Something else for the left to ignore...

[stebo0728]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

"I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Gotta love all the hipe over CO2, considering its not even near the top of the pollutant list, based on concentration levels. Water vapor, the one we cant control, tops the list.

[bigbadberry3]

Obliged.

[IBCoupe]

Oy. You know what's amazing, Stebo? For people like you, who apparently stumble upon some website with a list of reasons why APCC is false, there are websites with guides to talk you guys down.

According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour’s role in the Earth’s Greenhouse effect and it’s role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA’s page about forcings in its GCM, you won’t find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

[C-Kwik]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

"I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Gotta love all the hipe over CO2, considering its not even near the top of the pollutant list, based on concentration levels. Water vapor, the one we cant control, tops the list.

I can agree with his position that declaring anything incontrovertible is, on a scientific level, wrong. However, it doesn't appear he has offered any hard evidence that proves MMGW is not occurring. Yet, the MMGW proponents offer many independent mathematical models that correlate pretty well between CO2 levels and average temperature. These are the same types of processes that are used to prove things like relativity or any other theories that we can't directly measure results for.

As for water vapor, we've discussed this before:

We talk alot about sensationalism, CO2 is a perfect example. CO2 is one of the leastmost contributors to the greenhouse effect, and its actually a VITAL gas in our atmosphere. If plants dont breathe, we dont breathe. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, do we want to try and lower the levels of water vapor?

If you understood the science a little better, you would realize that your reasoning is actually sensational.

Water vapor is dependent primarily on temperature. It would be impractically absurd to try and control water vapor. We can remove as much as we want, but the oceans, rivers, and lakes would simply feed the system again. The only practical way to control it IS to control temperature. If CO2 is causing temperatures to rise (even a small amount), then more water will be absorbed by the atmosphere. That causes additional warming. This is what is called a feedback mechanism. I explained this the last time global warming came up.

So why focus on CO2? Because, of all the greenhouse gases, we emit CO2 in the greatest concentrations relative to other greenhouse gases. Consider the composition of a hydrocarbon (which is pretty much what most fuels are composed of). Hydrogen and Carbon atoms in the molecules split off in the oxidation process and both attach to oxygen to form CO2 and H2O. The more we burn, the more CO2 is released. The H2O can be ignored simply because the temperature of our atmosphere will self-regulate the amount of water vapor. If CO2 had a natural process that regulated the concentration rapidly as water vapor has, then this really wouldn't be a problem. But natural sinks for CO2 are not fast enough to keep up with CO2 output.

post5775163.html?hilit=Global%20warming#p5775163

Seriously, this is basic chem/physics. Find a new argument already.

[stebo0728]

The point of my post was not to get into our tired old argument. My point was, the opposition to Global Warming in general, let alone MMGW is increasing. Its not the dead set in stone fact that we just have to accept and forget. Do we all need to do the best we can to be the best stewards of our environment and resources? Sure. But taking a multi millennial cycle, of which our understanding is sketchy at best, and making it the incontrovertible law of the land is a mistake. My goal is not to make you say "oh sh*t, there is no GW occuring" as much as it is to make you think "well gee, seems the jury is still out on this one". Taking dramatic actions that may end up having no effect whatsoever in the long run could be the result, that doesnt make the actions wrong, but forcing them on people based on our sketchy understanding IS wrong.

[IBCoupe]

My point was, the opposition to Global Warming in general, let alone MMGW is increasing.

Only because the America is dead set on getting dumber.

The jury is not still out on this one, at least not to the extent that you'd have us believe.

[C-Kwik]

The assumption you make is that it is sketchy. The macroscopic understanding is well understood. Its actually very simple. Take energy input from the sun, subtract radiated energy from earth, and you get the amount of net energy retained by earth (Keep in mind, this has actually been measured by satellites since 1970, and in particular, a decline in radiation at wavelengths associated with CO2 have been observed; that's pretty much a smoking gun; radiation associated with methane has also decreased). The energy has to go somewhere. It certainly can go to different places, but not all of it will. Some of it will could be stored chemically (though our destruction of plant life is churning out a net negative) there. Some could get stored as natural decomposition into hydrocarbon deposits into the ground, but as with plant life, we are consuming at a faster rate than it is being produced. Some goes into melting ice. Its unlikely that much, if any of this energy is converted to stored kinetic energy. So where does it have left to go? You're trying to make an argument for the little things where, practically speaking, it makes no sense to. Its like trying to apply relativistic effects to an object moving at 1 mph. The effects are there, but its so many places behind the decimal point, it won't even affect it once you start rounding off. This is why Newtonian physics works fine for most practical stuff, despite being scientifically wrong. The uncertainties that exist are those that try to predict what will happen on a relatively small scale (in both time and region). Its the same reason why its so hard to predict weather accurately beyond a certain length of time into the future.

