Cooling will Mask the earth's warming ???

[michaelb]

To break down anthropomorphic global warming into its component parts:

1) human activity has caused a rise in CO2;
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore increases in CO2 will cause temps to rise;
3) As a result of the increase in temp from increased CO2, the earth will actually warm.

#1 is probably clearly true and there may very well be something approaching "consensus" on that point.
#2 is also probably true, although the actual mechanism by which a rise in CO2 will drive an increase in temperature is poorly understood, and the significance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on earth is also disputed (Mars for example has a higher concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere).
#3 is the area of significant uncertainty. But #3 does not follow logically from 1 and 2. We lack adequate historical data on global temperatures to model this, and predictions for the models are within the margin of error for measuring global temp. Other factors, like solar activity, may outweigh the positive impact of increased CO2.

[mattkime]

>>Maybe you don't understand what consensus means: consensus means everyone agrees.

Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus General agreement. Exactly what I meant. But I'm not looking to argue over definitions but you did bring it up.

>>given the political environment and the intense pressure over this issue, many skeptics are likely remaining silent.

I simply don't see any evidence of that despite the repeated assertions.

>>He misstates some of the facts and this is an opinion piece, not an academic article, and maybe he is a wingnut in the end, but the general points he makes, that we can't adequately explain the role of sun activity remains true

He's a former NASA engineer but has no background in studying the climate. I really don't understand how incorrect facts can lead to an accurate conclusion. The whole article is trash. The corresponding response -

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html

>>But to claim that there is a "consensus" or that there is no valid basis for scientific debate

There is a difference between consensus and valid basis for scientific debate. i'm _not_ saying that we should stop studying climate change! scientific debate can continue along side consensus. this is how science operates.

---

#1 and #2 undoubtedly true. i don't understand how you hesitate at #3. we have plenty of historical data.

[OWC Jamie]

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/




and yet 31,000 scientists rejected Kyoto. hmmmmmm

Everyone agrees except those that don't and they don't know what they're talking about.
Is Pluto a planet this year ?


Imagine the earth warming up to the point large reptiles would be possible again.
50 foot tall people would be cool !

[Mac1337]

Just to unmask the real agenda here if we were faced with global cooling would we see proposals for massive expansion of the industry, big cars, more powerlants and anything we could do to pump more CO2 in the air?

[mattkime]

the vast majority of those 31k scientists work in fields completely unrelated to climate change. i googled Tom Asmas to find that he's an engine engineer. and that website uses the phrase "leftist liberal viewpoint" within the first full sentence.

is that an unbiased source?

[simonm]

Black Landlord wrote:
You could lose your head denying global warming in medieval times?

Are you OK?

Which would of course be rational. In medieval times there was global cooling. The middle 1760s were so cold that the period is sometimes referred to as "the little ice age" when the Normans invaded Britain (1066 and all that) the climate in the British Isles was warm enough to sustain vinyards.

On a geological timescale we are heading for an major ice age at the moment. But margin of uncertainty means that couple of thousand years one way or the other is insignificant so the ice age could be starting right now or in a few thousand years.