The environmental debate thread

[Reaper]

This is something I have been saying all along. It is human nature to push your own theories, ideas, and specialties, and to argue against those who have alternative ideas. This tendency is exacerbated by talking with others of like mind. Basic psychology shows that, when two or more people with similar dogmatic views, get together and talk about their views, they become more entrenched and more extreme. This, of course, has been happening within the anthropogenic greenhouse gas global warming community. The end result is that we get exposed to the most extreme views. Scientific data is good, but the interpretations of that data are often extreme.

 

But 1) you haven't adequately demonstrated that the viewpoints are "extreme" (what the hell does extreme mean in this context anyways?), nor have you demonstrated them to be invalid.

 

And 2) the psychology is irrelevant to the issue, because the only thing that really matters is the experimental results and the validity of the climate forecasts, not what they or anybody thinks of it.

 

 

 

BTW the link you provided doesn't support your case here, especially since the average temperature didn't change quite as much back then as it is changing now. Solar forcing is just not adequate to account for what is happening right now.

 

Global warming is indeed occuring, but is it necessarily as terrible as some make it out to be? Look at the 60s and 70s. The earth was in a cooling trend then. The Earth goes through warming and cooling trends naturally. I do believe humans play somewhat of a role in it, but it is a natural thing - not something to get all worked up about!

 

The problem now though is that the Earth has had an overall warming trend over the past century or so, and it is directly related to the amount of greenhouse gases we're spewing up in the air. In addition, the Earth is supposed to be cooling down from what I read elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

We had two active hurricane seasons and everybody thought that it was all due to global warming and I heard many extreme cases who actually thought the world was coming to an end. TWO active seasons...but now we just had two inactive ones to make up for that. Hurricanes and other severe storms have been happening on the earth since the earth began. They have gone through periods of happening more frequently and less frequently, alternating every few decades or so.

 

Well, yes, and so far they those claims are either speculative or just outright paranoia. And they didn't all blame global warming either (Here in New Orleans they also blamed God ). But the severity of hurricanes and when they occur is for the most part random, and not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

 

Global warming is nothing to fear. Soon we will see "Global Cooling" and we won't have to worry anymore.

 

Only if we start taking measures to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale, otherwise it's most likely going to do just what our various graphs that we presented here show.

 

Yes, humans can destroy things on the earth, but the earth is a strong enough system to take care of itself dispite what we do to it. In other words, humans can't totally screw up the earth because they would all kill themselves and then years later everything would go back to normal again.

 

But, that doesn't mean they might not do that anyway. After all, we've come dangerously close to doing just that over the past few decades.

 

 

I don't see any threat here in global warming. In fact, I see a much worse threat to humankind with war. I think we are too worried about global warming and putting too much time and effort into those worries. I like to remain calm about it and let the earth run its natural cycle.

 

Well, one of the problems with global warming is that it has the potential to severely disrupt the seasons and the general weather patterns, and our crop produce (and hence our food supply) are dependent on that. Another potential danger of global warming is rising sea levels, and many of our cities are right on the coast. And, I read somewhere that wars could become much more likely (and far more deadly due to current and future technology) in the event of environmental problems (e.g. competing for arable land, clean water, habitable places, etc.). So, I have to say that I don't quite agree with you here.

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed said :

 

"1) you haven't adequately demonstrated that the viewpoints are "extreme" (what the hell does extreme mean in this context anyways?), nor have you demonstrated them to be invalid. "

 

These very long discussions carry the risk that we forget what went before, which is natural. Naturally, I remember what I posted, but others may forget, as you have done. Again, this is normal and your forgetting is not a criticism.

 

The example I used previously for 'extreme' was James Hansen claiming that the oceans would rise 5 metres by the year 2100. Since they are currently rising at 3 mm per year, that is an increase over current of more than 1500%. I regard that as extreme.

