Slashdot Mirror

Only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people see a colling trend in the last 10 years. Take a look at the graph here, and you might understand how you are being misled.

I suspect you're a troll, but some idiots will end up agreeing with you if they ever read your post, so we'll just refute the idiocy right now.

"Volcanoes release more than humans" = wrong. Volcanic activity releases on average 65-319 mln tonnes/year, fossil fuels release 29 bln tonnes/year (EIA 2007).

"Humans breathe more".. well there's a ton of sites just doing the simple math, but in my lazy search I found this. It indicates human emissions via respiratory system is 1-2 bln tonnes/year. 2 / 29 = ~7% of all fossil fuel burned, so that is also not correct.

Honestly, I don't really feel like continuing anymore than this. I really hope you were a troll, and that you don't procreate.

Take a look at this gif.

A new graph by the team at SKS shows that the entire globe has actually been cooling - decade after decade - since at least 1973! http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

I suggest Skeptical Science and Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming which is available both in book form and online.

I think the term "denier" can reasonably be applied to people who are in denial about any well established fact. The psychological concept of being in denial dates back at least to the work of Sigmund Freud and predates the not only holocaust denial but the holocaust itself.

Many people who are in denial would prefer to be called "skeptics," but what distinguishes them from true skeptics is that while they are doubtful of every detail of evidence that is unfavorable to their preferred view (and the history of the temperature record is an excellent challenge, with people continuing to reject the evidence for warming even though it has been independently replicated over and over), they become absolutely credulous with respect to any claim that seems to prop up what they wish to believe (for example, the same people who are so "skeptical" of the extensive evidence of warming here on earth will turn around and assert that Mars or Pluto is warming, even though the evidence for that is far, far more tenuous).

it's been more than ten years and things haven't progressed as AGW proponents said they would

You are either misinformed or a liar.

Review of past IPCC reports shows that past IPCC predictions were underestimates: changes in CO2, global temperature and sea level have been worse than originally projected.

Humans contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.*

* http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

This page does not address the relative amounts of natural and human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2% figure occurs in the pie diagram showing different types of greenhouse gases, all of them expelled into the atmosphere by human activities, of which the hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's) and related synthetic compounds make up 2%. The 2% figure is repeated below figure 4 for "human-made gases", but this appears to be a rather ill-chosen way of indicated that these compounds do not occur naturally at all, while the other greenhouse gases in the pie chart also have natural sources. But again, the entire page only talks about the composition of man-made greenhouse emissions, and does not make any claims how big these are compared to gases emitted by natural processes.

I have been looking for more information on the relative contributions of natural and artificial CO2 emissions. So far the most succinct description I found is this: "How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?".

No, what I said is correct. He asked about the human contribution to global warming so I responded with figures about the release of fossil CO2 by humans, not human activity as a fraction of all greenhouse gases (already) in the atmosphere.

Your link is also correct but doesn't answer the question.

I couldn't find any overall figures for natural vs. human release of fossil CO2, but take a look at the effects of volcanoes vs. human activity:

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml

This link is also relevant:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, man. 97% of climate scientists agree with me. I'd say you are the one who needs to define what you mean by models not agreeing with each other and show some data to back it up. But I'll throw you a bone.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

Greenland was once GREEN

The denialist keep using this over and over again. It is wrong and has been disproved multiple times. Greenland hasn't been completely green in the last 400,000 years. Sure the Vikings may have found a green spot, but that isn't the same thing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
How about you stop using faulty proofs?

The solar output variance is going in the opposite direction of the warming trend. The world should be getting slightly cooler because the sun is in a period of minimum activity. It's not.

No one is pointing to a 15 year old model and saying "look look it works!". They are pointing to a model they continuously update and say "look look it is working".

Of course, no one ever looks at old models.

Let me put this is a way the real Wyatt Earp would understand. Your argument is "People used to die before there were guns, therefore the smoking gun in my hand and the bullet hole in his chest cannot be used as evidence. He obviously died of natural causes."

Reality refuses to be that silly. Human CO2 emissions are driving current climate change. That doesn't mean there aren't natural processes that change climate, too. They are even operating now. They are smaller than those caused by humans. Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 released by human activity is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

Dude even SS is talking about millimeters per year. Considering the current weather in and near the arctic circle, your idea of spring weather is pretty different from mine.

