|
|
Post by socold on Sept 1, 2009 1:23:28 GMT
This one, nothing wrong with it: A Tamino groupie.....figures. I'll bet you believe every word and graph he pukes out. I I believe the graph because I've seen the data time and time again. That graph is just a one which puts it all together. Just because you aren't familiar with the shape of the co2 record from ice cores doesn't mean everyone is. cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gifYou first tried to dismiss the graphs by claiming they were drawn in a misleading way. Now you've abandoned that line or argument and have fallen back to attacking a blog that happens to host a copy of the graphs. What I really want to know is why you tried so fervently to dismiss the graphs. It's almost as if they triggered an allergy or something the way you knee jerk reacted to them. You did complain. You complained that scientists shouldn't be speaking in public about anything alarming. But you seem to only hold this view towards the subject of manmade global warming. Great great. But do you find something odd with the idea that scientific organizations around the world are lying about a subject and the only truth in the world on the subject is a little known think tank? Yes I should have known better and caveated all my words. However I don't agree with you that ocean acidification can be dismissed simply by refering to the poor quality of headline writing in journalism. The idea of the oceans becoming acidic is BS. The idea of them becoming more acidic is not, it's happening and will continue and that is what ocean acidification is about. Go on look through the archives if you must. I am confident the conference was not making predictions about the following 2 weeks or next season, but further out. There's a big difference between censoring your own blog and censoring scientists from talking to the public about their work just because it's global warming related. So it must be true because there are well over 200 references. Don't be so gullible. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 1, 2009 3:43:53 GMT
This one, nothing wrong with it: A Tamino groupie.....figures. I'll bet you believe every word and graph he pukes out. I I believe the graph because I've seen the data time and time again. That graph is just a one which puts it all together. Just because you aren't familiar with the shape of the co2 record from ice cores doesn't mean everyone is. You first tried to dismiss the graphs by claiming they were drawn in a misleading way. Now you've abandoned that line or argument and have fallen back to attacking a blog that happens to host a copy of the graphs. What I really want to know is why you tried so fervently to dismiss the graphs. It's almost as if they triggered an allergy or something the way you knee jerk reacted to them. You did complain. You complained that scientists shouldn't be speaking in public about anything alarming. But you seem to only hold this view towards the subject of manmade global warming. Great great. But do you find something odd with the idea that scientific organizations around the world are lying about a subject and the only truth in the world on the subject is a little known think tank? Yes I should have known better and caveated all my words. However I don't agree with you that ocean acidification can be dismissed simply by refering to the poor quality of headline writing in journalism. The idea of the oceans becoming acidic is BS. The idea of them becoming more acidic is not, it's happening and will continue and that is what ocean acidification is about. Go on look through the archives if you must. I am confident the conference was not making predictions about the following 2 weeks or next season, but further out. There's a big difference between censoring your own blog and censoring scientists from talking to the public about their work just because it's global warming related. So it must be true because there are well over 200 references. Don't be so gullible. What I really want to know is why you tried so fervently to dismiss the graphs. It's almost as if they triggered an allergy or something the way you knee jerk reacted to them.
Because the x axis is compressed beyond recognition and the y axis is scaled for effect, pure and simple. Even the zoomed in window is manipulated in the same manner. The same is done during the last 100 years. Scaling and use of the baselines make it appear like.....ta da.....a hockey stick. If the graphs were created to reflect the % in the atmosphere, it is but a blip on the radar. Also, if you want to put faith in proxy methods of gas measurement, that's up to you. From what I've read, ice cores are not reliable and the methods are not consistent; they are spliced together. It's not unlike seeing reports of parts of Antarctica breaking off; the percentage is not even worth discussing, but the effect is to scare the living s*it out of people. You may be fooled by graphical illusions, but not everyone is a dolt. Great great. But do you find something odd with the idea that scientific organizations around the world are lying about a subject and the only truth in the world on the subject is a little known think tank? You said they are lying, I did not. Confirmation bias, social networking, professional courtesy and herd mentality is not the same as lying. However, there are unscrupulous individuals such as the example I gave of Stephen Schneider. What conclusion can be drawn with his admission of exaggerating and honesty is in the eye of the beholder? Gavin Schmidt has been caught red handed on numerous occasions. Tamino gets gobsmacked, has temper tantrums and assassinates his dissenters that bust him. So it must be true because there are well over 200 references. Don't be so gullible. So the IPCC must contain all the latest complete research because the boards of science journals agree. Don't be so gullible. The idea of the oceans becoming acidic is BS. The idea of them becoming more acidic is not, it's happening and will continue and that is what ocean acidification is about.
You say CO2science is an "unknown", a minor player, yet when noting over 200 references they used in their Coral Reef presentation, you imply it is irrelevant, yet you have consistently said "read IPCC", noting the many references (but not the ignored ones  . Many things are happening, but to those who think the earth remained a straight line of Utopian bliss prior to the 20th century, one must believe we are witnessing "unprecedented" warming and the rest that goes with the hysteria. It is hubris to assume anything will remain the same or that it has never happened before. Alarmists use the Arctic as an example, but it is easily proved the Arctic has been several degrees warmer than CP. Now we have "ocean acidification", the latest temple of doom. Whether you like it or not, I will use CO2science as a reference because they are up on the latest research, much to your dismay. A recent study using proxies, which for the most part I detest, but to make the point, the link below serves as evidence "ocean acidification" is not unprecedented and for you to say it will continue is pure conjecture based on the same assumptions the oceans would continue to warm infinium. Please, no talk of natural variation; that went out the window with Hansen 2005...... until of course they stopped warming  I've collated in earlier threads several examples of the GBR doom predicted in recent years. Then suddenly, the reefs recovered......a miracle! Now we must endure ocean acidification (a misnomer btw) alarmism until that too will pass with time. The Ocean Acidification Fictionwww.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php Added: There's a big difference between censoring your own blog and censoring scientists from talking to the public about their work just because it's global warming related. First of all, RealClimate is used by the news media and political components. That is easily provable, don't dig yourself deeper. If you don't think scientists are gagged either by directive or idle threat, you live in a bubble. It's laughable if that's what you're implying. What's next, the MSM is not biased? Or maybe alarmists have not promoted climate "deniers" be jailed, fined or tried in court as criminals....or worse? Politicians have suggested such penalties, and state climatologists have been forced to resign or fired. Let's guess, children are not being indoctrinate either right? Scientists have been cut off from funding as well. After retirement or being fired, they come out of the closet. Wanna continue? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 1, 2009 8:56:35 GMT
From the rote, unimproved answers of our AGW true believers, it is clear that AGW has hit its maximum.
Can we defuse the popular mania before real damage is done chasing CO2 obsessions? We will see.
But the moral and creative high ground has obviously left where it never was- the AGW side of the argument.
The action now is to find ways to actually fix problems - soot and other toxins. The delusions over CO2 were just that: delusions.
Talking of delusions. There is a fairly common view on this blog that CO2 can't possibly have any effect on the world's climate. This, of course, is nonsense. Ultimately the earth radiates away heat from the atmosphere. That's how the climate system cools. Incoming solar energy is balanced by outgoing LW IR radiation. This balance provides the earth with a relatively stable climate.
Like it or not, CO2 interacts with the LW radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface. There isn't any doubt about this. Emission spectra clearly show the CO2 funnel. Increasing CO2 will reduce the amount of IR leaving the earth. This will change the incoming/outgoing balance, i.e. incoming will be greater than outgoing and so the earth will heat up. It will continue to do so until the outgoing IR balances the incoming solar energy.
Now, we can argue about how much the earth will need to heat up in the case of CO2 doubling, say, but unless there is some as yet unknown negative feedback factor then it will definitely heat up (Lindzen believes there is a negative feedback factor that will reduce the warming but not eliminate it). The point is, CO2 cannot simply dismissed by statements like "You can spit on the sidewalk and have the same effect as doubling CO2" This incidentally came from Reid Bryson, one of the leading proponents of the 1960s/70s global cooling scare.