 

Lockheed also said :

 

 

"2) the psychology is irrelevant to the issue, because the only thing that really matters is the experimental results and the validity of the climate forecasts, not what they or anybody thinks of it. "

 

Perhaps I was not very clear in what I said. I tried to point out that the psychology does not affect the basic data. However, it definitely affects the way the data is interpreted. As witness a prediction of 5 metres sea level rise.

 

Lockheed also said :

 

"Solar forcing is just not adequate to account for what is happening right now."

 

I have not made that claim. As I have repeated about 10,000 times (or at least it seems that way), there is no doubt that the driver of warming over the past 30 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Solar forcings, however, have been a very strong driver, and very likely the dominant driver in earlier times (before 1940), when we consider sunspot activity.

[iNow]

I ask again, lance... with your approach and your tactics, what is it precisely that you hope to achieve?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

This is a debate. There is no specific goal, apart from exchanging ideas, and expressing opinions. I told you once, as my own opinion, that these forums are essentially for recreation. Anyone who thinks they can achieve something great on this venue is only kidding himself/herself.

 

On global warming, I have been following the wider debate for many years. I have taken on board the clear scientific data, and treated with suitable scepticism that which is interpretation or extrapolation. There are certain facts which I would not dream of refuting, and there is interpretation. It is the latter we are debating.

[swansont]

Swansont claimed that CO2 increase was a major, if not THE major cause of warming from 1910 to 1940.

 

No, I didn't. This is a strawman.

 

I have been rebutting your claim that "The biggest increase in sunspot activity, which drove a 0.4 C warming at a time when greenhouse gas increase was trivial, occurred from 1910 to 1940."

 

I did a calculation (using the data and boundary conditions supplied by you) that the CO2 increase from 1870 to 1940 should be responsible for a ~ 0.175 ºC increase in temperature over that time frame. This is not trivial.

 

What I've said is that a change in volcanic activity and the change in CO2 by themselves combine to account for more than half of the temperature change in that time frame. Solar cannot and does not account for that trend. You have not substantiated that claim (the one study you cited that supported it has been revised by its authors, such that it no longer supports your claim.)

 

The 1880 to 1910 cooling was 30 years! To claim this was due to vulcanism is, frankly, pushing credulity. It would require a major eruption (Mt. Pinatubo size or greater) every year! And over that 30 year period, with its 0.1 ppm per year CO2 increase, we saw a major drop in sunspot activity. A little basic logic tells you which explanation makes more sense.

 

IIRC 1883 was Krakatoa, and in 1902 there were three major eruptions. And lots more smaller ones. You don't need a major eruption in a year if you have many smaller ones.

 

If you had indeed looked at the link I provided

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/highlights/1998/pascnl.php

you'd have seen that average sulfate levels (as measured in Greenland) tripled between 1880 and ~1910 or so, and then dropped significantly. So if you get increased cooling from the elevated sulfate levels, you should then get warming when they drop.

 

The drop in sunspot activity (from the TSI reconstruction of Solanki I cited) started ~10 years earlier than the temperature drop, and only lasted ~15 years — after that it was pretty flat until 1930.

 

(Oh, and before you cited ~0.2 ppm per year. Now it's 0.1 ppm per year? I get 0.185 ppm per year from the numbers you provided)

[Reaper]

I ask again, lance... with your approach and your tactics, what is it precisely that you hope to achieve?

 

Given that you (and myself for that matter) probably already know the answer to that question at hand, there's no point in asking, and in any case it is irrelevant. Please stick to the science, no matter how painful this is, or annoying SL may be.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"I did a calculation (using the data and boundary conditions supplied by you) that the CO2 increase from 1870 to 1940 should be responsible for a ~ 0.175 ºC increase in temperature over that time frame. This is not trivial."

 

Swansont posted this straight after a statement that he was NOT claiming CO2 was a major driver of global warming from 1910 to 1940. I am confused. What is he trying to say?

 

"IIRC 1883 was Krakatoa, and in 1902 there were three major eruptions. And lots more smaller ones. You don't need a major eruption in a year if you have many smaller ones."

 

Undoubtedly true. However, based on recent history, Krakatoa would have resulted in global cooling of no more than 12 months. The others would have resulted in even less cooling. We are talking a total cooling event of 30 years. Volcanoes will not do it.

