king_alvarez posted:

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Lowbacca_1977 posted:

---

Well, I'm aware of those, but he mentioned one that fit the observations. I know solar output sems to explain a large amount of 1900-1950 increase in temperature.

---

Solar output causes about +0.2 degrees Celsius of gross climate forcing.

---

CO2 alone can't explain the global temperature changes in the last 100 years, as increases in CO2 do not match recorded temperature patterns. So obviously there are other factors that contribute to climate change. And I tend to be a bit leery of climate models that may explain historical trends but fail miserably at predicting future trends.

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Actually, CO2 can explain for most of it.

---

king_alvarez posted:

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Actually, CO2 can explain for most of it.

---

Saying so does not make it true.

---

Jabbadabbado posted:

---

The basic problem is that as non scientists we haven't really looked at the data ourselves and are not competent to judge. Maybe we've read a popular book on the subject that summarizes the science for us in a way we find meaningful, but it's still just a second-hand look at someone ele's interpretation of the data. This is why it's so easy for laypeople to believe one thing or another about AGW or evolution or the age of the universe or whatever. Fewer than 1 person in a thousand are going to be qualified to make a competent judgment one way or the other. I don't know. Souderwan doesn't know. Around here we end up defering to the guy who's read the most Scientific American articles or the woman who's read the most mainstream books on the subject, and that's the best we can hope for. Blogging about it doesn't count. Posting about it on right-wing web forums doesn't count.

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

The problem is, alvarez, you don't have a point. All you're doing is trying to undermine the evidence because there is nothing else you can do.

You stated CO2 alone can't explain for global warming. Why? Why do you have such a preconception in your mind?

And QFT to what Jabbadabbado said. I would like to add that instead of differing to the latest Scientific American, we can differ to the actual scientists who worked on Global Warming, like my Science and Society Professor.

---

"I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns....It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity...I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. "

Jabbadabbado posted:

---

As a default position for even a highly educated layperson, skepticism make perfect sense.

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Being a skeptic is great for street cred, but it is disrespectful to disagree with a scientist who has devoted his/her entire life to studying global warming.

---

king_alvarez posted:

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Being a skeptic is great for street cred, but it is disrespectful to disagree with a scientist who has devoted his/her entire life to studying global warming.

---

What do you do when two highly respected scientists disagree?

---

Jabbadabbado posted:

---

The only thing I really object to is people reverse engineering their beliefs about the science from their personal political ideology, e.g., "I believe that regulation and other impediments to business activity are a bad idea, therefore anthropogenic global warming must not be true," or "The environment is sacred, therefore we must act now to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are the biproducts of human activity."

No one really believes that is what they are doing, but we all know people do. It's never us, though, who's doing it. It's always the other guy.

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Jabbadabbado posted:

---

As a default position for even a highly educated layperson, skepticism make perfect sense.

---

That is something I don't fully agree with. I believe that if I don't have the knowledge or research in something, I have no right to challenge the position of someone who has studied the subject. I find that it is unfair to that person if I challenge his findings. Being a skeptic is great for street cred, but it is disrespectful to disagree with a scientist who has devoted his/her entire life to studying global warming.

---

Lord_Vivec posted:

---

Jabbadabbado posted:

---

As a default position for even a highly educated layperson, skepticism make perfect sense.

---

That is something I don't fully agree with. I believe that if I don't have the knowledge or research in something, I have no right to challenge the position of someone who has studied the subject. I find that it is unfair to that person if I challenge his findings. Being a skeptic is great for street cred, but it is disrespectful to disagree with a scientist who has devoted his/her entire life to studying global warming.

---