More CO2 will warm the planet. If we are not sure as to how much it will warm (and there are good arguments for high and low sensitivity) then perhaps we ought to play safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 1, 2009 11:06:26 GMT
Emission spectra clearly show the CO2 funnel. Increasing CO2 will reduce the amount of IR leaving the earth. This will change the incoming/outgoing balance, i.e. incoming will be greater than outgoing and so the earth will heat up. It will continue to do so until the outgoing IR balances the incoming solar energy. I think i need a primer on the state of knowledge of C02 as a greenhouse gas. Firstly i imagine that when measured for absorption we take an emitter of IR at one end of a length of C02 and play around with the frequencies emitted and detected. I have seen that kind of study referred too. But what about examining C02 in its naturally very dilute state as the trace gas it is and how its emission and conduction interplays with this test atmosphere? Can somebody provide a link to such a study please? One thing that puzzles me about C02 and water as greenhouse gases is that they are massively irradiated with the suns energy all day long but they dont get warm to my knowledge to any signficant degree? Can somebody provide a link to show the amount of warming of the air via the suns irradiation that is experimentally attributed to green house gases? I would have thought these molecules would be saturated with heat from the sun. Even water is in low concentrations however at 10000 ppm or one part per 100 of air so we know that this would not warm the air much. So in the day a massive amount of solar energy gets to the earths surface in clear weather and then in turn warms all of the earths atmosphere via convection and most of this heat then escapes to space - because the absorbing gases must be already saturated with radiation and they dont have much of an influence due to their low concentration. At night something different is happening but on an exceptionally clear night it does get exceptionally cool. The dry deserts for example are known to get very cool at night. I keep hearing about C02 and climate but have yet to see any studies on C02 and climate regarding the basic science needed to show how it must affect the earth via experimental methods. One thing that keeps coming to my mind is that when i was flying a glider at 22000 feet in December January in the Southern hemisphere it was very cold. The suns heat just seems to come into our atmosphere without warming it and then our atmosphere gets warmed by convection and very rapidly becomes cooler as it leaves earths convection abilities. Of course we know we live at the earths surface where we are most affected by the convection but people are talking about climate change happening 50 miles in the air where there is almost no air and no ability for that mass of air to have any influence upon the lower temperatures because the hotness of a tiny mass is irrelevant to its ability to provide hotness to a greater mass much lower in the atmosphere. The other issue is how do we measure the temperature of the air when we are surrounded by the radiation of the earth and the objects upon its surface? For example at the earths surface at night i have 180 degrees of radiation from the earths surface. Also we know that there is such a thing as geometric sunrise. Which means that the sun is truelly above the horizon rather than only appearing to be above the horizon from the observers point of view. To what degree are we warmed by the earths radiation from beyond the horizon that is being lensed or reflected to us? I must admit i finding myself humbled by my ignorance of so many things i have taken for granted. And my beginning point was to be totally gobsmacked that C02 is in such tiny concentrations in our atmosphere when without it nearly all plants and animals would face exstinction. Surely historically that must be a low concentration?? And finally why does Vostok station say there is almost no C02 at vostok station and this makes it hard to breathe in a relaxed manner because we use C02 to regulate our breathing rate? My immediate thought was because it freezes out but that is apparently not true. Does anybody know? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 1, 2009 20:51:46 GMT
What I really want to know is why you tried so fervently to dismiss the graphs. It's almost as if they triggered an allergy or something the way you knee jerk reacted to them.
Because the x axis is compressed beyond recognition Here you go, I've doubled the width of the graph so the x-axis is less compressed. What a difference that makes. If anything it looks more like the hockey stick shape you fear now.  The y-axis is scaled like the x-axis to fit all the datapoints in the graph window. Can you even describe how you would scale the y-axis differently? Ironically the zoomed in window actually addresses one of your complaints - it is there to expand the last 250 years of the graph which is the only part affected by compression on the main graph. But still you complain. That's because the data does appear like a hockey stick. And in your hell bent denial you are willing to even dispute clearly presented data. I'd love to see how you would set the x and y axis to make it not look like a hockey stick. Why don't you tell me what you would choose for the 5 variables: Xmin Xmax Ymin Ymax Width/Height ratio Go on I would love to hear the 5 values you have in mind so I can plot it and post it up here so we can all stand in awe at how it no longer looks like a hockey stick. Okay then. Do you find something odd with the idea that scientific organizations around the world are wrong about a subject and the only truth in the world on the subject is a little known think tank? There's a big difference between blinding accepting a think-tank's public pronouncements on a subject just because they listed 200 papers and accepting scientific mainstream. The thing that always gets me about you conspiracy guys is how you expect me to only apply a conspiracy to this one field of science. When creationists come along and tell me all the biologists and scientific organizations are wrong on evolution and some little known institute is the only place in the world with the true science (google "discovery institute" - they have papers with references!), how am I to point out the ludicrous nature of such a conspiracy any differently than I am pointing out the same ludicrous nature of your own? The IPCC is far more credible than co2science.org as a scientific source. So is the Discovery Institute. Ocean acidification will continue as co2 continues rising. Knowledge of the carbon cycle is firm enough that is a certainty. Lie et al 2009 abstract contains: Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene. Such ocean pH records in the current interglacial period can help us better understand the physical and biological controls on ocean pH and possibly predict the long-term impact of climate change on future ocean acidification.For more on the co2science.org's misleading re-interpretations of papers, including this very one, see: thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/reliable-sources-climate-realists-craig-idso-ocean-acidification-edition/No I am implying that if you had it your way scientists would be silenced from saying anything on manmade global warming. You would probably also want to tell them how to scale their graphs to eliminate certain shapes you don't like. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 1, 2009 21:14:28 GMT
From the rote, unimproved answers of our AGW true believers, it is clear that AGW has hit its maximum.
