Trevor

Several questions, sometimes the answers only require an opinion rather than a factual response. I’m using the term “side” to identify those who are sceptical of manmade global warming and those who accept it is happening.

Please try to answer accurately, rather than giving the answer you would like to be case.

1) Which side is most likely to rely on politics rather than science?

2) Which side makes the most convincing arguments?

3) Which side is most likely to resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks and other non-argumental techniques?

4) Which side is most likely to avoid the issue of climate change by using distraction techniques or simply avoiding the issue?

5) Which side relies most on science, evidence and fact?

6) Which side relies most on pseudo-science, supposition and opinions?

7) Which side is most likely to rely on copying and pasting from their favoured websites (asking what’s already been asked elsewhere or using someone else’s comments/responses).

8) Which side displays the greater levels of honesty and integrity?

9) Which side is the most knowledgeable about climate change?

10) Which side is best able to verify the claims they make?

This question relates specifically to those questions that are asked in the global warming section of YA.

In this, the global warming section of YA, some of the questions are based more on politics than science, some are seeking opinions, some require factual answers, some require detailed scientific answers, some are easy whereas others are hard, some are about global warming others are about weather or climates in general. Which type of questions do your prefer, and why.

Please also see my fourth and final question (for now).

This follows on from my previous question.

Below are 12 questions about climate change, you don’t need to answer the actual questions (you can if you wish) but please say whether you would answer them if they were asked on YA. Answers like yes, no, maybe, doubtful, I’d try… are all that’s needed.

I’m asking this out of interest more than anything else.

Please also see my next question as it’s related to this one.

Here’s the pseudo questions:

1) Is the issue of global warming more about politics than science?

Would you answer this question?

2) In simple terms, how does the greenhouse effect work?

Would you answer this question?

3) Should Al Gore and the IPCC have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

Would you answer this question?

4) By how much has the Earth warmed in the last 100 years?

Would you answer this question?

5) How does a dynamic climatology differ from a synoptic climatology?

Would you answer this question?

6) Why has the Arctic warmed more than the Antarctic?

Would you answer this question?

7) Is it true that the Arctic sea-ice has shrunk in recent years?

Would you answer this question?

8) How does the beat frequency of lunar apsides affect paleoclimatological temperature proxies?

Would you answer this question?

9) Is manmade global warming a good thing or a bad thing?

Would you answer this question?

10) Are sea-levels rising faster now than before the start of manmade global warming?

Would you answer this question?

11) How would you calculate the radiative exchange as a component of a boundary layer climatology?

Would you answer this question?

12) If greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere, then what stops the world from overheating?

Would you answer this question?

This question follows from an observation Ottawa Mike made the other day…

There are quite a few questions in the Global Warming section of YA and they typically get about 10 responses. However, when a question of a scientific nature is asked there are very few responses, and often the responses that are garnered make no attempt to answer the question.

I know there are some who answer these types of questions (Darwinist, Jeff M, Pegminer etc), but few others. Why do you suppose that is?

Please also see my next question as it follows on from this.

There are many claims as to why manmade climate change is a hoax, or it’s exaggerated, or it’s not a cause for concern etc.

Almost always the arguments that are commonly put forward have their origins in the fuel industry sponsored propaganda campaign of a few years ago, something that the fuel industry itself has publicly admitted to and apologised for.

Putting aside the nonsense arguments, what are some of the genuine reasons to be skeptical of manmade global warming, or to at least to question our current understanding of it.

There are numerous that I’m aware of, I wondered if you had any others.

Remember, genuine reasons only.

For years many of the climate change skeptics were telling us that global warming didn’t exist (it was a lie, invented by Al Gore, tax scam etc). Now we have a situation where many of the same skeptics are saying that global warming has stopped.

But how can something that never existed, have stopped?

It seems some of the skeptics have got themselves in a bit of a muddle, especially those who simultaneously make both claims.

At the moment there are parts of the world that are cooler than usual (Russia for example) and other parts that are warmer (Australia for example).

There seems to be a significant number of questions and answers from climate change skeptics who are citing the cold weather as evidence against the global warming theory. But at the same time, I have seen little reference to the hot weather as being proof of global warming.

Why do you think this might be? Please be rational and stay on-topic.

I had a read through some of the recent questions and answers and it’s very obvious that many people who comment on the issue of climate change really don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. There are a great many errors that are made, often these are basic scientific errors – the sort of stuff that really should be learned at school.

If a person has such a poor comprehension of the science of climate change, and science in general, what qualifies them to pass judgement on the issue? Further, why do some people present statements in a factual manner when in reality they have such little comprehension of the subject in hand (and invariably get it wrong)?

I have refrained from citing examples but they’re not hard to find.

The claim that the Earth is about 6,000 years old seems to have gained popularity in recent times, what I’d like to know is how the adherents of YEC respond to claims that Earth is much older.

Specifically, what explanation or counter arguments are used to rationalise plate tectonics, radio carbon dating, sedimentary deposits and ice-cores, fossil fuels, the size and expansion of the universe, the speed of light, tree ring records and the myriad of other things that indicate the world is substantially older.

So far most of my enquiries have met with responses such as ‘just accept it’ or ‘because it is’. However, as a scientist I find such responses to be unsatisfactory. I would prefer considered explanations backed up with rational and demonstrable evidence, and this is where I’m hoping you can assist.

I’ve listed several points, should you wish to just address one or two of them then that will be quite in order. Thank you.

Earth’s atmospheric temperature is never static and throughout history there have been significant warming and cooling events. In the distant past the planet has been frozen solid whilst at other times palm trees have grown in the polar regions and there’s been no ice anywhere. Then of course there’s the ‘ice-ages’ that come and going approximately once every 100,000 years.