October 18, 2011 weather report for LONGYEARBYEN, SVALBARD
Weather report as of 55 minutes ago (21:50 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 4.6 meters per second (10.4 miles per hour) from Southeast in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. The temperature was -9 degrees Celsius (16 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,008 hPa (29.77 inHg). Relative humidity was 66.9%. There were a few clouds at a height of 610 meters (2000 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles).

October 18, 2011 weather report for ALERT, NUNAVUT, CANADA
Weather report as of 47 minutes ago (22:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 5.7 meters per second (12.7 miles per hour) from North/Northwest in Alert, Canada. The temperature was -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,025 hPa (30.26 inHg). Relative humidity was 91.7%. There were overcast at a height of 183 meters (600 feet). The visibility was 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles). Current weather is Light Snow .

October 18, 2011 weather report for TUKTOYAKTUK, NWT, CANADA
Weather report as of 50 minutes ago (22:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 8.2 meters per second (18.4 miles per hour) from East in Tuktoyaktuk, Canada. The temperature was -1 degrees Celsius (30 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,011 hPa (29.86 inHg). Relative humidity was 86.2%. There were a few clouds at a height of 244 meters (800 feet) and broken clouds at a height of 914 meters (3000 feet). The visibility was 16.1 kilometers (10.0 miles). Current weather is Light Snow Moderate Low Drifting Snow .

October 18, 2011 weather report for CAPE LISBURNE, ALASKA, USA
Weather report as of 57 minutes ago (21:55 UTC):
The wind was calm in Cape Lisburne, Alaska. The temperature was 1 degrees Celsius (34 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,008 hPa (29.77 inHg). Relative humidity was 74.6%. There were broken clouds at a height of 1524 meters (5000 feet). The visibility was 16.1 kilometers (10.0 miles).

October 18, 2011 weather report for BARROW, ALASKA, USA
Weather report as of 56 minutes ago (21:53 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 7.2 meters per second (16.1 miles per hour) from East in Barrow, Alaska. The temperature was -1 degrees Celsius (30 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,009 hPa (29.81 inHg). Relative humidity was 100.0%. There were scattered clouds at a height of 152 meters (500 feet) and overcast at a height of 457 meters (1500 feet). The visibility was 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles). The visibility for runway 07 varies between 1,372 meters (4,500 feet) and >1,829 meters (>6,000 feet). Current weather is Light Snow Moderate Mist .

October 18, 2011 weather report for PEVEK, RUSSIA
Weather report as of 54 minutes ago (22:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 3 meters per second (6.7 miles per hour) from East in Pevek, Russia. The temperature was -15 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,004 hPa (29.65 inHg). Relative humidity was 77.7%. The sky was clear. The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles).

October 18, 2011 weather report for TISKI, RUSSIA

Weather report as of 25 minutes ago (22:30 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 6 meters per second (13.4 miles per hour), with gusts to 9 meters per second (20.1 miles per hour), from Southwest in Tiski, Russia. The temperature was -11 degrees Celsius (12 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 994 hPa (29.35 inHg). Relative humidity was 72.2%. There were scattered clouds at a height of 3962 meters (13000 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles). Current weather is Moderate Low Drifting Snow .

October 18, 2011 weather report for KHATANGA, RUSSIA
Weather report

Heh. Derp indeed.

BTW, the science is quite arguable however the actual arguments are taking place nowhere near where you think they are. Turns out to argue the science you have to know the science. Arguing about fantasies of what the science might be and what 1970 popular magazines led you to believe it might be is great and fun in the same sense that masturbation is great fun -- just please do it in private, because it's useless to everyone else.

That has been looked at and it doesn't appear that even if the Sun went into a Maunder minimum type period it would be enough to stop global warming. How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming.

Polar amplification (faster warming of the polar troposphere) and stratospheric cooling are both successful predictions of the much maligned climate models. By successful I mean they were found in 1980's models and have since been observed in the real world.

Exactly.

