Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
Correlation does not imply causation.
|
Good, so show me why I should not imply that an increase in solar output should not cause temperatures to rise, but that I must assume that a slight increase in carbon dioxide must mean a rise in temperature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
Roughly speaking, the increase from solar irradiation is calculated by multiplying the increase in isolation by the Earth's albedo (How much of that stays in the atmosphere), which is ~.3-.35. Given the graph of solar irradiation you posted then we've seen a ~.3W/m^2 increase since 1900, and w/ a albedo of ~.33, then we'll trap an additional ~.1W/m^2, which happens to be what the IPCC estimated. ~.1W/m^2 isn't enough to account for the increase in temperature, |
Is this because the super-accurate computer models said they weren't? You know, the ones that continually have to be re-tweaked in order to a) not show an ice age by 1990, b) not show a global desert by 2000, and c) can't even correctly model cloud formation?
While you're at it, explain to me where the major heatsinks are, that drive Earth's climate, and explain how they are heated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
All we have to go on is what we think we know and that points to GHGs as the driver behind the change in albedo. Theories/Laws can be broken, but I wouldn't want to try to break the law of gravity by jumping off the empire state building, and I wouldn't try to prove physical chemistry is wrong by betting against GCC, especially when the abatement for about half of our emissions is cost neutral.  |
All you are willing to go on, is that somehow it's all Mankind's fault, because that's all you can see. You belittle natural causes as "aliens" or "God," and blindly accept as absolute truth a thing that depends on inaccurate computer models to even work. These computer models do not show all of what goes on in the atmosphere, for the simple reason that we do not know what goes on in the atmosphere. Therefore, the programmers have to insert a huge number of assumptions that do not match to reality.
It is intellectually dishonest to assume all sorts of feedback mechanisms that somehow amplify a supposed temperature rise induced solely by Mankind, and then turn around and completely discount as irrelevant the contribution of something that is completely outside of Mankind's control.
You guys keep saying that "this is caused by AGW" and "that is caused by AGW" like droughts in Australia, or a complete lack of snowfall in England by 2010. Now that we see flooding in Australia, and record cold and snowfalls in England, you guys now claim it's due to AGW. It seems to me like you guys won't be satisfied until Mankind is wiped off the Earth (thereby removing manmade carbon dioxide), before you are happy.