Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

EF

the global warming claim is not as strong as the first

It isn't a fact yet you keep insisting that it is

Does CO2 trap IR?

 

[ABC10]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an observed fact, what is not a fact is what amount exactly of the observed warming can be attributed to humans. but the evidence for the late 20th century warming being mainly caused by human activity is overwhelming. so overwhelming that it convinced every national academy of science, all top universities around the world and every major scientific institution around the world.
what are your objections to the presented evidence and the observed fact of AGW?

Gotta love Warming observer Doc Chris Pine of New South Wales U. who managed to strand himself, his family some plus 50 "scientist and paying customers" trapped in ice in a bay that was free of ice when Doug Mawson was there a 100 years ago. That would be Pine's "Spirit of Mawson" voyage . I think It was 97% of "climate scientist". How many are there around of these CSs? How about the great retired Doc Richard Lindzen of MIT? What top Universities - like New South Wales U? What major scientific institutions? Name, names - what scientific institution and top universities?
And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?
I think the entire AGW thing is falling apart.
I am enjoying the 200 - 1000 year glacier melt in Antarctia though.
My opinion only, of course.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

the global warming claim is not as strong as the first

I'm going to take what I perceive your stance on AGW to be and apply it to the Round Earth Hypothesis: pretend that the evidence for a round Earth doesn't actually exist, all of the methods you have for gathering data toward that hypothesis are flawed in some fundamental way, and that you have some unknown political agenda that requires a round Earth. Now, it's up to you to prove to me the positive claim that "the Earth is round".

Can you do that? No? Now is that a failing on your part, or mine?

 

[ABC10]

I'm going to take what I perceive your stance on AGW to be and apply it to the Round Earth Hypothesis: pretend that the evidence for a round Earth doesn't actually exist, all of the methods you have for gathering data toward that hypothesis are flawed in some fundamental way, and that you have some unknown political agenda that requires a round Earth. Now, it's up to you to prove to me the positive claim that "the Earth is round".

Can you do that? No? Now is that a failing on your part, or mine?

Just my observation but when looking at the skyline of the earth surrounding my little area, I can't imagine how anyone thought the earth was flat. IMOO

 

[lomiller]

I think It was 97% of "climate scientist". How many are there around of these CSs? How about the great retired Doc Richard Lindzen of MIT?

He probably counts as part of that 3%. It hilarious that you think he's "a great scientist", though. On the rare occasions he actually publishes anything virtually the only citations his work gets are by better scientists ripping it to shreds.


As pointed out above, calling someone a great scientists when they demonstrably have almost no impact in their field really highlights you mindset. That is you are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities.

 

[macdoc]

AB

And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?

You've been shown it time and again - gets old.

Why do you think there might be more sea ice around Antarctica despite accelerating mass loss?

care to explain? You made a claim.
Now defend it.

This is a science forum. If you cannot provide support for your claims then why are you here?

Does CO2 trap IR? Why can you not answer a simple question

 

[lomiller]

And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?

Do you have some evidence it went anywhere?

 

[a_unique_person]

Gotta love Warming observer Doc Chris Pine of New South Wales U. who managed to strand himself, his family some plus 50 "scientist and paying customers" trapped in ice in a bay that was free of ice when Doug Mawson was there a 100 years ago. That would be Pine's "Spirit of Mawson" voyage . I think It was 97% of "climate scientist". How many are there around of these CSs? How about the great retired Doc Richard Lindzen of MIT? What top Universities - like New South Wales U? What major scientific institutions? Name, names - what scientific institution and top universities?
And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?
I think the entire AGW thing is falling apart.
I am enjoying the 200 - 1000 year glacier melt in Antarctia though.
My opinion only, of course.

New South Wales University climate study shows that warming will be much higher than expected.

GLOBAL temperatures are set to increase by up to five degrees centigrade by 2100, according to an Australian-led study. It suggests climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than was previously thought.
By 2200, the world could be more than 8C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, say the researchers.
The study corrected what were claimed to be earlier errors in calculating the effect of clouds on global warming.
Lead scientist Professor Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, said: ``Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation.
``When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5C to 5C.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ming-before-2100/story-fn5fsgyc-1226792866392

 

[macdoc]

ABC10

What top Universities - like New South Wales U? What major scientific institutions? Name, names - what scientific institution and top universities?

I assume you mean from that completely garbled bit of toss off what major national and international institutions support AGW science??
All of them

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points

Of course there is some guy named Roy at a uni - he also supports ID

•••

Does CO2 absorb IR?? why no answer AB??

 

[DC]

Gotta love Warming observer Doc Chris Pine of New South Wales U. who managed to strand himself, his family some plus 50 "scientist and paying customers" trapped in ice in a bay that was free of ice when Doug Mawson was there a 100 years ago. That would be Pine's "Spirit of Mawson" voyage . I think It was 97% of "climate scientist". How many are there around of these CSs? How about the great retired Doc Richard Lindzen of MIT? What top Universities - like New South Wales U? What major scientific institutions? Name, names - what scientific institution and top universities?
And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?
I think the entire AGW thing is falling apart.
I am enjoying the 200 - 1000 year glacier melt in Antarctia though.
My opinion only, of course.

can air at -20°C hold more moisture than air at -25°C?

you want names?

http://globalchange.mit.edu/
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/O...r_climate/ESA_s_Climate_Change_Initiative_CCI
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/home.html
https://www.ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich/main-focus-areas/climate-change.html
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/56/harvard_project_on_climate_agreements.html
https://gcep.stanford.edu/
http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/energy
http://www.4cmr.group.cam.ac.uk/

i could go on for hours, but you get the picture.

