re: Here's a nice "f*ck you" to the Climate Change apostles (caution: sciency shite)

quote:

---

he already addressed that the "coming ice age" Time Magazine was a photoshop.

---

That's not the one i'm talking about. There was one from the 70's i remember seeing, i have to dig up. It was basically saying there would be no ice left in the arctic by the late 90's. I'll find it. Just give me some time.

Care to dispute the global warming/climate change agenda? Care to tell us

1. What weather is attributed to man?
2. What should the temperature of Earth be year round, and exactly what factors at what specific points is causing the weather to do what weather does? For instance, if it is 80 degrees in march in the south, and not 70, what did humans do to change this? If it is in the 40's as it is now, in South Louisiana, what factors caused by man has caused this? What temperature should it be? SHould the temperature be the same throughout the world at all times?
3. Why has there been a shift from "global warming" to "climate change"? I know you are trying to divert from actually addressing the issue to arguing that its always been climate change, but if you are honest you know there has been a change in terminology by the politicians/media/paid scientists.
4. Do you care to discuss the articles merits that state that the change in weather around the globe is due to ..... WEATHER and not man?
5. Why do you liberal global warming nazis not take an approach of, "we must all be good stewards of this planet" instead of "any change in weather is attributed to SUV's".
6. Care to discuss why man made CO2 is attributed to the change in CO2 emissions, and not the more bountiful expulsion of CO2 by all life on this planet?
7. Care to discuss the climate change of the little ice age? The climate change of Europe from a tropical to a more temperate environment 600 years ago? Why is all climate change prior to recordable data considered natural and any slight gust of wind attributed to man?
8. Care to discuss why the scientific community has rejected global warming and the climate change scientists?
9. Care to discuss the hacked emails of the global warming/climate change scientists that state that their findings do not coincide with man made climate change?
10. Care to discuss why CO2 is the driver of temperature on Earth when it makes up .004% of the atmosphere? Care to discuss why CO2 is considered a driver of climate change as opposed to water vapor?

quote:

---

Care to dispute the scientist?

---

You mean the link in the OP? It's pretty basic stuff.

Their rebuttal to NCA claim 1 (the GHG physics) is to harp on one incredibly minor aspect of it, the prediction of a mid-tropospheric "hot spot," which hasn't been measured. From this, they go to "Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST [surface temps] must be rejected."

This is an uncommonly silly argument. CO2's behavior as a greenhouse gas has been established since Tyndall in the 19th century. This is a bit like saying we have to throw out everything about our understanding of proteins because we can't explain why some enzymes have faster-than-diffusion kinetics. To borrow Kuhn's terminology, it's seeing a paradigm shift in every blink of normal science. There are plenty of explanations within the GHG paradigm that are still being tested (higher-than-expected tropospheric circulation, for instance, would explain the lack of a localized hot spot but not affect the underlying GHG physics). Hell, Bengtsson thought they were still within the error bounds, and he's nobody's idea of an alarmist.

Their rebuttals to NCA claims 2 and 3 aren't nearly as interesting. They rebut a claim about "global surface temperatures over the last several decades" by herping and derping with some CONUS graphs and six cherry-picked Arctic stations as though the existence of a global average trend does not admit the existence of short-term, regional exceptions. They rebut a claim about the model simulations of the last century by basically restating their point from claim 1 (as the graph is referring to the mid-troposphere and is notably missing error bars).

Their rebuttal to NCA claim 4 is ~the pause~, which will last longer, according to (a) the same climatologists they spent rebuttals 1-3 shitting on (b) the stepwise jump they MSPainted onto the UAH record? This is a very hand-wavey response to a very specific claim and I wonder if they switched their responses to 2 and 4.

NCA claim 5 is dumb and I agree with their rebuttal, but then again their rebuttal is the IPCC, so hooray science?

quote:

---

Care to dispute the global warming/climate change agenda?

---

It's a major news item. Do you deny that? So when it appears on magazine covers you shouldn't be all that shocked.

And your entire list of "arguments" are a bunch of straw men.

"i don't think we have any idea of what that impact is, yet."

This is very similar to my view on it. It is beyond my spare time and scientific knowledge to have an opinion based on primary sources. I have to read secondary sources and do the best I can. AGW would, in a perfect world, be the subject of intense scientific debate, especially as to causation and coming up with models that are more predictive, but I don't believe we should be making big policy decisions on carbon reduction when we don't know what it will accomplish. We risk wasting big resources on a problem that may not be as bad as predicted or (even more likely?) that we can't do much to change. The forgotten problem with all of this is that it will likely tend to retard things like rural electrification, which is now taken for granted in the developed world but produces huge quality of life gains for poorer parts of the world. In short, I'm no "denier" but I would love to see more debate on whether we're doing more harm than good.

All global warming believers are gullible dunces.

quote:

---

1. Weather isn't climate.
2. See 1.

---

Ok. So then the cooling or warming of Earth that is going on now is natural.

quote:

---

6. Because the important thing is net, not gross. The non-human biosphere takes up as much CO2 as it expels. We don't.

---

Wait, are you arguing that the Earth does not absorb the CO2 produced by man, only by life forms? I'd be interested in seeing the study on that.

quote:

---

There are no natural explanations for late 20th temps (solar irradiance trended down).

---

You don't believe the Earth is in the midst of a natural cooling cycle?

quote:

---

9. I would if there were any emails that said such a thing. Maybe you're vastly over-inflating Trenberth's email?

---

I'll find them and link them.

quote:

---

10. Science lesson 1: Small things can have large effects. Ozone, for instance, makes up an even smaller portion of the atmosphere. Science lesson 2: CO2 drives climate because it doesn't precipitate out when directly added and water vapor does.

---

BUt it is absorbed by other life on the planet.

quote:

---

Science lesson 2: CO2 drives climate because it doesn't precipitate out when directly added and water vapor does.

---

Science lesson 3: There is life on Earth. Much of it respires. Respiration affects atmospheric CO2 levels.
Science lesson 4: The sun warms.
Science lesson 5: There are oceans on Earth. They contain the vast majority of CO2. Ocean temperature affects atmospheric CO2 levels. (see Science lesson 4)