 

"The drop in sunspot activity (from the TSI reconstruction of Solanki I cited) started ~10 years earlier than the temperature drop, and only lasted ~15 years — after that it was pretty flat until 1930."

 

If it is cause and effect, the cause will precede the effect. And the TSI began to increase well before 1930. In fact, it reached its nadir in 1900, and was rising after that. 1930 represented a time when the slope of the graph increased. Not when it began to increase.

 

"(Oh, and before you cited ~0.2 ppm per year. Now it's 0.1 ppm per year? I get 0.185 ppm per year from the numbers you provided)"

 

Sorry. My mistake. I originally stated, a little less than 0.2, and that is what I should have said.

 

Incidentally, I notice that you (and my other debate opponents) have ignored my statement about the global climate models failing to predict current Arctic ice melting. Am I to take it from that, that you have no answer, and accept that the computer models are not accurate?

 

Lockheed said :

 

"Please stick to the science, no matter how painful this is, or annoying SL may be."

 

Good advise to iNow. And the statement about how annoying I am, I will take as a compliment. People who have hidebound, rigid views need their asses kicked from time to time. I am a good ass kicker. The reason I am especially annoying among asskickers, I am sure, is that I am well enough informed on the issues that Lockheed and friends cannot demonstrate me to be wrong. That is because I am not. Global warming has its dogmas, just like any other pseudo-religious belief. As long as I stick to accepting the good science, and debating the shakey science, I cannot be proven wrong. And that really annoys the dogmatists.

[iNow]

Incidentally, I notice that you (and my other debate opponents) have ignored my statement about the global climate models failing to predict current Arctic ice melting. Am I to take it from that, that you have no answer, and accept that the computer models are not accurate?

No. You should take that to mean that your statement has gone ignored. I'd readily address your points, but I've grown tired of wasting my time and having the evidence I share in support of my postion ignored.

 

 

 

The reason I am especially annoying among asskickers, I am sure, is that I am well enough informed on the issues that Lockheed and friends cannot demonstrate me to be wrong.

It also has a little something to do with your personal attacks on others, the way you repeat the same points even when they've been shown inaccurate, your lack of evidence in support of your claims, and your misrepresentation of what people say... but yeah... you go on thinking it's because you're well informed and others are all dogmatists if that strawman makes you feel better about yourself...

[Reaper]

Incidentally, I notice that you (and my other debate opponents) have ignored my statement about the global climate models failing to predict current Arctic ice melting. Am I to take it from that, that you have no answer, and accept that the computer models are not accurate?

 

I found the article that talks about what you described: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/

 

A quick glance shows that there was one big problem with the predictions: It did not take into account the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Otherwise, your statement is wayyyyy off the mark here. And the link, of course, doesn't even support your position. Ironically, it gives even more support to our arguments.

 

These very long discussions carry the risk that we forget what went before, which is natural. Naturally, I remember what I posted, but others may forget, as you have done. Again, this is normal and your forgetting is not a criticism.

 

Actually, I remember very clearly what went on before, as I was keeping track of it, and I also took note of the lack of citations and refutations of your notions that also took place. But its okay SL, some people may have forgotten that and I'll always be here to remind you (yet again).

 

 

The example I used previously for 'extreme' was James Hansen claiming that the oceans would rise 5 metres by the year 2100. Since they are currently rising at 3 mm per year, that is an increase over current of more than 1500%. I regard that as extreme.

 

But you haven't shown that analysis to be invalid though. While it does seem like a rather large increase, that doesn't mean that it can happen. Indeed, many things that occur in nature don't make any intuitive sense. But whether or not you like the implications that the models are portraying is irrelevant.

[swansont]

No. You should take that to mean that your statement has gone ignored. I'd readily address your points, but I've grown tired of wasting my time and having the evidence I share in support of my postion ignored.

 

Add to this the fact that it takes time to find citations and direct quotes, so coming up with proper responses takes longer than a post that has poor or nonexistent supporting evidence.

