In contrast to skeptics, how do denialists respond to new evidence?

They ignore it, until it can be mangled to appear to say the opposite of what it actually means. Then they bleat about it at every opportunity despite the fact that is irrelevant.

From your link - " Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is "saturated"― meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn’t water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would?"

The argument is about CO2's absorption rate of IR at certain frequencies and not about how much is blocked. Nice try! CO2 has limits of absorption that's why it is considered a greenhouse gas and yet continued emissions doesn't increase its heating capacity.

"After being heated by IR absorption, molecules can lose heat by any transfer mechanism including IR emission"

"The CO2 effect is determined by the heat entering and the heat exiting the atmosphere and the effect that CO2 has on each. These are all calculable with standard codes and classical heat transfer mathematics, and can be measured (but with controversial accuracy)."

"VERY LOW ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY CAUSES LOW EMISSION."

"INCREASING CO2 APPROACHES UNIT ABSORPTION PROBABILITY MUCH FASTER THAN H20 WHICH HAS OVERALL BROAD DISTRIBUTION WITH NO HUGE PEAKS."

"BOTH H2O AND CO2 SATURATE (REACH A POINT WHERE CERTAIN FREQUENCIES HAVE HAD ALL THEIR ENERGY ABSORBED)"

"CO2 AND H20 AUGMENT EACH OTHER’S SATURATION WHEN THEY OVERLAP"

"THE TWO TOGETHER PRODUCE MORE SATURATION THAN THE SUM OF THE TWO IF THEY ACTED SEPARATELY (DID NOT OVERLAP)"

In-atmosphere feedback depends on creation of added water vapor.

The added atmospheric H20 either as vapor, aerosols (clouds) or rain diminishes temperature effect of CO2 in all cases.

As levels of both increase, fractional increases in H2O can reverse the temperature effect of similar increases in CO2.

Cloud cover, by itself, lowers world temperature

CO2 WELL KNOWN, WATER NOT WELL KNOWN

WATER CAN VARY AS MUCH AS A FACTOR OF 3 IN A MATTER OF HOURS WITH A REPETITION RATE OF SUCH VARIATION OF SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR. CO2 REQUIRES MANY HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO ACHIEVE A FACTOR OF 2 INCREASE.

Water rate goes up and down, CO2 rate has been steadily upward for 53 years of measurement.

Predicted temperature rise much less than IPCC claims

Rise above 3 C is impossible

Rise above 0.5 C is very unlikely

Most likely rise < 0.3 C

Finally:

CO2 has limited warming capabilities simply due to the laws of physics and how H2O reacts "with" it. Water on this planet has everything to do with CO2 and its limits of warming. You're a "fish-out-of-water" in your belief that CO2 has caused temperatures to rise along with all of the other alarmists here at Y/A. CO2 is not a driver of temperatures!

I did not see any new evidence. A quick skim of the article did not reveal anything that I did not already know. It still left some questions, though.

For instance, it says: "The layer of air radiates ...". I have tried to find out about air (i.e.N2 and O2) radiating before and was told that although it is warm and should radiate its emissivity is so low that effectively it does not. So I still have that question. If it does not radiate then the only way the earth can lose heat is by the greenhouse gases emitting radiation. Even NASA has suggested CO2 is a coolant: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...

It also largely plays down the effect of water. My understanding is that the level of man made CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that it is within the error bars for the amount of water. Water varies from 0% at the poles to 4% at the equator. Total CO2 is 0.04% and the manmade portion is even less.

I will read the comments and see if anything is explained.

EDIT: If you read the link you provided you eould see that it claims that the saturation of CO2 infrared absorption at low levels is not relevant because the CO2 at high levels is not saturated. So I say that what I said has everything to do with "the greenhouse effect" despite your assertion to the contrary.

I am a skeptic, but most call me a denier, I am also cynical and tend to disbelieve most things until I have a chance to think about it and weigh up it's evidence, that saying I am willing to look at any new evidence from any source, even if it clashes with my present beliefs, if it has merit I will consider it.

Do you have any new evidence?

Jeff M. with your extensive knowledge on CO2, why did you not answer my MODTRAN question

Climate Realist, yes I have read the science, but they don't say by how much, and it is still a case of diminishing returns, and in the case of climate sensitivity even the IPCC is not sure and are still debating it.

A series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial,

Scientific Topics,

Types of Argument, and

Levels of Sophistication.

Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

Stages of Denial

There’s nothing happening

Inadequate evidence

There is no evidence

One record year is not global warming

The temperature record is simply unreliable

One hundred years is not enough

Glaciers have always grown and receded

Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect

Mauna Loa is a volcano

The scientists aren’t even sure

Contradictory evidence

It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga

Antarctic ice is growing

The satellites show cooling

What about mid-century cooling?

Global warming stopped in 1998

But the glaciers are not melting

Antarctic sea ice is increasing

Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high

Sea level in the Arctic is falling

Some sites show cooling

We can use part of Hey Dook's answer to illustrate the process.