A thousand years ago Earth’s temperature peaked during the Medieval Warm Period it then spent the next 700 years cooling as we entered the Little Ice Age.

All these changes, and more, relate to variations in the amount of total solar irradiance (energy from the Sun) that we receive.

In the last 100 years or so, how much has the planet warmed in comparison to any of the natural variations? What is total solar irradiance doing now – is it increasing, decreasing or staying the same?

Please keep your answer relevant and provide actual figures. Example: in the last X years Earth has warmed by Y°C, in the same period during such and such an event it warmed by Z°C.

Looking at the responses from climate change skeptic and deniers I can’t help but notice that they have a propensity to quote politicians, journalists, bloggers and others with no relevant knowledge of the climatic systems of our planet.

With millions of scientists in the world working in fields that relate to global warming and climate change, there must be no shortage of experts who can provide evidence that climate change is not being influenced by human activities.

Please can you name some of the suitably qualified or experienced people who refute the theory of manmade global warming? It would also be interesting to know their field of expertise and, if possible, why they question global warming.

Please note, I’m a climate scientist myself so please avoid silly answers such as ‘they’re afraid to speak up’ or ‘their work gets discarded’, the reality is quite the opposite.

This is one of five questions I’m asking, please see my other questions.

Thanks in advance to all who answer.

Please indicate the arguments that you think are valid reasons to refute the accepted theory of global warming.

In doing so please put your arguments into their correct context and explain why you consider your points to be valid together with the requisite supporting evidence. For example, saying global warming is caused by natural cycles is meaningless unless you can identify which natural cycles and how they are influencing the climate.

This is one of five questions I’m asking, please see my other questions.

Thanks in advance to all who answer.

The basic principle behind global warming and climate change is that greenhouse gas molecules have the ability to retain heat within the atmosphere. They do so because they vibrate at a frequency that corresponds to the wavelength of outgoing thermal radiation.

This is something that is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, these laws are universal and invariable. There’s no getting around the fact that the more greenhouse gases there are the more heat will be retained.

I’m aware that the skeptics and deniers tend to avoid the science of global warming but I’m hoping some of them will at least attempt to disprove the laws of QM or provide some alternative and demonstrable hypothesis.

This is one of five questions I’m asking, please see my other questions.

Thanks in advance to all who answer.

Looking at the responses from climate change skeptic and deniers I can’t help but notice that they have a propensity to quote politicians, journalists, bloggers and others with no relevant knowledge of the climatic systems of our planet.

With millions of scientists in the world working in fields that relate to global warming and climate change, there must be no shortage of experts who can provide evidence that climate change is not being influenced by human activities.

Please can you name some of the suitably qualified or experienced people who refute the theory of manmade global warming? It would also be interesting to know their field of expertise and, if possible, why they question global warming.

Please note, I’m a climate scientist myself so please avoid silly answers such as ‘they’re afraid to speak up’ or ‘their work gets discarded’, the reality is quite the opposite.

This is one of five questions I’m asking, please see my other questions.

Thanks in advance to all who answer.

Frequently we are told, quite unequivocally, that the current global warming is caused by natural cycles. Obviously then, someone has identified which cycles are involved and determined how they’re affecting our climate.

That being so, can someone please tell me which cycles are involved and what the climatic effect is throughout the full course of the cycle. For example, what is the cycle called, what causes it, when will it revert to a cooling trend, how much more warming is still to come, when did it last happen; and please provide the numbers as well.

This is one of five questions I’m asking, please see my other questions.

Thanks in advance to all who answer.

The universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, the radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light years.

Can this apparent anomaly be explained by redshifting, as is sometimes claimed to be the case?

If so, when is a photon redshifted? If all photons in a beam of light are redshifted then C wouldn’t equal C at all, unless C is a value that includes redshifting (does it?), in which case, the explanation of photons travelling 46 billion light years in 13.7 billion years isn’t valid.

Can anyone assist with this and clarify the time/distance anomaly and put the role of redshifting into context?

Just been talking to a friend about why some people are skeptical of the theory of manmade climate change. Whilst we were able to recall many arguments that have been presented by the skeptics, there were only three we could think of that had any real validity to them.

• Which of the skeptics arguments are genuinely valid? Not what you think are valid, not what you wish were valid, but those that have not been reliably debunked and therefore merit serious consideration.

Feel free to list as many arguments as you wish but be sure to explain them, in context, and with suitable citations, sources, links etc.

There are many arguments that people on both sides of the climate change debate use when presenting their case. It seems they come from a variety of different sources, some more credible than others.

I would be interested to know where you got your information from and what steps did you take to verify the accuracy of that information.

For some time now it’s been a regular argument that natural cycles are the cause of much of, and in some cases all of, the warming that’s been observed in recent decades.

On several occasions an explanation of these cycles has been requested and I’m not aware that one has been forthcoming – not just on Answers but in the wider world as well.

Given that this is a popular argument from some climate change skeptics, and is one that has been around for a good number of years, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect an explanation to be forthcoming. Therefore, I would request any skeptic to explain which natural cycles are responsible for the recent warming.

I would be most interested in knowing which cycle(s) is responsible, the effects it has upon Earth’s climate and the time-scales involved.

I think it’s a reasonable assertion that it is necessary to understand something about climate change in order to comment upon the subject.

Without some competency of the subject then all one can do is repeat what others have said. This being the case, then one has no validation in place and no way of verifying the accuracy of the statements being made.

So, how much do you actually know about climate change? What relevant qualifications, experience and / or skills do you have?

And, if you don’t know all that much, then how do you know that what you’re saying is accurate.

Please also state how strongly you accept or reject the theory that humans are responsible for much of the observed warming in the past 100 years.