View Single Post
Old 08-23-2013, 02:49 PM   #115

Posts: n/a

Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.
CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.

I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic. Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.


Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.
You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?

Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data. If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed. There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.

Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.
Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.
  Reply With Quote