Theoretical rise associated with CO2 and methane emissions.
The following are true:
1. The average temperature is increasing
2. Atmospheric CO2 correlates to average global temperature
3. Nobody has successfully developed any model which can explain temperature trends without including human emissions.
This isn't the thread for it, but the points you just made are political soundbites, not scientific statements, as I said,
both sides of that argument are bad. Pushing the formation of a scientific committee and letting politicians have a say in the reports, using populist arguments, pushing for skepticism to further your own goals, using fear and ignorance in the name of "science", these are all bad things. I'm not as well informed on the physics of the coupled surface/ocean/atmosphere system in response to solar input as I am on say, relativity (~2 decades vs ~1 decade of familiarity) but the key here is that I am
not saying to trust me or treat what I say as gospel. Doubt me, ask questions, look into it yourself.
For the sake of it though.
1. What does the average temperature measure?
2. Does that mean: CO2 causes temperature changes, temperature changes influence CO2 levels, both are influenced by other factors in a similar fashion, or it is a coincidental correlation?
3. Does that mean it is not possible, or does it mean nobody understands the system well enough to accurately simulate it, or does it mean there is no money in simulations which don't achieve certain results, or perhaps the flawed understanding is coincidentally able to produce similar enough results when certain other assumptions are included?
4. Doesn't #3 imply that models are good at simulating climate trends? Are they? Do you understand how they work, and how they achieve their results?
Keep in mind, while I have retired from all the back and forth arguing, over the years I've read all 5 of the IPCC reports (as they were released!), assorted references, arguments from a wide range of positions across the internet, and been following various aspects of the climate for years now. I find bits and pieces of good science and sound reasoning across the range from "alarmist" to "denialist", but overall both their positions seem lacking, and far too susceptible to the political influences I am so disgusted to find interfering with science.
I'm not impressed with arguments based on models, a good model informs future experiments and observations, it doesn't replace them. I like experiments, I've done a few with my limited resources myself, but the main source of data and test of theories in relation to the behavior of the climate is observation. Note my disappointment over the failure to fund/replace certain ice observation systems recently. I like trying to figure out how the melt will progress up north, though I know it has nothing to do with CO2 or even the general air temperature at any given location around the globe (which is at least a useful indication of the average energy present in the atmosphere at that place and time, unlike an average of those averages) and is almost exclusively a result of ocean circulation variances in combination with the state of the jet stream, storm development across the pacific and atlantic basins, and solar fluctuation to some extent.
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1581471 times)