global warming may take a decade off

[MikeCarra]

I simply don't fall for the Chicken Little science approach

Shouldn't you have to know something about science beyond what you got in junior high before you can decree the parts of science you disagree with?

which is clearly used to compel compliance with the ideology of certain people. As I said, it's all about power and control and nothing to do with the climate actually changing

LOL. OK. We get it. You aren't going to bother to understand the science and you'll let your favorite denialist bloggers tell you what to think.

Got it!

 

[MikeCarra]

You forgot about actual climate change, which remains speculative

Well, of course, the climate is changing (massive unheard of warming in the arctic, exactly where predicted it would be), ice sheet loss, shifting agricultural growing bands moving north, etc. etc.

Oh, yeah, and the fact that the First Law of Thermodynamics is being held to pretty well! Increase the energy absorbing content of a body, add energy and the energy FAILS TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE ETHER.

Science is really pretty cool. And it is a hard task master. Even powerful denialist bloggers can't fight it effectively unless their audience refuses to learn even basic science.

The power of the denialist movement is the audience ignorance.

And when you give them that there's NOTHING they can't do!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Does global warming taking a decade off have to do with this wimpy solar cycle that we are in the peak of right now?

 

[AirPo]

I already quoted it, go look it up. I also suggest following the conversation which you were not a part of.

No you didn't. You quoted something but it wasn't "no such thing as science."

 

[AirPo]

Does global warming taking a decade off have to do with this wimpy solar cycle that we are in the peak of right now?

No.

 

[MachZer0]

Does global warming taking a decade off have to do with this wimpy solar cycle that we are in the peak of right now?

As per a link I posted earlier, nature controls the climate, not man

 

[MikeCarra]

As per a link I posted earlier, nature controls the climate, not man

It must be so nice to be able to so blithely ignore all the rest of the data except that which makes you feel good.

 

[AirPo]

As per a link I posted earlier, nature controls the climate, not man

Based on that illogic we can conclude that it's OK to play with matches since lightning starts forest fires.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Earth's atmosphere is not like a "greenhouse" as no such glass dome exists. So please do not use flawed analogies.

This demonstrates that you simply don't understand the mechanisms in play.

This is a picture taken by an IR camera. Thre is a transparent (to white light) bottle sitting in front of an IR heat source, and as you can see it blocks the IR source. Glass blocks IR.

What does this mean? White light passes through the glass of a greenhouse and heats the interior. The interior emits that heat as IR. That IR is bounced back into the greenhouse, keeping the interior warmer that it otherwise would be. That is how a glass greenhouse works.

The greenhouse gases in the atmopshere WORK IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. That is why they are called greenhouse gases.

If you don't understand even the basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, then you have absolutely no business critiquing climatology papers.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did. It doesn't support the case for global warming.

Why doesn't it? Why doesn't the increase in gases that produce a greenhouse effect support global warming?

Explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

No such valid survey exists nor has any such consensus been shown.

I already referenced the peer reviewed paper with that survey. Are you just ignoring it?

"Figure 3. Responses shown as percentages of agreement and disagreement about the dominant influence of GHGs on global warming, based on responses to Q3 (qualitative GHG contribution) and Q1 (quantitative GHG contribution). Also shown are the percentages of responses for the answer options “unknown”, “I do not know”, and “other”, combined and labeled as “undetermined”. These answer options were much more prevalent for the quantitative question (Q1). The level of agreement increases for respondents with increased self-declared number of peer-reviewed climate-related publications and is highest for AR4 WG1 authors."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

For climatologists with more than 10 publications there is about a 90% agreement that humans are causing warming. The most disagreement is how much warming humans are causing, but there is no doubt that there is a strong consensus that we are causing warming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does global warming taking a decade off have to do with this wimpy solar cycle that we are in the peak of right now?

Global warming isn't taking a decade off. We are STILL much warmer than we would be without the human caused increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

[Loudmouth]

If everyone follows that advice, there will be no more global warming threads

We already demonstrated that when we increase the carbon dioxide in controlled atmospheres that temperature increases. Why are you ignoring the controlled experiments?

 

[MachZer0]

We already demonstrated that when we increase the carbon dioxide in controlled atmospheres that temperature increases. Why are you ignoring the controlled experiments?

You haven't demonstrated that there is man made global warming or climate change. You're using evidence of one thing to make conclusions about another

 

[AirPo]

You haven't demonstrated that there is man made global warming or climate change. You're using evidence of one thing to make conclusions about another

Sure he has.

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't demonstrated that there is man made global warming or climate change. You're using evidence of one thing to make conclusions about another

Do yo agree or disagree that increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat?

 

[MikeCarra]

You haven't demonstrated that there is man made global warming or climate change. You're using evidence of one thing to make conclusions about another

Interesting. So it is becoming more clear what Mach's game is.

Let me take a stab at telling you what it is (because Mach won't)

You will have to provide PERFECT evidence that a society over the course of 150 or so years producing as much greenhouse gas as humans have done on this earth over the past 150 years, to change the climate in exactly the same way as the current climate has changed.

That will mean you will have to have the following things:

1. ANOTHER earth in exactly the same orbital configuration as the current earth going back 150 years

2. ANOTHER Sun in exactly the same states of solar flux and sunspot cycles going back 150 years

3. ANOTHER group of humans on this other earth producing exactly the same amount of greenhouse gases at the exact same rate as we have for 150 years.

At that time you will have a "controlled" experiment to compare with this one.

But Mach would probably also be a "stickler" for STATISTICAL ROBUSTNESS so this will have to be repeated at least 3-5 additional times.

I suggest we run them in parallel (otherwise that is 450-750 years worth of invested time), but this WILL cost a lot of money since we will have to create about 3-5 ADDITIONAL EARTHS and 3-5 ADDITIONAL SUNS.

Otherwise we simply cannot know ANYTHING about ANYTHING!

Mach is right. Science is all a lie and we can know NOTHING. This is why sciences like GEOLOGY is such a failure it has only been able to oversee the most expansive advancement in fuels and material goods in human history. But it, too, requires we understand how earth works.

And we clearly can't do that with just one earth.

So if we are all REAL scientists (like Mach is) we should get right on it and start doin' our jobs!

 

[MikeCarra]

Do you agree or disagree that increasing the carbon dioxide in a controlled atmosphere captures more heat?

I'm up for all of us simply reposting this question for Mach until he answer it:

Mach, Do you agree or disagree that increasing the carbon dioxide in a controlled atmosphere captures more heat?

 

[Poptech]

Please do not post thing you are incapable of backing up. Thank you.

I already backed it up which is why someone who understood the argument already responded properly (hint: it was not you).

 

[Poptech]

I already referenced the peer reviewed paper with that survey. Are you just ignoring it? [...]

"Figure 3. Responses shown as percentages of agreement and disagreement about the dominant influence of GHGs on global warming, based on responses to Q3 (qualitative GHG contribution) and Q1 (quantitative GHG contribution). Also shown are the percentages of responses for the answer options “unknown”, “I do not know”, and “other”, combined and labeled as “undetermined”. These answer options were much more prevalent for the quantitative question (Q1). The level of agreement increases for respondents with increased self-declared number of peer-reviewed climate-related publications and is highest for AR4 WG1 authors."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

For climatologists with more than 10 publications there is about a 90% agreement that humans are causing warming. The most disagreement is how much warming humans are causing, but there is no doubt that there is a strong consensus that we are causing warming.

Like I said no such valid survey exists.

They used a biased sample and only included 218 skeptics out of 1886 scientists (11%), so obviously you will get 90% in agreement.