Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Jun-2017 02:45:49 UTC Hallå Kitteh

   in reply to
   @kfist @dokidoki Finally someone with good points against the ruling AGW consensus! Thank you.
   
   When it comes to sunspots and Milankovich cycles, my understanding is that they simply don't account for the persistent rise since industrialization. Solar forcing is a generic phenomenon of which the greenhouse effect is one particular aspect. When discussing melting ice sheets, people bring up the change in albedo and its effect on the climate, so if your claim is that people are looking exclusively at the greenhouse effect, it's a strawman.
   
   The MWP and LIA are not well understood, but those anomalies are not on the scale of the one we are seeing now. Of course, whatever cause is behind it could be part of our current warming, but before we could take that into account, we would have to find it. Finding it does not go against "AGW dogma", is not career-threatening, and people are doing it. A quick search found it in a 2009 IPCC report.
   
   > How can you reasonably model a complex 6-cell 100km layered chaotic system that's 5.15*10^18kg in mass?
   
   Isn't that an argument against any climate research at all? Climate modeling is hard, let's go shopping? Or does it only apply to models that include the greenhouse effect?
   
   > Why was the mandate of the IPCC even "set out to prove AGW is true" rather than "go out and see what's going on with climate change and figure out first principles for a model"?
   
   Quoting from the resolution http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm :
   
   The list of concerns emphasize that "human activities could change global climate" and notes the evidence for the greenhouse effect as the trigger for establishing the Panel, but it also says:
   
   > Recognizing the need for additional research and scientific studies into all sources and causes of climate change,
   
   ... and in the list of actions to be taken says nothing about what directions of research are more important, merely that research needs to be done regarding the causes behind, and socio-economic effects of, climate change.
   
   Will have to look into the Mars thing, that's new to me.
   
   CO2 lag puts a nail into "CO2 is the sole cause of climate", but that's a strawman. First random climatology pop-sci article I find says 40% of warming at the end of the ice age is explained by CO2 and the rest is left unspecified. Maybe orbital changes trigger the cycles and then ice albedo and CO2 accentuate them, along with other effects.
   
   But rising CO2 and rising temperature since the start of industrialization does not correlate with sun cycles or orbital change. Ice sheets changing the planet's albedo piling upon the effect sounds plausible, but the root cause this time really seems to be CO2, until someone comes up with a better explanation.