People make inductive inferences all the time, and a lot of those inferences are invalid. Our brain is built to make these inferences, but it was evolved to deal with issues in the immediate environment, the local environment, not the global environment. Unfortunately, it usually takes getting burned many times by erroneous inductions to cure personalities of falling into the trap; even then, some are so vested in their need to be right that they will deny the evidence even if it is staring them in the face.

People make inductive inferences all the time, and a lot of those inferences are invalid. Our brain is built to make these inferences, but it was evolved to deal with issues in the immediate environment, the local environment, not the global environment. Unfortunately, it usually takes getting burned many times by erroneous inductions to cure personalities of falling into the trap; even then, some are so vested in their need to be right that they will deny the evidence even if it is staring them in the face.

Thanks. Yes, words come across very differently based on one’s predisposition….

Statistics: yes, that’s a huge issue… but not one that is probably ever going to be solved.

Thanks. Yes, words come across very differently based on one’s predisposition….

Statistics: yes, that’s a huge issue… but not one that is probably ever going to be solved.

At some point in the future, this issue will return with a vengeance…will US Americans be ready to accept responsibility for out part in climate change? Or, will we still be living in denial and looking for/blaming UN conspiracies to destroy the American ‘way of life’?

True. Good on you for giving the benefit of the doubt that Robert is being serious. I think he was predisposed to get angry about it, it’s not really you. Maybe he’ll learn the math and science and statistics necessary to understand the data. Almost no one is good at statistics, by the way, lots of erroneous inferences made by the deniers.

True. Good on you for giving the benefit of the doubt that Robert is being serious. I think he was predisposed to get angry about it, it’s not really you. Maybe he’ll learn the math and science and statistics necessary to understand the data. Almost no one is good at statistics, by the way, lots of erroneous inferences made by the deniers.

>> Additional CO2 blocks less than the previous CO2 because its effects are logarithmic.

We have to add more CO2 than before to get the same increase in effect as from the last addition, but that doesn’t mean the new CO2 stands around with nothing to do.

The logarithmic effect is very well known. Climate scientists refer to how a doubling of CO2 raises the temp by 1C (if we ignore water vapor feedback and albedo ice melting feedback, etc). Google “climate sensitivity”. That is possibly a misnomer but shows how the doubling behavior of (specifically) CO2 is so basic to the science.

If you are wearing a thin sweater and then you put on another thin sweater (double it), do you honestly think you aren’t going to feel warmer, that your body’s vicinity isn’t going to be at a higher temp?

Adding more CO2 means more photons that would have gone into space now will get absorbed by the extra CO2 that was added (there is now twice as much). The CO2 doesn’t hang around with nothing to do. As a simple analogy, it simply stands at the “end of the line” to do its stuff later in time once the photons do reach it. Since CO2 is a trace gas and the photon energy it absorbs is almost immediately shared with the other gases (N2, O2, etc), we basically have an atmosphere with the same pressure and volume but with heat less quickly able to leave the planet+atmosphere system because it gets intercepted more times on “its” path from the ground into space. Again, since the volume is about the same (CO2 is a trace gas so doubling it hardly changes the total density of the entire atmosphere), this means we have more energy within basically the same mass. This tends to result in higher temperatures. The sun keeps adding energy every second, but there is a greater “backlog” of this energy within that same mass (volume) before release into space. This is similar to what happens when you add more insulation around an enclosed space that is being heated; you hardly change the mass, but you make it more difficult for energy to escape into the outside environment. Because the energy leaves less easily, the average equilibrium temperature will rise.

>> But climate correlates to the changes in the sun much better than to CO2.

Can you provide a reference because I have heard the opposite from climate scientists. Over the past several decades, the oscillating (and nearly constant) sun intensity has if anything slightly dipped. Search Wikipedia and tell me if you find a graph that shows temp and sun following a causal pattern. I haven’t found one, and this very lack of correlation is one important reason to support the CO2 views even if you don’t understand the physics and math of the greenhouse effect and if you don’t understand the physics and math of the computer models. Also, CO2 effect kicked into gear this past half century allowing its effect on the temperature to rise above the “natural variability” noise. Both CO2 and temp show steep rises in the latter half of the last century (“steep” in comparison to the earth’s history).

Current slow down in surface air temps include effects from la nina (cold ocean water rising and being a dominating effect). This is cyclical so we will have to deal in some years with the counter effect, a prevalence of el nino.

I am not a scientist, but this is my understanding from the time I have spent studying the topic of late.

>> Additional CO2 blocks less than the previous CO2 because its effects are logarithmic.

We have to add more CO2 than before to get the same increase in effect as from the last addition, but that doesn’t mean the new CO2 stands around with nothing to do.

The logarithmic effect is very well known. Climate scientists refer to how a doubling of CO2 raises the temp by 1C (if we ignore water vapor feedback and albedo ice melting feedback, etc). Google “climate sensitivity”. That is possibly a misnomer but shows how the doubling behavior of (specifically) CO2 is so basic to the science.

If you are wearing a thin sweater and then you put on another thin sweater (double it), do you honestly think you aren’t going to feel warmer, that your body’s vicinity isn’t going to be at a higher temp?

Adding more CO2 means more photons that would have gone into space now will get absorbed by the extra CO2 that was added (there is now twice as much). The CO2 doesn’t hang around with nothing to do. As a simple analogy, it simply stands at the “end of the line” to do its stuff later in time once the photons do reach it. Since CO2 is a trace gas and the photon energy it absorbs is almost immediately shared with the other gases (N2, O2, etc), we basically have an atmosphere with the same pressure and volume but with heat less quickly able to leave the planet+atmosphere system because it gets intercepted more times on “its” path from the ground into space. Again, since the volume is about the same (CO2 is a trace gas so doubling it hardly changes the total density of the entire atmosphere), this means we have more energy within basically the same mass. This tends to result in higher temperatures. The sun keeps adding energy every second, but there is a greater “backlog” of this energy within that same mass (volume) before release into space. This is similar to what happens when you add more insulation around an enclosed space that is being heated; you hardly change the mass, but you make it more difficult for energy to escape into the outside environment. Because the energy leaves less easily, the average equilibrium temperature will rise.

>> But climate correlates to the changes in the sun much better than to CO2.

Can you provide a reference because I have heard the opposite from climate scientists. Over the past several decades, the oscillating (and nearly constant) sun intensity has if anything slightly dipped. Search Wikipedia and tell me if you find a graph that shows temp and sun following a causal pattern. I haven’t found one, and this very lack of correlation is one important reason to support the CO2 views even if you don’t understand the physics and math of the greenhouse effect and if you don’t understand the physics and math of the computer models. Also, CO2 effect kicked into gear this past half century allowing its effect on the temperature to rise above the “natural variability” noise. Both CO2 and temp show steep rises in the latter half of the last century (“steep” in comparison to the earth’s history).

Current slow down in surface air temps include effects from la nina (cold ocean water rising and being a dominating effect). This is cyclical so we will have to deal in some years with the counter effect, a prevalence of el nino.

I am not a scientist, but this is my understanding from the time I have spent studying the topic of late.

to be honest, i don’t recall feeling any smugness when writing this, but people can read things differently…

to be honest, i don’t recall feeling any smugness when writing this, but people can read things differently…

CO2 is like closing a vent when the front door (water vapor) is wide open. CO2 blocks only a very small range of infrared light. Most of what it blocks is already blocked by water vapor. Additional CO2 blocks less than the previous CO2 because its effects are logarithmic.
It is the sun. How the sun effects climate is a very understudied subject. But climate correlates to the changes in the sun much better than to CO2. The recent “pause” in warming was predicted by solar scientists.

CO2 is like closing a vent when the front door (water vapor) is wide open. CO2 blocks only a very small range of infrared light. Most of what it blocks is already blocked by water vapor. Additional CO2 blocks less than the previous CO2 because its effects are logarithmic.
It is the sun. How the sun effects climate is a very understudied subject. But climate correlates to the changes in the sun much better than to CO2. The recent “pause” in warming was predicted by solar scientists.

You’re in an 11 year hiatus of global warming, despite continued
CO2 emissions. Yet you continue to stick to the faith. All of your current epistles can’t explain the 11 year pause, so unbutton that collar and go get some sun while you hug your tree.

Thanks for that, Zach… 😉

Thanks for that, Zach… 😉

the funny/sad thing is that many people would think you were being serious.

yep, Poe’s law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law