>>… "How DID skeptics respond, back 25+ years ago…<<

If we set Mr. Peabody’s WABAC machine to the recent past in order to survey scientific opinion, we would probably find something like:

1988 - Percentage of climate scientists who think that:

AGW is definitely happening: 15-20%

Don’t know: 75%

AGW is definitely not happening: 5-10%

======

1998 - Percentage of climate scientists who think that:

AGW is definitely happening: 40-45%

Don’t know: 40-45%

AGW is definitely not happening: 5-10%

========

2008 - Percentage of climate scientists who think that:

AGW is definitely happening: 85-90+%

Don’t know: 5-10%

AGW is definitely not happening: 5%

skeptics respond to new evidence supporting the globe is warming/that warming is due to CO2/increasing CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is due to humans by ignoring it. There are some self proclaimed skeptics in here that ignore one or more parts of this or/and feed others thoughts on their own conspiracy theories. some of these people include Kano, whom has already posted with his constant belief that CO2 can not cause much more warming, or OM due to much the same idea, or JimZ who pretty much calls into question everything that supports AGW while blaming it on liberal propaganda. Popular denialists usually take a little piece of information, twist it and so on, post it in the media then followers jump on it and blow it out of context. This has happened quite a lot in here and on the internet. a few of the false claims they believe in come about due to think tanks and so on.

Knowledgeable skeptics do not call into question the cause of the warming. They do not take 10 years of data and claim it to be cooling while time periods both slightly longer and slightly shorter show warming. Knowledgeable skeptics call into question such things as the water cycles reaction to more tropospheric energy ad how some feedbacks will respond to the warming trend. They do not claim things such as "Hurricanes are decreasing therefor AGW is a scam!" They look at the actual science and realize that hurricanes remain a relatively unknown. They do not base their data on less hurricane activity reaching the US coast but instead base it on storm track changes and many other variables. If they want to call into question certain aspects of it they have every right to but if they don;t do it with hard science and data they are going to be laughed out of the convo.

Kano: Perhaps because I saw it after GaryF posted. There was really no need for me to post. The answer you asked for was provided. I have a tendency to not reply to someone if a good answer is already provided. Now here is a question for you. the climate sensitivity, as posted, was too low. Why do you continue not to understand what AGW entails and why do you continue to ignore the proofs? Your usual choice of best answers, people like Sagebrush and Maxx, shows people exactly what type of person you are.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/mo...

I would never try and respond to anyone who talks in terms of 'deniers' as it would be a total waste of time to try and debate with an obvious cultist who's already decided upon their political agenda.

If someone can't see how silly they appear by ranting on about 'deniers' then you're never going to be able to debate rationally with them.

EDIT you can try and rationalise and justify your silly denier chanting anyway you wish but it still won't alter the fact that it defines you as a cultist and makes everything you say worthless.

Skeptics: 'I'll consider it but I will still sit on the fence. I'll agree with everything up until the point you suggest humans are responsible.'

Deniers: 'NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH ... oh wait ... if I cut these sentences out of context ...'

Based on your history, we are highly skeptical of anything you bill as 'evidence'. It usually turns out to be based on weak data and poor logic, I.e. appeals to authority, social proof, fear, consequences, and circular reasoning (ad hominem arguments, such as the 'denier/denialist' epithet).

In contrast to skeptics, how do denialists respond to new evidence?

As they are more "reality-based" they tend to be more open minded to new evidence...and don't answer with knee-jerk responses.

Do you mean new predictions of what is going to happen or new reasons why predictions that were suppose to occur didn't occur?

Graffic you need to read the study that claims water vapor wouldn't exist if it weren't for CO2.

The term SKEPTIC, as applied to climate science, has been raped by deniers, and twisted out of all relation to the dictionary definition. You can't use it without defining it (as Chem Flunky at least tries to, though her definition amounts to little more than "slightly more careful and less boneheaded denier"). I'd personally go with Weart's definition http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/... but to use it you'd have to reword your question, e.g. to something like "How DID skeptics respond, back 25+ years ago when there still were a large minority of scientists who were "skeptical" in a bonafide sense.

DENIERS of climate science when confronted with new evidence will

a) exaggerate the bejesus out of it, if there is any way to distort it to fit one of their 174 (or thereabouts) prefab anti-science myths (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

b) usually, like Ottawa, if they try to do this on their own they end up more times than not revealing or at least hinting at, and for the umpteenth time, the depths of their own worshipped ignorance. The slight less reckless ones, like Ottawa, will thus more usually first wait for Wattsup to spin the new evidence, and then copy-paste it (in Mike's case, with a bit of added cloaking, e.g. as a fake question).

c) the fallback default response of deniers is, of course, to deny.

Edit: Re the specific link to the realclimate piece (in your additional details). This is of course not NEW evidence at all, except to the extent that most denier-dupes here at Yahoo Joke Answers are so pitifully and proudly ignorant of basic climate science, that almost any scientific evidence would be "new" if it somehow miraculously penetrated their FauxNewsFossil thick skulls: As Weart concludes in the linked piece: "These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago."

But, in the bizarro world of the Heartland-Koch-Wattsup-duped nitwit, 50 years is a meaningless concept unless the denier-geezers are worrying about their golf game or ability to walk and chew gum. In anti-science liar-denier-land, science = politics, Svante Arrhenius is just an Illuminati-projection of Al Gore, concocted by the Rothschildian Reptilians that control the world from the Hollow Moon (