Then lay your cards on the table and present your evidence. What is causing the ocean to warm? And why is the stratosphere cooling? And where is all of that trapped energy from increased CO2 going if not into the hydrosphere and troposphere? Be convincing. Since the IPCC considered 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts for AR5 I think it's a fair demand to have you produce an equal amount of evidence to prove your point.
The exact same way it's done with any other scientific discipline. Also, why did we need to have perfect explanations for climate changes in the past to understand why it's happening today? Why do we need to have any information at all actually? Fair warning...I'm chomping at the bit to start dropping examples of all the things science has figured out about what's going on with reality today with little or even no understanding about how those same processes played out in the past. You know I'm ready and willing to oblige otherwise I wouldn't have bothered typing this sentence so think carefully how you want to respond.
as I predicted you would refuse to answer I'm 100% on target with deniers, not a single one will explain the cause of this climate event, NOT ONE!!! you lose!
you already know there won't be an answer...just another dodge and counter question or "it's a global socialist conspiracy"... the intellectual battle has been won(only one side was being intellectual), old deniers are literally dying off and the planet can try get on with healing ...if there's still time...
How do you go about picking and choosing what scientific results to believe? I mean, you seem to agree someone somewhere knows about (or doesn't know about!) methane emissions from oceans and tundra. Yet, you think climatologists don't know about that. Please explain how you pick and choose.
You know that china agrees that human caused global warming is a problem. China is not typically thought to be run by liberal elites.... nor do they require agw excuses to gain control of their citizens
Pick and choose? If it involves tea leaves, wild speculation, and predictions, its not science and that covers about 99% of 'climate science'. We know very little about underwater methane emissions, the ocean floors are still virtually uncharted, but in the small amount of exploration that has been done, gelled methane fields have been found in multiple oceans. They are there, they emit methane and nobody knows how much, how often, or where. The primary source of information we do have is from near shore emissions, but that is vented through the ocean floor, what I'm talking about is the gelled stuff in the deep oceans. Its literally just sitting there emitting methane. Large chunks break off and float up on occasion as well, but studying it is expensive, we simply lack the equipment and interest. Methane is far more dangerous to humans than CO2...
I did answer, the answer is that we simply do not know enough to make the sweeping generalizations and predictions that the climate cultists accept as gospel...
What's been done like this before? If man wasn't there what's to compare? What examples can you show? You need plausible explanations of today's climate in relation to the past, in order to convince people that you are not a bunch of hucksters, frauds, and cheats. Unfortunately that's exactly how it appears today. The death cult that has become 'climate science' makes bold predictions, fabricates data, and offers only economic 'solutions' to a supposedly scientific problem...
For example, scientists successfully predicted the eclipse of Aug. 21st, 2017. These predictions were made with no knowledge of prior eclipses. Doctors can successfully diagnose and treat most ailments without having any knowledge of that patient's medical or genetic history. Meteorologists will successfully predict a sudden stratospheric warming event that will begin taking place in the next 48 hours without any prior knowledge of past SSW events. These predictions aren't made from past experience. They are made from understanding the fundamental processes and agents that modulate them and applying this understanding to the states of these systems as they are today. But, don't hear what I didn't say. I'm not saying knowledge of the climate in the past isn't useful. It absolutely is. It's yet another line of evidence scientists can use to make predictions. I'm just saying that it isn't required. Anyway, predictions based on past events without invoking fundamental physical processes/concepts is called analog prediction. It's useful in its own right. And the climate sciences are no different. Understanding paleoclimate helps climate scientists predict the trajectory of the climate today by seeing how it changed in the past. For example, we know that the Earth has experienced sudden bursts of warming when given a nudge to do so from the paleoclimate record. Scientists use this knowledge to then predict that the Earth will warm today because 1) it did so in the past and 2) because there is a nudge in play today. And that's what we have. Paleoclimate is used to calibrate or score a theorectical model of the climate. And what scientists have found is that models which predict warming due to greenhouse gases do the best job at also explaining past climate changes. Contrast this with models that selectively ignore the greenhouse gas effect. Not only do they fail at predicting climate change today, but they doubly fail at explaining climate change in the past as well. So the reality is completely the opposite of what you are implying. Paleoclimate is proof that the modern scientific consensus regarding the climate works. Paleoclimate is proof that denier claims that GHGs make no difference abjectly fail. This isn't debatable. It is literally what the abundance of evidence says. That is, scientific models are vastly superior to denier models. There it is again. You know the denier model of climate change is useless so you try to irrationally explain away the scientific model by calling it a fraud and a hoax. There is no evidence that suggests that the entirety of science is engaged in the largest conspiracy in human history. In fact, I know of no substantiated claim of fraud or fabrication of data leveled against a reputable scientific institution or an individual climate scientist. Yes, there are claims from time to time, but they are never substantiated and they usually end up with the claimant being the one who made the mistake or even engaged in fraud themselves.