If your only goal is to question the actions we take, then question the actions we take. Unless you have something more to add to actually show that we may be wrong about MMGW, then drop it. If you wanna argue about policy, then argue about policy. I may still disagree with you on many of them, but at least its a more relevant discussion.

[bigbadberry3]

Just saying, relativity is no longer a theory really, its affects are experimentally verified.

[C-Kwik]

Just saying, relativity is no longer a theory really, its affects are experimentally verified.

Its still a theory in the true definition of the word. Theories are accepted explanations that have been supported through testing and not disproved. Since we're just saying. ;P

[bigbadberry3]

Dawww I hate that response as it fits on everything....

[stebo0728]

Just saying, relativity is no longer a theory really, its affects are experimentally verified.

Found a way to marry general and special relativity have we? Found the Higgs Boson have we? Please share. We have a working knowledge at best, no where near a clear understanding.

[stebo0728]

Look C, I knew you'd be all over this, we've gone round and round. Again, I dont have the time or wherewithall currently to get into a knock down drag out on the subject. We'll just agree to disagree on the accuracy and dependability of your data, as well as its ability to incriminate man in the normal macrocycles of earth climate.

[IBCoupe]

We don't have to agree to disagree. We can just remember that every argument you raise (at least if past behavior is any guide) can be easily explained away with actual scientific knowledge.

[szh]

We don't have to agree to disagree. We can just remember that every argument you raise (at least if past behavior is any guide) can be easily explained away with actual scientific knowledge.

And, as we also remember, some real data was deliberately ignored ... since it - inconveniently - didn't fit the theory.

When data causes a theory to go awry, the correct scientific method is to change the theory.

Z

[stebo0728]

Some data was also collected in some of the most asinine ways. (i.e. thermometer readouts near jet engine labs, near A/C exhausts, some even near burn barrels, location data which was promptly removed when it was revealed, but the data was not removed from the model)

I should also point out that my comment in the OP was a bit off base from the article, as the premise of the article is that the past decade has shown a complete lack of warming, which is incongruent with the 80's and 90's computer models that the entire MMGW base is built upon.

[stebo0728]

And its ok if you throw your actual scientific knowlege at me. Copernicus was met with a whole lot of actual scientific knowlege in his day as well. If you wanna cling to that like a teddy bear go ahead. It certainly supports the global socialist policies that result from it. Until we find the humans on mars that are warming its climate the same as ours, I'm not going to be too convinced of MMGW. Im really becoming alot more sceptical of GW in general.

[bigbadberry3]

Just saying, relativity is no longer a theory really, its affects are experimentally verified.

Found a way to marry general and special relativity have we? Found the Higgs Boson have we? Please share. We have a working knowledge at best, no where near a clear understanding.

I do and you can't have it.

Also, go do some research, relativity has everyday applications

[IBCoupe]

And, as we also remember, some real data was deliberately ignored ... since it - inconveniently - didn't fit the theory.

[citation needed]

[IBCoupe]

Okay, when you actually follow through on any three parts of the scientific method, I'll consider comparing your skepticism as being somewhat parallel to Copernicus.

It certainly supports the global socialist policies that result from it. Until we find the humans on mars that are warming its climate the same as ours, I'm not going to be too convinced of MMGW. Im really becoming alot more sceptical of GW in general.

So, Earth is warming, Mars is warming, too, and you are starting to doubt that Earth is warming. Did I get all that right?

[stebo0728]

So, Earth is warming, Mars is warming, too, and you are starting to doubt that Earth is warming. Did I get all that right?

I'm merely open to the idea that our warming trend may in fact be over.

[IBCoupe]

Based on a measurement of how long?