[SkepticLance]

I am quite enjoying this. It is fun to see how my debate opponents try to evade points in the debate, and pretend they have addressed them.

 

iNow said :

 

"You should take that to mean that your statement has gone ignored. I'd readily address your points, but I've grown tired of wasting my time and having the evidence I share in support of my postion ignored."

 

Standard evasion tactic.

 

Lockheed said :

 

"A quick glance shows that there was one big problem with the predictions: It did not take into account the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions."

 

Another evasion. My point was that the global computer models failed to predict a very important and major event, leading to my conclusion that the models and their predictions are unreliable. So, instead of addressing that, Lockheed tries to explain the reason for the failure, as if that was an answer. My point remains valid.

 

Swansont said :

 

"Add to this the fact that it takes time to find citations and direct quotes, so coming up with proper responses takes longer than a post that has poor or nonexistent supporting evidence."

 

Another classic evasion. So far, no reasonable response. I will look forward to the forthcoming evasions and red herrings with anticipation.

[iNow]

Ask your question again.

[Reaper]

This thread is turning out much better than I thought. 9 pages in and already SL is trying to project his failures on to others.

 

Another evasion. My point was that the global computer models failed to predict a very important and major event, leading to my conclusion that the models and their predictions are unreliable. So, instead of addressing that, Lockheed tries to explain the reason for the failure, as if that was an answer. My point remains valid.

 

That was not an evasion though. I had looked at your point and assessed it, and to my surprise I found that it didn't really support your position at all. Rather it showed that you just went cherry picking and making strawmans again.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"I did a calculation (using the data and boundary conditions supplied by you) that the CO2 increase from 1870 to 1940 should be responsible for a ~ 0.175 ºC increase in temperature over that time frame. This is not trivial."

 

Swansont posted this straight after a statement that he was NOT claiming CO2 was a major driver of global warming from 1910 to 1940. I am confused. What is he trying to say?

 

Here's an example of where quantifying things, as I've previously requested, would be quite useful. We'd avoid the false dilemma presented here (and the distraction of discussing CO2 concentration when we really want to look at the temperature effect of the change in concentration). "Trivial" means of little value, i.e. very close to zero, and can be ignored. I take that to mean very small compared to other terms . The overall temperature change being 0.4-0.5 ºC, 0.175 ºC is not trivial.

 

Now, what's "major?" Let's use your exact quote, "Swansont claimed that CO2 increase was a major, if not THE major cause of warming from 1910 to 1940." THE major cause should be the biggest one.

 

Is it too difficult to see that something can be

a) not trivially small and

b) not the biggest

 

at the same time?

 

 

"IIRC 1883 was Krakatoa, and in 1902 there were three major eruptions. And lots more smaller ones. You don't need a major eruption in a year if you have many smaller ones."

 

Undoubtedly true. However, based on recent history, Krakatoa would have resulted in global cooling of no more than 12 months. The others would have resulted in even less cooling. We are talking a total cooling event of 30 years. Volcanoes will not do it.

 

 

Wait. Let me get this straight (ignoring, for the moment the "12 month claim"). A singe big volcano will drop temperatures, and several smaller volcanoes, do add up to the effect of one big volcano, BUT you can't have this happening continually for many years in a row. Why?

 

And regardless of the source, why couldn't the tripling of sulfates cause the cooling in question, and the subsequent reduction in sulfates cause some/much of the later warming?

 

"The drop in sunspot activity (from the TSI reconstruction of Solanki I cited) started ~10 years earlier than the temperature drop, and only lasted ~15 years — after that it was pretty flat until 1930."

 

If it is cause and effect, the cause will precede the effect. And the TSI began to increase well before 1930. In fact, it reached its nadir in 1900, and was rising after that. 1930 represented a time when the slope of the graph increased. Not when it began to increase.

 

TO WHAT GRAPH ARE YOU REFERRING? (Why is this such a difficult piece of information to include?)

