I always love these threads because they entertain me. They entertain me because so few people have a real understanding about the climate and climate change. Many on here just like to argue, and they argue the side which they invariably vote for. Comical .... it's clear that there are very few scientists. I myself am a chemist. Many will claim that if you aren't a "climate scientist" then you don't have the ability to interpret the data found in the discipline. Understand that it doesn't take too long for any chemist or physicist to figure out what the research is finding.
1. It's clear that humans have had an impact on temperature. It is statistically impossible to know to what degree. Read that .... statistically impossible. There is too much noise in the data to know how much the observed temperature increase in natural vs. human.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution the earth's atmosphere contained about 280 ppm. We have recently just exceeded 400. This is an important fact.
3. If you don't understand CO2 absorption bands, then you shouldn't have an opinion on this subject. Really, just be quiet. Pro AGW? AGW denier? Don't understand absorption bands? STFU.
4. If you don't understand Beers Law, then you have limited your ability to understand why "The Pause" is happening.
5. IF you use the UAH Satellite record as the accepted temperature record (this is an important distinction; I prefer it because it eliminates UHI) then the past 18 years, 1 month of data produces a trend of -0.1 degree per decade. Essentially, flat lined. No BS here, using this temperature record produces a planet which hasn't warmed in 18+ years. Thus, THE PAUSE. This doesn't mean the planet isn't WARMER (of course, the question arises as to what is used as a baseline, but that usually produces even more quacks)and a warmer planet will produce melt that wasn't observed in the past.
6. Beers Law would indicate that the CO2 absorption bands are saturated past 400 ppm, and that increased CO2 beyond this point wouldn't significantly warm the planet. Now, this wouldn't eliminate the possibility for positive feedbacks due to what the 120 ppm increase has brought us to, but too little is known about these feedbacks to make specific predictions. This is the major issue with the climate models (goodness, I'm so sick of this number) and the fact that 97% (yes, that is the actual number) has over-predicted temperature during the past two decades.
7. Stop, STOP with the 97% consensus. The methodology that generated that number is so flawed than any stats guy worth anything would be embarrassed by the process. Better to say, a majority of climate experts would side with AGW. Majority meaning, greater than or equal to 51%.
8. Now, let's get practical. In terms of practical, it's very entertaining to watch RFK Jr. get grilled by a novice reporter at the NYC climate get-together (for lack of a better name.) She made him look like a horses ass. Truth be told, Big Oil (does it need to be capitalized?) spends very little worrying about AGW. WHY? Ask the Germans, who have spent a ridiculous amount of money on wind power, and are now dealing with an epic fail. Wind (and solar for that matter, the Nevada Solar One is not only producing limited energy, but it's killing wildlife in record numbers) just doesn't produce the type of energy that the world currently needs. The Germans (considered the best engineers in the world, yes?) are losing huge money, and are even considering shutting down the sea facility due to bankruptcy. BIG OIL knows we need them, and they have no worries about any of the fact/fiction of AGW impacting them even a little. The fact is Ebola has a greater chance of impacting man kind than AGW. Which is why RFK Jr. looked like an idiot ... how much CO2 did he produce getting to NYC? Interesting question.
9. The IPCC has recently admitted that we may be in for another 30 years of pause, or even cooling. Let me steal a political statement .... "It's the sun, stupid" ... more so than CO2
10. The ocean? THE OCEAN? A recent study indicates that the deep ocean hasn't warmed (that killed off one theory) and the 0.1 degree C increase isn't statistically valid due the amount of error associated with the value.
Mainly, my point is this ....
1. Humans impact everything in the world. Much of this impact is negative. In the grand scheme of things, there are other issues (water comes to my mind immediately) that we should be worry about much more than CO2
2. We have warmed the planet, WE HAVE WARMED THE PLANET! Stop claiming we haven't. Will it be catastrophic? More and more is pointing that it will not be.
3. Many of you should educate yourselves to a greater degree before trying to quote Limbaugh or Maddow. You really don't understand much of what is going on.
3. Most of the