Global Warming: For Experts Only

[futurecurrents]

jerm says

"al gores skeptical science says:

"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:""


Gee, that's just what a think worker would do. Ad hom the argument (it's not "Al Gore's website at all, it's science and facts).

Jem.....are you working for this? If not, why are you so intellectually dishonest?

 

[futurecurrents]

Piehole the think tanker sez

"Remember water is the most important green house gas"


WRONG!


CO2 is. As it is persistant. That is, it lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, so it controls levels of water VAPOR which indeed does have important SHORT TERM effects.

And here I thought you knew this stuff.

Do I need to post science showing this......again?

 

[futurecurrents]

I may choose not to respond unless you provide science showing man made co2 causes warming.

 

[futurecurrents]

And piehole sez

, "but CO2 is a minor player when it comes to moderating the Earth's surface temperature."

WRONG!

It's the most important regulator of the earth's temperature. Do I need to post the science again?

Amazing how someone that can sound so smart can say such dumb things.

It's almost like you are working for a fossil fuel propaganda think tank.

 

[jem]

for years you have always prefaced a solid amount of your responses with comments about it being koch money or oil company money.

al gore... has sponsored that website.

there are a few facts on that website but its main arguments are mostly conjecture by necessity because there are no facts showing that man made co2 is causing warming.

jerm says

"al gores skeptical science says:

"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:""


Gee, that's just what a think worker would do. Ad hom the argument (it's not "Al Gore's website at all, it's science and facts).

Jem.....are you working for this? If not, why are you so intellectually dishonest?

 

[stu]

I am saying the data and the science show that changes in atmospheric levels of co2 follow changes in ocean temperature and changes in air temperature.

And it is hard to show the laggard causes the leader.

There is no need to show the laggard causes the leader.
Are you saying co2 follows therefore it cannot warm, or not.

co2 follows therefore it cannot warm
co2 follows therefore it can warm
Which is it?

 

[stu]

Technically, it is the amount of global temperature rise as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration; not the green house effect per se, which is a photophysical phenomenon with no specific number attached to it. . Remember water is the most important green house gas, but water, unlike CO2, affects temperature by other mechanisms besides the greenhouse effect. The "climate sensitivity" is an estimate, and it varies a great deal depending on who is doing the estimating.

Technically, in that regard as far as atmospheric concentration goes, let the force of the Keeling Curve be with you.
But whether it is a technical game of chicken, or one played out while the blindingly obvious pollution of the atmosphere with quantities of CO2 decade after decade is at such an extent that observed overall global temperatures rose and still are, inexorably, as the pollution continues , is still a f'kn dumb game to play whomsoever is estimating whatsoever.

 

[stu]

Degeneration of a scientific discussion into ad hominem attacks and attempts to discredit scientists

questionable attacks on their professional competence is regrettable

Hansen, and others who have fallen into the same trap, are no longer capable of dispassionate science

A bit of pot & kettle

Bottom line is piezoe, science is not on the side of your contrarian argument . Unless and until the likes of Salby, Shaviv, Miskolczi can come up with propositions that don't disregard the laws of physics, or contradict observed data and information, they will be debunked and even pre-debunked the way they have been and deservedly so.
They demonstrate a clear lack of plausible physics and overlook methodological flaws in their propositions.
Now if they did what you suggest, they would have kept their ideas within the bounds of disagreeing scientists and there they would languish , not parade them as they have in the full glare of self-publicity before convincing anyone but themselves, to satisfy a conspiracy chasing denier market.

Global warming is grounded upon overwhelming, consistent long term scientific evidence, whether you accept it or not.

 

[piezoe]

A bit of pot & kettle

Bottom line is piezoe, science is not on the side of your contrarian argument . Unless and until the likes of Salby, Shaviv, Miskolczi can come up with propositions that don't disregard the laws of physics, or contradict observed data and information, they will be debunked and even pre-debunked the way they have been and deservedly so.
They demonstrate a clear lack of plausible physics and overlook methodological flaws in their propositions.
Now if they did what you suggest, they would have kept their ideas within the bounds of disagreeing scientists and there they would languish , not parade them as they have in the full glare of self-publicity before convincing anyone but themselves, to satisfy a conspiracy chasing denier market.

Global warming is grounded upon overwhelming, consistent long term scientific evidence, whether you accept it or not.

a near perfect example. Thanks.

 

[jem]

there is no reason. I agree. Unless you are making claims that man man co2 is causing warming.


if you are going to bring up the keeling curve with piezoe... as you just did...

and you are going to argue or imply that the co2 being plotted on that curve is causing global warming.... you are going to have to show the laggard is causing the leader.

There is no need to show the laggard causes the leader.
Are you saying co2 follows therefore it cannot warm, or not.

co2 follows therefore it cannot warm
co2 follows therefore it can warm
Which is it?