Climate-gate

From my above, you might be surprised at just how many sane scientists are out there working at their specialties.
Most scientists work at their specialties, and most scientists support the theory of AGW. Of course there are a few percent that are (in your words) "sane" enough to reject the science in favor of supporting their political agendas. And given the trillions of dollars behind them, it's no surprise that a few scientists are more interested in money than science.
If we were in a grand solar maximum for the last 1/2 of the last century, and we are headed into a grand solar minimum:
What change would you expect reflected in global temperatures?
A decrease.
 
My statement that there is no day/ night surface temperature variation is 100% correct at any fixed point on the surface of a hot stable state Earth.
You'd have to prove that that was possible first - which so far it isn't.
 
Svensmark still has a lot of work to do.

YES!!!!

I do hope that he and those who would follow the same line of research are better funded; especially if we are indeed headed into a grand solar minimum as that would provide exceptionally valuable data if we have the resources and instrumentation to measure and understand the effects as they are happening.
 
Even with the increased greenhouse gasses?

The two trends would tend to oppose each other. AGW forcing is currently between 1.6 and 2.4 watts/sq m. If the solar minimum resulted in a decrease in insolation of less than that, the result would tend to be warming; if it was greater than that the result would tend to be cooling.
 
The two trends would tend to oppose each other. AGW forcing is currently between 1.6 and 2.4 watts/sq m. If the solar minimum resulted in a decrease in insolation of less than that, the result would tend to be warming; if it was greater than that the result would tend to be cooling.

From what I've read, the decrease in insolation during a grand solar minimum should exceed that gained by CO2 alone.
eg: A. I. Shapiro et.al see a potential for a 6+ w/meter sq. drop.

Maybe, that's just a tad rad? Maybe not?

So, do we agree at-least that an increase in solar radiation may have been the dominant cause of the warming of the past century?
 
So, do we agree at-least that an increase in solar radiation may have been the dominant cause of the warming of the past century?
No, since the estimated increase in average insolation was far less than 1 watt/sq m from 1850-today. Hence AGW has been a far stronger driver.
 
You'd have to prove that that was possible first - which so far it isn't.
If it is true as increasing number, but still relative small, number of climate experts think, they mainly argue about when, if man doe not make drastic changes, believe it the near extinction or total instinction, then I won't be able to prove it true (nor my great, great grandchildren for me), as will all be dead first.
 
Again, the constant "we are all going to die!" thing is both unsupportable and doing irreparable harm to the cause of AGW awareness.
I just asked you to watch less than 20 minute video filled with dozen or more supporting referenced facts and 8 or so studies, one by English group Margret Thatcher set up, and tell why they are wrong.
 
It is indeed.

CO2 concentrations are rising - fact.
We are responsible for most of the rise - fact.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that, everything else being equal, increases warming on a planet - fact.
On average temperatures have risen as CO2 has risen - fact.

Now, who denies these facts? A great many people for a great many reasons.

1) The ignorant. This is the easiest category to understand. Some people simply do not understand (for example) the greenhouse effect or why radiation matters to temperatures.
2) The misinformed. These people are intentionally misinformed by organizations like FOX News to support specific political agendas. They are indeed ignorant, but not willfully so.
3) People who feel threatened. As Upton Sinclair wisely said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Thus a coal worker might "not believe" in AGW because he feels his job would be threatened if he did, and thus engages in magical thinking; if I don't believe it it will be untrue.
4) People who hew to ideological ideals. Many conservatives disregard science and try to impose dogma in its place. This was seen in the smoking debate; conservatives were the last deniers of the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke. Today we see this conservative dogma in the creationism and the climate change debates. They feel if they can lie/distract/distort the issue sufficiently that they will "win" since science is seen as a "tool" of the left.



And what would you say if someone claimed that you were lying, that the science isn't settled, that no one can prove it works, that it doesn't get 40mpg, or it might but the efficiency doesn't come from the engine, and anyway everyone will die if they drive in 40mpg deathtraps?

Nice post. Based on your analysis there might be a very large portion of the human race who need to be exposed to the consequences predicted by AGW. IE Scared. In that respect I hope some of them are reading the comments of BillyT and get scared into doing a personal analysis of the scientific literature. I'm scared for the human race. So far we've 'dropped the ball' and we better recover this fumble.
 
Most scientists work at their specialties, and most scientists support the theory of AGW. Of course there are a few percent that are (in your words) "sane" enough to reject the science in favor of supporting their political agendas. And given the trillions of dollars behind them, it's no surprise that a few scientists are more interested in money than science.

I think there are a few scientists who have a authoritative basis for questioning some of the predictions, but to my knowledge none of them advocate against limiting GHGs. The rest of "scientist" denialists seem to be riding on the coattails of science, without actually practicing it. It makes me wonder if the universities ought to be able to revoke a diploma, when the graduate has published egregious abortions of the topic at hand. (And I would nominate you to the committee that makes that decision, BTW.)
 
OK, does it bother you that Shapiro has come up with radically different numbers?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf

I don't see what's so radically different. Shapiro plots a range of about 1362-1366 W/m[sup]2[/sup] which is a variation of ±0.15% (roughly).

In any case, whatever the insolation number is (or will be), the dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere continually drives temps. up. And besides, the vast time period studied by Shapiro et al lies mostly outside of the current era, where all of the problems arise.

We simply can't dismiss the fact that GHGs cause average surface temps to rise faster than they would under any natural causes in play. And of course the irony of confronting climate denialism is that the conversation is being meted out while global ice melts and habitats and species disappear, and while beachfront property lines gradually shrink and seawalls feel the pressure.

All the denialists need to worry about is the present climate and the recent ecological damage of increasing temps., if they're too biased to read current predictions with an open mind. Any way you cut, denialism is really, really bad--emblematic of a disordered mind.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

http://news.yahoo.com/misconceptions-helped-kill-australian-carbon-tax-061851872--finance.html

From the comments: "The "97% of scientists agree" claim has been widely debunked. Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol mocks the 97 percent figure. He states, “People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.” He refers to a report authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others that examined 11,944 “climate abstracts” in the scientific literature. But the authors of that study themselves found otherwise, noting that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” In other words, examining the abstracts alone found only 32.6 percent supported the notion of man-caused global warming. The 97 percent figure was derived by comparing the 32.6 percent with those who rejected (0.7%) or were unsure (0.3%), and essentially ignoring the rest. So, the reality is that only 32.6% agree that AGW is real. They simply happen to be the loud-mouthed MINORITY."--Neutral Observer
 
Todays teaching moment.

Can anybody describe the classic error that "Neutral Observer" has made?
 
Back
Top