I’ve got a little time on my hands now that the work day is over - so should we go back to first principles?
Do you believe that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs long wave radiation emitted from the earth? This is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect and has been a basic principle of atmospheric science for over 150 years. Is this wrong?
Do you agree that direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 show that the level has risen to values not seen since the Pliocene (2-4.6 million years ago)? This is the Keeling curve and measurements have been directly taken on Mauna Loa since 1958. Are these incorrect?
Is it reasonable to believe that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere would increase the retention of long wave radiation in the lower atmosphere?
3a. If you believe that there is some natural or artificial process that will act to moderate the levels of CO2 we observe - that will work in the 100-200 year timeframe that the levels have risen - please explain.
No reliance on computer models or weather reports or anything else. Just basic physics, atmospheric chemistry, geology, and direct measurements of the atmosphere.
I’d truly like to hear what you think is happening or what you believe might happen in the future.
All that is certainly true but only a very small part of the whole. Do you consider CO2 to be the primary cause of warming? Do you know all the factors that regulate temperature? No, of course you don’t, that is still being studied and will be for a long time. Do you know to what degree CO2 is a factor?
I don’t know these things but I do know that the these questions have not been adequately answered.
It has not been proven that CO2 is the primary “control knob” for Global Warming. It has been assumed by some but never proven. The problem is that climate is extremely complex and not yet understood.
The hypothesis is that it is CO2 that is causing Global Warming. Yes CO2 has been rising pretty continuously for decades. The problem with the hypothesis that CO2 causes significant warming is the lack of that significant warming for the last 15+ years. We have one without the other.
Yes, we have a ton of new theories as to where that “missing” heat is “hiding”. But none of those are proven either. Occam’s razor might suggest that the significance of CO2 might have been overstated.
And you’re hilariously wrong about whether anybody has ever claimed there is no global warming. Do you seriously expect us to believe you’ve reviewed the whole subject, and are speaking honestly about it, when you’re simply repeating things that have been widely and obviously discredited as if they were accepted fact?
Wow. I’ve never seen someone converted so quickly by reasoned debate.
But perhaps you shouldn’t use the word ‘safe’. One is not safe from incorrect opinions or from made up nonsense masquerading as fact, one is inured to bullshit. One is capable of reason and thought without resorting to ideological propaganda.
One may be ‘safe’ from attack, if that’s how you now see such idiotic arguments, then I applaud you because admitting that such attacks are without good faith and not in the spirit of engaging in a reasoned debate is a strong positive to have emerged from your conversion.
You really ought to be embarassed for claiming that. All of the stronger greenhouse gases have a habit of decaying in the atmosphere, mostly into CO2 and H2O. Water vapor does this lovely thing called “rain.”
CO2 is the one greenhouse gas that sticks around for the long haul. Ergo, it is a primary control knob for global warming,.
4x in a hundred years is within the horizon of a 30-year mortgage on a new house. I think that’s just about the threshold to make people stop doing, or rather people’s banks to make them stop doing it.
We’re seeing this pattern more and more - long droughts followed by heavy flooding. This is not healthy for us. It’s difficult to maintain the water management structures during times of almost no rainfall, and then have to scramble to get them fixed in time for the floods. Also, existing structures are ill prepared for the volumes of water released.
What ends up happening is that the water doesn’t even get saved for later because of this. Most of it gets released back out because the system just can’t take the load. It doesn’t recharge the aquifers, and it doesn’t fill up the reservoirs. Next year, you have drought again…
It has nothing to do with “separated appreciation for science and technology”.
It has everything to do with the political agendas which use that science as ammunition.
No one has proposed raising energy prices on account of dinosaurs had feathers, or because Pluto is not a planet. So there are no “deniers” attacking those scientific findings.
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
I guess there could be a bunch of experts out there that don’t publish. Seems unlikely though (occam’s razor, right?).
Nye put it well-- the link between human activities and climate change is stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. Why do you think there are no internet experts (like yourself) denying smoking increases your risk of lung cancer?
Oops! You really don’t know? That is the hypothesis. Yes, it is assumed to be true so it can be tested but it is only the hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by making predictions of future behavior and then comparing those predictions against actual data after the time has passed. That is why the “hiatus” was/is such a significant thing: The predictions didn’t match the reality. Translation: The hypothesis was NOT proven. Note that the hypothesis wasn’t necessarily falsified either, it just remains unproven.
I’m sorry, I know we’re not supposed to talk about that.
I’m sorry, but the science I know isn’t about “consensus”. That’s such a non-scientific concept. Do you actually think that “science” is when scientists get together and vote and whatever wins is officially “true”?
Many times in the past, “consensus” was wrong.
I think that the “consensus” is that we must never talk about the “hiatus”. Did that consensus make it go away?
I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to not understand, if I’m a terrible communicator, or if you really don’t understand how real science works. Did you check out that link I posted?
The tl;dr; of it is that there is a consensus is in published papers. Lots of work in climate science is being done and there are basically no results that refute the idea that humans have caused the observed temperature increase over the past century.
Many times in the past, “consensus” was wrong.
I’m talking about a scientific consensus, not a consensus of opinion.
You seem to have strong opinions which is fine, we all have them. I posted a link that shows scientists who publish papers aren’t publishing any that go against the current understanding of climate science. Where does your opinion come from?
Edit: Nye’s example of smoking being a cause of lung cancer is a great analogy. Would you argue that there isn’t a scientific consensus that smoking tobacco is a cause of lung cancer?
Bah, that there that their complainin about down in Texas ain’t no kinda flooding, that’s like giving yer kid a waterhose and sprinkler and telling them you’ve got a pool.
Now, I was there in 2001 for Allison…now THAT was a flood.
You’re wrong again. If you read as much as you claim, you’d know researchers do talk about the apparent hiatus. See for instance this review by Trenberth & Fasullo to see what has been said. The first figure there is also pretty telling:
It’s clear that while details about how the climate works are still being learned about, this is anything but a failure of the general AGW model, the way deniers would like to pretend. Especially when you consider that nothing else has had any comparable accuracy; for all the complaints about the last few years, I’ve never seen any good model of the over-all increase without taking anthropogenic change into account.
As I said, arthurapplebee, you’re just repeating discredited talking points. At some point you should realize that is not going to gain any traction here, and maybe that it isn’t what you want to be doing anyway. If you actually did want to discuss this, you’ll have to stop pretending to be an expert and learn more about the subject first.
Mmm - perhaps in poorer countries there are still mass migrations. I can’t think of it happening at all in the US since the expansion to tame the west. I guess there have been small, subtle ones, like the rise of Phoenix and the fall of Detroit. But Phoenix is the wrong direction, and I am talking places that are most prone to damage by rising sea levels.
But there are still plenty of “good spots” in America to live. I am sure there are around the world. Climate change is 100% dealable. It would have to take a drastic, catastrophic change to really “hurt us” but I don’t think that is in the cards.
No matter how much you try to “explain” it, science IS NOT “consensus”. It’s nice that lots of scientists agree with each other and that can be an important part of evaluating what is likely true - but that ISN’T how science is done. I understand you just fine. Can you understand me?