And where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua...istemp/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua...istemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

and last but not least.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

the place where 90%+ of AGW excess heat is going to.


yeah, your opinion versus 100+ years of research.
im sure your opinion based on a few hours of reading in the denier blogosphere and tabloids can compete with the most famous scientific institutions around the world.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think It was 97% of "climate scientist". How many are there around of these CSs?

I think it should be pointed out that the "97%" refers to the abstracts of peer-reviewed literature on the subject of climate change. If we're talking about individual scientists, that number is a little over 98%.

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus. Read the full paper here.

 

[ABC10]

I think it should be pointed out that the "97%" refers to the abstracts of peer-reviewed literature on the subject of climate change. If we're talking about individual scientists, that number is a little over 98%.

And how many answered the questionnaire? 98% of what number?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How about the great retired Doc Richard Lindzen of MIT?

FYI: Professor Lindzen isn't a real doctor, but merely a PhD (in applied mathematics).

(That's an old joke. I won't try to explain it to you.)

You might refer to him as Dr Richard Lindzen, but the word "Doc" is usually reserved for medical doctors.

It hilarious that you think he's "a great scientist", though. On the rare occasions he actually publishes anything virtually the only citations his work gets are by better scientists ripping it to shreds.

Hardly. A simple search on Google Scholar shows an impressive number of papers and citations.

As pointed out above, calling someone a great scientists when they demonstrably have almost no impact in their field really highlights you mindset.

Richard Lindzen's research has had demonstrable impact on his field of atmospheric science. You are of course free to argue that atmospheric science is unrelated to climate science.

That is you are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities.

It looks as though you, lomiller, "are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities."

It would be better to address the substance of Lindzen's research. For example, you might note that Lindzen's Iris hypothesis is now generally regarded as unsupported or refuted, although Lindzen and Roy Spencer continue to promote it.

 

[DC]

And how many answered the questionnaire? 98% of what number?

there was a part in the post where when you click on it with your mouse, you get to the source. you can then read the full paper, or at least watch the video that shortly explains the paper. this would have shown you that your question is wrong.

 

[macdoc]

WD you are correct to a point but in addition you need to look at the larger picture outside academia
Is this a way to be an unbiased researcher.....

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
by RS Lindzen - ‎Related articles
Jump to Fossil Fuel Interests Funding - In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and ... was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, ...

Richard Lindzen | DeSmogBlog
www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
Professor Lindzen's academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, ... Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas ...

praise the paymaster....

Lindzen has done good research to a failed meme conclusion just as Lovelock even earlier.

That he is trotted out by the deniers is an embarrasment to MIT who is doing exemplary work on laying out the risks of various outcomes of rapid onset climate change due to global warming.

This is a good overview.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html

He acknowledges CO2 as a climate driver and human sourcing for that increase...that's outside the purview apparently of some who are championing him as a denier as we see above.
He's not....he simply has tried to make a case for a low climate sensitivity and has failed utterly which each new refinement putting the sensitivity in the high end of the range.

So subject to ridicule....yeah ...he's made himself fair game.

This doesn't help ...sloppy and dated presentations ala Lord Monckton which puts him squarely into ridicule territory

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-london-illusions.html

 

[W.D.Clinger]

WD you are correct to a point but in addition you need to look at the larger picture outside academia

Had lomiller been criticizing Lindzen's role outside academia, the criticism might have had merit. lomiller's specific criticisms of Lindzen's academic record had no merit.

We should not support false allegations just because we agree with the political agenda of those making the false allegations.

 

[a_unique_person]

FYI: Professor Lindzen isn't a real doctor, but merely a PhD (in applied mathematics).

(That's an old joke. I won't try to explain it to you.)

You might refer to him as Dr Richard Lindzen, but the word "Doc" is usually reserved for medical doctors.


Hardly. A simple search on Google Scholar shows an impressive number of papers and citations.


Richard Lindzen's research has had demonstrable impact on his field of atmospheric science. You are of course free to argue that atmospheric science is unrelated to climate science.


It looks as though you, lomiller, "are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities."

It would be better to address the substance of Lindzen's research. For example, you might note that Lindzen's Iris hypothesis is now generally regarded as unsupported or refuted, although Lindzen and Roy Spencer continue to promote it.

It is my understanding that Lindzen had been a respected researcher, he has published a lot of papers, when it comes to his warming denialism, all of a sudden the paper trail goes cold.

 

[macdoc]

WD - fair enough - I agree the criticism was misplaced.
Someone on another forum called Lovelock a moron....neither accurate nor appropriate.
Lovelock might have backed an incorrect meme .....heck according to the IPCC AGW acknowledgers have a 5% chance of backing the wrong meme.

Being "supported" by "godidit" Spencer is just about a death knell for any respect.

 

[DC]

WD - fair enough - I agree the criticism was misplaced.
Someone on another forum called Lovelock a moron....neither accurate nor appropriate.
Lovelock might have backed an incorrect meme .....heck according to the IPCC AGW acknowledgers have a 5% chance of backing the wrong meme.

Being "supported" by "godidit" Spencer is just about a death knell for any respect.

as far as i know, despite Spencer being a creationist and a very dishonest AGW denier. he knows his stuff about remote sensing (not the journal , no pun intended.)

 

[ABC10]

"A laborer is worthy of their hire" Luke 10:7
"A worker is worthy his keep" Luke 10:6
What's goin on in the 60 weather cycle? What's going on with Cook and the 97% concensus? What's goin on with the 60 year weather cycle and those GW computer models? "What's goin on?" Marvin Gaye