Wild Cobra

"it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels" That's real definative... Anyone interested in the soot in ice, I suggest searching different phrases. Here are some links that are useful, for anyone wanting to take time to read or skim them: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BlackCarbonArctic-report.pdf http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:461913/FULLTEXT03

Then get Asia to stop spewing out black carbon. One of several papers you can find on the topic: http://patarnott.com/atms790/pdf_atms790/papers2014/20thCenturyBC_IceCoreWork_SCIENCE.pdf

Another model busted...

Why? This thread is asking what it would take to change our minds. Please stay on topic.

Why would I try to say AGW isn't real? It is!

My first post addressed solar, which I contend is the primary driver of observed warming over the last three centuries. Since I believe soot on ice has a greater impact than greenhouse gases as well, I guess I should include that. To be honest, it isn't soot that I need to see as less impact than what I believe, but to see undisputable evidence that greenhouse gases cause as much warming as claimed. I am on the record here as stating I do not believe CO2 can cause more than 0.55 degrees per doubling. I know I am highly controversial here, but please. Ask me to elaborate before saying I am wrong on points I make. Even the same scientists that are in the consensus group claim a 2,000 GWP20 or more for soot. 2,300 seems about average and some state it as high as 4,000. Sorry for the longwinded explanation, since it really boils down to this: Show me definitive evidence that the increased Arctic ice melt is from CO2 warming and not soot on ice. Also show me why all of Antarctica has no melt issues except the areas over the ring of fire. Anyone up to the challenge of changing my mind?

And how do we know that was man made warming rather than natural cycles? Do I smell a strawman?

Yet we disagree. I agree CO2 is a climate driver, but far from primary. I'll give it 3rd place befind solar and soot.

We have been leading by example since the 70's when we created the EPA. I am not saying CO2 is a problem. I don't believe it is, but at the same time believe it could as it approached 0.1% (1,000 ppm.) We are a long way from that point, and I have faith that science will be far better long, before we get that high in levels. Why? The stated sensitivity of CO2 that is held by consensus is in the neighborhood of 3 degrees ± 1.5 degrees. I say it no more than 0.55 degrees. I accept AGW is real, but not to any danger of warming. My concern is the respiration of life that may have a difficult time living in such high CO2 conditions. My primary complain with China and Asia as a whole is not the CO2, but the aerosols they emit from not using newer technology like we switched to long ago. Aerosols, especially soot, are a serious problem at the levels they emit. I don't know the answer with any certainty. I just know this. Far more money is pumped into research to validate the alarmist view than the skeptical view. I wasn't speaking of green technologies, but the papers supporting warming and climate. Green technologies is a whole other debate, but I trust the energy companies will spend their own money to be first to develop cost effective zero or no emission power. They need their subsidies cut off. It's a waste of tax dollars. Primarily the forcing and sensitivity assigned to CO2 in a complex atmosphere. Take any study that states a sensitivity around the three degrees and read in it how they came to that number. You will find they refer to a previous paper. Find that paper and you will find it generally is not yet the source. Trace the papers back to the source and you will find papers around 40 years old, using correlation to assign sensitivity, in a decade before we could see so clearly with satellites, and before we understood solar variability as well as now. Satellites are great, but still have their limitations. They cannot accurately discern the cause of the IR they see, or changes since before they were launched. Look at the sheer number of papers that refer to past works, of any kind. Now this is perfectly normal in science, but climatology is a relatively new field, and far more original work needs to be done than has been. Most of what we see is just rehashing any more other works. Strawman alert...

AGW simply means man made warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming. It acknowledges man has a global effect on warming. The term itself has no quantifier of value. You have to assign a value, and I have on many occasions made my point clear on this. To demand it means mostly makes it a binary argument, which is not scientific. Political maybe, but not scientific. Now if you specifically attach a qualifier to it like “anthropogenic global warming theory,” then yes, you are speaking of it mostly being cause by man. If you cannot accept clarification of a person’s points, when being specific in assigning a qualifier of sorts, then I am at a loss of what to say from here. I have been specific in saying natural warming is greater than anthropogenic. There is no wiggle room. Why are you building straw men? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=0

No. Never been affiliated with the oil indistry. I am just a concerned citizen that understands the sciences in play. I don't want to see my tax dollars wasted on anything. I'm OK with mitigating carbon emissions, but only at modest cost increases. I see no sense in turning our world upside-down for what has become a politically driven agenda. It becomes laughable in my view to spend so much time and displace so many jobs, when Asia isn't doing anything to reduce their levels. All talk about the future, but they are still at full speed building more coal power generation. Not that it is any excuse, but we at least are, and have been far wiser at new power contraction already. Just how much farther can we go without hurting ourselves? I say we should look for better options, but not disrupt our society in doing so. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I do not believe it is a strong as claimed. I am far more concerned about soot on ice. Isn't it laughable to try to mitigate CO2, when other nations are spewing out so much soot? Ever see the GWP for soot? The 20 year timeline is something like 72 for CH4, but something like 2,000 for soot. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1856/1925.abstract I see obvious unanswered questions in the consensus material. Mainly, proper solar delta quantification of indirect changes. I find it laughable that a decade or longer back, I was speaking of thermal inertia lag of the solar energy caught by the oceans, to be laughed at by all. Now the same people who laughed at me are accepting the so-called experts claiming a thermal inertia in the ocean by CO2, when it is only captured at the top microns of the ocean rather than meters deep like the sun is, and still ignoring this thermal inertia of the changing solar values. This whole "primarily due to man" warming idea to me is a fraud. I don't see it as a conspiracy, but more like a bureaucracy that knows where the money and power comes from. For politicians, more control over us. Simply a whole lot of people doing what is best for them. Researchers creating the papers they are paid to write. Do you think if a researcher gets grant money and comes up with a paper defying what they set out to write, that whoever gave them the money will do so again? Wish to change my mind? Then of the several concepts I have presented, can you show me something that definitively disputed my points without referring to papers, that ignore my points? I would agree if they were all, completely unique in their research. The problem is, they all refer to past works accepted as fact. Isn't it possible they are all copying the same mistakes?

