Science Not Settled

[billiards]

As an observer of this thread, I would say Wild Cobra is doing a very bad job of debunking AGW, and a very good job of showing how weak the anti-AGW camp really is.

[Wild Cobra]

As an observer of this thread, I would say Wild Cobra is doing a very bad job of debunking AGW, and a very good job of showing how weak the anti-AGW camp really is.

 

Why would I try to say AGW isn't real?

 

It is!

[billiards]

Well that make your argument so much stronger. [/sarcasm]

 

How about you build on your arguments rather than play side-stepping tactics? Perhaps you could lend yourself some credibility.

[iNow]

Why would I try to say AGW isn't real?

 

It is!

Little more than ridiculous word games and disingenuous conversation style, already addressed by Ophiolite in post #246:

 

Your posts and your opening remark declare that you believe the current documented increases in global temperature are natural. Yet you also say you believe in AGW. Yet AGW is generally taken to mean that the bulk of the temperature increase we see is a consequence of human activities. If you are defining it differently it is really rather rude of you to accost people who use the conventional definition. Frankly, I find it yet another example of the looseness of thought that permeates your posts.

[overtone]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the politicians don’t have accurate enough information to use. There are too many conflicting papers. There is no real consensus.

The only lack of consensus is in the degree of risk. The only conflict is in the scale and timing of the most likely disaster regime - moderate, severe, or catastrophic; ten years, fifty years, 150 years.

 

Maybe when the climate community starts writing papers without political spin and weasel words, the politicians will listen

The entire world body of scientists in all relevant fields is supposed to get together and adjust the language of their research summaries to meet the logic and vocabulary standards of the current Republican Party leadership, and until then those august defenders of intellectual integrity are justified in refusing to listen to any of them.

 

And therefore safe in assuming they are wrong, the lot of them.

Got it. That, I think, is a fine summary of your position on the matter in general.

Edited November 17, 2014 by overtone

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

With reference to recent refusals to provide evidence or rationale for an argument in this and in other threads; aside from asking members to re-read the rules they agreed to upon sign-up, I would like to make a few things clear.

 

1. This is a science forum - we do not exist to provide a platform for personal views but to allow scientific discussion. This means two things that are crucial for this thread and similar topics; firstly claims or arguments that run contrary to understood consensual science require a good factual basis or at least evidence to show that more work is needed and secondly we do not allow one-sided promulgation of opinion - thus our injunction against soap-boxing.

 

2.Specifically - this thread challenges established science and our membership will not allow anyone to preach such anti-rational views without real scrutiny; it is inimical to our ideals to let posters make unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to consider providing evidence (we will always back the membership when they call for evidence in any topic especially here).

 

3. We will continue to allow posters to honestly challenge received ideas and ask questions - but we will not allow posters to troll the climate science forum; reliance on rhetoric and claims of logical fallacies will not wash. If you do not want to argue the science then do not post controversial ideas - and if you do post then be prepared to defend.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread; responses will be hidden.

 

[Essay]

Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component. Any change in the solar component affects all those numbers in the 2/3rds component by about the same percentage. It is nearly linear. Increase the solar numbers by 0.2%, increase all numbers by 0.2%. Makes a pretty large impact with those greenhouse effect multipliers.

 

 

The main point is, CO2 is invisible to the indirect heating part, so it is not 'blocked' by increasing CO2 levels.

 

At least the science, on this notion about some 'offsetting' greenhouse effect, seems to be settled.

~

[Wild Cobra]

Essay, on 09 Nov 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

The main point is, CO2 is invisible to the indirect heating part, so it is not 'blocked' by increasing CO2 levels.

 

 

 

At least the science, on this notion about some 'offsetting' greenhouse effect, seems to be settled.

~

 

Are you suggesting the changes in surface heating from the solar changes do not change the IR emitted upward that drives the greenhouse effect?

Edited November 18, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[overtone]

 

 

Are you suggesting the changes in surface heating from the solar changes do not change the IR emitted upward that drives the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is not "driven" by the IR.

 

Of course any hotter sun will increase the total heat trapped by the CO2. Yet another bit of bad news for the AGW diminutioners, that is.

[Wild Cobra]

The greenhouse effect is not "driven" by the IR.

 

 

 

What drives it? What is the source energy for it?

Edited November 18, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Essay]

 

Are you suggesting the changes in surface heating from the solar changes do not change the IR emitted upward that drives the greenhouse effect?

 

No, I'm suggesting that your notion, about how the greenhouse effect will signifcantly change the sun's ability to heat the surface, is contradicted by the observations and models.

~

[Wild Cobra]

 

No, I'm suggesting that your notion, about how the greenhouse effect will signifcantly change the sun's ability to heat the surface, is contradicted by the observations and models.

~

It is not contrary to observation when you accout for thermal ineria, and a model will predict what a model is programmed to.

[Willie71]

It is not contrary to observation when you accout for thermal ineria, and a model will predict what a model is programmed to.

Nonsense.

[overtone]

 

 

It is not contrary to observation when you accout for thermal ineria,

Yes it is.

 

and a model will predict what a model is programmed to

Models are set up to generate predictions, new info of various kinds. People don't program models to tell them what they already know - that's too much work.