That's what you have? 'Predicting' an eclipse only requires rudimentary math skills, hardly rocket science. Humans treating humans? Shocking, human doctors working within the confines of the human body and understanding foreign entities like viruses, bacteria and other ailments, while difficult, it does not represent the understanding of a system that is influenced by terrestrial forces and extraterrestrial forces, like climate. Paleoclimate has some scientific value, but absolutely no viable comparable value to contemporary datasets. That's the one of the many problems with the climate cult hucksters, they use incomplete ancient data and compare it to modern day to day collection data and pretend they see a 'trend' or some other nonsense. Your man made global warming is a fraud...
Deniers said the exact same thing about the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, smoking and cancer, and the list goes on and on. Whenever there is a causal link between a capitalistic behavior and a harm to the environment there will always be a faction of our society that will deny it and circumvent any attempt to remediate the harm. AGW denial is playing out exactly the same way. In fact AGW denial was started by many of the same individuals that denied the links above. Based on the rise and fall of these other denial campaigns I predict AGW denial won't begin it's decline for another 10-20 years. However, unlike the above examples where curtailment of the behavior is characterized by an immediate positive outcome the effects of global warming are hard to reverse by CO2 residence times are measured in 1000s of years and may activate tipping points.
You claim it is a fraud. You should be answer this simple question then. What is causing the troposphere and hydrosphere to warm while the stratosphere cools if not by the conversion of quantized photon energy into thermal energy due to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as a direct result of burning fossil fuels?
Answer your own question and understand what's caused it before. This planet has gone from being nearly completely covered by ice, to supporting massive cold blooded lizards across most of its surface. Burning fossil fuels had nothing to do with that, yet it all happened. Any warming or cooling on this planet is done without our interference. How is CO2 measured in the air? Part of the global warming farce is to confuse people, but all human activity over decades and decades may or may not have increased CO2 by a few parts per million? That's so insignificant its laughable, but rubes don't need much convincing...
I did answer the question. In fact, I answered the question in the question itself. GHGs are the only physical process that can cause this unique observation. Burning fossil fuels isn't the fundamental cause of the warming. The fundamental cause is the conversion of the quantized energy from outgoing photons into thermal energy. This traps the heat in the direction from where the photons originated. This warms the troposphere and hydrosphere and because those photons are not allowed to proceed any higher the stratosphere cools. This is considered to be the smoking gun signal for GHG warming. Burning of fossil fuels is a modulating factor the increase in CO2, but fossil burning isn't required for this process to play out because it's not the root cause. Any release of CO2 will cause this effect. This is why CO2 is a huge piece to the climate puzzle from the paleoclimate record. The Sun was much dimmer in the past yet the planet was much warmer. The reason this happened is because CO2 concentrations were near 5,000 ppm at times 500 million years ago when the Sun was 5% dimmer. In fact, when viewed over time periods spanning 100,000 years or longer it is very apparent from the paleoclimate record that CO2 is the dominant factor in temperature changes for the majority of Earth's past in the last 1 billion years. There are other processes that cause CO2 to increase or decrease in the atmosphere. They are both natural and anthroprogenic. CO2 molecules emitted by man are not endowed with some magical physics defying property. They produce the exact same effect as they would if they were produced by nature. If you disagree then provide a narrative backed by the abundance of evidence (or any evidence for that matter) that says otherwise. When you googled for "how is CO2 concentration measured" what did you see? Again, back that up with evidence. Quantify the effect of an increase of 120 ppm of CO2. Show me that it's radiative forcing is less than 0.1 W/m2 or even 1.0 W/m2. I'm asking you to prove it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to provide 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts either since that's the kind of evidence the IPCC presented in AR5. Don't worry, I'm not going to do that to you because I know it's an impossible task. Instead, I want you to present one credible line of evidence. I then you want you to explain how that line of evidence can explain both past and present climate change. Good luck...you'll need it!
