I wish there was a button that could be pressed, and upon that pressing, the memories of everyone who has ever taken part in debates over, or even just read about, climate change would thereby forget all political connections with everything to do with that topic. All memory of Al Gore, gone. All memory of fossil fuel funded politicians denying climate change, gone. After the reset, when it's no longer left vs right playing a role in opinion, perhaps we could arrive at a consensus that wasn't completely driven by partisan politics instead of science like it should be. But since that button is only imaginary, I suppose we'll just have to continue the same old left vs. right dichotomy that stalls progress here as it does everywhere else.
It seems to me on deep reflection of your commentary, that in a way this is already done but some individuals in the debate have integrated the issues you inadvertently display rendering observational realities unlikely. It is unfortunate that some people have decided on conspiracy of science and dislike of celebrity political figures rather than believing scientists or even simply watching the news.
I agree here. We just don't know two things. First, what "should happen", and second and more importantly, what "will happen". The speculation about it is engaging, but not entirely honest usually. We simply don't have a functional understanding yet of the two most important questions, as noted above.
From what I understand, our sciences still really don't know what creates the cyclical ices ages and the coming out of them with any certainty. What we really know about climate changes is very limited. What we actually know. But that does not stop them from predicting, does it? ha ha. One of the newest hypothesis about why we suddenly came out of the last ice age is a huge change in the sun's activity, that we were hit by a kill shot, and humanity survived by retreating into caves, and it was thousands if not millions of times worse than what happened in the mid 19th century with the Carrington event. But this kill shot ended the last ice age. There is growing evidence for such a thing happening, from what I understand. Our star may be much more unstable than we think? And can burp, taking out lots of life on earth. And creating sudden climate change. No doubt if it burped today, we would be in the stone age in short order given our dependence upon electronics and electricity. And satellites.
In climate science we never "know" until something has already happened. Instead it is necessary to use available data to model and predict (as with most science), we then review models and predictions for accuracy....rinse and repeat. Climate science does have the benefit of verification or elimination of hypothesis through nature and patience which makes the job easier. At this point the majority of predicted changes are occurring in one measurement or another and one observation or another. What worries many would be the possibility of the more extreme and deadly predictions following this trend as well, as the result would be devastating in the long term. The increasing Methane melt in particular was predicted and is now confirmed as beginning which will make CO2 seem like a planetary sniffle.
good thoughts... but it was never a right vs left issue...it's uninformed irrational partisan right wing tribalism vs science...
Most of the commentary that I've seen recently, is that the model predictions are more likely to fall well outside of the "worst case scenarios" than not. More likely than not, the predictions will never ever happen. So why worry about things that most likely won't ever happen?
"Worst Case Scenario" is not something science would use as terminology in Climate science studies or papers. This is a Media/Pundit creation and generally ignored. Such possibility certainly exists in movies but individual prediction tend to supply a range of scenarios and likelihood of each. Most serious (scientific) predictions have happened or are happening to some extent according to actual measurement data.
True. There's also temperature inversions in the ocean too plus the thermocline. Anyway, the point is that if the heat that's going into warming the atmosphere is coming from the ocean instead of the sun then we should see the ocean cooling as it transfers it's heat to the atmosphere. But, that's not what we see. We see both the atmosphere and the ocean warming. How could everything be warming in a regime of reduced solar radiation if weren't for the addition of an insulating mechanism such as greenhouse gases?
True. The worst case scenario as defined by the IPCC is RCP8.5. Even the IPCC says RCP8.5 is unlikely. But, skeptics are so fond of saying the IPCC has no idea what they're talking about so do we assume they're wrong and that RCP8.5 is just as likely as RCP2.6?
Your magical hiding heat theory states that a heat sink, in this case the oceans, doesn't warm up when it absorbs heat. That's crazy talk. And that's why everyone laughs so hard at your magical hiding heat theory of global warming.
Says the posters who's actual job is dependent on the self claimed claim. I suggest you have a superficial understanding at best. Can not produce a reproducible experiment to demonstrate that understanding, and frankly, don't have an environment sufficient to do so. I am hopeful that at some point the nice folks at CERN will. And we will know more. Until then, this is like asking elementary school kids about sex. It is super funny to see what they say though. Right?
^ Exactly. It doesn't add up. If the heat used to warm the atmosphere were "hiding" in the ocean then the ocean would be cooling as it warms the atmosphere from below. Yet the ocean is warming too. Everything is warming. How can everything be warming if there is less solar output except via the additions of more insulation that blocks outgoing longwave radiation?
The inner core is warming? Radiation absorption is happening sufficiently to raise ocean temps? Ocean geothermal activity is increasing? Man made trash is changing the color of the water to be less reflective. I can make any number of potential hypotheses about this. The honest answer is, we just don't know, do we? And don't we think it is just a teensy bit egotistical to assert that we do?
I and many others have posted dozens of links to experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Instead of reading through the literature many on here just deny outright. Should I repost those links or will it be waste of my time yet again? By the way, how does CERN relate to climate science?
Do we have data that shows the inner core warming? And how could the warming of the inner core cause the stratosphere to cool? Yes. And that's been verified by multiple lines of evidence. So why is the layer below the thermocline barely warming if it even is at all while the layer above warms significantly? Do we have data to support this as a potential candidate? You are right. We don't know of any natural mechanism that can explain the warming. After decades of trying to find such a candidate scientists have come up short on any convincing natural-only explanation. On the flip side 120+ years of research continues to support the theory that natural+anthroprogenic causes can explain the warming we observe today and make useful predictions about the warming in the future. Nobody is asserting that our understanding is perfect. Scientists just want to find the best theory that can explain the world we live in. And that just happens to be AGW. No other theory even close to AGW's track record on explaining current observations and predicting future observations...none.
What should I research? Is there a specific topic you have in mind? Is this post related to CERN? Can you help me understand?
Which is simply horse shyte. They problem with your perspective is that you simply assume that your untested, unreliable answer is the only one. The observation is that you're wedded to it. Personally. I think that is limiting, at best. I would point out that your protestations are just weak. It's like saying, yes police uniform is blue. And suggesting that the uniform is blue because the color blends well with the city landscape rather than understanding that the fabric used to make the uniform was already blue...
No. I don't think we should. The reason is because WV is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature. Any excess WV emissions we pump into the atmosphere will precipitate out within a few days. In fact, if humanity embarked on the world's biggest mega project to pump as much WV into the atmosphere as we possibly could it would be entirely in vane. No matter how much and hard we pumped it would all fall back to Earth almost immediately. And the harder we try the harder and faster it will precipitation out. Think about this from first principal reasoning. If WV were not in a stable equilibrium with the temperature than something as trivial as a hyperactive hurricane would jump start a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect. But, in the last billion years there have undoubtedly been umpteen billion hurricanes and not one of them sent us down the Venus path.
I'm not saying there isn't some as-yet unknown natural mechanism that can explain all of the warming. I'm saying that we don't know of any and we've looked really hard. But, if you can't give me a natural-only theory that works as well or better than the natural+anthroprogenic theory we have today then I have no choice but to throw my lot in with AGW. But, like any true scientists, I go where the data leads me. And if in the future the data starts pointing to a natural-only theory that works better than the natural+anthroprogenic theory than I will happily switch sides. That's the challenge. Find a natural-only explanation that works as well or better than a natural+anthroprogenic theory.
