Global warming

[rockoon]

No one ever has played down it's significance

Infact, Safe-keeper did.

Chain of events:

Claim made that CO2 is chief contributor to the greenhouse effect

I rebutted this claim, pointing out and citing a reference to the fact that this isnt the case at all. That H2O is the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect.

Safe-keeper then plays down the role of H2O by pointout out only half of the water cycle, as if H2O isnt the chief contributor because of that half.

I then point out the other half, reaffirming that it is indeed the chief contributor, and ask why he is playing down the role of H2O.

What they point out is that it is not a 'forcing', that is, something that is causing change. It's the change that is of interest. H2O will act as a powerful feedback, however.

I have noticed this sort of problem with you often.. on prior occasions you could not tell the difference between GW and AGW .. and now you cannot tell the difference between GW and GHG's.

The "points" you are trying to make now seem to suggest that you are fighting a claim about GW or AGW, but you actualy reponded to a post containing statements about GHG's and no statements at all about GW or AGW.

 

[a_unique_person]

Infact, Safe-keeper did.

Chain of events:

Claim made that CO2 is chief contributor to the greenhouse effect

I rebutted this claim, pointing out and citing a reference to the fact that this isnt the case at all. That H2O is the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect.

As the IPCC says.

Safe-keeper then plays down the role of H2O by pointout out only half of the water cycle, as if H2O isnt the chief contributor because of that half.

I then point out the other half, reaffirming that it is indeed the chief contributor, and ask why he is playing down the role of H2O.



I have noticed this sort of problem with you often.. on prior occasions you could not tell the difference between GW and AGW .. and now you cannot tell the difference between GW and GHG's.

No

The "points" you are trying to make now seem to suggest that you are fighting a claim about GW or AGW, but you actualy reponded to a post containing statements about GHG's and no statements at all about GW or AGW.

No.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Water vapour.

 

[mhaze]

As the IPCC says.

IPPC ch. 2, P. 138.

"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas."
​

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Water vapour.

Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.

How do we know that the magnitude of this feedback is correctly simulated? A good test case is the response to the Pinatubo eruption. This caused cooling for up to 3 years after the eruption - plenty of time for water vapour to equilibriate to the cooler sea surface temperatures. Thus if models can simulate the observed decrease of water vapour at this time, it would be a good sign that they are basically correct.
​

You quote 2005 rhetoric which assets the models are right. Here is 2007 science.

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
​

2007 science beats 2005 rhetoric and 2005 computer modeling.

Questions?

 

[mhaze]

With respect to RealClimate, you are referring to the CCSP “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”.


Dr. Roger Pielke addresses this in great detail on his weblog, of which I contributed (guess which one) since he was a lead author prior to resigning. The CCSP was structured the same as IPCC: Committees formed with conflicts of interest, authors in groups reviewing their own work, agenda driven.....essentially lapdogs for IPCC 2007.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006...or-understanding-and-reconciling-differences/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/17/ccsp-advocacy-report-appears/


Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf

I have every confidence you would agree there shouldn't be conflicts of interest, politics or bias in such important issues.

This is junk science close to the order of Lysenko.

It is clear what motivated amateurs like Anthony Watts to set up the www.surfacestations.org project.

 

[varwoche]

Fixed it for you...

Here is an opinion piece from an abject propagandist (who it not a climate scientist), a source already demonstrated in this thread to be unreliable, that provides an interpretation of 2007 science:

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
​

 

[mhaze]

Fixed it for you...

Originally Posted by mhaze
Here is an opinion piece from an abject propagandist (who it not a climate scientist), a source already demonstrated in this thread to be unreliable, that provides an interpretation of 2007 science: How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
​

Making up stuff and attributed it to me? No valid arguments?

Wentz 2007 in Science is the issue.

 

[mhaze]

Making up stuff and attributed it to me? No valid arguments?

Wentz 2007 in Science is the issue.

http://www.nasa-news.org/documents/pdf/Wentz_How_Much_More.pdf

Here is your source copy. Now here is what I said.

You quote 2005 rhetoric which assets the models are right. Here is 2007 science. How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring? 2007 science beats 2005 rhetoric and 2005 computer modeling.
​

Questions?
​

What exactly is there to take objection to? This is not about ego or debating points.

