Climate Change Science - PR problem?

[mikeworst]

Sorry, tired and some errors in the post.

[knocker]

Instead of repeating the mantra, "Again I will add with shouting" THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING", would it not be better answer my question, If CO² isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?

And of course supply the empirical evidence to support your alternative suggestion(s).

.

[mikeworst]

" If CO² isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?"

Interesting statement Knocker. If you believe that in reality we should be cooling then you are implying that there are other drivers besides co2 that are affecting the climate.

Well i agree with that and there are various lines of observational evidence that point to solar influence and changes in oceanic cycles such as the PDO and AMO as primary drivers of the global climate. Remember that the oceans are a huge heatsink and we may well be cooling but not yet seeing the effects. Certainly there is no evidence of the so called missing heat as alledged by Trenberth.

The missing hotspot and flatlining temperatures do not do the co2 hypothosis any favours at all.

[knocker]

" If CO² isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?"

Interesting statement Knocker. If you believe that in reality we should be cooling then you are implying that there are other drivers besides co2 that are affecting the climate.

There may well be but I believe CO² is the principle one.

[4wd]

Also all this 'missing heat' is supposed to be lurking in the oceans ready to surge out later, but with practically no evidence to back it up.

There's a basic problem in that everything to do with climate study now needs to be somehow couched in and shown to support CO2 and warming.

So now we have the latest fad to claim any weather events including cold and snowy spells in winter are somehow caused or made worse by 'warming'.

The whole charade has completely lost the plot.

Indoctrinating students with the same pseudo-intellectual obsession shows a disturbing similarity to past mistakes such as Lysenkoism.

[Devonian]

Also all this 'missing heat' is supposed to be lurking in the oceans ready to surge out later, but with practically no evidence to back it up.

There's a basic problem in that everything to do with climate study now needs to be somehow couched in and shown to support CO2 and warming.

So now we have the latest fad to claim any weather events including cold and snowy spells in winter are somehow caused or made worse by 'warming'.

The whole charade has completely lost the plot.

Indoctrinating students with the same pseudo-intellectual obsession shows a disturbing similarity to past mistakes such as Lysenkoism.

Who should we listen to then? Who should we learn about climate from?

[mikeworst]

"There may well be but I believe CO² is the principle one." Perhaps and hopefully so as humanity is ill prepared to take on another little ice age. I remain firmly sceptical though because I see little or no evidence for the influence of co2 outside of computer simulations and that is not evidence at all. Hopefully we are still climbing out of the previous cold period and will avoid another for awhile yet. It is all still very uncertain/unknown.

[mikeworst]

"Who should we listen to then? Who should we learn about climate from?"

Read, research information and then make up your own mind. The whole issue is too wrapped up in self interest and hubris to say say listen to this or that. I put my opinion forward but that of course is just that, my opinion only gained from reading papers and what I consider common sense. Take it as you will.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Have a really careful think about this Born.

AGW is a theory or hypothosis at best.

What do you think a scientific theory means Mike? Have you the same suspicion of the theory of plate tectonics? Or evolution? Or relativity?

No impirical evidence has been produced that shows co2 causes global temperature increase despite theoretical calculations.

1. The reduction of longwave radiation from Earth being recorded from satellites
   
2. The cooling of the stratosphere
   
3. The continually rising heat content
   

The high altitude hot-spot that all models need to verify water vapour feedback does not exist.

The missing hot-spot is an example of empirical evidence that counters the theory of water vapour feedback.

The hot spot is a model prediction, for both CO2 and solar induced warming. It is not needed to verify the theory of AGW

The 21st century has seen no warming at all.

The 21st century is still warming, the rate of surface air temperature increase just isn't statistically significant. Ocean heat content increase is statistically significant though.

And then they have the temerity to say "ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

There is every reason to be sceptical and not shove untested and unproven theory down the throats of gullible students.

First let them prove their case or stand down until they can.

It has been proven, but numerous lines of evidence, from experts in numerous fields from all over the world.

" If CO² isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?"

Interesting statement Knocker. If you believe that in reality we should be cooling then you are implying that there are other drivers besides co2 that are affecting the climate.

Well i agree with that and there are various lines of observational evidence that point to solar influence and changes in oceanic cycles such as the PDO and AMO as primary drivers of the global climate. Remember that the oceans are a huge heatsink and we may well be cooling but not yet seeing the effects. Certainly there is no evidence of the so called missing heat as alledged by Trenberth.

The missing hotspot and flatlining temperatures do not do the co2 hypothosis any favours at all.

Would you mind pointing out the papers that show PDO and AMO to be the primary drivers of climate?

Also all this 'missing heat' is supposed to be lurking in the oceans ready to surge out later, but with practically no evidence to back it up.

There's a basic problem in that everything to do with climate study now needs to be somehow couched in and shown to support CO2 and warming.

So now we have the latest fad to claim any weather events including cold and snowy spells in winter are somehow caused or made worse by 'warming'.

The whole charade has completely lost the plot.

Indoctrinating students with the same pseudo-intellectual obsession shows a disturbing similarity to past mistakes such as Lysenkoism.

Anything can be a fad to you, as long as you keep telling yourself it's a fad and refusing to look at the evidence.

The same can be done with dismissing climate change by disagreeing with with its political implications.

Neither of which says anything of the science and evidence.

[Paul]

This is totally off topic now, so going to lock it.