Can we defuse the popular mania before real damage is done chasing CO2 obsessions? We will see.
But the moral and creative high ground has obviously left where it never was- the AGW side of the argument.
The action now is to find ways to actually fix problems - soot and other toxins. The delusions over CO2 were just that: delusions.Talking of delusions. There is a fairly common view on this blog that CO2 can't possibly have any effect on the world's climate. This, of course, is nonsense. Ultimately the earth radiates away heat from the atmosphere. That's how the climate system cools. Incoming solar energy is balanced by outgoing LW IR radiation. This balance provides the earth with a relatively stable climate. Like it or not, CO2 interacts with the LW radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface. There isn't any doubt about this. Emission spectra clearly show the CO2 funnel. Increasing CO2 will reduce the amount of IR leaving the earth. This will change the incoming/outgoing balance, i.e. incoming will be greater than outgoing and so the earth will heat up. It will continue to do so until the outgoing IR balances the incoming solar energy. Now, we can argue about how much the earth will need to heat up in the case of CO2 doubling, say, but unless there is some as yet unknown negative feedback factor then it will definitely heat up (Lindzen believes there is a negative feedback factor that will reduce the warming but not eliminate it). The point is, CO2 cannot simply dismissed by statements like "You can spit on the sidewalk and have the same effect as doubling CO2" This incidentally came from Reid Bryson, one of the leading proponents of the 1960s/70s global cooling scare. More CO2 will warm the planet. If we are not sure as to how much it will warm (and there are good arguments for high and low sensitivity) then perhaps we ought to play safe. CO2's potential to warm the planet is not entirely in the hands of CO2. The thing everyone keeps on forgetting is that the REAL limit on CO2's absorption is concentrated largely in a narrow band at the tropopause. Yes, the other layers underneath do have potential to limit IR somewhat but if their gradient is enforced by the vast amounts of energy tied up in the water cycle, they won't change significantly. If the tropospheric gradient is largely controlled by water vapor then much of the heat would actually show up where water vapor has no influence (the tropopause) and any additional heat will have to fight the massive increase in water vapor going into the troposphere ...which would tend to correct that imbalance as well. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 1, 2009 21:56:20 GMT
Radiant,
'I think i need a primer on the state of knowledge of C02 as a greenhouse gas'
I think all you really need to know is that it has a minuscule effect and it is really not worth mentioning unless you live in alarmistville. Just worry about the Sun!
Back from hols in a warmist zone and suntanned & feeling goooeed. In context of the subject line, then yes it has peaked a year or so ago and is on the decline majorly. Lot's of the brighter lads jumping ship but the die hards are hanging on & hoping for some warmth.
:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 2, 2009 0:34:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 2, 2009 4:13:10 GMT
From the rote, unimproved answers of our AGW true believers, it is clear that AGW has hit its maximum.
Can we defuse the popular mania before real damage is done chasing CO2 obsessions? We will see.
But the moral and creative high ground has obviously left where it never was- the AGW side of the argument.