 

[mhaze]

It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link
It will be interesting to see what is discovered.

Hundreds of internet amateurs descending on a mess of old Fortran and Python code...used to authenticate "global temperature" in turned used to promote taxation and industrial control schemes in the trillions of dollars.

What a strange spectacle.

Of course, AGW "True Believers" are free to also descend on the code with their supposedly much larger groups....Wouldn't having a "consensus" mean you had much larger groups and more brainpower?

 

[a_unique_person]

IPPC ch. 2, P. 138.

"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas."


​

Yes, just like I said. So what's the problem?

​

Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.

How do we know that the magnitude of this feedback is correctly simulated? A good test case is the response to the Pinatubo eruption. This caused cooling for up to 3 years after the eruption - plenty of time for water vapour to equilibriate to the cooler sea surface temperatures. Thus if models can simulate the observed decrease of water vapour at this time, it would be a good sign that they are basically correct.
​

You quote 2005 rhetoric which assets the models are right. Here is 2007 science.

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
​

2007 science beats 2005 rhetoric and 2005 computer modeling.

Questions?

Now this is poisoning the well.

Trouble in Climate-Model Paradise

Scientists have never claimed the anything of the sort. They know their models are not perfect, and that there is no such thing as "climate model paradise".

You will note it is climate research scientists who discovered this information, not the 'sceptics', and published it. They know the models are not perfect. They don't claim the models are pefect.

The models are an imperfect attempt to work out just what will happen, since we can't use time travel to look into the future. They have already been shown to be wrong about the rate at which the Arctic will melt, as well. Why should we just assume that because they are not perfect, everything will be OK? Maybe everything will be worse than predicted.

Hope is not a recognised risk management method.

As Varwoche has pointed out, this is also their interpretation of what the paper says. There have already been numerous papers published that have had the findings of the authors twisted out of all recognition due to wiful misrepresentation by such agenda driven sites as "CO2 Science". The quote you provide is written by three members of the one family. Does that look like anything more than a nutter site?

 

[CapelDodger]

You consider 70 years ago the deep and distant past? 1000 years? 2000 years?

There was a thousand year warm period seventy years ago? How does that work?

It doesn't work, of course, you've just got yourself into a tangle. It was particularly warm in the USA seventy years ago. It didn't last long, though.

Nothing like good old fashioned logical fallacy.

Sad. Better to say nothing than say that.

Mere decades of this climate will see off the polar bear sub-species. It could not have survived thousand-year stretches of it, let alone anything warmer. The polar bear sub-species clearly has survived this inter-glacial - and quite possibly the previous one, the Eemian. Ergo, long stretches of warmer climate have not occurred during the last hundred thousand years or so (which is the general estimate of the polar-bear lineage).

If there's a fallacy there, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[mhaze]

There was a thousand year warm period seventy years ago? How does that work?

It doesn't work, of course, you've just got yourself into a tangle. It was particularly warm in the USA seventy years ago. It didn't last long, though.

Nonsense. Your tangle is well deserved, unless you are actually implying that the modern equivalent of the medieval warming period lasted for a few years in the 1930s, or a few years in the 1990s.

If there's a fallacy there, I'd love to hear about it.

You have.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, just like I said. So what's the problem?

And I'm agreeing they said that.

Now this is poisoning the well.

I'm skipping your attempt to dodge and duck into the bash-co2science sickfest.

The subject is Wentz 2007 and how it just put your RC 2005 theories into the basement.

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link
It will be interesting to see what is discovered.

They have released what is said to be the source-code. McIntyre's making that insurance play.

Nothing will be discovered in the code, of course, except possibly the number 666. Anyway, McIntyre's too busy data-mining African temperature records to get onto it. We've been promised startling results from there any day now.

Whimsical thought ... could The Bible Code be used to tease "Al Gore is the Messiah" from Hansen's code? That would be cute .

 

[CapelDodger]

Nonsense. Your tangle is well deserved, unless you are actually implying that the modern equivalent of the medieval warming period lasted for a few years in the 1930s, or a few years in the 1990s.

