James Hansen: "Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. "The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says."
Here, he is saying a lack of warming wouldn't shake his belief.
Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
Trenberth won't accept temperature data so he simply claims the heat is "missing". And where is it? Well it's in the one spot that nobody can measure, the deep oceans. This point of view can be held infinitely regardless of global temperatures.
Jeff M: He mentions the physical properties of CO2 and the hydrological cycle which have nothing to do with human CO2 causing CAGW. He also believes climate sensitivity is a fact at 3.5C when recent research has it leaning to low end of the range (Yes, Jeff, there is a range since there is uncertainty) with a figure near 2C more likely. The recent pause is warming is physical evidence supporting this.
Big Gryph and Climate Realist: These guys think a fact like 10 of the last 15 years being the warmest means there is no pause currently in warming. They are obviously unaware of what a plateau function looks like.
And then there would be the nasty business of apologizing for all the insults. That alone might be enough to hold onto their beliefs no matter what.
Jeff M - Your conclusions are way off base for one thing.
My information on CO2 and its ability to warm even further was presented by a scientist and had plenty of information backing his claim. He wasn't blogging it as you claim. Read here : http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201...
When the whole of the planet can warm by 1 whole degree in 1 year on its own as it did in 1997-1998, then most of your claims fall apart. Climate science understood that it was an El Nino event that caused this and not CO2 emissions.
Since 1880, the planet has warmed by 0.75 Celsius. Much of that warming happened before fossil fuels were a "so-called" problem (pre-1940s). When you consider that temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 emissions tripled during that time, then the "Global Warming Theory" falls apart even more.
When you read Gunny T's answer to this Y/A question : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... then your claims totally crumble and dissipate with the warming that you think humans are causing.
-------------------------------------
LOL Jim Z! You're right. Climate Change or Global warming? Which is it now? 32 degrees Celsius? ... or 0 degrees F?
He he, they're really are out there don't ya know.
Even when faced with the cold, hard data of no warming for at least 16yrs it's a no, it is warming you denier, roflmao.
These people do more u turns than a sleazy politician. For years they constantly said the Sun's output was a constant and had been for millennia, now suddenly they say the Sun's declined.
Pollution caused warming, now chinese aerosols are cooling us.
It's also cold in places because of warming.
The list goes on and on, one of the things I also find funny is their lack of understanding of what a newspaper is. The Daily Mail prints the graph showing no warming and it's a denier tabloid- erm no it's actually a newspaper reporting a story about the taxpayer funded UK Met office, but if you listen to them you'd think it was either made up or the Mail had attempted to do the research themselves.
As a group they're the most unscientific people you could ever meet yet they believe the opposite of themselves which is also funny. Hey but what the heck, I'm just a denier, what do I know? I'm not even sure Auschwitz exists lol.
It should be quite easy :
(i) Some chemistry student does an IR scan on a sample of CO2 and finds out it doesnt absorb IR radiation at all , thereby proving all the previous IR scans to be wrong
(ii) Some student at the University of Georgia radiation laboratory tests a sample of atmospheric gas and finds that the carbon isotope distribution in the CO2 is consistent with the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years not have been caused by burning fossil fuels
Well, you are a rather poor reader. There is not one single climate scientist nor one single regular on this board who shays the CAGW will be the downfall. Be specific, who and what are you talking about? Your question cannot be answered. It is nonsensical.
Always we see this here: People who deny global warming just make stuff up.
I look for the robust theory that can explain the real observations. Just try that yourself. Try explaining how climate has ever changed with CO2? Hint: you can't.
Alarmists like leftists never stop advancing their agenda. Global warming, gay rights, gun control, legalizing drugs, amnesty etc.
There you have it. It is physics. It is physically impossible for them to be wrong. A mile of ice over their heads wouldn't be enough to convince them that our CO2 emissions may not be responsible for the warming.
1. If we find that the laws of physics as they relate to CO2 absorption are false. And by false I don't mean Pat's repeated attempts at calling into question CO2s absorption capabilities which he gathered from reading blogs. I am talking about real experimental data and measurements.
2. If, somehow, we find that the water cycle will not be intensified in a warming atmosphere or if that water cycle will, somehow, mitigate the amount of warming (ie: by forming more cooling cloud types)
It has been stated that, due to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial times, temperatures will warm approximately 3.5C. And up to this point temperatures have risen 0.8C. The 3.5C estimate is based on feedbacks and the consequences of warming such as the melting of tundra and ice sheet and glacial loss. As you personally call into question what you call 'CAGW', though, as always, I have a problem with the 'catastrophic' in front due to it having no exact definition in this instance, do you understand the feedback mechanisms involved that are expected to increase the rate of warming? And are you aware that these will occur under any types of warming regardless of source?
Pat: You are repeatedly posting a blog, an article, what have you. There is absolutely no educational institution associated with the post. YOU are the one that is way off base. What makes you think one scientist, out of many hundreds of thousands, that states something in opposition to the many, can be trusted? and it is a wordpress blog. Do you understand that? The person behind the post, Bryce Johnson, is a retired nuclear engineer from California.
And perhaps you should, again, look at the cause of temperatures falling during the time period mentioned. Once again you are looking at the effects and ignoring the cause just as anyone who states the Sun is the cause of the recent warming without even acknowledging solar output has been in a slow decline for 50+ years now. and your statement about GunnyT is false again. Milankovitch cycles show we were in a cooling phase 6000 years prior to the recent warming phase which are not due to those cycles. I'm afraid you are the one who is off base and does not understand what on Earth he is talking about.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/44...
Ottawa mike: I am well aware of this. I'm curious why people like you feel the need to belittle people like me when you know full well I am aware of what I'm talking about? humourous indeed. The reason why I used 3.5C is because it is considered the median of that range. The recent pause in warming has nothing to do with AGW. It has to do with a negative or neutral PDO as well as a host of other things. And if we look at energy retneion there is no 'pause' in warming. what there is is a redistribution of the heat due, once again, to the PDO and the associated ENSO cycles. I, and many others, have stated this numerous times in here to fall on deaf ears. The start of the 'pause' was the 1997/98 El Nino which was the most intense to date. An El Nino redistributes the heat, it does not add or remove heat.
A little bit of ground breaking physics where you rewrite Planck's law of black-body radiation and show that the law as it is currently accepted is invalid. Of course, most of industry would grind to a halt because the physics it is based on would no longer be valid. Have at it!
It should be "CAGWH". H for hoax.
From all the answers I've read here it seems that nothing will ever dissuade you from your belief that man made CO2 emissions will be the downfall of society. Can you think of any scenario which would make you think that man made catastrophic global warming has been blown completely out of proportion?
