Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

Meanwhile in the real world....

Strong global temperature records typically show up in all the major climate monitors. And, despite no El Nino providing an added kick to atmospheric heating, that’s exactly what happened in 2014.

Respectively Japan’s Meteorological Agency (JMA), NASA and NOAA all showed 2014 as the hottest year in the global climate record. And the departures were all quite strong with JMA showing +0.63 C, NASA showing +0.68 C, and NOAA showing +0.69 C above the 20th Century average — all measures that put the world now in the range of +0.9 C warming since the 1880s.

Not only was this year the hottest on record for the global climate. It was one in many progressively hotter years and decades. The result being that if you were born in 1986, you haven’t experienced one month that has been cooler than the 20th Century average.

(Decadal and yearly warming since 1880 as recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s a brutal warming trend that has propelled us, in just 1 Century, into a time hotter than any in at least 5,000 years and probably 150,000 years. Continued warming at this pace will put us hotter than at any time in 1 million years before mid century and that is without any of the predicted acceleration due to amplifying feedbacks such as Arctic carbon release, loss of Arctic albedo due to snow and ice melt and greening, and loss of the oceans as a global carbon sink. Image source: NOAA and Climate Progress.)

It’s a set of validated evidence that is so obvious as to be incontrovertible

but then some have a problem with evolution too....

 

[ideogram]

What will Make you admit to being Wrong about AGW ??? Anything ? Nothing ? Can't be disproved ? If the answer to that question is NO NOTHING CAN then you have a FAITH and you are a BELIEVER

If real climate scientists agree that AGW is wrong, I will admit to being wrong.

I do have faith. I have faith in my ability to distinguish real scientists from cranks.

 

[ideogram]

Haig why don't you answer this post instead of incessantly repeating your discredited arguments.

Belief is not a bad thing if based on observation. It is easy enough to prove that we humans are creating planet wide disturbances on the planet. It is easy because they are observed. One of those disturbances is the natural carbon cycle. We are adding more carbon in the form of CO2 simultaneously to radically reducing the biomes responsible for cycling that CO2 back into the soil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps more solar energy due to an insulating effect. All these are observable and measurable things. The "belief" is based on careful observation.

Of course it can be disproven though I doubt you can. First take an atmosphere sample and show me that CO2 is not approaching ~400 ppm. Not likely to do that. Then measure the amount of CO2 released by burning the calculated total world fossil fuel usage. Not likely to prove that wrong either, though you are welcome to try. Then take some soil samples and ocean samples and measure carbon. Now explain why the worlds soil carbon is radically reduced, and the dissolved CO2 in the oceans is rising. Or prove those measurements are wrong. Lastly prove the physics experiments wrong that measured the greenhouse insulating effect of CO2.

Now that you have done all that, and have measurements and observations, put it all together and see if it shows up in the "real world". Measure those glaciers. Are they growing or shrinking?

Now you have all the tools to falsify AGW. Go for it. I await your reply.

 

[Trakar]

Belief is not a bad thing if based on observation. It is easy enough to prove that we humans are creating planet wide disturbances on the planet. It is easy because they are observed. One of those disturbances is the natural carbon cycle. We are adding more carbon in the form of CO2 simultaneously to radically reducing the biomes responsible for cycling that CO2 back into the soil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps more solar energy due to an insulating effect. All these are observable and measurable things. The "belief" is based on careful observation.

Of course it can be disproven though I doubt you can. First take an atmosphere sample and show me that CO2 is not approaching ~400 ppm. Not likely to do that. Then measure the amount of CO2 released by burning the calculated total world fossil fuel usage. Not likely to prove that wrong either, though you are welcome to try. Then take some soil samples and ocean samples and measure carbon. Now explain why the worlds soil carbon is radically reduced, and the dissolved CO2 in the oceans is rising. Or prove those measurements are wrong. Lastly prove the physics experiments wrong that measured the greenhouse insulating effect of CO2.

Now that you have done all that, and have measurements and observations, put it all together and see if it shows up in the "real world". Measure those glaciers. Are they growing or shrinking?

Now you have all the tools to falsify AGW. Go for it. I await your reply.

Amazing job!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Amazing job!

Thanks.

I suppose after more than 2000 posts it's about time I made a good one...for once! But honestly everything I said is somewhere else in this thread, posted by someone smarter than me. It's a good thread for learning a thing or two.

 

[CapelDodger]

But honestly everything I said is somewhere else in this thread, posted by someone smarter than me.

Don't run yourself down. We can do that for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

If real climate scientists agree that AGW is wrong, I will admit to being wrong.

