Is AGW overestimated? Talking points, additional hypothesis for climate change, scientific discussion.

[salbers]

An increase in energy at the Earth's Surface would lead to there being more evaporation, but it would also lead to more condensation, and more low clouds, resulting in a negative feedback. This paper documents that very idea:

If the atmospheric feedbacks are negative, then the surface feedbacks like albedo changes would have little impact on temperature changes, since they are a product of atmospheric and solar energy changes.

Yes, we agree (as I mentioned earlier) that cloud feedbacks are thought be be negative. Yet there's been a warming anyway, likely due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Regarding the point about CO2 longevity, whether it's centuries or millennia (it's kind of both with multiple time scales of decay), it's still a long time and a dominant factor over that time period.

[WeatherRusty]

:lol: :lol:

Do you guys EVER argue science?

The entire skeptic/denier framework is based on the mainstream science being a fraud. We do argue the science, you guys cook up anything plausible to attack the science with and tout it as of equal validity.

[WeatherRusty]

What are you talking about?

1) There is no consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. I can post a link of 1K 'skepticalo' scientists with relavent degrees right now, if you so please. Want me to?

2) The IPCC has overestimated warming, we haven't budged since 2002 Each report has lowered the sensitivity to CO2 LW increase.

3) You provided no evidence for anything relavent. Ask me for any evidence and I shall provide it for you.

Consensus has everything to do with science. Every understanding of the pysical world is acknowledged by consensus. The consensus on AGW is that the world is warming and human activity is the leading cause of that warming.

This may not be the consensus of the person in the street, the Republican Party, broadcast meteorologists, geologists or whomever. It is the consensus of evidence and those who interpret that evidence. That is why organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, AGU and AMS etc. endorse the science.

Consensus is not a mindless show of hands by just anyone, it is the collective evaluation of those most qualified to hold an informed opinion.

They then become demonized by those with ideological reason to discredit them.

[Alpha5]

Consensus has everything to do with science. Every understanding of the pysical world is acknowledged by consensus. The consensus on AGW is that the world is warming and human activity is the leading cause of that warming.

This may not be the consensus of the person in the street, the Republican Party, broadcast meteorologists, geologists or whomever. It is the consensus of evidence and those who interpret that evidence. That is why organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, AGU and AMS etc. endorse the science.

Consensus is not a mindless show of hands by just anyone, it is the collective evaluation of those most qualified to hold an informed opinion.

They then become demonized by those with ideological reason to discredit them.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual

---Galileo Galilei

[The_Global_Warmer]

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual

---Galileo Galilei

There is a difference between Galileo vs the pope and his minions

And todays scientific consensus vs ?????

[The_Global_Warmer]

Their (Weather Channel) responsibilty is to report the science as determined and accepted by the majority of research scientists, academic institutions, the NAS, AMS, AGU etc. etc... It is not their responsibility to grant credibility to a politically motivated opposing viewpoint or any other viewpoint.

Great point.

when some one sets up their reality tonly see one idea then they get skewed.

all of the major organizations operate as if there is a consensus.

Those are the scientists.

The actual US govt ignores NOAA, NCDC, etc..

The Department of the interior Salazaar with direct Authorization of President Obama. Has permitted Arctic Drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi.

Those silly social liberals are ruining the economy with there green policy. Lol right.

Fossil Fuels are deeply physiologically embedded in society. There is a plethora of reasons people can come here and argue bs as truth. its their reality.

Then we see refetences to galileo as if these things like geo mag are relatable to galileos struggle.

Atleast he was using a telescope to come up with new ideas with real physical evidence I real time.

We have guys coming here to discredit millions of pieces of real evidence for AGW using time lagged correlations as trends.

Yeah right.

[WeatherRusty]

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual

---Galileo Galilei

So we should take Bethesda's word over that of the science endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences?

Should we afford equal weight to any plausible sounding "hypothesis" even if coming from a well recognized source?

By what criteria do you discriminate the credibility of source information?

When the evidence put forth by a single individidual passes the rigorous tests of the scientific method, then and only then will that evidence become part of accepted science (read consensus) and potentially alter current understanding.