We know that CO2 when released into the atmosphere creates a warming effect.
We know that it has a logarithmic relationship to how much warming it creates. In other words, In order to get the same jump in temperature, you have to put more CO2 in the atmosphere than you did for the last jump.
We know that other GHGs have an effect on this relationship. The total amount of energy that can be trapped by a GHG is limited. So if you have a great amount of water vapor in the air, CO2 will have very little effect there. Therefore CO2 has the greatest effect in cold/dry places. Which is exactly what we see in temperature records.
Regardless of any other effects such as cities being built, the sun getting warmer or cooler, sulphur dioxide no longer being pumped into the air, CO2 is making the globe warmer than it would be otherwise (you know, kind of like inflation makes prices higher than they would be otherwise).
Unlike inflation however, it’s not a 1 to 1 effect. It’d be like if Bernanke printed 1 trillion dollars once and we got .7 trillion worth of inflatioin, and then the next time he printed a trillion, we only got .5 trillion worth of inflation. And, we are limited in the amount of CO2 possible to be put into the atmosphere by the amount of fossil fuels on earth.
The nifty thing about this is, we are currently increasing our consumption of fossil fuels by some low order exponent. What happens when you combine an exponent with a logarithm? You get a straight line, roughly the trend we see in 15 year temperature trends. The rate isn’t increasing as many alarmists will tell you.
Claiming the middle ground never seems to win any friends though.
I’d generally suggest The world climate report as all of their posts are explanations/criticisms of peer reviewed studies, and they post the source studies on the site for you to verify for yourself.
“Please provide the info on which oil company pays which scientist and how much.”
Actually since it’s your implication they are receiving such money, it’s your job to show it to be so. Burden of proof kind of thing. And then if you please, post the grant amounts given to the East Anglia crew, Mann, Schmidt, and other prominent AGW proponents, unless of course you would like to claim they are innocent angels above being influenced by such things as available money. Although, I have to admit I find it funny that in the debate about global warming money is apparently only corrupting the skeptics, never the proponents. While you’re looking into all that, please also post current and projected future gains for the likes of Gore and Patchy from the IPCC should the regulations they’re pushing for get enacted.
Perhaps he is talking about the fact that a cost-benefit analysis is impossible in the absent of voluntary markets.
No matter how hampered, there is a market that deals with climate (or anything else for that matter), there has to be or else climat change couldn’t be dealt with at all. I think the issue should be what is the best way to deal with a supposedly very serious and immenent event with the apparatus we have (for argument sake, aassume the worst about climate change is true). If I get robbed I call the police, I do not wait for private protection agencies to come into being.
<<< Actually since it’s your implication they are receiving such money, it’s your job to show it to be so. Burden of proof kind of thing. And then if you please, post the grant amounts given to the East Anglia crew, Mann, Schmidt, and other prominent AGW proponents, unless of course you would like to claim they are innocent angels above being influenced by such things as available money. Although, I have to admit I find it funny that in the debate about global warming money is apparently only corrupting the skeptics, never the proponents. While you’re looking into all that, please also post current and projected future gains for the likes of Gore and Patchy from the IPCC should the regulations they’re pushing for get enacted. >>>
It’s not my job to give that info, I merely asked which of the scientists listed in the list do that in return for moeny paied by oil multinationals, so that info is requested. I am the one requesting that info, not you. Got it?
They are the sceptics however, that claim that the IPCC did some biased science, and manufactured their results. None of those accusations howver proved to be wrong. So the sceptics are claiming that the scientific result of the IPCC is unscientific, but their arguments do not count up . There was no such thing a data manipulation, despite words used as ‘tricks’ etc . They were just portaied as forms of manipulation of data, and they brought such report with huge media attention, but all this has shown to be just a media campaing to shift the public opinion, but in itself has nothing to do with the real science. The science still sides with the results of the IPCC.
The question is then: if not for scientifioc reasons, why did the sceptics launch their campaign against the resultst of the IPCC?
That is also a question for you - those that side with the ‘sceptics’ - to answer, not me.
The intellectual dishonesty of the global warming movement is astounding. Its basically just a bunch of scientists paid by governments versus a bunch of scientists payed by governments who are trying to fire them for their opinions.
Global Warming does not qualify as a science by the generally accepted definition of science. So, there’s no such thing as global warming science. A scientific proposition is said to be one that is falsifiable. Clearly you can’t even hypothetically do that here. What is called global warming “science” essentially works like this:
z represents an average temperature sample at a given time. The other variables are the endless unkowns. Now some idiot collects z samples and says, “Aha! m caused _ change in z!” Where m is manmade. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this math is not right.
A scientific proposition is said to be one that is falsifiable.
the exact same things you claim about global warming (that a measurable variable like average temperature is influenced by a multitude of unmeasurable or unknown factors that cannot be controlled for) could be applied to every single branch of what we call science. if this argument convinces you, then you cannot claim really any theory to be “scientific” because none can be conlusively falsified.
There is a big difference between being impossible to come anywhere close to making a deduction and having a few minor loose ends. Especially when nearly all of the widely propagated data is complete bogus fabrication like what the IPCC conjures in its wizardry lab.
What are a “few loose ends”? How do we know what problems are just “loose ends” and what problems are actually indications of fundamental problems in our theories?
For example, did 19th century physicists consider the inability to explain Mercury’s orbit a small loose end on the otherwise well tested Newtonian Mechanics? Maybe. But this “loose end” was not sufficiently tied until Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity was introduced, throwing the previous paradigm on its head (or so I understand).
I think you are underestimating the fundamental uncertainty involved in pursuing science.
Let me get this straight. You are denying that there are any qualitative differences in circumstances that make anything more or less certain than anything else? Everything in the universe is 50/50? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay…
actually, that seems to be what YOU are saying. here is how i read your previous post…
“there is no such thing as global warming science because you cannot falsify their claims. for example, they may claim that factor x causes rising temperature, but you cannot accurately test this claim. there are dozens of unknown factors acting on rising temperatures and no way to control for them.”
if that is what you meant, then it is hard to escape the conclusion that there is no such thing as science. this is because no scientific theory can be truly be falsifiable (in your understanding at least) because there are always unknown factors that you cant/don’t control for. if you don’t like this conclusion, you need to change or elaborate your argument.
It isn’t an absolute statement. The scale involved is what makes the assessment. Meteorologists have trouble predicting the weather for tomorrow, nevermind anything more complicated.
This does not mean I want to force people to do it. Just that they should)