Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
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.
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.
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.
|
Quote sniping is awful and you should feel awful.
It's not about belief, it's about science. An increase in solar irradiation will cause temperatures to rise and an increase in the Earth's albedo will cause temperatures to rise. The increase in solar irradiation we've seen is not enough to account for all of the increase in average temperature alone, but it is still part of it.
Saying the fundamentals are wrong because some people design some wonky computer models is like saying all math is wrong because little Bobby failed his Algebra class. If the models are wrong then the models are wrong, that doesn't change the absorption bands of
Carbon Dioxide or any other GHG. The end result is still the same,
greater GHG emissions lead to an increase in albedo and more energy trapped in the atmosphere (higher average temps). People can try (and tend to fail) to model the specifics, and get those wrong, but that doesn't mean that the physical chemistry is wrong, it means they suck at modeling for whatever reasons, or that we don't have the tools to model something precisely. In other words, we can say with a large degree of certainty that our GHG emissions are warming the climate, but trying to predict exactly how much that warming will be 50-100 years from now is much harder. We know that so far we're looking at a ~1.3+/-.3 F rise due mostly to GHG emissions w/ a little bit from increased solar irradiation, but we don't know exactly what the increase will be because there are uncertainties when it comes to climate modeling, and even greater uncertainties when it comes to modeling human behavior (how much GHG emissions will change).
Lastly, cut the 'tude dude. Stop lumping everyone together. There is no "you guys". If you want to point out the Neil that weather isn't the same as climate then do so, don't lump everyone together. Stop trying to Godwin the thread, humanity can get by just fine even if we minimize GHG emissions. We're also not here to explain to you how the Earth's climate works. IMO I'm spending enough time trying to explain to you where you're incorrect/correct in terms of what you're posting, going through years of math/physics/other sciences is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.