) I am asking where I can find the best concise argument from a source who accepts that a global warming trend is proven by climate data but who claims it is NOT caused by humans to some major degree of significance.
As always, insults are expected but are considered purely optional in addressing the question.
1. NASA Satellite data.
They are two seperate subjects.
I would not trust the same source to answer both questions.
There would be no point in disproving man-made global warming, if you don’t believe in global warming.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
That’s
http://www.cato.org/pubs/
regulation/regv15n2/r
eg15n2g.html
Lindzen, doyen of those still denying the A in AGW (he accepts the GW, of course) (Edit; seems hypnobunny doesn’t and hasn’t been reading the literature for the past 10 years)
And that was in 1992; and not a single ref in this opinion piece to any scientific data.
References :
1. NASA Satellite data.
They are two seperate subjects.
I would not trust the same source to answer both questions.
There would be no point in disproving man-made global warming, if you don’t believe in global warming.
References :
I believe that Paul is incorrect in Lindzen’s views. The link he gave is from 1992 — that is very old in terms of climate research. My understanding of Lindzen’s beliefs is that he believes that global warming will be slower than predicted by the IPCC because tenvironmentent is less sensitive — including in a significant way that clouds are a negative feedback (you can’t have a feedback withoput an initial cause). He does believe that man is causing the warming.
If you ignore the last 30 years, you’ll find some support that much of the warming and cooling this century was due to changes in radiance of the sun. But as I say, the sun cannot explain the past 30 years. There is no current published climate scientist who does not believe that at least part of the warming is caused by man. There is no scientifically supportable explanation for the warming without man in the formula. People will rant about politics, but scientifically there is no other explanation. The subject is not even debated any longer among climate scientists — they are looking now only at the rates and effects of anthropogenic global warming.
References :
http://www.mit.edu/~ysc/index.files/Lindzen&Choi2009GRL.pdf
I accept that there WAS a warming trend from about 1890 to about 1940, and that then there was a cooling trend until the late 1970s, and that then there was another warming trend until the turn of the century, and that since then the temperatures have been flat.
During all that time, atmospheric CO2 concentration increased each year, meaning that there hasn’t really been a good correlation between CO2 and temperature on an annual basis, and we don’t have enough global data to consider more than annual scales.
Correlation does not equal causation, but correlation is a prerequisite to causation – and any correlation is as mentioned above, weak.
References :
Temperatures have not been flat for the last 10 years. This myth is based on the record year of 1998, the warmest on record. This corresponded to an Intense el nino year leading to the high temps.
This is why climate scientist use the annual average data when plotting trends. This smooths out the background noise of events like the 1998 peak, and this years cold winter in certain areas of the northern hemisphere.
When the data is smoothed the warming trend is still there, at about 0.1oC per decade.
References :