.
Looking at your reply content:
1. Natural climate factors exist, but are wimpy in changing AND controlling earth's atmospheric temperature since the LIA
2. Solar irradiance is the only real driver of earths temperature variations. At this point in earth history solar radiance is the only first order natural factor governing earths temperature - other natural factors are second or lower order contributors
3. Manmade CO2 placed in the atmosphere is like a temperature control knob - the more ppm levels added the more earth temperature is "driven higher" (increased)
4. Earths last decade of increased temperature is CORRELATED to be the reason for the Modern Warming of earths temperature we have recorded. Meaning, correlation is the causation. Computer models confirm it (althought all models charted do not follow the observed earths temperature for the past 20 years)
5. Trillions of tons of CO2 placed in earths atmosphere HAS TO do something - it's a hugh amount that HAS to. Meaning the vast amount released WILL increase earths temperature.
Sorry, but the above is not correct interptetation of temperature observations on earth and therefore not following the scientific method.
Observation shows no "HAVE TO" increase earths temperature, because the past 16 to 18 years temperature records show no rate - mind you at the highest amount of CO2 placed/present in the atmosphere period on earth.
-"Climate" is defined as a 30 year average. So you can't start talking about shorter time scales when throughout this discussion we have been talking about longer timescales.
-The Earth's atmosphere is still warming up in the last twenty years, just more slowly than expected. This may be because of decreased solar irradiance, or the fact that the ocean is absorbing more CO2 than anticipated.
Based on the physical principles and basic causality you have an "If X, then Y" scenario. But the statement must be somewhat nuanced: "If atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase and there is no other factors considered, then the Earth's average atmospheric temperature will increase."
But, other factors must be considered, like oceanic absorption, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, etc. But
even when you account for those things, the concentration of CO2 is the elephant in the room which nicely accounts for the warming trend.
If the earth heating rate "paused" (flattened out/no further increase in earths temperature) then the down dwelling LWIR returned by the ATM CO2 must not be happening. Right?
Or solar irradiance has decreased slightly. Or the oceans are absorbing much of the excess heat. Its not like because of a slight decrease in the rate of increase in temperature, that we suddenly can just throw out the basic physics of IR spectra and radiation absorption. (And remember, the Earth is not now cooling but rather the
rate of increase has only decreased marginally). This may be because of the decrease in solar irradiance starting around 2000 until 2010.
The irradiance is now increasing again as the 11-year solar cycle starts up again.
These are small pauses and increases. Very minor when looking at long term (aka 30+ year) trends. The elephant in the room still lingers...
We cannot have from about 40 to 100 ppm manmade CO2 take over (become responsible) for the majority of the heating of earth we observed in the 20th century but in the first 14 years of the 21st century at about 110 ppm CO2 no continue to raise earths temperature. Right.
You're focusing too much on short term variations which are likely due to 11-year sunspot cycles.
You can see on the above plot that there are roughly decadal ups and downs but the upward trend on longer time scales (30+ year averages) is undeniably upwards.
Elephant in the room?
Let's look at the data and observations. They show CO2 IS NOT first order influence on earths temperature. It cannot be since the earth has experienced "a Pause" in the rate of heat up. And should it be called "a Pause"?
Have you ever invested in stocks? If you go to
Google Finance and type in a company name, you can very easily scroll to view the companies performance on different time scales: 1 day, 5 day, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, etc.
If you are investing in a long-term stock, do you look at the 1 day trend or the 10 year trend?
When talking about climate change, you have to look at longer term trends. Yes there has been a slight pause. There was a "pause" in the 1910s, the 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s. But look at this graph and tell me if you can discern a conspicuous trend:
Elephant in the room?
But you state above that as the CO2 increased in earths atmosphere it accounted for and induced about two-thirds of the earths increased temperature experienced in the 20th century - that would be a serious first order control in inducing temperature increase of earth. But it stopped heating, by observation of measurement data.
The hypothetical "CO2 took over the observed heating up of the earth" is not backed by true observation, only by temporal correlation, since in the past 16 to 18 years correlation can not be applicable.
.
What should we do about the observed increase in temperature?
What implications are there in a warmer world?
What should we do about our habits of overconsumption and insatiable appetite for using up Earth's resources?
These are the questions we should be asking and discussing in political and environmental circles. This insistent denialism (which serves no purpose) is a distraction.
Scientists are like lawyers, in that we can hire them to prove whatever nonsense we want to pay to say is right.
