Author: Eli (4045 Posts - Original UHND Member)
Posted at 2:53 pm on Feb 17, 2014

Let me repeat it again partly because alarmists dominant mainstream media and mislead people like you about true controversial issue and partly because you donít want to spend time to listen to skepticsí explanation:

Human are responsible for most of CO2 increase since industrial revolution. There is no question/controversial about it. CO2 as a greenhouse, its warming effect is 19th century physics. It's well known and can be verified in lab.. Nothing new and controversial here either, everybody agree. But, both sides notice (and also agree) that CO2 in atmosphere is more complicated than it is alone in lab due to a lot of interplays and the relationship between CO2 and temperature in climate is intriguing due to ice core record that seems to show temperature leads CO2. So, now we have both CO2 on temperature and temperature on CO2 in climate reality.

What makes the global warming issue controversial, i.e. what skeptics disagree with mainstream in this field is not the CO2 greenhouse warming itself, but it is the feedback, feedback and feedback. This is a different argument from CO2 standalone warming effect that we verified in the lab. Alarmists heavily rely on positive feedbacks to make gobal warming big enough to alarm. But skeptics say, wait a minute, there are also negative feedbacks (cooling effects) that need to consider. The analogy below probably make this controversial issue more clearly to you.

Suppose we have a task to determine average speed of vehicles on a freeway that has speed limit of 60 m/h. In ideal situation (analogical to ideal situation of CO2 in lab), we both agree average speed is 60m/h because that is what most drivers are supposed to drive. But you think actually most drivers always drive at up to 70 m/h in reality because in reality police wont stop anybody for exceeding 5-10 m/h. So you think the average speed in reality is close to 70 m/h (analogical to positive feedback argument in CO2 warming). But I think due to rush hour traffic, accidents, constructions and weather situation, Itís quite often that drivers drive at below 60 m/h (analogical to negative feedback argument in CO2 warming).

So, we both agree in principle/ on theory that average speed on this freeway is 60 m/h, but we disagree in reality how fast the drivers really drive.

Without feedback, doubling CO2 release from pre-industrial revolution to the end of 21st century is 1-1.2 C increase. Official data given IPCC report (3rd one) is 1 C. At this point, no controversial at all. Of course the increase is not enough to be taken seriously, not enough to be alarm. Alarmists primarily rely on positive feedbacks to make warming an alarm issue which skeptics disagree with. Of course there are some other issues that both side disagree. But this feedback-based issue, so called Climate sensitivity is heart and soul of this whole global warming debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Regarding the climatologists . Yes, todayís climatologists have PhD degrees. This is because computer modeling technology, advanced statistical techniques and mathematics knowledge are used. These climatologists are equipped with these tools which require advanced training and higher education. The point by Lindzen is they are not strong at science that is behind the climate phenomenon. They are only good at playing/manipulating numbers. Climatology is different than climate science which is multi-discipline field.

As for the religion part, Itís because AGW doesnít allow skeptics. They think this science has been settled and they label skeptics as anti science. This attitude is similar to religion that doesnít allow skeptics/ agnosticism. As you know skeptics always think we donít know enough about climate.


Replies to: ""