I do have faith. I have faith in my ability to distinguish real scientists from cranks.

I think Haig has the same faith, but in his mind the real scientists are Abdussamatov and his acolytes while the cranks are ... well, just about everybody else.

 

[lomiller]

It hasn't gotten warmer in nearly two decades.

This is a claim that requires statistical analysis. Do you have such an analysis?

 

[lomiller]

I THINK this is the BEST image for YOU ... it's an image of the Earths cycle of Global Cooling >> Global Warming >> Global Cooling (21st century)

No it's not, it's an image of sunspot cycles. Do you have a valid physical mechanism by which magnetic activity on the sun changes climate on the earth? Without such a mechanism these graphs are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post

It hasn't gotten warmer in nearly two decades.

Really wonder what planet you are referring to.....2014 is seeing the ocean heat soaring despite no El Nino or at the very most a mild one.

You will notice it is tipping upward even steeper......now where pray tell...with a limp wristed sun.....is the millions of hiroshima thermal units arising that is driving that spike.....your fervid imagination???

sst is really a marginal aspect

Good summary for those that prefer a dose of reality to offset the denier fantasy.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/22/3614256/hottest-year-ocean-warming/

 

[ideogram]

I think Haig has the same faith, but in his mind the real scientists are Abdussamatov and his acolytes while the cranks are ... well, just about everybody else.

This is a real problem. Many people cannot tell the difference between experts and cranks.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is a real problem. Many people cannot tell the difference between experts and cranks.

The self-titled sceptics are - unsurprisingly - not all that sceptical when it comes to information they want to believe.

 

[Haig]

Belief is not a bad thing if based on observation.

That's wasn't my point. Many of the best scientists, the world has ever known, had/have religious beliefs but they didn't let it get in the way of the science. The "skeptical" scientist is best, type of thing.

It is easy enough to prove that we humans are creating planet wide disturbances on the planet. It is easy because they are observed. One of those disturbances is the natural carbon cycle. We are adding more carbon in the form of CO2 simultaneously to radically reducing the biomes responsible for cycling that CO2 back into the soil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps more solar energy due to an insulating effect. All these are observable and measurable things. The "belief" is based on careful observation.

Our input of co2 is TINY

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor)."

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect"

Of course it can be disproven though I doubt you can. First take an atmosphere sample and show me that CO2 is not approaching ~400 ppm. Not likely to do that. Then measure the amount of CO2 released by burning the calculated total world fossil fuel usage. Not likely to prove that wrong either, though you are welcome to try. Then take some soil samples and ocean samples and measure carbon. Now explain why the worlds soil carbon is radically reduced, and the dissolved CO2 in the oceans is rising. Or prove those measurements are wrong. Lastly prove the physics experiments wrong that measured the greenhouse insulating effect of CO2.

Sure it's rising and we have The Pause for nearly two decades.

Now that you have done all that, and have measurements and observations, put it all together and see if it shows up in the "real world". Measure those glaciers. Are they growing or shrinking?

Carbon Dioxide -- Summary PDF
"A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa. In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later."

Note this ...

"even very high CO2 concentrations - some as much as 100 times greater than those of the past century - appear to benefit earth's vegetation."

Now you have all the tools to falsify AGW. Go for it. I await your reply.

Ok, now that's done here's a few more points ...

As the Sun becomes less active in the last two decades ALL the planets have been changing in the solar system, care to address this ? Or do you think that's Our fault too ?


C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News

Primary Citations:

NASA Solar-Climate Connection:
NASA Magnetic Field Inconsistency:
NASA Solar Wind Loses Power:
Cosmic Ray Nucleation:
Saturn Superstorm:
NewScientist Lowest Solar Low in 4 Centuries:
Reuters UN Climate Panel Corrects CO2:
Wall Street Journal Solar Strangeness:
Latest Sunspots:
Solar Magnetic Failure:
CO2 Breaks the Correlation:
CO2/Temp Timelines:
Magnetic Field Failing: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
No Warming Articles-- HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
Ice Age Potential:
CATO on Climate:

The rest of the articles can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/featured... along with most of the ones above too.

If real climate scientists agree that AGW is wrong, I will admit to being wrong.

I do have faith. I have faith in my ability to distinguish real scientists from cranks.

Are the scientists above who say the Sun and our solar system is changing in the last two decades worthy of your ability ?

Haig why don't you answer this post instead of incessantly repeating your discredited arguments.

You don't like my arguments, do you ?

