Global Cooling

[nando]

so because that guy is crazy, that means global warming isn't real?

logical fallacies - you guy's love them!

[nando]

Sooo... they're 95% certain that humans mostly effect climate change.
Anyone care to explain how humans were able to effect the cooling/stagnant 15 year trend?
Or does the blame game only apply to warming trends, whereas stagnant or cooling trends are attributed to something the science (read: politically biased assessment) has no knowledge about?

I'd mention something about the effects of the really strong El Niño in 1998 and a reversion to the mean, but you'd just ignore them, so I won't bother.

[Farbin Kaiber]

so because that guy is crazy, that means global warming isn't real?

logical fallacies - you guy's love them!

No. I was just pointing out one LWNJ that was kneejerking it up like a mofo, just like BraveUlysses predicted the report would cause. I'm just proving him right.

[nando]

there's crazy kooks on both sides, I agree.

the people who think we should stop having kids - I wish they'd start by offing themselves! if we really want to have china take over then we should stop having kids so our population ages out like Japan..

[herbivor]

there's crazy kooks on both sides, I agree...

However I find it interesting that many climate scientists performing active research tend to be the ones spouting the greatest doomsday warnings. So to dismiss those that actually are closest to understanding climate change as part of the "crazy cooks" is in itself a logical fallacy.

[nando]

true but I don't think "stop having babies" is a real solution.

[Fusion]

I'd mention something about the effects of the really strong El Niño in 1998 and a reversion to the mean, but you'd just ignore them, so I won't bother.

Than there isn't 95% certainty that humans have most effect on climate change?

[herbivor]

true but I don't think "stop having babies" is a real solution.

[decay]

^ my favorite bit by that comedian.

[z31maniac]

true but I don't think "stop having babies" is a real solution.

Stop? No.

Dramatically reduce our population growth? Most definitely.

[rwh11385]

Me too, there are so many people that are buying into the climate change complex that there will be a rekindled desire to save the earth. Oh, wait, that already happened in the early to mid 90's when all this bullshit started.

Weren't the 90s about CFCs and the Ozone?

How did that work out?

http://www.livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrinks-record-low.html

Ozone Hole Shrinks to Record Low

[rwh11385]

Sooo... they're 95% certain that humans mostly effect climate change.
Anyone care to explain how humans were able to effect the cooling/stagnant 15 year trend?
Or does the blame game only apply to warming trends, whereas stagnant or cooling trends are attributed to something the science (read: politically biased assessment) has no knowledge about?

Really? This dumb argument again?

Answer these before ever repeating this flawed argument ever again:
Question 1 - Is it your assumption that CO2 is the ONLY factor in global temperature?
Question 2 - If question 1's answer is no, have all other variables held constant since 1998?
Question 3 - If it has been shown that light traveling through even a trace increase in CO2 increases energy absorbed by the gas/air mixture, how is it possible to ignore this additional energy or assume it 'disappears' in conventional 'denier science' when it is a widely understood law of science that energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

Climate change and the impact of CO2 help to explain the change in temperature while controlling for other climate inputs. It is not the single determiner of temperature. So why would simply looking at one input disprove its influence on the output?

Just like the cherry picking you usually do, using one high data point to focus comparison against while ignoring the large overall trend is misleading. 1998 made it possible to average out a flat line, even if:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."

Humans influence the composition of the atmosphere when it comes to GHGs, which in turn influence the amount of energy absorbed due to radiation. However, this does not control the amount of radiation given off by the sun since we do not control the sun. Nor do we control El Nino or La Nina.

It is no one's fault but your own that you have little knowledge about science and have no motivations besides political opposition to climate science to read about it.

[Fusion]

^^ Than there isn't 95% certainty that humans have most effect on climate change?

What you quoted by me was not an argument, rather a question. Note the question mark.

[rwh11385]

^^ Than there isn't 95% certainty that humans have most effect on climate change?

What you quoted by me was not an argument, rather a question. Note the question mark.

Seemed like a bad argument from ignorance rather than actually wanting to know more about science. Sorry Pavel.

Humans don't control the sun, we just influence how its rays are absorbed by GHGs.

[Q5Quint]