[szh]

And, as we also remember, some real data was deliberately ignored ... since it - inconveniently - didn't fit the theory.

[citation needed]

Google "Climategate" ... plenty of "citations". Including wall Street Journal, resignations by professors http://www.politicalforum.com/current-e ... -scam.html (who have retired and no longer need to worry about being hounded and funding drying up if they voice their skepticism), etc., etc., etc.

But, "if past behavior is any guide", we can just remember that you will discount all of these since your mind is made up.

My thoughts are these:

1. Is the earth warming? The data appears to show some areas of the earth may be warmer than before, but the problem may lie in the quality of the data, and whether opposing data has been ignored or suppressed.

2. If it is warming, is it man-made? I dunno yet ... I have not heard arguments that convince me yet.

To me, the theory is just that ... a "theory". Not yet fully proven one way or another, but hiding or ignoring data that does not fit the theory is unacceptable.

Of course, the media is certainly hyped up in one direction about it, but the source is still suspect, IMHO. And there are still too many cases of healthy skeptic professors and scientists being maligned, mistreated and being fired or having their funding cut off for expressing any contrarian view.

This, to me, that reeks of politics rather than factual evidence gathering and good scientific method. The global warming proponents "doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet)

Z

[C-Kwik]

Some data was also collected in some of the most asinine ways. (i.e. thermometer readouts near jet engine labs, near A/C exhausts, some even near burn barrels, location data which was promptly removed when it was revealed, but the data was not removed from the model)

Let me get this straight. First you say CO2 can't be the cause of warming, but now you imply temperature is not actually going up? Which is it?

I should also point out that my comment in the OP was a bit off base from the article, as the premise of the article is that the past decade has shown a complete lack of warming, which is incongruent with the 80's and 90's computer models that the entire MMGW base is built upon.

If you look back at temperature data, you can find many many examples of cooling in ~10 year periods. But if you compared each period to the next, you'll find each successive period of cooling is higher on average than the one before it. A 10 year trend is meaningless. Consider 3 waves of different wavelengths. If you combine them, you will have the highest peaks in amplitude where all three are at their peaks in the same location. If one of those waves happen to be at its lowest point (its negative peak), it will reduce the amplitude by exactly the amount it is negative. Earth has many pseudo-regular cycles. Day and Night. Summer and Winter. El Nino and La Nina. Even solar variances. So its not unexpected that we will see some periods of decline. The big interest is going to be the overall trend.

And its ok if you throw your actual scientific knowlege at me. Copernicus was met with a whole lot of actual scientific knowlege in his day as well. If you wanna cling to that like a teddy bear go ahead. It certainly supports the global socialist policies that result from it.

Are you trying to liken yourself to Copernicus? Seriously? He supported his view with mathematical computations despite having difficulty explaining many of the observations mathematically. But they made a lot more sense than the popular view at the time (Earth-centric orbits).

Until we find the humans on mars that are warming its climate the same as ours, I'm not going to be too convinced of MMGW. Im really becoming alot more sceptical of GW in general.

Mars is warming for different reasons. If you're looking for a commonality, there is none. Solar irradiance has not changed since we started measuring it by satellite (which I mentioned above). There is no significant form of energy other than EM waves that can effectively traverse space. Sound, pressure, electrical charge and heat all need a medium through which it can travel. Therefore, the only thing that can possible be in common is solar irradiance. And we can rule that out. And by doing so, we rule out the possibility that the two are related in any way. What this means is the forcings are internal and each system has to be studied on their own merits. The notion that we need to explain warming on Mars to validate warming on Earth is laughable.

Bear in mind, I have less of a problem with your position on MMGW than your reasoning (or poor attempts at it) behind it.

[C-Kwik]

Google "Climategate" ...

Really? As soon as the "scandal" erupted, it was quite clear that the excerpts released by the hackers were cherry-picked for no other reason than the fact that they did not release the entire contents each email from which they pulled it anywhere. A lot of things we say that are perfectly innocent comments can be misconstrued if taken out of context and/or put in a different context. And in the case of ClimateGate that appears to be all that it was.

For example:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Sounds suspicious, but it actually refers to a decline in the reliability in tree ring data. Look up Divergence Problem for more details about the phenomenon.

And:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

This is actually in reference to their inability to account for where some of the energy imbalance ended up. This is directly related to the conservation of energy problem I described earlier. They know how much of an energy imbalance there is from satellite data. They just don't have the observational equipment that can accurately track the movement of energy throughout the system. That was in a response to a paper he had ALREADY published earlier that year in which he states the shortcomings of the observational data.

In case you feel like taking a look at it:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/t ... final2.pdf

[IBCoupe]

Google "Climategate" ...

Really? As soon as the "scandal" erupted, it was quite clear that the excerpts released by the hackers were cherry-picked for no other reason than the fact that they did not release the entire contents each email from which they pulled it anywhere. A lot of things we say that are perfectly innocent comments can be misconstrued if taken out of context and/or put in a different context. And in the case of ClimateGate that appears to be all that it was.

For example:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Sounds suspicious, but it actually refers to a decline in the reliability in tree ring data. Look up Divergence Problem for more details about the phenomenon.

And:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

This is actually in reference to their inability to account for where some of the energy imbalance ended up. This is directly related to the conservation of energy problem I described earlier. They know how much of an energy imbalance there is from satellite data. They just don't have the observational equipment that can accurately track the movement of energy throughout the system. That was in a response to a paper he had ALREADY published earlier that year in which he states the shortcomings of the observational data.

In case you feel like taking a look at it:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/t ... final2.pdf

What C said. Climategate revealed that the scientists were genuinely interested in the science, which should be a surprise to no one - the work is tedious and not terribly lucrative. Two independent investigations revealed no manipulation of data. I asked my question already knowing this is the silly thing you were going to go on about, Z. I"m just relieved that C took the time to address it and saved me the trouble.

[szh]

Yes, yes, YES, I know that Climategate was not entirely clear. Re-read my words more carefully, guys, and let me be more clear: do I know that the Global Warming theory (more accurately, the cause of it being humans) is right or not? No, of course not.

But things bother and concern me ... and that is where the events of Climategate cause questions to arise - which is why I used it as my example of a citation.

Some scientists have pointed to situations where the data is not clear, and/or which may be pointing to outcomes that don't conform to the current theory of GW cause, and found themselves in situations where strong-arm tactics (academic firing, ridicule, funding taken away, etc., etc., etc.,) were used to suppress their voices.

As a result, the interpretation and results and theories ("the real data" in my first post) that these scientists propose are indeed ignored. And that is my point about what the IPCC scientists did in Climategate - hence my use of it as a citation.

Western scientific method depends on experimentation and research and confirmation. Start with getting data and form a theory. Then experiment and experiment till so much supportive data is accumulated that people can make stronger and stronger confirmation of the theory.

Finally, any good theory must make predictions that can be looked for (or experimented for) and found! If a prediction is made from the theory (the tree rings "travesty" are an example) and the data does not match that prediction, then it calls the theory into question.

If some data and/or experimentation shows contrary results, or does not fit the theory prediction, or cannot be explained by the theory, then the scientists MUST question the theory and/or propose a better one. Without politics, without strong-arm tactics, and without "you are wrong, I am right" arguments.

The IPCC is not allowing any contrarian data/interpretations to be discussed at all, and that is a travesty of scientific method.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Some scientists have pointed to situations where the data is not clear, and/or which may be pointing to outcomes that don't conform to the current theory of GW cause, and found themselves in situations where strong-arm tactics (academic firing, ridicule, funding taken away, etc., etc., etc.,) were used to suppress their voices.

[citation needed]

The IPCC is not allowing any contrarian data/interpretations to be discussed at all, and that is a travesty of scientific method.

[citation needed]

[szh]

Some scientists have pointed to situations where the data is not clear, and/or which may be pointing to outcomes that don't conform to the current theory of GW cause, and found themselves in situations where strong-arm tactics (academic firing, ridicule, funding taken away, etc., etc., etc.,) were used to suppress their voices.

[citation needed]

From Factcheck http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ (which, btw, mostly dismissed Climategate)

"Criticisms of climate change are sometimes dismissed as "fraud" or "pure crap," as in this 2005 e-mail from CRU Director Phil Jones."

"... climate scientist Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory makes a crack about "beat[ing] the crap out of" opponent Pat Michaels."

