Good analogy. But what if it was a Republican's greenhouse?
Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Good analogy. But what if it was a Republican's greenhouse?
So you are still walking the stupid road.
There has been no slow down of the rise of the planets temperature. At all.
If you don't understand this by now there is no hope you ever will.
Please be aware that there has never, since the advent of spectroscopy and modern science, been any question regarding whether CO2 causes warming or cooling in the troposphere. It causes warming. The second sentence beginning "and..." is correct. It would have been better worded, however, had you written instead: "There is no consensus regarding the importance of CO2 produced by man's activities relative to the total of green house gases in the troposphere." That aspect is still under intense investigation.
Consensus among the public has never been reliably correct, and the record first among philosophers, and later among scientists is spotty. Sometimes it has proved to be correct and other times incorrect. Consensus can not be relied upon to answer scientific questions, rather consensus eventually falls in line with observation. Beyond speculation, consensus plays no role in answering scientific questions. In the political arena, however, consensus can be a deciding factor unless clearly overridden by scientific observation.
Here is an example. In modern times the consensus among physicians was that gastiric ulcers were caused by stress, eating spicy foods, or even aspirin ingestion. After it was discovered that nearly all ulcers were caused by helicobacter pyloris, it took over a decade for the consensus to shift.
Here is an example. In modern times the consensus among physicians was that gastiric ulcers were caused by stress, eating spicy foods, or even aspirin ingestion. After it was discovered that nearly all ulcers were caused by helicobacter pyloris, it took over a decade for the consensus to shift.
You must not have read much about the state of the science today. There certainly IS consensus on the basics of AGW. To say otherwise is simply wrong. The consensus among climatologists is that man is responsible for most of the warming over the last forty years. The importance of man's contribution is very high.
This chart shows clearly the result of man's CO2 emissions. It is charts like this one that has led to that consensus. The science is so obvious a ten year old can see it.
I was speaking about the entire system... not just the troposphere.
1. adding co2 causes more plants... which causes more aerosols.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/...k-more-co2-more-plants-more-aerosols-cooling/
aerosols cause cooling according to recent studies.
2. co2 in upper atmosphere causes cooling per NASA.
see study a few pages ago. (Increasing co2 migrates up.)
3. adding more co2 to troposphere may cause little or no more warming because all the infrared bounce or the very larger majority of it is already being done.
4. recent agw nutter studies say yes... co2 is a very small component of greenhouse so... co2 impacts warming through a multipler effect. It increases water vapor.
But even more recent studies show water vapor can be or is causing net cooling by reflecting sun light off the backs of clouds.
So there is a very big question about whether adding man made co2 does to our current atmosphere causes net warming or cooling.
Finally think about this... the system has cycled through cold to warm to cold many times.
As the oceans warm they release co2. If that did not cause a negative feedback (at some point) the earth would very likely be burning up.
1. adding co2 causes more plants... which causes more aerosols.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/...k-more-co2-more-plants-more-aerosols-cooling/
aerosols cause cooling according to recent studies.
2. co2 in upper atmosphere causes cooling per NASA.
see study a few pages ago. (Increasing co2 migrates up.)
3. adding more co2 to troposphere may cause little or no more warming because all the infrared bounce or the very larger majority of it is already being done.
4. recent agw nutter studies say yes... co2 is a very small component of greenhouse so... co2 impacts warming through a multipler effect. It increases water vapor.
But even more recent studies show water vapor can be or is causing net cooling by reflecting sun light off the backs of clouds.
So there is a very big question about whether adding man made co2 does to our current atmosphere causes net warming or cooling.
Finally think about this... the system has cycled through cold to warm to cold many times.
As the oceans warm they release co2. If that did not cause a negative feedback (at some point) the earth would very likely be burning up.
you have no models saying co2 causes ocean warming.
your models which stated adding more co2 would cause land based warming to go up.
we added a third more c02 these last 17 years... and we did not warm.
you have no science showing man made co2 causes warming on earth.
all you do is repeat bullshit.
your models which stated adding more co2 would cause land based warming to go up.
we added a third more c02 these last 17 years... and we did not warm.
you have no science showing man made co2 causes warming on earth.
all you do is repeat bullshit.
we are not in a lab... were are in a dynamic environment.
there are papers which speculate that gases which cause warming the greenhouse effect (through infrared radiation) do not heat the ocean. Sunlight does that.
There are others who speculate there could be a thin layer of ocean warming cause by IR but then things get really complicated with up welling and down welling.
you also have the idea the oceans may be warming a bit locally because of underground volcanoes.
What I can say... is that we know as oceans warm they release co2.
So I think it would be very hard for co2 to then lead ocean warming.
And finally we have the recent study ( i have posted many times) which shows the change in ocean temps lead changes in co2.
there are papers which speculate that gases which cause warming the greenhouse effect (through infrared radiation) do not heat the ocean. Sunlight does that.
There are others who speculate there could be a thin layer of ocean warming cause by IR but then things get really complicated with up welling and down welling.
you also have the idea the oceans may be warming a bit locally because of underground volcanoes.
What I can say... is that we know as oceans warm they release co2.
So I think it would be very hard for co2 to then lead ocean warming.
And finally we have the recent study ( i have posted many times) which shows the change in ocean temps lead changes in co2.