 

Certainly not the one from Solanki's 2007 paper that I posted earlier, which clearly shows ~ 0.01 fluctuation in TSI from ~1885 - 1930, as compared to the ~0.06 change from 1930 - 1955

 

———

 

What is the experimental basis of your claim that solar is responsible for 0.4 ºC of warming between 1910 and 1940? (Keeping in mind that Solanki's 2004 paper has been superceded by the 2007 paper)

 

Swansont said :

 

"Add to this the fact that it takes time to find citations and direct quotes, so coming up with proper responses takes longer than a post that has poor or nonexistent supporting evidence."

 

Another classic evasion. So far, no reasonable response. I will look forward to the forthcoming evasions and red herrings with anticipation.

 

Can you point me to all of the citations you made in the last post directed at me, pointing out how the TSI data support you?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=382291&postcount=157

 

 

—————————

 

 

To address something I skipped over before.

 

But volcanic cooling occurs only after significant size eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo is an example) and only for about 12 months.

 

The link you proveded does not actually say this. It says (regarding Tambora)

"Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months."

 

That is not the same as saying that no cooling was present after 12 months, just that it was not as large, i.e not sharply cooler. You cannot draw the conclusion that the effects are limited to a year from this statement.

 

It also says

"An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years."

 

By what mechanism does it affect weather, but not be abe to affect temperature?

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

I think I should primarily address my replies to you. Lockheed and iNow continue to ignore my points and deliver evasions. You, I can respect. That does not mean you are right. However, you have the much more admirable quality of responding with science, instead of insults and evasions. Let me express my appreciation for your debating technique.

 

You said :

 

"Let's use your exact quote, "Swansont claimed that CO2 increase was a major, if not THE major cause of warming from 1910 to 1940." THE major cause should be the biggest one. "

 

I gave two possibilities. If you prefer to suggest CO2 increase was just one of the major influences, that is OK.

 

"A singe big volcano will drop temperatures, and several smaller volcanoes, do add up to the effect of one big volcano, BUT you can't have this happening continually for many years in a row. Why?"

 

Simple history. There may have been volcanoes in the more distant past that were able to deliver cooling that might have lasted a very long time (the Siberian plates come to mind). However, in the past 500 years, we see volcanoes normally delivering a global cooling of no more than 12 months. This is not, of course, the same as weather, which is a local event. I have observed the effects of Mount Ruapehu eruptions here in NZ in 1995 and 1996. Definitely affected local weather, but had no measurable effect on global climate.

 

I have to admit I was wrong on Mt. Pinatubo, which cooled the Earth for two years. Failure of memory. Deep sigh. Doesn't affect my argument. though.

 

Take a look at

 

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

 

 

I quote :

 

"Observational evidence shows a clear correlation between historic eruptions and subsequent years of cold climate conditions. Four well-known historic examples are described below.

 

 

LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.

 

TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.

 

KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.

 

 

 

 

In London, the Krakatau sunsets were clearly distinct from the familiar red sunsets seen through the smoke-laden atmosphere of the city. This is demonstrated in the painting shown here of a sunset from the banks of the Thames River, created by artist William Ascroft on November 26, 1883.

 

 

The vivid red sky in Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" was inspired by the vibrant twilights in Norway, his native land.

 

 

 

 

For a more thorough description of the 1883 eruption, see Krakatau.

 

PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming."

 

Conclusion :

 

You should not assume global cooling of more than 2 years from vulcanism. At least not in historic times.

[iNow]

Please quit making this personal. You act as if you're fighting me, instead of the data.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

I would be delighted to debate politely with you. However, you have a long habit on these threads of failing to debate. When I pointed out that global climate models were not able to simulate the effects of changing cloud formation, and supplied a suitable reference, you failed to reply sensibly, and just accused me of hand waving.

 

For my last challenge, you responded with :

 

"I've grown tired of wasting my time and having the evidence I share in support of my postion ignored."

 

and failed to make a science based response. If you really do not want to debate, that is fine. Just leave us alone. If you want to, then please use science.