"climate scientist Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Academic Research writes: "If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." "

From the N.Y. Times in an article on Freeman Dyson here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magaz ... an%20Dyson

"FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Prince­ton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.” "

"When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience."

The IPCC is not allowing any contrarian data/interpretations to be discussed at all, and that is a travesty of scientific method.

[citation needed]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourt ... ent_Report
"The Fourth Assessment Report has been the subject of criticism. Skeptics of anthropogenic global warming contend that their claims are not sufficiently incorporated in the report."

From http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... i-akasofu/, the Director of the International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Syun-Ichi Akasofu wrote an article entitled: "On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research". An eye-opener about the methods that the IPCC uses.

"If the IPCC had paid careful attention to the view of genuine climatologists about climate change during the last several hundred years, they should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term "€œmost" in their conclusion is baseless. Actually, it seems that the IPCC report attempts to make the case that the present warming is extremely unusual. It seems that the IPCC is still influenced by the so-called "€œhockey stick" figure that was prominently displayed in their 2001 report, even though it was discredited and is not in the 2007 report."

Here, the American Physical Society (albeit not IPCC), is the source of the suppression: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/.

I don't need any more citations to base my statements, so do your own homework if you want more.

Z

[szh]

Yet, the MMGW proponents offer many independent mathematical models that correlate pretty well between CO2 levels and average temperature.

Unfortunately, models and reality sometimes do not mesh.

Here is an interesting one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html. Supposedly, Professor Muller of Berkely had changed from being a skeptic to a believer. Unfortunately, one of his team says that Muller is wrong.

"a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers."

Further - to address the specific point raised by C-Kwik:

"But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’"

And more:

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.

‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’
...
Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

So, the theory predictions (global warming being caused by CO2) are proven to be wrong when looked at in the context of the past ten years - if the relationship was definite, it should have gone up further.

I wonder if global warming data has the statistical problem of "selection bias" creeping in ... Sigh ...

Z

[C-Kwik]

Further - to address the specific point raised by C-Kwik:

"But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’"

So, the theory predictions (global warming being caused by CO2) are proven to be wrong when looked at in the context of the past ten years - if the relationship was definite, it should have gone up further.

I wonder if global warming data has the statistical problem of "selection bias" creeping in ... Sigh ...

Z

Z, Every winter, our temperatures decline. Does that mean global warming ended? Of course not. A dip in a trend is not necessarily an indication that global warming has ended either. We have to look at long term trends. There are many climate oscillations that exist. Most are not perfectly periodic. Even without knowing how these work, simple knowledge that they exist should at the very least give you pause on any notion that suggests that GW has stopped. On a longer time scale, the CO2 increase we've measured has matched the global temperature change pretty well. There are going to be anomalies in data when dealing with hugely complex systems. Which is why, if we look at the problem first on the most basic level (the energy budget).

IIRC, you are an electrical engineer. Think wave interference. Better still imagine you are testing a complex circuit and the two data points you are keeping track of is the power going in and the heat coming out. There is no work output the amount of heat energy equals the amount of power going in. Suddenly, the heat output drops but power input remains the same. Is that not cause for concern? This is pretty much what is going on. But in our case, we have been able to directly measure that the drop in radiative emissions are occurring at wavelengths that are diffracted by CO2 and Methane. There is a huge correlation there. Further, we know what the average CO2 output of the earth is (sans people). We can pretty easily and with reasonable accuracy determine how much CO2 we put into the air simply by calculating how much fossil fuel we burn. When we compare these two independent data points and they correlate strongly, its going to be really hard to ignore the results. The problem that researchers are struggling most with is to figure out where it is all going and what the effects of the warming will be. Referring back to the circuit above, imagine it is highly complex, and you can only see and test some of the circuit and you have no schematic. That is in essence what is going on here.

Everything you have brought up has nothing to do with the science involved. In legal speak, it would be circumstantial at best. Expert opinions are only as good as the reasoning they provide. By and large, denialist views simply point out the flaws but can't credibly object to what we do know. Are there still gaping holes in some of our knowledge? Of course. But the most basic evaluation of the problem places a very strong causal link between CO2 levels and the energy the satellites aren't seeing leave earth.

I apologize, but this is all I can respond to at the moment as I've got a number of midterms and projects due over the next couple weeks. I will try to get back in here first chance I get.