Sorry I'm not writing you a book. Believe in farce if you want, just please, oh please, drink the Kool Aid when it all goes wrong...
False. Predicting eclipses is very difficult and is imperfect. It's imperfect because as of yet there is no exact solution to the n-body problem. The human body is very complex. There are far more agents that act on the human body in a significant way than do the climate.
This is what wyly means when he said you would refuse to answer the question. To be convincing you must answer questions. Without a narrative of both how you think scientists are wrong and how you think the right answer is determined your argument is nothing more than what I call a "nuh-uh" argument. Until you can show me how I'm wrong and how to get the right answer I'm going to continue to use a model of reality that has proven success and is backed up with evidence and supported by the worlds leading experts.
I don't need to answer your questions. History has answered all these questions before. We have gone from hot to cold and cold to hot, all without human interference. Your doom and gloom cult is pretending that somehow we now control that process, even though its happened numerous times without us even existing. Its nothing more than a wealth redistribution campaign or arrogant idiots thinking they can fix the world with carbon taxes...
This is exactly the same approach people used to deny the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide and acid, smoking and cancer, etc. I don't know what to tell you. The paleoclimate record confirms that greenhouse gases and particularly CO2 is a huge piece of the climate puzzle. This argument is called affirming a disjunct. You are assuming if A then not B but fail to show how A precludes B. In other words, just because the global mean temperature changed without human influence does not preclude humans from influencing the global mean temperature. Why is this a difficult concept for you to understand? AGW is itself a wealth redistribution scheme. The current generation is redistributing wealth (or more precisely stealing it) from future generations and we are harming the environment in the process. Depending on how far we let this play out it could be the biggest wealth redistribution scheme in all of human history. I think deep down you know this is wrong, but you are so invested in your ideology that you've turned a blind eye in an irrational attempt at trying to absolve humanity from responsibility. Let me make this perfectly clear. Ignoring the issue does not absolve us from culpability nor does it make the problem go away. Stealing wealth from our children and harming the planet in the process is wrong. This cannot be rationalized away.
Hello all. I do not have sufficient background to decide whether global climate change is man-made or not, but I just have a question: assuming that it's not man-made, why would so many scientists choose to lie about it? What would they gain from telling such a lie?
And, you are stating that climate scientists the WORLD OVER don't know that! How did YOU manage to find out while science remained so much more ignorant than you are?? Somehow, you are picking and choosing what you want to accept from science. I want to know what criteria you use to reject so much of science.
They sure aren't interesting in expanding their knowledge on it, instead they are too busy fabricating results that will get them more tax payer money. It isn't that people don't know, its that its too expensive to pursue. Deep ocean exploration is very expensive with limited scope and scale per project. It is being ignored and is a greater threat than man's burning of a few tons of fuel here and there...
Who is the "they" that you think is likely to get more tax payer money. The first thing to do when there is a problem is to understand the problem - NOT TO DENY IT EXISTS. Whether we can find cost effecttive solutions is a secondary issue. You keep harping on ocean methane, but climatologists know about that issue. You're not showing scientific evidence that it is being treated inappropriately.
Please cite. I see absolutely zero reason to believe that scientists aren't interested in ocean methane content or its forms. And, also please cite your claim that ocean methane is a larger issue than is fossil fuel consumption. Also, cite your claim that human use amounts to "a few tons of fuel here and there".
