Arguments Against Climate Change Science

[beso]

Back in 2011 the skeptics claimed the sea level was falling. They are not as keen to discuss it now.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.

The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Have they got anything left to support their case?

[New Judge]

Sir Richard Arkwright invented the "water frame" (which was originally a "Spinning Frame" until it was converted to run on water power) , ludwig. James Hargreaves invented the "Spinning Jenny". But enough of 18th Century textile history. You're quite right, it's not going to change. Although the moribuns EU might persist in faffing about with light bulbs and vacuum cleaners, closing down power stations and with punitively taxing everything that runs on electricity, the "big ticket" producers of emissions will do no such thing.

I had every confidence that beso's arrogance would eventually get the better of him. Unfortunately we extremely ignorant buffoons can only see things as they are and not as he'd like them to be in his Utopian dreamworld. And he still hasn't told us what he'd like us to do to prevent this catastrophe.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Alarmist stories? When was the last time you heard anything about the hole in the ozone layer?
I remember at the time that sceptics were saying that volcanoes accounted for more CFC emissions than aerosols.

[jim360]

ClarionSt, as I've point ought earlier in this thread, even if natural emissions dominate human ones, that doesn't mean that nature is responsible for the recent warming -- because human emissions are representing an extra set of emissions on top of what the planet was "coping with". Thus this means that there are two cases to consider:

1. Human emissions dominate natural ones, and we're responsible.
2. Human emissions are dominated by natural ones, but are tipping the balance over, so that we are responsible.

In both cases we ought to try to clean up our act. And even if we aren't after all tipping the balance over, then we should clean up our act anyway, because it's fundamentally unsustainable.

There is, therefore, no reason not to work to reduce carbon emissions as soon as possible.

[Svejk]

I have the carbon footprint of a vole, so don't have a go at me. But how does paying a billionaire to close steel plants in this country and move them lock-stock to India help anybody? (except Lakshmi Mittal) Blair & Brown used to delight in signing this country to every cockamamey scheme put in front of them. They got the plaudits, we got the bills.

[Khandro]

ClarionSt; Please see my post 11:30 today re. CO2 and volcanoes.
v-e; //When was the last time you heard anything about the hole in the ozone layer?//
You may have not heard about it but it's still there and it will take a long time to repair, - if ever;

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/webpage/Repairing+The+Ozone+Layer

[vulcan42]

So is this wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2753148/Ozone-layer-track-repair-says-scientists-Shield-protects-Earth-Sun-shows-early-signs-recovery.html

[Khandro]

Vulcan; Even though it's the Daily Mail, it isn't 'wrong', it simply says that it is "showing the first signs of recovery".

[beso]

If humans hadn't moved away from using fluorocarbons the Ozone hole would have been far worse then it is now.

Yes it has started showing signs of recovery but it still exists.

[vulcan42]

When and how did we discover there was a hole in the ozone layer?

[beso]

ludwig
//Isn't it simply a fact that climate change is the price we have to pay for industrialisation, and the modern standard of living it brings?

We are never going to give that up and go back to a pre 1750s existence, even if it were possible. //

That is what the advocates of fossil fuels would have you believe. The fact is that we already have the technologies to convert to sustainable energy which will ultimately be far cheaper than fossil fuels.

// Furthermore, the Chinese have only really just got started on that process, got a taste of the wealth and way of life it brings, and aren't going to do a damn thing to change course. //

China is a world leader in the implementation of change to sustainable energy.

[beso]

vulcan42
//When and how did we discover there was a hole in the ozone layer?//

It was in 1984 through satellite measurements. Ironically someone had to go looking for it because the software had been written to ignore any measurements so far from normal levels.

[beso]

ludwig

//We're stuffed then aren't we, because I can't see that changing.//

Yes. Because people won't believe that change is necessary or possible.

We must act now.

[beso]

New Judge
//I had every confidence that beso's arrogance would eventually get the better of him. //

No arrogance. I am just stating the science.

Those who deny the science are arrogant.

[ludwig]

// Sir Richard Arkwright invented the "water frame"//

Thanks judge. It's been a while since I did A level history. Anyway, the rot set in with the invention of the flying shuttle so we can't really blame Arkwright.

[vulcan42]

So the hole in the layer could have been waxing and waning for thousands of years before 1984 and we knew nothing about it? Is it possible it's all quite natural?

[beso]

vulcan42
//So the hole in the layer could have been waxing and waning for thousands of years before 1984 and we knew nothing about it? Is it possible it's all quite natural?//

Except there is no plausible mechanism to explain why it would change.

BTW Some of the prominent climate change deniers also denied the effect of fluorocarbons and the link between smoking and cancer.

[DTCwordfan]

//Except there is no plausible mechanism to explain why it would change.//

Does there have to be? Just be cause we don't know the plausibility doesn't mean that there is one.....Someone needs to study philosophy and logic before pontificating for nigh on 12 hours on here.

Second point: //BTW Some of the prominent climate change deniers also denied the effect of fluorocarbons and the link between smoking and cancer// Name them, these change deniers who have made this assumption or is it yet another one of your wild generalisations reflecting your paranoia? At this point, you denigrate your own plausibility.

Yawn.

[DTCwordfan]

I'm cracking up too....it should read 'Just be cause we don't know the plausibility doesn't mean that there isn't one.' You are having that effect on me, beso; it must be climate change.

[jim360]

CFC's are artificial chemicals with a double-whammy effect. In the first place, they do indeed react with Ozone in a way that weakens the layer. They are also greenhouse gases that are even more potent than Carbon Dioxide.

Again, both effects do occur naturally (ozone depletion can also be caused by, among other things, Nitrous Oxide) but the human emission spiked the rate at which this process occurred. At this point, there is not much arguing about that. Indeed, the recent recovery that tracks the reduction of CFC emissions shows as much.

Arguing that everything is natural and that humans do nothing is an argument that has no basis in any fact, evidence or reason. Natural processes happen. Human influence on the environment also happens. Right now, it is far more of a threat.