Malcolm wrote:You can disagree where a hurricane is going to land, but the hurricane is definitely going to land in this case.
People who question AGW aren't questioning Climate Change. They are questioning the cause.
The problem is the models used to argue the AGW case - they don't match observed data from Satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.
(And no, you won't find any of these reports filed under the "Climate Denial" search on google scholar)
CO2 increased more than the models predicted, and yet there was no significant effect on temperatures, which have remained flat.
In fact, even according to the predictions of where temperature will be when CO2 was cut according to IPCC and Kyoto recommendations, the observed temperatures are drastically less.
Atmospheric hotspots predicted by the models have not been observed by weather balloon data. There was not even a small one.
Radiation emitted from the earth should decrease with increases in surface sea temperature according to the models, but according to ERBE satellite data, they have increased.
In reality, observations show that the earth gives off more heat when it is warmer - which contradicts the basic premise of the climate model.
The models aren't accurate because they get the feedbacks of atmospheric CO2 wrong. CO2 creates a thicker layer of greenhouse gas which traps more heat - not denied. But where they get it wrong is that their models assume that all industrial age warming is directly due to CO2, thus their model suggests that the increased atmospheric water vapour amplifies the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level, making their prediction 3.3C. The skpetic's view holds that the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level will be dampened by about 0.5, meaning the increase will only be about 0.6C. This claim matches observations because it questions the possibility that temperature increases are due entirely to CO2, and instead uses scientific data about what we know of cloud coverage - that an increase in cloud coverage reflects sunlight back into space, reducing global warming, a prediction consistent with satellite data.
On top of that, even the adjusted model doesn't allow us to predict climate change because there are thousands of other feedbacks which both reinforces and opposes the direct warming effect of CO2. If a system reacts to perturbation by amplifying it, then the system will become unstable - earth's climate, unlike that of Venus, has been stable for 4.54 billion years because it doesn't amplify perturbation, it is a perfect balance. Other factors besides feedback which haven't been considered are the ongoing effects of the pole shift, which has recently gradually been rendering our magnetic field useless, and soon will be gone for a period of time. The pole shift has already caused massive gaps in the magnetic field that not only cause chaotic and unpredictable weather, but will cause electronics to go haywire. Then there's the effects of sunspots and the sun's weakening magnetic field.
If the science were settled, then there would be only one model, and it would be in accordance with measurements. Which of the some 24 Climate Change models is the settled and consensus model?
If that model is settled, then why didn't it predict actual observations accurately? If a model were settled, then that model would have predicted actual observations accurately.
Malcolm wrote:Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).
Actually, the AGW case is often that there isn't an actual tipping point. There isn't a solution and we're going to suffer no matter what. So there's no wager to be had, Seabiscuit loses the race under every circumstance: because he's dead.
But this is actually nonsense and unscientific, all records have shown that there aren't tipping points in the climate. CO2 levels have been 8000ppm, and there was no point of no return - there was a return, welcome to it.
This is because we're on the tail end of an ice age. Duh.
The CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials is 200ppm, and in interglacials is 300-400ppm -- lower than it has been for 300 million years.
Moreover, CO2 increases may not even be due to human activity. The present increase began before the steam engine was invented!
If you think something can be done about CO2 levels, you are assuming that the present CO2 without human input would be the pre-industrial average.
Why does CO2 rise after temperatures? Why is there a temporal lag? Obviously not because humans are significant contributors, but because the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with a rise in temperature, thus causing the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere due to temperature increases since the Little Ice Age. What causes temperatures to rise is a different question to one involving CO2, and to ignore that shows a lack of understanding in causality - indicating one's brain development is still infantile (just kidding).
When the world is warmer, agriculture prospers, it rains more. The higher CO2, as greenhouse studies show, the higher biodiversity. The higher CO2, the more trees grow. The higher average temperatures, the the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator which means fewer and less violent storms. And no, this doesn't mean that the ice caps (which are growing at record levels) are going to melt. Even in Antarctica ice melts above 0C - but even in periods with orders of magnitude higher CO2 levels or temperatures, the highest recorded temperature at the south pole is -12C.
Malcolm wrote:As for you my friend, well, "Contrarians gonna contradict..."
Actually, I want people to see that the consensus view isn't maintainable.
I remember on another board I once did a similar thing with another consensus topic, and it took something like 20 pages, but in the end I convinced the person I was talking with.
Similarly, I make concessions all the time - otherwise I wouldn't have this opinion of AGW. Everyone who doubts AGW once believed in it. No one is told in school to question it, so belief in AGW is default. It's part of the state religion.
So no, I'm not just a contrarian. I am happy to say my views change very frequently when I encounter a better argument.
Meanwhile, Mainstream media is once again shown to be bludgeoning itself with a chair, after once again accepting the flawed models of AGW propagandists.
Some people just don't understand the basic idea of cycles in nature.
It'll grow, and it'll shrink. It'll get hot, it'll get cold. Right now we're still recovering from an ice age, do you realise that?
Don't be surprised when a woman ovulates sometimes too.