patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

So, then that still doesn't explain the divergence of the temps and CO2 levels in the ice core data. If, as you claim, the CO2 stays in the atmosphere and has a direct relation to warming, why the divergence where the temps aren't changing in conjunction with the rise?

CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be trapped. This is a heat flux, or energy per unit time. Thus, as CO2 concentrations go up, the amount of heat retained goes up. But it takes a long time for this heat to change the temperature. You have to multiply this heat flux over time to get a significant amount of energy. I gave you the analogy of a pot of water, right after someone turns up the heat. You don't get it, because you have not personal experience with how long it takes to heat a pot of water the size of the earth. The good thing is that we do not need to figure this out ourselves, because loads of smart people have already done it. The models show how quickly or slowly the global temperatures rise.

You are assuming that 'history repeats itself' or some other such nonsense, and that you should be able to read a temperature off of that graph of historic temperature / CO2 concentrations. This is not what scientists are saying at all. The models are more complicated than that.

You are looking at past data, and you have no way in which to interpret it. You might as well be trying to read Chinese. Your intuition is useless here.

So, you find something unusual, and draw all sorts of conclusions from it with no regard to statistics. You seem as bad as the people who cry foul when they find an unusual cancer cluster or a few people get brain cancer after using a cell phone. Total disregard for science.

Call it Crazy says

In over 100 years (double the CO2 chart), the average rise in temps has been 0.6 degrees C. Why hasn't the temps risen 25% to follow the CO2 data

You seem to be expecting a one to one ratio, of % increase in CO2 to % increase in temperature. I do not believe that would be expected at all. It's not like this is an engine primed for 1:1 efficiency. This is a natural system so, as you are showing, yes it will take much much more CO2 to net degrees changed.

Call it Crazy says

See... FACTS matter more than predictions...

The facts are overwhelmingly in:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bf837f55a49745a5ae13049d132ba7cd/scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air
... which climatologists say : this study wasn't really needed, as it was kind of like proving gravity exists with a falling rock.

You wave one missed prediction at a mountain of evidence, and say it discredits the whole thing. Fortunately, Science and the rest of the world tend not to make conclusions like that.

I think you are drawing really awful conclusions, from minor data, to support a belief that you hold dear for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

You seem to pride yourself on not having the majority opinion on things. Here even when scientific fact, and opinion, is overwhelmingly stating climate change, CO2, is man made and a true threat, you take the opposite.

Why is that? Is it seriously because you distrust the majority of the scientific body? Where does the denial come from?

YesYNot says

So, you find something unusual, and draw all sorts of conclusions from it ...

YesYNot says

Total disregard for science.

I think that's the only avenue left for the minority who are holding the climate denying position. Even major oil and automotive companies have backed away from climate denying stances. Seems like Republican hardliners are left, and I think that says just awful things about the motivations for continuing to hold onto that position.

Are they really as bitter as some claim? Frightening.

I don't think it is caused by being bitter. They really believe this stuff. I have some relatives who are very catholic, and live in the conservative south. They said that they would be seriously disappointed in the pope if he said that global warming was a real issue. They are really convinced, and the deniers have apparently strung together a narrative (supported by non-sequitur facts) that is convincing to people who have no training. Frankly, I think they would rather die than admit that Al Gore was right about anything. I never watched Gore's movie, and he probably did get carried away and exaggerate things or misspeak. But, he picked an important issue to focus on, and I'm sure that chaps at the asses of conservatives.
Another issue that Gore was right on, but spoke very poorly about was social security. He wanted to take the Clinton surpluses and shore up social security. Unfortunately, he looked pretty stupid with his 'lock box' metaphor.

I think that anti-intellectualism is rooted in religion and lack of success in school. The theory of evolution fuels anti-intellectualism in the religious. But prior to that, it was astronomers who took the brunt of the anti-intellectual witch hunt. Lack of success in school combined with defensiveness makes another type of people anti-intellectual. I'm not sure which one CIC is. I guess straight up media brain washing by the Fox machine might be the problem.

In some ways, the fact that primarily people were tricked, versus holding onto some bitter "I must be right" stance, is a little more comforting. I honestly don't blame people for being fooled by what the current media environment is doing. It's very easy to be pulled in by the emotion buttons they are pushing and the "news-u-tainment" factor.

Call it KKKrazy says

Fox News.

I almost thought you were CiC replying with that. My eyes got big and I was thinking to myself, "Well, that does explain it. But I have no clue where to take the conversation now." LOL

YesYNot says

anti-intellectualism

This, more than any other belief I see in the current political landscape, scares the hell out of me. Mao and Pol Pot would be proud.
What an absolute disaster for any group of people to embrace.

Call it Crazy says

So, if the "majority" claims it's true, then there is no way the minority can question it? Is that how it works?

No. Question all you want. Science encourages it!
You just have to show some good reasons why you challenge experts in their field. You also have to be willing to grow in knowledge for the questioning done.

Holding a position, against all credible evidence, doesn't make you right or courageous. It can make one look really foolish.

Call it Crazy says

Obama received the majority of the popular vote in 2012. Does that automatically make him a good president because the majority picked him?

No. It means he actually won the popular vote.

Let's keep the politics out, and focus on the science, if you really want to debate. Deal?

Call it Crazy says

to dispute CiC's claims ...

And this is the problem. They are just claims. Even when asked for the source of your graphs, you do not disclose them. You also lift facts from sites and post them partially, from unknown origin. Are you afraid I might find your sources questionable or biased?

Scientific America
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic/global-warming-and-climate-change/

The National Academy of Sciences
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

EPA
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.Vabra2a5OS0

Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming.htm

IPCC (video synopsis taken from : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TrF042fGfQM

UN
http://www.un.org/climatechange/

United Nations Environment Program
http://www.unep.org/climatechange/

World Meteorological Organization
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/WMO_climatechange_en.html

Can you please list and link your counter sources? I'm sure they are as credible as these. Right?

And let's just take that one step further, at the end of the day, all this will be between you and I is a source war. The scientists know far more than you or I. Again, the experts in their field overwhelmingly agree at this point. Since Humanity moved past hunter and gatherers, we have been relying on individuals to become experts in other things, so that we can benefit from each others knowledge.

I defer to science, and I see no credible counter argument presented by you here on Pnet, or anywhere else.

If you would like to really debate this, we can go to debat.org. They do give points for conduct, so fair warning, watch your condescension and tone.

He's like the Iraqi information minister.