Who's preaching now? I said I will likely back it up in future posts. I have given all the discussion that is needed. I am not continuing such a topic as a lecture, it is you guys not letting go of it, and if any rule violations are happening, it is from your constant harassment of me on the topic. Please stop your flame-bating.

LOL... We have a different perspective, don't we? Either way, would you call it a sure thing to die or not?

Yep. Call it what you want. Most the relevant material has levels of certainty at around 95%. Would you take a 20 chamber revolver, load one round in it, and say you could never die if you used it in Russian Roulette?

Not for those of us who believe most of the warming is natural. Correct. Most of us who disagree with the consensus view see it as a waste of money with no effect, but to make carbon traders rich, and displace 20,000+ people from Uganda for no good reason. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the politicians don’t have accurate enough information to use. There are too many conflicting papers. There is no real consensus. Maybe when the climate community starts writing papers without political spin and weasel words, the politicians will listen. As it is, all the information given to politicians are like the same tripe they use to get elected, and they see through it. I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW. Must I report you for your repeated lies about my position, after clarifying so many times? Be warned. I may take farther misrepresentations of my clearly stated viewpoints as flame baiting and report you! Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I have never said, and never will say otherwise. Please keep that strait. That does not mean I agree with the quantifications of the stated variables. Deceitful? Who is being deceitful when they misrepresent other posters viewpoints? Look in a mirror lately? As for the delay of being well informed. Why must AGW agenda driven papers use weasel words? Why not strait up be honest, without all the implied messages? Wouldn’t strait up honesty be better? Have you ever read any of these papers from a viewpoint of opposition to see how they imply without stating as fact? I feel sorry for you. Time is on my side. Like I said before, I'm sure at some point, I will take issue with one of thos blogs and expalin why. If this is a win for you, then savor it. Taunting me will get you nowhere, but just be considered by me as flamebaiting. Are you the master rule-maker? Again, just wait. I'm sure at some point in the future, I will explain what is wrong in one of the blogs. My refusal is not to be construed that I cannot. It is simply not worth my time. When the appropriate thread, post, etc. comes along, I will respond as I think is necessary. My biggest point is not to take either of these two blogs as completely accurate. Just be patient.

Bold or not, I'm not going to take time with that issue now. Just let it drop, and watch for remarks with future posts. I’m sure at some point, the occasion will arise that I say why they are wrong. I will take time to type a few keystrokes now, but it has zero importance for me to go back in time, and spend any time on the topic looking into old information. I have better things to do. Don't you?

You don't think it's at all possible that I prefer not to waste time looking for examples? Again, at some point, I will likely point out a fallacy in one of those two blogs. Just be patient.

What would it take for me? To see how… meaning their methodology... of how they rate the solar influence so much less than what anyone familiar with indirect forcing can see. Let me see a step by step of the entire solar influence since 1700, and how they quantify it.

Regardless, it seems those who agree with consensus get away with more than those of us who do not.

True, but that's all I am willing to do for you at the moment. I have already explained how they leave important facts out. I'm sure at some point, I will explain why something posted by either Skeptical science or Real Climate is wrong. I'll do it when it is important enough, but I'm not going to go back in history for someone who has not earned my respect.

I have found examples years back, I'm not going to look today. I have pointed such things out when the debate warranted it. Tell me... Is that blog peer reviewed? That is a standard or yours, right?

I would be fine with them if they remained accurate. They do not.

It's the interpretations Skeptical Science gives and lies of omission.

Because you don't find it with bloggers. Blogger communities are unrelieble to get your information from, so don't look there for answers. Neither are foums like this. All places like this do is offer ideas and places to find good source materail. It irritates the hell out of me when someone uses a blog called "skeptical science" to say they disprove something, or even blogs from my point of view. You find it in other reasearcher papers. They willsay soming like "Kiehl and Trenberth (1997, hereafter KT97)." and then just shorthand it with KT97 in the rest of the text. If you have read as many papers on the subject as I have, you would know this. Don't look for your answers in blogs, especially if they don't source the material they are answering from. Go to the source material.

Well first off, KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences. It ranks among the most popular papers, and is the one I linked. Here it is again: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf The graph is on page 206 (PDF page 10). The Wiseguy video was just a fun little thing. Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component. Any change in the solar component affects all those numbers in the 2/3rds component by about the same percentage. It is nearly linear. Increase the solar numbers by 0.2%, increase all numbers by 0.2%. Makes a pretty large impact with those greenhouse effect multipliers. I understand how the day/night temperatures are less severe with the greenhouse effect. I will guess most here do not however.