Mod edit: This thread follows on from here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=881523&page=34
You're obviously new to the climate debate.
ALL sceptics agree that C02 causes warming. It does. It's a fact. It's a greenhouse gas.
That is not the debate. The debate is whether it causes dangerous warming. The dispute is about the extent of any warming, the danger of it, the likelihood of it being overwhelmed by natural influences, the true sensitivity of the climate to C02, and the cost-benefit of trying to "stop" the warming we've seen - which actually halted 15 years ago.
Extra C02 will probably be a good thing. Life on earth in millienia past has thrived under more C02. Carbon Dioxide is plant food. It feeds life. it is essential for life on earth.
Yes we have no empirical evidence that C02 causes dangerous warming. All the ponts you make are irrelevant because it doens't matter if we know that C02 causes warming. It doens't matter if we know it is due to humans (which it is) and it doens't matter if we know it has a minor warming effect.
what matters is whether this minor warming effect due to humans is enough to offest the really big major changes in climate due to natural causes and variation? The "alarmist" AGW theory requires that there is a positive feedback of water vapour (which causes most of the warming) - and this feedback has not only NOT been observed, but that negative feedbacks have infact been observed. On this issue alone, the "catastrophic" AGW theory has been proven wrong.
See above.
There is no evidence that the climate is alarmist, catastrophic or unsual. The climate has bene far more variable in the past.
Most of the below info comes can be sourced from Jo Nova's site and Wattsupwiththat, but if you really want to open your eyes, here is the ultimate resource:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Anyway, where were we? You said you were happy to look at information. At least that one good thing that you have that Upton doesn't. Maybe there is hope for you.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing.
If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this "hot spot" just isn’t there. Graph A (from the IPCC) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.
Graph B (published by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program) shows what actually occurred during the recent warming from 1979-1999. Weather balloons measured the global atmosphere but could find no sign of the predicted “hot spot.”
A scientist called Santer said he found the hot spot. He didn't. He found “fog in the data.” After many attempts to statistically reanalyze the same old data his big news was that the hot spot might be there hidden in the noise.
Something else was causing most or all of the warming. And the models don’t know what it was. That doesn't mena C02 wasn't causing all of it, but it wasn't the main factor.
2. Temperature rises first, then C02 rises after it 800 years later.
In 1999 it became clear carbon rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003 we had better data showing the lag was 800 years or so.
Now the alarmsit all agree on this and have tried to invent excuses to justify it. Why? Just accept the evidence. The use a theory called amplication to say that even if C02 didn;t start the warming, it amplifies it. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a "runaway greenhouse effect." That hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, OR the models are missing the dominant driver. ONE OR THE OTHER
3. C02 is aborsing nearly all it can already.
The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere is close to its saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance. Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just "unemployed" molecules.
Dan I take it from your rather specific question that you now believe that CO2 causes warming?
You're obviously new to the climate debate.
ALL sceptics agree that C02 causes warming. It does. It's a fact. It's a greenhouse gas.
That is not the debate. The debate is whether it causes dangerous warming. The dispute is about the extent of any warming, the danger of it, the likelihood of it being overwhelmed by natural influences, the true sensitivity of the climate to C02, and the cost-benefit of trying to "stop" the warming we've seen - which actually halted 15 years ago.
Extra C02 will probably be a good thing. Life on earth in millienia past has thrived under more C02. Carbon Dioxide is plant food. It feeds life. it is essential for life on earth.
Of course no one can provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes dangerous warming. We have no way of directly observing it unless we dump a heap of CO2 in the atmosphere and just see what happens or someone finds a spare earth floating around somewhere. We could of course wait and see and that would prove it one way or the other or we could take the "alarmist" view and look at the empirical evidence we do have and form a reasonable theory. Lets list the evidence.
We have empirical evidence of the absorption properties of CO2.
We have empirical evidence of an increase of CO2 in the atmoshpere.
We have empirical evidence that the increase of CO2 is due to human emmissions.
We have empirical evidence of a reduction in outgoing radiation.
We have empirical evidence of temperature rises and increased ocean heat content.
We have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of any negative feedbacks big enough to offset the above
Yes we have no empirical evidence that C02 causes dangerous warming. All the ponts you make are irrelevant because it doens't matter if we know that C02 causes warming. It doens't matter if we know it is due to humans (which it is) and it doens't matter if we know it has a minor warming effect.
what matters is whether this minor warming effect due to humans is enough to offest the really big major changes in climate due to natural causes and variation? The "alarmist" AGW theory requires that there is a positive feedback of water vapour (which causes most of the warming) - and this feedback has not only NOT been observed, but that negative feedbacks have infact been observed. On this issue alone, the "catastrophic" AGW theory has been proven wrong.
Looking at that list what do you see? I see that unless some yet to be discovered negative feedback pops up.
See above.
we will continue to warm until eventually we get dangerous levels of warming.
There is no evidence that the climate is alarmist, catastrophic or unsual. The climate has bene far more variable in the past.
Could be a 500 years away but based on a combination of the empirical evidence we do and don't have it's a fairly reasonable assumption that we will get there eventually. Now if you have any empirical evidence of your own that you think I missed that disputes that assumption I'm happy to look at it. If you don't how about you stop calling everyone gullible patsies and wasting eveyone's time with your irrelevant political rambling until you find something substantial that can actually disprove the above.
Most of the below info comes can be sourced from Jo Nova's site and Wattsupwiththat, but if you really want to open your eyes, here is the ultimate resource:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Anyway, where were we? You said you were happy to look at information. At least that one good thing that you have that Upton doesn't. Maybe there is hope for you.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing.
If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this "hot spot" just isn’t there. Graph A (from the IPCC) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.
Graph B (published by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program) shows what actually occurred during the recent warming from 1979-1999. Weather balloons measured the global atmosphere but could find no sign of the predicted “hot spot.”
A scientist called Santer said he found the hot spot. He didn't. He found “fog in the data.” After many attempts to statistically reanalyze the same old data his big news was that the hot spot might be there hidden in the noise.
Something else was causing most or all of the warming. And the models don’t know what it was. That doesn't mena C02 wasn't causing all of it, but it wasn't the main factor.
2. Temperature rises first, then C02 rises after it 800 years later.
In 1999 it became clear carbon rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003 we had better data showing the lag was 800 years or so.
Now the alarmsit all agree on this and have tried to invent excuses to justify it. Why? Just accept the evidence. The use a theory called amplication to say that even if C02 didn;t start the warming, it amplifies it. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a "runaway greenhouse effect." That hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, OR the models are missing the dominant driver. ONE OR THE OTHER
3. C02 is aborsing nearly all it can already.
The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere is close to its saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance. Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just "unemployed" molecules.