Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
There are 2 energy sources. The sun and geothermal. The sun has been discounted due to the variability in TSi does not match the variability in climate. Unfortunately this is poor science. Variability in TSi would only be a first order correlation for a black body. The earth is not a black body and hence the wavelength variability maybe more relevant (we know the oceans drive the atmosphere so short wavelength variability is more important than TSi).
And we do just say "it's cyclical" when it comes to Milkanovich cycles.
the solar aspect is an interesting one as it is impossible for such a small change to effect a noticeable temp change(as it occurs, who knows the effect of multiple slightly higher or lower output cycles in a row). yet the uv aspect, that has major effects on ozone and the largest oceanic biomass ,plankton, varies by orders of magnitude from what i can tell. And we do just say "it's cyclical" when it comes to Milkanovich cycles.
considering we are still learning of new geothermal sources all the time i have to think there is much to learn about solar output and the effects on the planet as a result.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Temperature can rise or fall for any number of reasons, or perhaps even no known reason. The correlation between temperature and our much demonised but essential trace gas is not particularly convincing, and certainly in terms of causation it's mere modelling guesswork.
I believe that time will show that burning fossil fuels and the associated trace additions of anthropogenic CO2 does nothing to global temperature in terms of being indistinguishable from natural variance. Time will of course reveal all. In the meantime, let's hope it gets warmer and not cooler, and herein lies a problem, albeit a relatively short term one.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
deeps said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
deeps said:
I strongly dispute it for reasons of logic.
Temperature can rise or fall for any number of reasons, or perhaps even no known reason. The correlation between temperature and our much demonised but essential trace gas is not particularly convincing, and certainly in terms of causation it's mere modelling guesswork.
I believe that time will show that burning fossil fuels and the associated trace additions of anthropogenic CO2 does nothing to global temperature in terms of being indistinguishable from natural variance. Time will of course reveal all. In the meantime, let's hope it gets warmer and not cooler, and herein lies a problem, albeit a relatively short term one.
The key words are right there, highlighted.Temperature can rise or fall for any number of reasons, or perhaps even no known reason. The correlation between temperature and our much demonised but essential trace gas is not particularly convincing, and certainly in terms of causation it's mere modelling guesswork.
I believe that time will show that burning fossil fuels and the associated trace additions of anthropogenic CO2 does nothing to global temperature in terms of being indistinguishable from natural variance. Time will of course reveal all. In the meantime, let's hope it gets warmer and not cooler, and herein lies a problem, albeit a relatively short term one.
What makes you 'believe' that?
You also say "Temperatures can rise or fall for...perhaps even no known reason". What a specious argument that is. You could use it to dispute almost anything.
Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 27th March 09:19
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
ks. Prove that beyond doubt, please. Yourself, not reference to others either.deeps said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Temperature can rise or fall for any number of reasons, or perhaps even no known reason. The correlation between temperature and our much demonised but essential trace gas is not particularly convincing, and certainly in terms of causation it's mere modelling guesswork.
I believe that time will show that burning fossil fuels and the associated trace additions of anthropogenic CO2 does nothing to global temperature in terms of being indistinguishable from natural variance. Time will of course reveal all. In the meantime, let's hope it gets warmer and not cooler, and herein lies a problem, albeit a relatively short term one.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
If so, I hope you realise you're way out in your own there, basically declaring our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong. Flat-earth level wrongness.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
If so, I hope you realise you're way out in your own there, basically declaring our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong. Flat-earth level wrongness.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
If so, I hope you realise you're way out in your own there, basically declaring our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong. Flat-earth level wrongness.
LoonyTunes said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
If so, I hope you realise you're way out in your own there, basically declaring our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong. Flat-earth level wrongness.
Do you also deny the moon landings?
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature rise has, as expected, been partly cooled from the increase in aerosols?
Cooling as expected - due to too excessive aerosols
Climate science has every direction covered, the alarm is always justifiable.
If so, I hope you realise you're way out in your own there, basically declaring our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong. Flat-earth level wrongness.
Do you also deny the moon landings?
Why are you talking in riddles? Just post your actual point, including the science behind it, so that it can be debated FFS.
durbster said:
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature has risen as expected from the increase in CO2?
that's it ? nothing on yet another settled science area not being settled at all ? it was expected to rise much further due the increased levels of atmospheric water vapour that the small amount of warming from the extra co2 would produce.so the smaller than expected by the theory (remember water vapour does the heavy lifting, not co2) amount of warming is commensurate with the rise in co2, it still doesn't support the positive feedback element of the theory or how the planet reacts to that warming to counter it. like sea ice extent reductions in winter resulting in a greater loss of global heat content to space.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature has risen as expected from the increase in CO2?
that's it ? nothing on yet another settled science area not being settled at all ?So yep, that's it. And the answer?
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Do you dispute the fact that the temperature has risen as expected from the increase in CO2?
that's it ? nothing on yet another settled science area not being settled at all ?So yep, that's it. And the answer?
Kawasicki said:
Yeah, loads more.
Any consensus estimate on something as simple and incredibly important as predicting the start of the next ice age? Your assertion was that we understand our climate, the answer should be easy then.
Stay focused!
Except it isn't simple, is it? It depends on many things, one of which is the composition of the atmosphere, and we are constantly altering that. We can't predict fossil fuel emissions as they depend on political and economic considerations. Any consensus estimate on something as simple and incredibly important as predicting the start of the next ice age? Your assertion was that we understand our climate, the answer should be easy then.
Stay focused!
ETA: it also isn't that important either AFAICS. DO any of the estimates suggest an ice age is imminant (withing, say the next 1,000 years)?
Edited by ludo on Thursday 28th March 16:48
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff