Since you completely misunderstood my comment, and you're now into wild ass guesses about my education, or lack there of, it would be wise to just stop here. You're in defensive idiot mode about to step over into full blown retard. Let it go.
How is human-caused air pollution changing our climate?
Human-caused particulate air pollution has a relatively minorand likely decreasingimpact on our climate. Since aerosol particles of human origin both reflect and absorb solar energy as the solar beam travels down through the atmosphere, these particles can diminish the energy that arrives at the Earths surface as heat. Scientists estimate that particles produced by human activities have led to a net loss of solar energy (heat) at the ground (by as much as 8 percent in densely populated areas)[5] over the past few decades. This effect, sometimes referred to as solar dimming, may have masked some of the late 20th century global warming due to heat-trapping gases.
Human activities that result in production of both reflecting and absorbing aerosol particle have been curtailed by legislation and modern technology in many places. The pea soup fogs that so bedeviled London in Sherlock Holmes day, for example, were caused by particles produced by incomplete combustion of coal. These fogs are now a thing of the past, thanks to mandatory scrubbers and other advanced combustion techniques. Clean air regulations in the United States have also decreased particle concentrations considerably. Even today, though, haze clouds seen over urban regions give dramatic proof of the effects of human-induced particles in the United States, while atmospheric soot production is still very high in many parts of Asia.
I too remember being told about "The coming Ice Age" in school.
This is why I put 0 credibility in "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" theory.
It's all a big money grab.
From Ethanol to cap and trade.
People in America could be approx. 30% richer if not for this nonsense.
Umm;Climate change farce has contributed greatly to the reduction in living standards.
It is the reason electricity bills are higher.
It is the reason you get less food for the money.
It is the reason you have problems with your gas-powered equipment.
It is the reason you pay more at the pump.
Just think about this:Since the inception of motorized vehicles,Diesel fuel was about 1/2 the price of Gasoline.Enter "Climate Change" (a few years ago) and now Diesel is more than gasoline.Thereby driving up the price of everything shipped by trucking/water;also reducing the income of owner operators so they spend less back into the economy.
indeed one does.
In this area, it seems the following among some climate investigators is this:
Eliminate all variables except CO2. Temperatures are rising, CO2 is rising therefore rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. EGAD!!!!
Now we are adding in variables as our research progresses. Solar irradiation, AMO/PDO, ice extent, volcanism, water vapor, etc... And as we add these variables back in, the effect we originally thought was all CO2 (man generated at that) is lessening all the time. Not going away necessarily, but the affect we are having on global temperature warming is going down.
Now I realize I have vastly oversimplified a very complex topic. I did so for illustrative purposes to make a point. That is, we cannot say with certainty man is the primary cause of global warming via the introduction of additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Here is a brand new peer reviewed paper that addresses climate sensitivity to CO2. It is to be published in Climate Dynamics this month. Below is a link to the paper.
http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
Briefly, the paper uses data from the IPCC 5th AWG to refine estimates of climate sensitivity and shows that climate is less sensitive to CO2 than has been estimated.
Certainly, climate is affected by CO2, but it appears to not be as much as expected.
As we deepen our understanding of a very complex system, we are getting better data and that shows (for now) that CO2 is not as much of a factor as originally thought. Not to say it has no factor because it does, clearly add to warming.
Unfortunately, Curry and Lewis will be named here shortly as deniers who are in the paid pocket of big oil or some such evil.
indeed one does.
In this area, it seems the following among some climate investigators is this:
Eliminate all variables except CO2. Temperatures are rising, CO2 is rising therefore rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. EGAD!!!!
Now we are adding in variables as our research progresses. Solar irradiation, AMO/PDO, ice extent, volcanism, water vapor, etc... And as we add these variables back in, the effect we originally thought was all CO2 (man generated at that) is lessening all the time. Not going away necessarily, but the affect we are having on global temperature warming is going down.
Now I realize I have vastly oversimplified a very complex topic. I did so for illustrative purposes to make a point. That is, we cannot say with certainty man is the primary cause of global warming via the introduction of additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
No. That(except your 3rd point) is all because of the Cost of Energy, especially Oil.
What about subsidizing corn crops that are used in "Energy"
Do you even know where fertilizer and fuel and meat comes from? :hmm:
"Cost of Energy" pwahahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
That is directly related.
I'm also pleased that by promoting her work you are implicitly agreeing that CO2 released by humans increases global temperatures.
The $64 question is, and always has been, how much of the temperature increase from the Little Ice Age forward is actually the direct result of AGW vs how much is due to natural variation. "Deniers" say that the "Believers" have been exaggerating AGW to the point of fear-mongering. Nobody's saying that AGW is not a factor.Well I'm not surprised to see you quoting Judith Curry. But I am pleasantly surprised to see her actually publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
I'm also pleased that by promoting her work you are implicitly agreeing that CO2 released by humans increases global temperatures.
Nobody's saying that AGW is not a factor.
I'm sure there's a few outliers as there always is with anything. Among human beings, that's a given.I'm sure somebody does, but we can collectively tell them to shove it.
What about subsidizing corn crops?
What about subsidizing corn crops that are used in "Energy"
He is talking about ethanol..... a "sustainable" form of energy created by corn. It was first mandated by George Bush the elder. The cost of this fuel on the world runs in the billions and the number of deaths due to it are untold.
I'm sure there's a few outliers as there always is with anything. Among human beings, that's a given.
Global warming. Climate always changes.
The Tea Party is an outlier group in my opinion.Uhmm, "outliers"? What?
<snip>
What percentage is natural vs. man-made in your opinion?Both are actually accurate, but the important part, what I thought was implied, was that it's primarily human caused.
Regardless, there is a large swath of conservatives that simply don't believe some pretty basic facts.
The Tea Party is an outlier group in my opinion.
Nope...I think you're seeing LBD.MAN'S EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING; after 911, planes were grounded for three days. Global temperatures measured during those contrail free days immediately rose one degree F. and dropped one degree F. when flights resumed. This is a documented and sure sign of Man made climate effect.
Ignoring facts, magical thinking, am I seeing CBD?
I would say that calling a group that represents one in three republicans and that exerts strong influence over elected officials outliers is severely stretching the definition of the word.
Hell, when you look at the other metrics about the scientific consensus and human responsibility for warming we're talking about near majorities or outright majorities. It's crazy.
So....... in other words, Eski, it isn't science, it is a popularity contest? Thank you for clearing that up for us. Why not engage on the actual content of the arguments than ad homs? I've rarely if ever seen you do that on climate threads.