Anybody want to argue global warming?

[Docfeelgood]

It's surprising how strongly climate change denying seems to correlate with young earth creationism. And how they both seem to correlate with lack of education.

The evidence that Mike showed me, I viewed as incontrovertible. Maybe it has to do with not knowing( or interested? ) rather than not being educated? The media can spin it such a way that it is hard to tell the truth unless one does there own homework. IMHO.

[BlackCat]

Congrats Mike, you have won yet another acolyte - dfg has joined your side

Ouch - condolences .

[Docfeelgood]

Congrats Mike, you have won yet another acolyte - dfg has joined your side

Ouch - condolences .

lol

[MikeH]

I was just curious if you were a citation arguer or actually bothered to check the details It of course also made me sad that you, without knowing anything about their arguments, flatly accepted MM's response as it was stated in that you linked to.

I fully agree that climate change deniers are stupid, but they are actually rare. What you see are scientists checking the scientific validity of the AGW theory. Strangely that seems to offend you.

Ok so I'm not sure why you were arguing against me. Seems like we agree. What you seem to be saying there is that the best evidence available tells us AGW is happening, but there's a lot more to learn.

[ricketyclik]

I'm a bit curious about this theory - have you and doc on it ? TBH, it sounds like some crackpot theory that noone really cares about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

It's an undisputed scientific fact that for CO2 to raise the temperature one degree you have to double the amount of CO2.

Source, please.

[ricketyclik]

I think the focus on limiting CO2 emissions as a fix is folly. The desertification, deforestation, and pavementification of the planet has reduced it's CO2 buffering capacity. As has the use of fossil fuels that otherwise could have kept CO2 sequestered for very long periods of time. It's not just the output that matters, but also the source, and the ability to deal with the output.

On a more serious note: Dumping raw sewage into waterways and the sea increases the CO2 buffering capacity of the planet. Is it just a coincidence that with the rise of sewage treatment plants that GW sets in? Hmmmmmm....

Although I agree with your point about preserving and investing in more sinks, it's worth bearing in mind that we currently consume (emit) more than 3 million years of photosynthesis/fossilisation per year. Focussing on limiting emissions has to be done.

[giblets]

we currently consume (emit) more than 3 million years of photosynthesis/fossilisation per year.

I don't understand why that fact is significant.

[ricketyclik]

I don't understand why that fact is significant.

In the context of what Aeson was saying, it's pointing out that our destruction of sinks isn't as significant as our emission of sources of CO2 in affecting the overall level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[BlackCat]

Source, please.

Go to Essentials

[ricketyclik]

The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration (ΔTx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[1] This is a slight change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C".[2] More recent work continues to support a best-guess value around 3°C

You will note, BlackCat, that the range is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, not 1 degree as you claimed. That is from the link you just posted.

[BlackCat]

You will note, BlackCat, that the range is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, not 1 degree as you claimed. That is from the link you just posted.

Wich part of :

CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2 (or any other change in Earth's radiative balance), and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.

is it you don't understand ?

[ricketyclik]

So you're saying we live in a world where the feedbacks don't exist?

[BlackCat]

So you're saying we live in a world where the feedbacks don't exist?

Certainly not, we absolutely live in a world filled with positive and negative feedbacks, but what are these ?

Some "deniers" say that due to sun "whatever", cosmic radiation fluctuations etc., the amount of water wapor goes up and add to heating. In these cases AGW proponents says that because of the short life of water wapor it's negilible.

When the cause of the rise in water wapor is due to CO2, then it isn't.

Cloud coverage - the same.

Current science is busy with seeking evidence for GW wich is pretty stupid since there already are plenty of that. Instead they should look into what causes climate change wich happened way before humans had any chance to have any impact. That, unfortunatedly isn't good for careers, so only few enter that path.

About funding - well, "deniers" are usually blamed that they are paid obscene amounts of $ by the oil industry - wonder if they can match this : $2.56 billion - how many researchers will say that this is a waste of money ?

[ricketyclik]

Hop, skip, and jump.

I'm through with you and your evading when you're wrong and then just bringing up more lies.

[BlackCat]

Hop, skip, and jump.

I'm through with you and your evading when you're wrong and then just bringing up more lies.

Interesting claim - please point out where I lie.

Isn't it really about the fact that I'm right and you are wrong and that you don't like that ?

EDIT: Actually, this is the typical reaction from AGW'ers when confronted with hard science - "it's lies, evasive not on subject etc".