The action now is to find ways to actually fix problems - soot and other toxins. The delusions over CO2 were just that: delusions.Talking of delusions. There is a fairly common view on this blog that CO2 can't possibly have any effect on the world's climate. This, of course, is nonsense. Ultimately the earth radiates away heat from the atmosphere. That's how the climate system cools. Incoming solar energy is balanced by outgoing LW IR radiation. This balance provides the earth with a relatively stable climate. Like it or not, CO2 interacts with the LW radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface. There isn't any doubt about this. Emission spectra clearly show the CO2 funnel. Increasing CO2 will reduce the amount of IR leaving the earth. This will change the incoming/outgoing balance, i.e. incoming will be greater than outgoing and so the earth will heat up. It will continue to do so until the outgoing IR balances the incoming solar energy. Now, we can argue about how much the earth will need to heat up in the case of CO2 doubling, say, but unless there is some as yet unknown negative feedback factor then it will definitely heat up (Lindzen believes there is a negative feedback factor that will reduce the warming but not eliminate it). The point is, CO2 cannot simply dismissed by statements like "You can spit on the sidewalk and have the same effect as doubling CO2" This incidentally came from Reid Bryson, one of the leading proponents of the 1960s/70s global cooling scare. More CO2 will warm the planet. If we are not sure as to how much it will warm (and there are good arguments for high and low sensitivity) then perhaps we ought to play safe. Typical AGW true believer fallacy: Falsely asserting that pointing out the apocalyptic hype that AGW depends on equates to denying the existence of the greenhouse effect. Typical AGW abuse of he precautionary principal: Since someone made a wild claim about what a model says could happen means we have to stop doing things that have helped hundreds of millions of people. The existence of the greenhouse effect is not proof of AGW claims about the climate. Telling scary stories about the end of the world and great apocalyptic things is not reason to stop doing good. AGW depends explicitly on both fallacies. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 2, 2009 8:30:44 GMT
Typical AGW true believer fallacy:
Falsely asserting that pointing out the apocalyptic hype that AGW depends on equates to denying the existence of the greenhouse effect.
Typical AGW abuse of he precautionary principal:
The only "typical" aspect of this exchange is the 'head in the sand' attitude of your post. If we accept that the greenhouse effect exists then it's reasonable we question what happens if that effect is enhanced in any way.
You're probably right that it's not possible to prove that increasing CO2 will result in an apocalypse (I don't happen to think it will) but one thing's for sure. You, nor anyone else, is able to prove that it won't.
Most of those on the anti-AGW side seem to be relying on half-baked solar theories which have fallen over at the first hurdle.
Since someone made a wild claim about what a model says could happen means we have to stop doing things that have helped hundreds of millions of people.
It's nothing to do with models. A sensitivity of 3 deg per CO2 doubling was being suggested long before GCM
The existence of the greenhouse effect is not proof of AGW claims about the climate.
It's proof that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the climate. It's reasonable, therefore, to assume that the presence of more CO2 will have an even greater effect - or are you aware of some law of physics whereby this relationship should change at 300ppm.
Telling scary stories about the end of the world and great apocalyptic things is not reason to stop doing good.
AGW depends explicitly on both fallacies
AGW depends on facts which are patently true and on assumptions which are perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure what your anti-AGW stance depends on.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 2, 2009 11:20:57 GMT
There seems to me to be an amazing lack of science about C02 atmospheric warming - or for some reason i have not yet found it. Are there any studies on test atmospheres other than simplistic studies showing that C02 absorbs in the IR band? What about studies done over deserts where there is little water and plant vapours compared to studies done over the land where theses things are present to show the relative effects of none C02 greenhouse effects. For example it is common knowledge it gets cold at night in a desert for apparently well understood reasons: wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_cold_in_the_desert_at_nightI am inclined to think that C02 cannot have much of an influence during the day because the overwhelmingly massive energy from the sun must saturate the C02 so that it is emitting both upwards and downwards and since it is present in such tiny quanties this warmed C02 could not have much influence on the rest of the mass of the air So it must be at night that C02 plays its main role? We know that once the sun has gone the heat of the day lingers. But we also know that on a clear night it becomes much colder and we know that C02 is present in clear nights or poor visibility nights. Obviously the C02 effect is a contribution rather than being a main effect. There must be some studies done on this sort of thing to show how it plays out in the real world as measured in the atmosphere and in test atmospheres? There must be a classic study i could be referred to to show the basic physics of this topic? |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 2, 2009 12:31:50 GMT
glc, you write: "You're probably right that it's not possible to prove that increasing CO2 will result in an apocalypse (I don't happen to think it will) but one thing's for sure. You, nor anyone else, is able to prove that it won't."
Earth's geological record is proof that co2 will not produce an apocalypse. co2 has not even yielded a single temperature spike.
Until you show that co2 has produced one temperature spike, then I will say that the Earth itself has proved you wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 2, 2009 12:44:22 GMT
Typical AGW true believer fallacy:
Falsely asserting that pointing out the apocalyptic hype that AGW depends on equates to denying the existence of the greenhouse effect.
