Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 Next
Comments 107251 to 107300:
-
CBDunkerson at 23:16 PM on 9 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
fydijkstra, also the 'it has not warmed since 1998' fiction can be discussed here, here, or here. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 22:23 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Riccardo, You are correct that there is some variation and additional absorption in the vertical direction, but the difference is not significant. CO2 does have some additional absorption in the vertical. Brightness temperature (referenced by scaddenp) is interesting, but it is not a measure of energy or transmission, it is only a measure of perceived temperature. Brightness temperature can change without a change in the energy absorption. Also, using the data is not misleading when it is a direct plot of the data. A 200-year moving average would include recent data, but in the average 100 years ago. Adding 9 year averaged instrument would make no difference. I can show that on another forum if you wish. -
Berényi Péter at 22:20 PM on 9 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#73 doug_bostrom at 03:26 AM on 9 October, 2010 because of cultural matters tide gauges are located mostly in places where isostatic adjustment is such It is hardly a cultural matter tide gauges happen to be located along seashores. It's also hardly surprising as you press down the perimeter of a flexible plate floating on a viscosous fluid it sinks a bit while its central region rises. -
fydijkstra at 22:18 PM on 9 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Ned (#14) and Archiesteel (#10): Yes, there is a pause in global warming since 1998. Showing a rising trend 1994-2010 or 1979-2010 does not falsify the claim, that there is no warming since 1998. Almost every trend from an earlier year than 1998 to 2010 shows a rising trend, but even the most hard core climate scientists admit the pause since 1998. Remember the remarks in the ClimateGate e-mails: "it's a travesty that we can't explain it".Response: The "travesty" quote by Kevin Trenberth is not talking about a pause in surface temperature warming. What's he's talking about is that we know our planet is in an energy imbalance due to model simulations, satellite measurements and rising sea levels. However, our observation system is unable to account for all the heat accumulating in our climate. The full context of Trenberth's quote is discussed in "Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming" or if you want to get it from the horse's mouth (apologies to Dr Trenberth for the metaphor), I suggest reading the original paper that the quote referred to: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). -
dorlomin at 22:13 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
@ The Inconvenient Skeptic, if one points a pyrgeometers at the sky on a clear night what are we measuring? -
CBDunkerson at 20:51 PM on 9 October 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Karamanski #9: "But then in figure 2, there is good correlation between the PDO index and global temperatures if the linear warming trend is removed." I'm not sure how good this 'correlation' actually is (for instance a PDO peak corresponds to a temperature drop ~1994), but in any case correlation does not equal causation. Isn't it equally likely that fluctuations in global temperature drive the PDO? Or that a third factor (e.g. the solar irradiance cycle) is influencing both and producing the partial correlation you think you see? -
Johngee at 20:43 PM on 9 October 2010It's the sun
Interesting... Found this via New Scientist and has been commented on fully at Real Climate. The Nature article can be linked through to via new scientist (couldn't get the nature link to work for some reason) "Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline. The sun puts out less energy when its activity is low, but different types of radiation vary to different degrees. Until now, this had been poorly studied...Haigh's measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted...Stefan Brönnimann of the University of Bern in Switzerland says Haigh's study shows the importance of looking at radiation changes in detail but cautions that the results could be a one-off. He points out that the sun's most recent cycle is known to have been atypical" (from new scientist) ...maybe something... may be nothing... more research is needed... -
CBDunkerson at 20:30 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
Karamanski #6: "I heard it in the "Solar schmolar" video on the "its the sun" post." If so then you misheard. What that video says is that an increase in solar activity would be characterized by (among other things) more pronounced warming at the equator than at the poles. This is obvious since more sunlight hits the equator for a longer period of the year. It would be accurate to say that the video 'leaves out' that Arctic amplification would occur in either case, but the point it actually makes, that global warming caused by an increase in total solar irradiance would be most pronounced at the equator while observed warming is most pronounced at the poles, is valid. There has not been equatorial warming in excess of warming at the poles or even the mid-latitudes. Ergo, it's not the Sun. -
CBDunkerson at 20:18 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
muoncounter #8, interesting images. There is a hemispheric seesaw in CO2 as spring and summer in each hemisphere allow plants to grow and absorb CO2 while fall and winter see plants dying and releasing CO2. I assume that is what is responsible for the high northern hemisphere CO2 levels in the images. Note however that the Arctic region isn't showing higher CO2 levels than much of the rest of the northern hemisphere... thus if this seasonal CO2 were responsible for Arctic amplification wouldn't we expect it to also be impacting most of North America? Also, we're talking about just a few PPM difference from the global average... the additional forcing from such a small change would be tiny. Basically something like; ln(394/390)*5.35 = 0.05 w/m^2. In any case, as the article above notes, the observed changes in snow and ice cover in the arctic would be expected to produce additional warming consistent with the measured increases. The arctic ocean used to be nearly completely ice covered all year round. Now about a third of it melts out each year and the other two thirds often have widely spaced bits of ice with plenty of ocean surface receiving direct sunlight. All that sunlight heating the Arctic ocean rather than reflecting off the ice generates a great deal of atmospheric warming. -
Doug Bostrom at 19:56 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Unfortunately, CBDunkerson, I think Tim's misunderstanding is at a much more fundamental level, a failure to understand the point of Minnett's experiment. -
CBDunkerson at 19:51 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
To put it another way; The measured heat put off by a barbecue grill in use is much greater than the heat generated by sunlight hitting the grill when it is not in use. By your logic of taking amplitude of heating regardless of area or duration we would therefor have to conclude that the negligible heat generated by sunlight is not responsible for warming the planet, but rather the planet is kept warm by people barbecuing in their back yards. Further empirical evidence of this fact can be seen in that backyard barbecues are most common in the Summer, the warmest part of the year, and the temperature plummets in Winter when barbecuing is traditionally not performed. -
CBDunkerson at 19:38 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #191: "So the effect they measured using clouds to create changes in downward LW radiation was 33 times greater than the effect that CO2 has on the ocean surface." Clouds are localized and temporary. CO2 increases are global and persistent. So sure... let's say individual cloud at a specific location might cause 33 times as much warming as the CO2 at that location alone. That cloud won't always be there... and it doesn't cover the entire planet. Further, clouds are formed from water vapor... which increases in the atmosphere as the temperature goes up... which increasing CO2 is causing to happen. So you've got increased CO2 warming + increased water vapor warming + increased cloud warming... all triggered by rising CO2 levels. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:26 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Let's try again. It's mechanism that's talked of by Minnett, not intensity, Tim. The experiment does not exaggerate the the IR, it has nothing to do with intensity, rather it exploits a source of IR sufficiently powerful as to produce a usable signal to investigate the mechanism controlling skin temperature. Minnett does not suggest that C02 is going to cause such a powerful flux because of course he's not investigating the intensity of the flux. Can anybody else think of a way to explain this to Tim? How about an analogy. You want to investigate if a desk lamp is capable of warming an area on your desk. You shine a desk lamp on your desk from 12" away and find that the area under the lamp warms. If you'd chosen to shine the lamp at the desk from 24" away and found that your desk warmed in the illuminated area, would that have changed your opinion about how the desk warmed? -
Riccardo at 18:13 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Dr. Weart thanks a lot. I like the dam analogy too, it gives the right impression of something that can not be stopped forever. Sooner or later it will come out one way or another and in the meanwhile it produces an effect. Kooiti Masuda, you're right, I did not quote the source. It is from G.W. Petty 2006, Sundog Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin. In the sample pages online you will find more. Doug, hundreds of researchers did a terrific job, we're just trying to keep up. But apparently we're culturally lagging some 60 years; or is it just cultural internal variability? :) The Inconvenient Skeptic the horizontal direction is irrelevant/misleading. Look upward and think about how the absorption coefficient changes with altitude (Plass 1956) and how heat is redistributed (Hulburt 1931). -
Kooiti Masuda at 17:54 PM on 9 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I do not think it a good idea to put the basis of "danger limit" on the knowledge of the last interglacial period. I have written some more as a comment (currently number 49) to the previous article "What constitutes 'safe' global warming?". -
TimTheToolMan at 17:52 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"It has nothing to do with the intensity of the radiation." The only relevence to intensity of radiation is as relates to the fact the experiment measures SSTs relating to 100W downward LW radiation whereas CO2 only supplies 3W. The experiment therefore exagerates the effect. "Reducing the intensity of the downward radiation does not change how it interacts with sea water." Of course it does. Less downward LW radiation causes less of a warming effect. The graph you posted clearly shows that. Perhaps you need to take a step back. Do you agree with the RC article and acknowledge that there is an issue with ocean warming from CO2 at all? -
Kooiti Masuda at 17:42 PM on 9 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
I understand the author's good intention, but I am afraid that the current scientific knowledge about the last interglacial (Eemian) period is too weak a link to define the dangerous level of warming. The accuracy of estimate of global mean temperature as well as of sea level seems to have improved (though I still do not think accurate enough to be used as basis of policy making). My biggest doubt is whether we can consider that global mean temperature determines sea level (in somewhat mathematical terms, whether sea level is a function of global mean temperature alone). I do think that global mean temperature matters, but I also think that spatial and seasonal distribution of temperature, or factors other than temperature, may also be crucial. So the level of global mean temperature which is likely to cause dangerous sea level rise is under-determined by Eemian data. (This is a personal opinion of a scientist but not an expert of this specific issue.) -
Doug Bostrom at 17:17 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Johnd, I highly recommend diving into a reasonably broad paper and following cites forwards and backwards. As I mentioned, the Ramanathan paper is an excellent place to start because of its sweeping objectives. -
GnDoty at 17:16 PM on 9 October 2010It's the sun
I have been exploring a bit but could use some help. I'm looking for accurate temperature trends from 1800-1900. Also, earthquake frequency data during the same period including volcanic eruptions. I want to find if there is any changes in the data of significance post-1849. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:15 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Tim, I've changed my mind. You are confused and I apologize for all my wild speculation earlier. The experiment described by Minnett was a means of verifying the controlling mechanism and efficacy of downward IR radiation warming the ocean. It has nothing to do with the intensity of the radiation. Reducing the intensity of the downward radiation does not change how it interacts with sea water. Can you see that? I hope so. Meanwhile, the Ramanathan article addresses both radiation from clouds as well as radiation from the sea surface, in a comprehensive way. The article has to treat the various inputs and outputs of sea surface temperature comprehensively because it's establishing a case for ultimate limits on sea surface temperature. Ironically, that article is the nearest approximation to explaining how oceans might warm less than would simplistically seem the case that you're likely to find, something resembling the sort of argument you're failing to offer. I specifically tried to find something along the lines of what you were speaking of w/regard to unobvious limits to ocean temperature; Ramanathan suggesting support for your hypothesis is a gift. How you could possibly miss that is difficult to understand. -
TimTheToolMan at 17:08 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@johnd re: Evaporation. Its a very good question and represents another shortcoming of the experiment. -
TimTheToolMan at 17:06 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Neither kdkd The experiment was designed to explore sea surface temperature changes as a result of changes in downward LW radiation. It succeeded in that for the relatively large downward LW radiation changes imposed by clouds. But thats all its done. The next step has to be how those sea surface temperature changes relate to changes in the loss of energy from the ocean. This needs to be be done quantitatively so that the CO2 effect can be seen to be sufficient to cause the observed warming. -
scaddenp at 17:00 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
So John, still using that highly misleading graphic on your website. Fixing that soon? As to this argument, perhaps time to at the reference to Harries 2001 for a proper test of theory against data. -
johnd at 16:59 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TimTheToolMan at 16:26 PM, I'm finding this an interesting discussion. What I am left wondering is where is the evaporation process being accounted for whilst the measurements of the temperature gradient of the skin layer were being taken, in particular as the cloud cover varied. I know it is not mentioned in the article, is it simply not relevant or merely given time out? -
kdkd at 16:58 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #191 So are you saying that there is no evidence for this extra 10% of downward longwave radiation that should be accounted for by CO2? Or are you saying the experimental model is not sensitive enough to detect this. If the former, you need to show the evidence. If the latter, then we're screwed and specialists should be devising more sensitive data collection methods. The second of these conclusions is not sufficient to provide evidence against anthropogenic global warming mind you, so take care. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:53 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"Well, at least we've confirmed the the crux of your misunderstanding." What? I believe this is your misunderstanding. I'll explain in more detail. The experiment used clouds cover to measure the effect of the skin. Clouds mean that there is about 100W of increased downward LW radiation seen at the sea surface. Compare this to the CO2 effect which is stated in the article as being 4W for a doubling of CO2 and is closer to 3W for current increases since industrialisation. So the effect they measured using clouds to create changes in downward LW radiation was 33 times greater than the effect that CO2 has on the ocean surface. "Oh, you didn't read the Ramanathan article above? I could swear you said you did. Anyway, check the literature; maximum sea surface temperature investigations have been going on for at least 40 years." I have read it and there is no analysis of how increased downward LW radiation from CO2 effects the amount of energy the ocean radiates. For that matter there isn't even an analysis of increased LW radiation from clouds and what effect that has on decreased radiation from the ocean. If you believe there is then please point it out. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:38 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
It is precisely the amount of IR that is one of the the problems. The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds. Well, at least we've confirmed the the crux of your misunderstanding. Some progress is possible! ...how much LW radiation reduction from the ocean does that imply?... That side of the theory is completely unexplored. Oh, you didn't read the Ramanathan article above? I could swear you said you did. Anyway, check the literature; maximum sea surface temperature investigations have been going on for at least 40 years. Not exactly "completely unexplored," more just a matter of unknown to you. That's a nice example of why expertise and experience counts for a lot, and why you'd never find the likes of me blithely disagreeing with people like Minnett. -
kdkd at 16:31 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #187 That will be because you have not demonstrated that your argument has any validity. -
archiesteel at 16:31 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: And why is that? Please elaborate. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:26 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
I've no doubt my argument fails to convince you archiesteel. -
archiesteel at 16:24 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds." This doesn't matter. The article is about the relationship between IR radiation and upper sea level temperatures. Demonstrating the relationship was the goal of the article, not the amount of downward LW radiation produced by CO2's greenhouse effect. The author of the article acknowledges this at the end: "Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship." I'm sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate in any way how the article is wrong, or why this would impact AGW theory. Until you come up with new arguments to support your hypothesis, you'll have failed to convince me (and others here) of its validity. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:13 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
On a parenthetical note, TTTM is not actually attempting to argue w/RealClimate, he's in dispute w/Peter Minnett. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:12 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
" The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt" And where do you get that idea from? It is precisely the amount of IR that is one of the the problems. The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds. The other problem I have with the article is that the graph that you have reposted shows the skin temperature change as a result in LW radiation changes but how much LW radiation reduction from the ocean does that imply? See the above comment for additional uncertainty. That side of the theory is completely unexplored. I cant say this any other way, you either understand my argument or you need to reread the article until you understand the issue. -
kdkd at 16:06 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
archiesteel #182: I think these are the limitations where he's confused the control variable and the experimental variable :) -
archiesteel at 15:59 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment" What limitations are these, again? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:58 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Citing the article at RealClimate only deepens the mystery of what you're trying to accomplish, TTTM. You also sound rather ridiculous when you say the article is bereft of a useful conclusion, or numerical analysis in support of their conclusion. You: I've described the article and said they dont have any numbers to back up their theory. RealClimate:
How about describing, in detail, what parts of that article you disagree with? Specifically, what's wrong with their method? What's faulty about the analysis? Most importantly, you need to show how the IR emanating from clouds is different from IR from other sources, because that's the crux of your argument. The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt, but you need to show how. Be specific, because saying "I don't agree" is not an argument.
-
TimTheToolMan at 15:55 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem?" No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment and lack of taking the result further in the science to actually justify the warming. -
archiesteel at 15:51 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC." Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem? -
archiesteel at 15:48 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TimTheToolMan: It is not CO2 that warms the ocean, but IR radiation. We know how much of that IR radiation is coming back down to the surface. Some of that IR radiation ends up on land, some ends up in the oceans. "My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2." Sure we do: about 3 degrees for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:47 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
The more complex the model, the more important the empirical data. Fortunately there have been very detailed studies of IR transmission in the atmosphere. Many from before AGW was popular. Here is the measured transmittance of the IR band. This is freely distributed to people that use IR transmission in their work. It uses wavelength instead of wavenumber, so you will need to compare to the top axis of Riccardo's post. The picture is large and I can't do it justice here. This has been in use since the 1970's when CO2 was about 330 ppm. It has not changed since then. Always test the theory against the data. The amount of widening is limited, but visible. The amount of IR energy available for CO2 absorption after 1km in the horizontal direction is approaching zero W/m2. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
TimTheToolMan at 15:35 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean." Suffice to say that its me thats done the research here and so I think I know the implications. Your comment of "generic nature" indicate that you dont understand the issue at all. One thing is certain, I didn't make this up. There is an article on RC that clearly describes the problem and the experiment that attempts to explain the solution. In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC. -
TimTheToolMan at 15:30 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation." That would be one argument. Its not my argument however. My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2. Therefore Science cant actually say whether CO2 is warming the oceans or not. It comes back to one of my earlier statements where I'd said science observes ocean warming and automatically attributes it to CO2 without having any quantifiable justification. Compare this to the work that has been done to justify CO2's feedback mechanisms and consequent increases in downward LW radiation resulting in measurable increases in temperature in the atmosphere and on land. -
archiesteel at 15:27 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
@Karamanski: I'm sorry as well if I mistook your eagerness to learn for disingenuous posturing. Now, in order to satisfy your curiosity to learn about climatology, you might consider looking at some other sites about this science, as this particular one here rather specializes in responding to popular skeptical arguments, and not provide a general introduction to climate science. Personally, I like Wikipedia as a general learning tool, but I'm sure there are other sites that focus on providing quality information on this subject. Perhaps others here can give you suggestions. Beyond that, you might have to look at online classes and/or trips to the library to learn the science in more detail... -
Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM, you're not making a specific argument, you're only saying that you don't agree with something specific, namely that oceans are susceptible to having their temperature changed as a result of exposure to IR radiation. This is not an argument: "I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today." An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation. Also, I've not said you're ignorant. I said you're adopting a posture of ignorance, but I'll grant that's going too far; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean. By your own word, you don't doubt there's an enhanced "greenhouse" effect in play, so assuming you're not ignorant, the matter really does come down either to posturing or confusion. -
archiesteel at 15:15 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all." This sentence perfectly illustrates how misguided your whole research has been, and why you have allegedly not found an answer for the inexistent issue. Greenhouse forcings, together with all other forcings, heat the oceans. CO2 captures then redirects heat in a random direction, and sometimes that is absorbed by the oceans, but the mechanism of absorption is the same whether the heat is coming straight from the sun, or is being re-radiated by CO2, CH4, WV, etc. "You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer." Perhaps that's because you really haven't found the question either. All you know is that, somehow, it must show that AGW is inadequate... -
muoncounter at 14:59 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
"Arctic amplification is an expected (and now observed) result of an enhanced greenhouse effect" Isn't this amplification an outcome of the higher concentration and larger seasonal amplitudes of CO2 in the arctic?
As the figures demonstrate, large parts of the Arctic see >390ppm for more months of the year than the lower latitudes. Peak CO2 occurs in April-May, as the melt season is getting underway.
-
TimTheToolMan at 14:41 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
My argument is very specific. My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all. Or the extent of warming or whatever. You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer. If such an answer exists then all you need to do is find it and AGW theory remains intact. I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:31 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTT,M, if you were making some specific argument against some specific thing, my speculations about your appearance here might be an "ad hominem attack." However, as you've not made an argument to address, such a thing is impossible, ipso facto. That is, unless we're prepared to accept "I doubt it" as an argument, which I don't. Arguably, being a "skeptic" does not entail maintaining a posture of ignorance while demanding to be educated. -
TimTheToolMan at 14:22 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"If such a person as TTT,M really cared to have an answer as opposed to argue, he'd start by going to the literature and usually would never show up on SkS." You know nothing about me and nothing about what I have researched on this topic. The fact I brought it up at all ought to indicate that I know something about it. You've made an unprovoked ad hominem attack on me and have obliquely tried to imply the science is solid even though you provide no data to support that position. I do appreciate the link you've provided and my initial reading indicates that the issue is not addressed by this paper. It will take me some time to go through the references. I HAVE researched this topic and read a large number of papers looking for the answer. Not for some time though. I gave up a while back. I genuinely am looking for an answer. At this point I am a skeptic for good reason. As far as I'm concerned AGW theory is inadequate. -
archiesteel at 14:06 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Hopefully TTTM will stop wasting everyone's time and start actually learning the science, but somehow I doubt it. :-/
Prev 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 Next