[Chris C]

Aerosols cause cooling. 1940-70 has a lot to do with aerosols. No volcanic activity has had significant climate influence since Pinatubo. No, I will not reference myself.

[SkepticLance]

To Chris

 

You need not supply a reference because no-one is likely to dispute your point.

 

I have had to make a back-track on the 1940 to 1970 period, myself. My earlier reference showed sunspot activity dropping from 1940 onwards, but Swansont pointed out that the TSI continued to rise to 1950, as shown by more recent data. Thus, I have to admit that the global cooling after 1940 was not caused by sunspot activity dropping. I might be stubborn, but I am not going to dispute good scientific data.

[iNow]

...and failed to make a science based response. If you really do not want to debate, that is fine. Just leave us alone. If you want to, then please use science.

 

You see, Lance, I have this awful habit of learning from experience. In post #61 of this thread, I shared a plethora of science in support of my position. You then dismissed ALL of it blanketly by calling it opinion.

 

Stop lecturing me about my style. The fact that I'm tired of dealing with you says nothing about the merit of my position.

 

Like I said above, please stop trying to make this personal.

 

 

I also would like to add that science is not debate class... It's science. It's a methodology of making testable predictions and testing them. Debate is for philosophers. In science, we make a claim, and we support it. When evidence shows it's mistaken, we move on.

 

I have supported my claims, and you have dismissed that support. Hence, you're wasting my time, and the time of all other readers.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

In spite of your opinion, this is a science debate. I happen to enjoy it. If you really believe that the debate is worthless to you, then stop entering the forum. If you enjoy it, as I do, then enter the debate with good science.

[iNow]

If you enjoy it, as I do, then enter the debate with good science.

See post #61. Your response in post #84 is precisely where I wrote you off as intellectually dishonest.

[swansont]

Conclusion :

 

You should not assume global cooling of more than 2 years from vulcanism. At least not in historic times.

 

This does not follow. A valid conclusion might be "do not assume global cooling of more than 2 years from a single volcanic event." But I have not claimed that the cooling in question comes from a single event.

 

 

———

 

 

I asked you to address the sulfate graph — it clearly shows a marked increase when there is cooling. I also asked what evidence supports your claim about the warming; you've admitted that the cooling after 1940 was not sunspot-driven, now I ask you to look at the rest of the graph.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"A valid conclusion might be "do not assume global cooling of more than 2 years from a single volcanic event." But I have not claimed that the cooling in question comes from a single event."

 

If you read my reference on volcanoes, you will realise that eruptions large enough to cause global cooling are relatively few and far between. It also states that the Pinatubo/Hudson event (2 eruptions) was the largest of the 20th Century, and had the biggest climatic effect. It caused 2 years cooling. Rather unlikely that eruptions could cause 30 years cooling, especially when the last 10 were in the 20th Century.

 

"I asked you to address the sulfate graph"

 

Sorry. I do not know which graph you mean. Can you post it again?

 

So far, no-one has satisfactorily responded to my challenge about ice melt.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/12998787.html

 

Arctic ice is melting much more quickly than global climate models predicted. This is clearly an example of these models failing. This supports my assertion that we cannot trust computer climate models. They are unreliable and inaccurate.

 

I suspect that certain contributors to this thread have adopted computer models by a process analogous to the Act of Faith so important in religion. In religion, the follower hears what the teacher has to say, and adopts the teaching without evidence - takes it on faith. Here, we have people who adopt computer models purely on faith, because some climate guru says it is so.

 

I say that we should NEVER adopt anything purely because someone who is supposedly expert says it is so. We must remain sceptical, and accept only that for which there is good empirical evidence.

 

The current Arctic melting is strong empirical evidence to say we should NOT trust computer models.

[playaj20008]

I love how, just as the author before you, you included multiple facts and alternatives to support your claim.

 

There is no debate regarding cause among people who actually study this for a living. The debate is all among people who know little more than news clips.

 

CO₂ absolutely causes warming.

We humans are absolutely adding CO₂ to the atmosphere.

 

 

I was referring to this thread in my previous post.