Who said anything about being alarmed? Go back to telling us how the ocean is the source of the CO2 even though its a net sink, soda boy.
Even if that modeling is correct, we cave normal long term cycles. Do you honestly think we should be alarmed?
Who said anything about being alarmed? Go back to telling us how the ocean is the source of the CO2 even though its a net sink, soda boy.
No, you'll wait for what you're told to believe.
That is not what I asked.
That is a weasel answer though, and fitting with the OP. Yet again, you have my gra ude, but I think you have quite thoroughly proved the OP, so you can stop now.
I will ask again,
What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?
I don't see anything strong in the IPCC reporting in their AR4. I have done less reading of FAR, SAR, and TAR. In my opinion, they have focused on greenhouse gasses being the cause of warming when later admitting that soot is a far stronger influence than reported in AR4. Nobody has yet been able to convince me that politics has not hijacked the Climatologist community.
I have repeatedly pointed out that Peer reviewing in climatology has no merit in many scientists minds. They use a closed rather than open peer review process.
So many of the scientific material I have read from the AWG train of thought comes to conclusions without even considering some key variables. This invalidates the findings. It is known as "peer review failure." Solar for example has increased in the neighborhood of 0.18% during the studied time frame of the IPCC reports. Feedback systems are near linear so the forcing should be near linear in the total solar forcing impact. the IPCC uses trickery that most people don't spot in honestly stating their assigned vales for solar forcing are "direct," then never define the indirect values, which they hide in the other values. With a total radiative downforce of IR from the greenhouse effect, this small 0.18% becomes about 0.6 watts/square meter of indirect solar forcing in greenhouse gasses alone. Add that to the other indirect and direct increase, and you have almost 1 watt/sq meter of added forcing from the sun alone. The AR4 claims a total forcing increase since 1750 of 1.6 watts/sq meter. Soot, or black carbon has also been upwards revised in impact from not only the scientific community, but the IPCC as well. This either leaves very little for the greenhouse effect increase, or there are more cooling effects happening, our our temperature is greater than we have measured.
As I pointed out in a recent post. The ocean is a net sink. I do not disagree and have never said otherwise, unless I had a typo somewhere. The point you seem not to accept is that the warming of the ocean would cause it to be a net source, if the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased by mankinds activity. If the ocean has not increased in temperature, it probably would have absorbed around 98% of the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere rather than only about 40%. I have said somewhere in the past that if mankind did not add CO2 to the atmosphere, that we will still have almost as much CO2 in the air due to ocean warming. That the oceans would retain less of a ration of the total between the ocean and atmosphere, and then... only then... the ocean become a net source.
These claims are conditional, and you cannot intermix them as you see fit.
I challenge you to search past posts for when I originally made the claims you and Fuzzy are poorly recounting now.
I think you need a refresher on Henry's law and how temperature effects solubility.
That's like selecting a bunch of "C" average students from a school, and asking which is the honor student. Maybe you should as a better question for a better answer.
Actually its like asking a parts changer what his unprofessional opinion on scientific matters he doesn't understand is and expecting an actual worthwhile answer. I agree, though. You're never going to get a good answer in that scenario.
Just because I'm not a college educated idiot like you, doesn't mean I don't comprehend such things.
Is your work vocation the only thing you are good at?
I mess up on the terminology quite a bit. However, I do understand how things work at these levels. It's been well over 30 years since I have had any formal scientific training, so keep that in mind when I do foul up in terminology.
That said... I am "old school." We actually had to actually comprehend instead of recite like they teach today. I always had Strait A's in all technical fields I studied.
You don't comprehend it, WC. Its quite clear you don't. Which is why its hilarious when you try to act as if you get it better than the PhDs who put together the science behind this. You're very good for amusement value.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (given).
CO2 makes up about 0.039% of the atmosphere by volume.
Humans contribute 3%-4% of that 0.039% by burning fossil fuels, etc.
It has warmed 1 degree in a century -- and humans have increased CO2 emissions during the same period.
Therefore, humans have caused the warming.
Like I said, I don't think it's particularly strong.
Why? Considering there are direct measurements of the CO2's IR emissions and behavior shouldn't you have to do something to actually show why its a weak case? While you're at it, can you explain how the earth's surface temp is so much higher than its emission temp if its not due to CO2?
For CO2 to be the cause, the CO2 only spectra increase would have to be more than 5 times greater than the emissions of water only spectra.
Of course the IR emissions have increased. Temperature has, so radiative forcing measurements will show that.
Can you point out a study that backs up your claim by successfully comparing changes in forcing source types?
Then why isn't there true consensus? are the PHD's who disagree with the alarmist point of view also lack such comprehension?
Do you even know what I'm talking about when I said the earth's emission temp? (I know you don't, rhetorical question) In any event, I wasn't talking about IR emissions, but since you bring that up...
Outward IR emissions haven't gone up as much as they should. No they've gone up, but the point is they haven't gone up as much as they should have. Know where the shortfall is? In the bands covered by CO2 (and other GHG). Why? Because its not leaving the system, its coming back down.
If you removed all of the CO2 in the atmosphere we'd be a frozen planet. Water can't keep the planet warm enough via GHE of its vapor the amount of vapor is a function of the temp of the air.
I can provide you the links to DOZENS of studies regarding any of these subjects. Climate sensitivty, GHG IR emissions, the GHG effect in general.
@ no true consensus. There are a mul ude of reasons why not everyone agrees but to say there is no consensus is flat out laughable. Whether its money from the oil and gas lobby or simple bad science I don't think the bar ever needs to be to convince everyone considering that is impossible.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686#
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
I can explain probable reasons, and have in the past. You dismissed them before, and you will again. As long as you focus on CO2, you will not accept other things.
In the long term scheme of things, equilibrium will prevail. The total energy coming in to the earth will equal the total energy out.
You keep using short term figures when it suits your point of view, then dismiss short term data when you disagree with it.
How about being honest for once. Do you really think a few decades of information illustrates a comprehensive look, when natural cycles are longer?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686#
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
Oh you can spew explanations that make seem to make sense to you with your piss poor understanding of the science but that doesn't make them any more true.
I accept short term observations on much simpler systems readily. A molecule of CO2 doesn't need to be observed over 30 years to understand how it remits energy. Keep going, you're really showing us how much you comprehend here. Now you're equating molecular behavior with the behavior of the Earth's climate system. Nice!
Stop with the word games asshole. I said there was no true consensus. It is not a collective agreement among climatologists, but only a consensus of the majority.
A scientific consensus is not science.
Well i see you gave up on actually discussing the science behind EM radiation as a measurement of system energy I/O. You still suck at dissembling.
I never claimed it isn't a greenhouse gas. I only disagree to the degree yourself and other alarmists wish to claim.
Can you show me a study that used a long fixed enclosure with accurate atmospheric mixes, only changing the CO2 levels from 280 ppm to higher levels, and read radiative forcing changes?
All studies I am aware of that use accurate measurement, have increased the levels of CO2 in the mix to a point that is unreal. Molecular spacing makes a difference. Without doing such experiments in real conditions, the experiment has flaws.
Oh I'm sorry, WC. You apparently missed this the first two times around.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686#
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
No, I didn't read them at all. Your record of posting good links is pretty bad. You expect someone to read long stuff, without pointing out the relevant parts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions