Climate Change: What's your take?

[pleaserecycle]

Groundking said:

pleaserecycle said:

 

Physics remains the same in closed and open systems, but the models we use become increasingly complex in an open system.  It's possible to detect a decrease in temperature while carbon dioxide concentration increases, but then there must be another force more dominant than carbon dioxide.  Imagine I'm pushing a box in one direction.  In order to push the box in the other direction some one else must overcome the weight of the box and the force of my push.  If some one else only observed my force, they might believe that motion occurs in the direction opposite of the direction of the force.  But they'd be incorrect because they missed the opposing force.  

I mean FFS come on people.

I'm nitpicking, but your listed carbon dioxide concentration is off by magnitudes...

Many factors contribute to the global temperature, but it would be unfortunate to ignore one due to its size.  It would take an aluminum sphere with a large volume to match the mass of a small lead ball.  Much like different elements have different densities, different gases will absorb and emit radiation more or less effectively.  I would be surprised if the fluctuations of the sun's emission (measureables) are not considered in models unless they are shown to have no effect.  

Yes, but in a closed system not EVERYTHING is simulated, and the things that are are sometimes simulated inaccurately, simply because there are more things affecting the physics in an open system as compared to a closed system. Yes I've dealt with the idea that there are other forces on the temperature, and I've criticised whether CO2 is actually powerful enough for us to have a significant impact. Hell we know for a start that there are other, more powerful, greenhouse gasses. All I'm trying to say is that, whilst the assumption may be, and is likely, to be correct, but to CLAIM, like so many climate scientists do, that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does absolutely increase temperature that's simply wrong, as it's a definate statement, and it's not a definate idea. Also CO2 doesn't just stay as CO2 in the atmosphere, there are lots of chemical reactions in the atmopshere that occur which changes one thing to another.

Yes I've appologised for this in another post, I really don't know why I was thinking in PPB instead of PPM

Fluctuations aren't considered due to the fact that it's current impossible to predict, then use the assumption that the solar radiation is going ot be fairly stable going forwards. This is part of the reason why they're using fudge factors. Plus there's the problem that the satalites measuring TSI are within the Earths atmoshpere, so we're not even getting accurate numbers there either. All this is just error which leads to massive innacuracies, which is why the models are total shit

 

If these models come from peer-reviewed literature, I guarantee they're using real data obtained from measurements.  We have equations that calculate solar irradiance and measurements to support the mathematics.  The fluctuations of solar irradiance are so minimal that models most likely use the average measured value.  

We know that increased carbon dioxide results in increased temperature.  We cannot accept it in one instance and neglect it in another without reasoning.  Admittedly, there are cases where physics breaks down, such as classical mechanics on very small or very large scales, but we have an explanation.  For example, classical mechanics equations do not accurately represent processes at the quantum level because the idea of a measurement becomes obscured.  So why wouldn't an increase in carbon dioxide contribute to an increase in temperature?  As I mentioned before, it's possible to detect increased carbon dioxide and a net decreased temperature in a system, but then there must be another factor(s) contributing to the decreased temperature.