 

[Haig]

This is a claim that requires statistical analysis. Do you have such an analysis?

Don't these count ?

No Warming Articles-- HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE

Then there is this from the Met Office ...

The recent pause in global warming pdf

Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013.

How's that ?

No it's not, it's an image of sunspot cycles. Do you have a valid physical mechanism by which magnetic activity on the sun changes climate on the earth? Without such a mechanism these graphs are irrelevant to the discussion.

How's Coronal Holes and Sudden Stratospheric Warming ? Lot's more where that came from (i.e. THE SUN) if you have the time HERE

 

[Haig]

This is a real problem. Many people cannot tell the difference between experts and cranks.

The self-titled sceptics are - unsurprisingly - not all that sceptical when it comes to information they want to believe.

Mmm sounds like Projection guys

 

[CapelDodger]

Our input of co2 is TINY

Of the 400ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere we have contributed 120ppm - that's about 30%

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor)."

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect"

Complete crap.

Sure it's rising and we have The Pause for nearly two decades.

You could do worse than read https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/. 2014 lies on the trend-line established by 1999. The trend has not changed and there has been no Pause.

The trend in 1999:

Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this

What happened was

Your Pause - or is it a slowdown? - isn't in the data.

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't these count ?

No Warming Articles-- HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE

Of course not. Linking to Fred Pearce, FoxNews, Forbes, the LA Times and the New York Times does not constitute statistical analysis.

Then there is this from the Met Office ...

The recent pause in global warming pdf


How's that ?

That's the Met Office's problem; there hasn't been a pause. Look at the data.

How's Coronal Holes and Sudden Stratospheric Warming ? Lot's more where that came from (i.e. THE SUN) if you have the time HERE

What makes you think that coronal holes affect climate? Or that the Sun has anything to do with SSW events? What data are you going by?

 

[Haig]

Of the 400ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere we have contributed 120ppm - that's about 30%

Complete crap.

You could do worse than read https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/. 2014 lies on the trend-line established by 1999. The trend has not changed and there has been no Pause.

The trend in 1999:

[qimg]https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasa2.jpeg[/qimg]

Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this
[qimg]https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasa3.jpeg[/qimg]

What happened was
[qimg]https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasa4.jpeg?w=500&h=332[/qimg]
Your Pause - or is it a slowdown? - isn't in the data.

So your saying the Met Office is wrong when they talk about a PAUSE

The recent pause in global warming PDF

In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat

Funny to read that bit at the end about the HEAT going into the oceans. What changed ? Didn't the HEAT go into the oceans in the 20th century too ?

Of course it did

 

[lomiller]

Don't these count ?

Skimmed them and found no relevant statistical analysis. Perhaps if you give them a thorough reading and highlight what you think is important in them we can revisit but for the time being the ball is still in your court to provide a statistical analysis to prove your claim that the earth has stopped warming.

Note however that these are simply news articles from the popular press not scientific papers, it's highly unlikely you would find any relevant science or statistics in them.

 

[JamesXXVI]

That's wasn't my point. Many of the best scientists, the world has ever known, had/have religious beliefs but they didn't let it get in the way of the science. The "skeptical" scientist is best, type of thing.



Our input of co2 is TINY

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor)."

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect"



Sure it's rising and we have The Pause for nearly two decades.



Carbon Dioxide -- Summary PDF
"A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa. In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later."

Note this ...

"even very high CO2 concentrations - some as much as 100 times greater than those of the past century - appear to benefit earth's vegetation."



Ok, now that's done here's a few more points ...

As the Sun becomes less active in the last two decades ALL the planets have been changing in the solar system, care to address this ? Or do you think that's Our fault too ?


C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News

Primary Citations:

NASA Solar-Climate Connection:
NASA Magnetic Field Inconsistency:
NASA Solar Wind Loses Power:
Cosmic Ray Nucleation:
Saturn Superstorm:
NewScientist Lowest Solar Low in 4 Centuries:
Reuters UN Climate Panel Corrects CO2:
Wall Street Journal Solar Strangeness:
Latest Sunspots:
Solar Magnetic Failure:
CO2 Breaks the Correlation:
CO2/Temp Timelines:
Magnetic Field Failing: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
No Warming Articles-- HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
Ice Age Potential:
CATO on Climate:

The rest of the articles can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/featured... along with most of the ones above too.




Are the scientists above who say the Sun and our solar system is changing in the last two decades worthy of your ability ?



You don't like my arguments, do you ?

I think I'll have to bookmark this post as an exemplar of the Cherry-picking fallacy.

Links HERE, HERE, and HERE