So far you have three answers. Only one mentions any real science - and that is not quite right.
Antarctic ice loss gets a mention. My understanding is that the measurements show that the ice is increasing. It is only after the "corrections" for isostatic rebound are applied that the "loss" appears. Anything where the correction outweighs the measurements has to be viewed sceptically. Anyway, why would the ice be disappearing? Has Antarctica suddenly warmed to be above freezing point? Does the sea ice know this?
In my opinion, the extreme weather claim is not proven, either. Most people fall for it because they do not know what weather used to be like. The current lack of North Atlantic hurricanes is an example. People still believe Sandy supports their case but in reality there have been much fewer such events than in the recent past (1950's).
We have an appeal to authority. So no science there. He just believes that someone else knows. I bet many of those "someone elses" think the same thing.
What about the science CO2 animation. Well, the chances of the CO2 molecule emitting an infra red photon are quite remote, if my understanding is correct. It convinces the masses that there is a mechanism but in reality, most of the CO2 loses energy by collision because of the number of nearby molecules. So "back radiation" is quite a minor effect.
If you ask a scientist if GW is exclusively caused by greenhouse gases they will say No but when asked how GW is caused they will point to CO2. There is a contradiction right there. It is as if they know what causes GW but are only allowed to mention CO2.
Even if the CO2 theory is correct, I still want to understand the mechanism for the current "pause". The CO2 heating must still be occurring if the theory is correct. However, the warming is not happening. What is the mechanism that is removing the heat? When will it stop? Could it remove even more heat?
Some realists, especially those who are scientists, do understand the science.
Some understand at least part of the science, but not necessarily the specific details that you ask about on any given question.
Some don't really understand the science except on the broadest level, but trust the majority of scientists over the mostly nonscientific voices on the "skeptic" side.
Some, in fact, don't understand the science at all, but just picked a side for whatever reason.
Obviously, the more "specialist" of a question you ask, the fewer answers you get. Also, often, if there's already a good answer to a strictly factual question, other people won't answer it, even if they know the answer, because they don't feel they can improve on what's there.
According To Yahoo news the missing heat is a mile below the
surface . That is illogical . If you fill up a bathtub with
hot water it will cool down during the day . The air dissipates
the heat more.
They only real lack of understanding here is that you skeptics have no real understanding of climatology and refuse to accept that AGW is now the status quo. it is not a theory, it is a reality. The average global temp of the planet is still warming. The poles are losing ice volume regardless how mush the extent increases. We have had more worldwide drought, growing deserts, torrential rains, heat waves, unusual snow and cold. slight sea level rise. ocean acidification and you skeptics still can't get your heads screwed on straight.
Realists don't need to understand the science. We know when to listen to people much smarter than we are ourselves. The armchair worriers who believe they know much more by listening to some fool on Faux news than people who have been studying data and experimenting for decades are the uninformed ones.
Yep, we do.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
http://web4.audubon.org/globalwarming/im... <== this is why CO2 is a problem.
What's interesting is how many AGW deniers are also evolution deniers.
Talk about not only not understanding, but being completely uninterested in science.
Edit: "except they left out the part, that the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes as concentrations rise meaning CO2 has captured almost all the long wave radiation it can"
Got some science to back that up?
Or are we supposed to take it on faith?
You have made that claim several times.
Never have you provided any source for it.
This is not to say that there is a decline in effectiveness,
however, as long as there is some radiation escaping from the earth in the wavelengths that CO2 interacts with, more can be done.
edit again: graphicconception - "What about the science CO2 animation. Well, the chances of the CO2 molecule emitting an infra red photon are quite remote, if my understanding is correct. It convinces the masses that there is a mechanism but in reality, most of the CO2 loses energy by collision because of the number of nearby molecules. So "back radiation" is quite a minor effect."
Maybe you noticed that Kano, who posted the question, and is a vehement AGW denier, said that the animation was correct. Maybe the problem is that your "understanding" is not correct.
Normally heat energy is contained in the lateral movement of the molecule. That's why as the temp increases, the pressure on the inside of a closed vessel increases proportionally. The vibration that is associated with specific frequencies is very different, and does not cause the same pressure increase. It's why 3 and 4 atom molecules are greenhouse gasses, and 2 atom molecules are not. BTW, I could be wrong, but I suspect that ozone blocks ultraviolet radiation by the same mechanism. Being a triangular molecule, with a very strong structure, the energy level associated is much higher - similar to ultraviolet photons.
and again: Sagebrush - "If they understood the science then their climate models would match the actual Earth."
And obviously you know far more about modeling, and climate, than people with advanced university degrees, who have been doing the research for a number of years. :(
BTW, I did wonder about your view of creationism. Somehow I'm not surprised
Q. "Are evolutionists and environmentalists on the same page when it comes to 'Global Warming'?"
Sagebrush answered 3 weeks ago
It is only natural that they would. They have no belief in a Creator. They think that somehow they can control the temperature. They also think that so many of them were conceived by accident, that the whole of mankind was conceived the same way.
No. And they admit it when they look for the missing heat and when they say that the environment is chaotic. If they understood the science then their climate models would match the actual Earth.
You see, people like Thor get their science from others and assume that real scientists do that also. Real scientists investigate a subject themselves. It was real scientists who found out the lies and flaws of Al Gore's movie. People like Thor just stood there and nodded.
I mean when I ask a science question like yesterday (solar cycles and the jet stream) I get two answers if I ask about a more general question I get lots of answers, makes me think they do not know much about the science they always suggest but not elaborate on