Not my tangle at all. And you've just made your own. David Rodale referred to "thousand year warmer periods", then subsequently claimed one had happened seventy years ago. And a thousand, and two thousand. That would make "warmer periods" normal, and leave no room for a Little Ice Age.

Your tangle is too Gordian for me.

Let me lay it out again. It only takes decades to see off the polar bear sub-species in conditions like this. We can observe and explain that. Said sub-species survived centuries of your putative MWP. Ergo, it was not as warm back then. For centuries. Let alone a millenium. Otherwise there wouldn't be any polar bears to talk about. But there they are, like canaries in a mine. Alive, but showing signs of distress.

Conditions are very warm right now, and they've got there pretty damn' quickly. There's a reason for that.

You have.

Nope.

You get as many tries as you like, I'm easy.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Cooling could have consquences as well, or so some seem to think;

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Perhaps the field is young enough to where we can study all variables before
taking vitriolic, diametrically opposing 'sides.'

 

[CapelDodger]

Hundreds of internet amateurs descending on a mess of old Fortran and Python code...used to authenticate "global temperature" in turned used to promote taxation and industrial control schemes in the trillions of dollars.

What a strange spectacle.

Of course, AGW "True Believers" are free to also descend on the code with their supposedly much larger groups....Wouldn't having a "consensus" mean you had much larger groups and more brainpower?

It's for the people who've demanded the code and made so much of the subject to produce revelations. Now you've got it ... it seems you don't actually want it. It was the wanting that mattered.

Normal people don't need to be told exactly what the temperature record is to notice that it's getting warmer. Pretty much everywhere that people live. The McIntyre Fetish is simply displacement activity. Outside, it just keeps going on. The biggest, baddest analogue model of them all. The one that's sometimes surpirsing, but never wrong. Not even by a smidgin.

 

[CapelDodger]

Cooling could have consquences as well, or so some seem to think;


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Perhaps the field is young enough to where we can study all variables before
taking vitriolic, diametrically opposing 'sides.'

Canada, now there's another reason why nothing significant will be done about carbon emissions. Like Russia, Canada can see an up-side to global warming. In Canada there was an early knee-jerk "We Are Our Wilderness" reaction to the prospect, but in the medium-term a more pragmatic approach has come to the fore.

The Russians weren't first with the flag-planting thing up north; as I recall Canada got into it with Denmark over some newly-revealed island just off Greenland.

The Schwabe cycle is highly speculative. You might not pick that up from the article you cited, but it is.

 

[a_unique_person]

And I'm agreeing they said that.



I'm skipping your attempt to dodge and duck into the bash-co2science sickfest.

The subject is Wentz 2007 and how it just put your RC 2005 theories into the basement.

It was CO2 science who made up supposed qualities of the models that the scientists have never claimed they have.

CO2 science and others have regularly seized on out of context fragments of papers to misrepresent what the science is actually saying, or what it means.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/sceinteficelly-litarete.html

 

[mhaze]

Cooling could have consquences as well, or so some seem to think;
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Perhaps the field is young enough to where we can study all variables before
taking vitriolic, diametrically opposing 'sides.'

Cooling would be very bad.

Of course AGW believers do not want to give you the time to study all variables. They demand action now to the tune of trillions of dollars, or else they get quite vitriolic.

 

[CapelDodger]

Infact, Safe-keeper did.

Chain of events:

Claim made that CO2 is chief contributor to the greenhouse effect

I rebutted this claim, pointing out and citing a reference to the fact that this isnt the case at all. That H2O is the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect.

Safe-keeper then plays down the role of H2O by pointout out only half of the water cycle, as if H2O isnt the chief contributor because of that half.

I then point out the other half, reaffirming that it is indeed the chief contributor, and ask why he is playing down the role of H2O.

And so on through the same old same-old. Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere. Yes, in a warmer climate there's more H2O in the atmosphere. The atmosphere gets wetter when it gets warmer. It doesn't get warmer because it suddenly got wetter. The atmosphere is always as wet as it can be in the prevailing circumstances. H2O is not a forcing, it doesn't impel warming (or cooling). It reacts, as a positive feedback.