So this is a general thread about climate science? How did it get from someone with an MBA masquerading as a scientist to this? If someone falls for a charlatan like that, it really looks to me like he is sort of gullible and not very discerning about where he gets his information from. That makes me highly skeptical about anything else he says.

As I said, I need surgery. If this MBA can revolutionize climate science, maybe he can do the surgery do. He has as much scientific training as medical training.

I don't know why he couldn't do surgery. Afterall, he also predicts earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. It says so on his website!

Here's another article on non-global warming. This one is written by an economist...
The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

The largest influence on climate is the sun's solar radiation output. But try and get a climate scientist to concede this point is virtually impossible. Climate does change and can change rapidly. Europe has spent $200 Billion to mitigate global warming and has achieved nothing in terms of climate change. Many people have profited handsomely on something that cannot be proved selling a conjecture to people who do not know or could even explain why summers are warmer and winters are colder in the Northern Hemisphere. Global dimming and Global Atmospheric Geo engineering doesn't even get a mention in the media.

Bad Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NALpRMaSAQE

These threads get exasperating. You have a tough time finding ten credible climate scientists on the planet that don't agree that we have anthropogenic warming. It's not a lead pipe lock like gravity but there's virtually not doubt in the mind of real scientists. But every so often a fake scientist or just a jackhole like Donald Trump says Nahh ahhh! and round we all go again.

Wrong. Physics 101, without solar radiation we're just a lump of flozen rock.

Simple physics is brutal. It doesn't argue, it just works. Of course, changing the solar radiation will change temperatures at earth, and we can calculate pretty accurately how much. And yes, this effect has been studied intensively by climate researchers. The observed *variations* in solar radiation are not anywhere large enough to explain the warming. This is indesputable.


Increasing the levels of C02 in the atmosphere is another very simple and brutal piece of physics: The earth-atmosphere radiation budget will change when CO2-levels change. That again will affect the temperatures in the coupled system of earth-atmosphere-ocean, and it should not come as a surprise that you'd expect higher temperatures at the ground, atmosphere and oceans. So far, simple and brutal physics.

Then you want to nail down the details, and things start more complicated: Because atmosphere and ocean are swirling around on a rotating earth, the dynamics involved are pretty complicated. Still, all state of the art climate models will tell you: If you increase CO2-levels you will get AGW. And the observed increase in temperature is consistent with the predicted increase. Increase CO2 lead to AGW.





So far, no one has found a quick fix to counter neither the radiation budget directly, or indirectly, and I don't think we will find a "quick geo-engineering fix" to this problem. You can't argue with physics.

You can, however, argue with all the political hum-drum. Without a doubt, the political and economic landscape around AGW countermeasures, quotas and whatnot is messy, noisy and highly political. Someone will - and probably has - take advantage of this, for personal or political gain.

Well some may think humans CO2 emmissons are not having effect on climate change, but then there is still plenty of reasons to do something about it.

- Local polution
- It will run out
- You are supporting many not necessarily friendly nations

The USA is getting rid of imported fuels, but the use of tar sand field and shale gas is not that great either. Ruining the local nature and possible poluting ground water.

The second largest influence on climate change is the related to biology not physical laws based around the chemical Chlorophyll.

The ongoing geo engineering more commonly known as Chemtrails should be stopped as the process interferes with the ability for these areas to cool down by stopping the re-radiation of the accumulated heat during the daytime back into space during the night time.

The internet has made everyone an instant "expert." The saying goes, if you read it on the internet, it must be true.

This applies to all topics from weather predictions to the current Ebola reporting. There is a lot of very wrong info being trolled on websites and forums. And the uninformed are being hooked and reeled in by it all as they do not bother to check, research, question and validate sources.

It is not possible to know everything about everything, and to research and validate every possible topic that comes up. Even if the human brain had the capacity to do all this, I can't imagine why anyone would want to. You learn about the stuff that is compelling and interests you, not the other stuff.

Sorry scientists, none of you have presented a case compelling enough to make me want to research on my own whether the world is warming or cooling, and the significance of that (is it a normal cycle or are humans the cause of it?) I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon one way or the other at this point. I'm pretty neutral until I start hearing more concrete cause/effect/outcome/significance from you experts. What you're presenting now comes off as more political than scientific to me, and I despise politics.