Typical AGW abuse of he precautionary principal:The only "typical" aspect of this exchange is the 'head in the sand' attitude of your post. If we accept that the greenhouse effect exists then it's reasonable we question what happens if that effect is enhanced in any way. You're probably right that it's not possible to prove that increasing CO2 will result in an apocalypse (I don't happen to think it will) but one thing's for sure. You, nor anyone else, is able to prove that it won't. Most of those on the anti-AGW side seem to be relying on half-baked solar theories which have fallen over at the first hurdle. Since someone made a wild claim about what a model says could happen means we have to stop doing things that have helped hundreds of millions of people.It's nothing to do with models. A sensitivity of 3 deg per CO2 doubling was being suggested long before GCM The existence of the greenhouse effect is not proof of AGW claims about the climate.It's proof that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the climate. It's reasonable, therefore, to assume that the presence of more CO2 will have an even greater effect - or are you aware of some law of physics whereby this relationship should change at 300ppm. Telling scary stories about the end of the world and great apocalyptic things is not reason to stop doing good.
AGW depends explicitly on both fallaciesAGW depends on facts which are patently true and on assumptions which are perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure what your anti-AGW stance depends on. glc, another aspect of the AGW belief system is historical illiteracy, as you so aptly demonstrate. That CO2 is not the main driver of climate change is completely proven by the geological record. We have had warmer and cooler periods of history with both higher and lower CO2 levels than now, according to the record. That CO2 has been shown to lag warming, and not drive it, is well accepted in the historical record. If Earth was subject to positive feedback runaways, then they would have happened before. They have not. Now for AGW believers, that is not enough. It is not enough because belief in AGW is a non-rational belief. It cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be disproven. As you show. The depth of your emotional investment in AGW does not make it more true or less false. The lack of any evidence that CO2 is going to cause huge, dangerous changes in the climate is, for rational people, enough reason to not support radical or extreme policies. Fortunately, AGW belief is, like all apocalyptic based belief systems, very cyclical in its lifespan, and is in decline before too much damage has been done. True believers may still succeed in pushing through some stupid piece of legislation. It will have no more impact on climate or carbon than Kyoto did, but it will waste still more money that could be spent doing good. The only 'head in sand' behavior happening on this blog is from true believers, like yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 2, 2009 15:33:41 GMT
glc,
another aspect of the AGW belief system is historical illiteracy, as you so aptly demonstrate.
That CO2 is not the main driver of climate change is completely proven by the geological record.
We have had warmer and cooler periods of history with both higher and lower CO2 levels than now, according to the record.
No-one has said CO2 is the main driver of climate. I think it's quite likely that a number of factors could offset or even rcverse CO2 warming. However as these factors tend to be cyclical, e.g. ocean oscillation, when they do flip back to a warmer phase we'll still have the CO2 as well.
That CO2 has been shown to lag warming, and not drive it, is well accepted in the historical record.
This is not really relevant is it. Of course, if we have a state of equilibrium such as existed during the ice ages then some external source (e.g. increased insolation) will be necessary to kick start a new warming phase.
If Earth was subject to positive feedback runaways, then they would have happened before. They have not.
I never mentioned "runaways". However, the earths's temperature has varied more than enough for our comfort.
Now for AGW believers, that is not enough. It is not enough because belief in AGW is a non-rational belief. It cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be disproven. As you show.
The depth of your emotional investment in AGW does not make it more true or less false.
The lack of any evidence that CO2 is going to cause huge, dangerous changes in the climate is, for rational people, enough reason to not support radical or extreme policies. Fortunately, AGW belief is, like all apocalyptic based belief systems, very cyclical in its lifespan, and is in decline before too much damage has been done.
There is evidence that increasing CO2 will cause warming. Until we see proof that the amount of warming is insignificant, I'm just suggesting we err on the side of caution.
True believers may still succeed in pushing through some stupid piece of legislation. It will have no more impact on climate or carbon than Kyoto did, but it will waste still more money that could be spent doing good. The only 'head in sand' behavior happening on this blog is from true believers, like yourself.
You need to include Richard Lindzen , Roy Spencer, Garth Paltridge, Jack Barrett and many more as 'true believers' since they, like me, think that doubling CO2 will produce a warming of ~1 deg C.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 2, 2009 15:35:04 GMT
Peak AGW belief?
Yes.
|
|
. Many things are happening, but to those who think the earth remained a straight line of Utopian bliss prior to the 20th century, one must believe we are witnessing "unprecedented" warming and the rest that goes with the hysteria. It is hubris to assume anything will remain the same or that it has never happened before. Alarmists use the Arctic as an example, but it is easily proved the Arctic has been several degrees warmer than CP. 
