A couple of IPCC reports trying to justify their natural forcing negligance, and trying to fit it into their "perfect model" were thrown around in #163.
Just the first two googled results, to debunk your claim of "ignored." Now it's, what, "negligence?" You were either unclear, or are moving goalposts. (Hey, it could be both!)
The first article makes the incorrect assumption that only greenhouse gases absorb/emit IR,
Wrong. It specifically mentioned all objects, it mentions water vapor. If you're thinking of this, single sentence:
The atmosphere contains several trace gases which absorb and emit infrared radiation.
That's just poor phrasing for a summary, which is what that document - which doesn't ignore natural forcing - is.
You seem to be reading for "gotchas", and as soon as there's something unclear to you, or that you don't understand, you treat it as a debunking.
The second one is completely fabricated as evident in it's assertion "that the net natural forcing (i.e., solar plus volcanic) has been negative over the past two decades, and possibly even the past four decades."
NET is the operative word there. Net natural forcing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
There is MUCH recorded data indicating the complete opposite, including the fact that between 1975 and 1998 solar activity was high and PDO was positive.
But they don't account for all of the observed changes.
In post #165 a very misleading skepticalscience link was presented. The graph only showed one component of natural forcing.
Yes. It was debunking the "It's all the sun." claim that's often heard. The graph only said it was comparing temperature to solar activity.
I at least showed a graph that took a number of natural forcings into account.
Are you talking about the one that only showed positive forcing? Well, it only showed positive forcings. Are you talking about the one that demonstrated a temperature high with the PDO high that can't be accounted for solely by PDO and solar? Well... it shows how PDO and solar can't account for the observed change.
Post #175 then question the graph on ozone, which I then countered by showing total aerosol counts in the entire atmosphere not rising during the period claimed.
What's the period claimed? Anyway, why leave out the proceeding period? You shouldn't, since the climate doesn't magically reset every few years. And even the graph you provided only shows a steady downward trend from the early 90's. After a major spike, which will matter. And you can see that the drop in volcanic/aerosol forcing was accounted for in the graph above. And it doesn't differentiate between levels over land vs. levels over sea, which can matter. And, overall, it just doesn't make *that* big a difference.
Thus, what point did I fail to address and I'll address it now?
Is "All of them" an allowed answer?
Govts aren't run by scientists, but by politicians. They rely on advice from experts. Experts they assume have followed protocol (in scientists case, scientific method). Ever wondered why pro-AGW scientific papers are only peer-reviewed by other pro-AGW scientists?
Ha. You haven't seen the hearings in the US from the denialist legislators. They don't give a damn about protocol, let alone assume it's been followed. Some are explicit about it being a crypto-communist plot for world control. Or whatever.
You've had to swallow a very large pill: That a LOT of people who have to function in public, displaying much of their work, and against the interests of some powerful groups, can maintain a very big, very important, secret. Either "It's all a hoax" or "We're all actually incompetent." take your pick: From what you've argued it's got to be one or the other.
Psychologists have actually studied the AGW phenominum and found that evidence shows that the shock of "humans, you, are killing the planet and we've not long to live" sends people into a state of shock and fear so deep that the normal questioning that the human brain does is incompacitated. I was too initially, but as I read up on the topic I became skeptical of the claims.
Obvious alternate explanation: You retreated from the idea to the comforting fiction that there is no problem. Or at least if there is there's nothing you can do about it. Classic masochism.
I find that a lot more plausible than the lone voice in the wilderness hypothesis.
Ooooooo I love this one! Not just for the science but also for the fact pro-AGW followers stake their entire argument on it.
Probably because it's the first thing google turns up. It's the snopes of AGW.
Where to start......... How about I just let the experts debunk this one.
Gary Novak! Independent scientist! Mushroom Physiologist!
That's your "experts"? Isn't he the guy who criticized Einstein because "you can't square light"?
You must be young. 60's and 70's was global cooling. 70's and 80's was acidification of the atmosphere. 90's was the collapse of the ozone layer.
Just noticed this when looking over the thread.
The first was nothing but a media circus. Like, but lesser than, Mayan Armageddon. The second and third are/were real concerns. Which we did something about.
Combined with Gary Novak! Independent Scientist! it's Poe's Law time.