I've had a hard time wrapping my head around the stratospheric cooling as well. One small factor that doesn't have much to do with global warming is that the thinning of ozone layer means less capture of the incoming UV radiation which would have been later emitted as IR radiation. I used to think that was a bigger factor than it turns out that it is.

But I found this blog post on Skeptical Science that helped me understand it better. Basically it's saying that the biggest factor is that the increase in CO2 concentration increases the chance of a collision between the CO2 and other molecules in the atmosphere. Those collisions often leave the CO2 molecule in an excited state which then drops back down to the unexcited state by emitting an IR photon which has a better chance of leaving the atmosphere than in the troposphere because of the thinness of the atmosphere. That's sort of what you said. The second biggest factor is that the increase in CO2 throughout the atmosphere means more of the IR in the bands that CO2 absorbs gets captured in the troposphere so less of it gets through to the stratosphere to warm it. There are some interesting comments on the blog post as well.

There are answers on stratospheric cooling here.

You are incorrect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

The polar bear population was estimated in the 50s and 60s to be 5k-10k. This was based on anecdotal evidence of hunters and explorers, so it likely underestimates the population back then. Today, it's estimated to 20k-25k. That is not even one order of magnitude, let alone several.

Additionally, a scientific analysis of polar bear sub-populations shows that the number of increasing sub-populations is declining (only 1 of the 12 sub-populations with sufficient data is increasing), the number of stable sub-populations is declining (3 now), and the number of decreasing sub-populations is growing (8 now); 7 sub-populations lack sufficient data.

That suggests population loss is accelerating - even after they are listed as a threatened species.

Greenland is loosing ice at a rate of over 100 Gigatonnes per year as measured by the GRACE gravimetric satellites. This page contains several references to peer reviewed papers on the subject.

That's true from every observations we've ever made. Show me any point in time with low CO2 and positive plant growth, or high CO2 and negative plant growth (limit yourself to periods of time where plants existed, of course). The funny part about your defense here (attacking my tabletop experiment by asserting that the tabletop does not necessarily represent the globe), is that the same rationale can be used against tabletop experiments which show CO2 in a bottle absorbing more heat than nitrogen :)

Sorry - I didn't immediately pick the fact that you are an ignoramus, at least as far as understanding the limiting factors for plant growth: see http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Um. No, it isn't - because nobody is asserting that climate doesn't naturally change. This is simply another strawman.

Sure you are.

Please reference me saying the climate does not naturally change. Indeed, please reference any reputable scientist who says that the climate does not change naturally.

If you believe that the climate change we've observed over the past 50 years is caused by humans, you're denying that it is a natural change. Now, if you want to be reasonable and say "humans have had an impact for the past 50 years, but are just one factor out of many", maybe we're closer together. Put another way, asserting that observed climate change is at least 50% human induced means you're denying that at least 50% of climate change is natural. If you don't like that percentage, pick a different number and defend it.

So you think that the climate change observed over the last century is due to natural phenomena, and that simultaneous to that effect, another phenomena has nullified the expected increase in energy due to the increased concentrations of CO2.

(a) What is the natural phenomena in question? Show working.

(b) What is the (so far unpublished) effect removing the energy associated with increased concentrations of CO2? Show working.

But based on the work of Tyndall - which we agree on - we of course expect that adding more CO2 into a system where the amount of CO2 moderates the temperature will lead to an increase in temperature

But we don't agree on the magnitude there, and we cannot blithely assume that natural climate change will stop and all other variables will be held constant so we can isolate the effect of CO2.

You are starting to waffle here.

Again:

(a) Please reference a major work of climate science which asserts that natural climate change has halted

(b) If (as you assert) the current published breakdown between natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change is wrong - then detail what the true proportions are. And show working.

You say that the current calculations as to the magnitude of that change is wrong, but you cannot explain why.

Sure I can - they're not falsifiable.

See our other conversation under this topic - and our previous conversation on the matter. Your problem seems to be that you expect others to falsify the results for you. That is completely illogical.

Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com].

Yet another case of 1 study showing conflicting results of 100 other studies. Hmm, which has more chance of having made mistakes?

Mostly debunked, anyway: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

Yes, those are denier canards. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm The second one is so nonsensical it doesn't even require a serious response. Imagine what the planet would be like without the little bit of CO2 we have in the atmosphere.

Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.

I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.

Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?

Strawman and beside the point. global cooling was never a widely accepted theory

Climate change is a cop out, the climate has been changing for all of recorded history!

Also beside the point. Climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This change is dues to human CO2 emissions.

The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits

Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.

Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.

I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.

Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?

Strawman and beside the point. global cooling was never a widely accepted theory

Climate change is a cop out, the climate has been changing for all of recorded history!

Also beside the point. Climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This change is dues to human CO2 emissions.

The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits

Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.

Oh look another "informed skeptic."

CO2/temperature lag:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Some articles on periods with unusual CO2/temperature differences:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html

Oh look another "informed skeptic."

CO2/temperature lag:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Some articles on periods with unusual CO2/temperature differences:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

Humans are not and will never be the dominant forcing to climate change. The sun will always be at the top. And quit citing from just one source site. Makes you look stupid.

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

Humans are not and will never be the dominant forcing to climate change. The sun will always be at the top. And quit citing from just one source site. Makes you look stupid.

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

Humans are not and will never be the dominant forcing to climate change. The sun will always be at the top. And quit citing from just one source site. Makes you look stupid.

Actually foresight is working quite well for global warming. Foresight was working quite well for climate scientists when you claim "global cooling" was the rage. Most of them predicted warming at that time.

You know, the one where all the scientists were absolutely sure we were headed for another ice age and anyone who thought otherwise was in denial.

Given that it never happened and is something invented by denialists, it is annoying to have to repeated refute denialist trolls. Global cooling was a minority position held by some climatologists that reporters trumped up. The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. But again, you won't let facts get in the way of making these claims on the next article.

Bullshit. When stations go missing you discard all prior data from that station, unless you've got a new station within a short distance. The hockey stick has been confirmed many many times. You see why we get tired of refuting the same claims you were making 10 years ago. You are repeating things that are untrue. In other words, you are a lying troll.

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.

But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.

As a scientist, you of all people should *welcome* questions, *welcome* doubters, *welcome* deniers. If your data is as ironclad, conclusive, and unassailable as you claim, you'll defeat them handily and put this whole business to rest once and for all.

I do welcome questions. The first time we get a question and we answer it it's great. The hundredth time we get the same question from the same person it a troll. It's not a question, its an accusation of wrongdoing. We have successfully answered all of your questions and accusations yet you keep repeating them as if you didn't hear us. You're not a skeptic, you're a troll. A skeptic is convinced by evidence. No amount of evidence will convince you.

You say the degree of human responsibility is "not [sic] longer an open question" and then go on to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases.

You didn't even go to the links I provided, did you? Of course not. You're not interested in answers. You're just interested in asking the same questions again like they haven't been answered before. It's not just correlation. It's a correlation that matches no other possible cause. It is correlation with a well known theoretical causative basis. Your claims are the equivalent of me telling you I started a fire with a match, but you not believing it because fires were started by lightning strikes before we invented matches. You throw out "water vapor" and "albedo" and assume that we either don't include them as factors or that somehow they could match the temperature increases that we've seen. Apparently you never go to web sites that discuss how climate models actually work.

But you can't make a definitive claim based on the evidence you provide any more than I can make a counterclaim by saying the same little green men that are causing the melting of the polar caps on Mars [nationalgeographic.com] are causing our planet to heat up.

Actually, we've answered that stupid troll question as well. A freaking long time ago. Yet, as I said, you'll just post it again. Because no answers are good enough to a troll.

As a scientist, you of all people should *welcome* questions, *welcome* doubters, *welcome* deniers. If your data is as ironclad, conclusive, and unassailable as you claim, you'll defeat them handily and put this whole business to rest once and for all.

I do welcome questions. The first time we get a question and we answer it it's great. The hundredth time we get the same question from the same person it a troll. It's not a question, its an accusation of wrongdoing. We have successfully answered all of your questions and accusations yet you keep repeating them as if you didn't hear us. You're not a skeptic, you're a troll. A skeptic is convinced by evidence. No amount of evidence will convince you.

You say the degree of human responsibility is "not [sic] longer an open question" and then go on to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases.

You didn't even go to the links I provided, did you? Of course not. You're not interested in answers. You're just interested in asking the same questions again like they haven't been answered before. It's not just correlation. It's a correlation that matches no other possible cause. It is correlation with a well known theoretical causative basis. Your claims are the equivalent of me telling you I started a fire with a match, but you not believing it because fires were started by lightning strikes before we invented matches. You throw out "water vapor" and "albedo" and assume that we either don't include them as factors or that somehow they could match the temperature increases that we've seen. Apparently you never go to web sites that discuss how climate models actually work.

But you can't make a definitive claim based on the evidence you provide any more than I can make a counterclaim by saying the same little green men that are causing the melting of the polar caps on Mars [nationalgeographic.com] are causing our planet to heat up.

Actually, we've answered that stupid troll question as well. A freaking long time ago. Yet, as I said, you'll just post it again. Because no answers are good enough to a troll.

Trouble is that observations and model output seem to be in close agreement http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm look at figure c. This includes all forcings including natural and anthropogenic. The curves match quite well. Then there is Jim Hansen model forecast from 1988 ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif ) which matches observations quite well. Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Don't give us the bull*it like Pat Michaels did when he LIED under oath before Congress that scenario A is what Hansen was forecasting. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). So SCIENCE SAYS THAT CURRENT GENERATION MODELS MATCH OBSERVATIONS WELL WITHIN THE ERROR BOUNDS OF OBSERVATIONS. Deniers continue to LIE about the mismatch

Even if you double CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds, you haven't linked it to the CO2.

The hell you haven't. You can determine the relative importance of each forcing using a climate model that can reproduce the past temperature history. Then you use that model to predict future temperatures. The fit to prior climate tells you the temperature forcing of CO2 even if you don't understand the exact effect of increased CO2 on water vapor or cloud cover. For small temperature ranges you assume that the forcing is independent of temperature, but as you build future models you'll get an understanding of the water vapor and cloud cover components. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

Essentially what you are saying is scientists are idiots that don't understand linear algebra or principle component analysis. As far as what would disprove anthropogenic global warming, right now I think the 95% no-confidence point is two solar cycles (i.e. 22 years) of flat or downward trending temperatures without causative a forcing (i.e. a caldera explosion with continued eruptions or something similar that cuts sunlight). But it won't happen. It would be faster to find another forcing that could mimic the effect of increased CO2. But you won't.

Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question.

This is what the most damaging of the denialists do. Sow doubt. Pretend the field has not avanced in 20 years. The degree of human responsibility is not longer an open question and hasn't been for quite some time. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3C+-1C. Humans are providing essentially all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all.

So now we get to choose: Are you being deliberately misleading by saying we aren't studying changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors? Or are you unable to use Google? Do you think a climate model would be able to reproduce temperature histories if if didn't include forcings that weren't anthropogenic? In order to have a climate model that can reproduce the past climate you have to include every forcing you know. But if you don't include the anthropogenic forcings you can't reproduces past climate. It just doesn't work.

Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question.

This is what the most damaging of the denialists do. Sow doubt. Pretend the field has not avanced in 20 years. The degree of human responsibility is not longer an open question and hasn't been for quite some time. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3C+-1C. Humans are providing essentially all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all.

So now we get to choose: Are you being deliberately misleading by saying we aren't studying changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors? Or are you unable to use Google? Do you think a climate model would be able to reproduce temperature histories if if didn't include forcings that weren't anthropogenic? In order to have a climate model that can reproduce the past climate you have to include every forcing you know. But if you don't include the anthropogenic forcings you can't reproduces past climate. It just doesn't work.

Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question.

This is what the most damaging of the denialists do. Sow doubt. Pretend the field has not avanced in 20 years. The degree of human responsibility is not longer an open question and hasn't been for quite some time. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3C+-1C. Humans are providing essentially all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all.

So now we get to choose: Are you being deliberately misleading by saying we aren't studying changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors? Or are you unable to use Google? Do you think a climate model would be able to reproduce temperature histories if if didn't include forcings that weren't anthropogenic? In order to have a climate model that can reproduce the past climate you have to include every forcing you know. But if you don't include the anthropogenic forcings you can't reproduces past climate. It just doesn't work.