Global warming

[mhaze]

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

No, get over it. Varoche didn't like the link, I provided one to the original article. No changing the subject to just disparage some people you don't like.

Anyway, if you and Varoche want to go ballistic if a ref to co2science, idso, or daly comes in, you can just make a deal. I'll not mention them, but I get to pick three people or websites you don't like or reference.

Take it or leave it or try to change the subject.

Wentz 2007. I assume from the "no answer" that you have recognized that this indeed does invalidate IPCC modeling as done in the 2005-2006 era. Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

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.

The record of these discussions is here, it's easy to go back and see what was actually said and why. That means you don't need to tell me what someone said, however if you wish to, you might want to include the post number you are quoting them from.

 

[CapelDodger]

Cooling would be very bad.

Why? It would be a return to normal. Normal is what we're adapted to. Cooling would be good thing.

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.

I'm convinced of AGW (you might class me as a "believer"), but I make no such demands nor am I vitriolic. In fact, over this long thread there's been far more reference to vitriol than vitriol itself. There seems to be a general need for victimhood in the contrarian "community".

 

[CapelDodger]

The record of these discussions is here, it's easy to go back and see what was actually said and why. That means you don't need to tell me what someone said, however if you wish to, you might want to include the post number you are quoting them from.

No, I feel no need for that. As you say, it's easy to go back and look. It's even easier to read what I'm quoting from David Rodale, and responding to, and not get yourself into a freelance tangle.

And if I was you, I'd drop the sulky attitude.

 

[rockoon]

And so on through the same old same-old. Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere.

It is?

Then why do you respond to my correction of this error with information not relevant to that correction?

You are downplaying the correction. Why?

 

[CapelDodger]

Wentz 2007. I assume from the "no answer" that you have recognized that this indeed does invalidate IPCC modeling as done in the 2005-2006 era. Thanks.

Gibberish.

The IPCC doesn't do modelling, let alone for the 2005-6 "era". What are you going on about?

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

Time is one thing we don't have. A trillion dollars were carelessly wasted on a war that achieved nothing. It's money thats available, and increasing energy efficiency and cutting waste will actually end up saving money.

 

[mhaze]

Gibberish.

The IPCC doesn't do modelling, let alone for the 2005-6 "era". What are you going on about?

Don't worry about it.

I don't recall that you placed your faith in computer models and predictions anyway, did you? Rather it was direct observation and such. So the models results being invalidated would not affect your position vis a vis AGW.

Your predictions were based on your opinions, not computer models or the forecasts of them. Wasn't that correct, say with reference to your opinion on conditions in the year 2050?

 

[mhaze]

Time is one thing we don't have. A trillion dollars were carelessly wasted on a war that achieved nothing. It's money thats available, and increasing energy efficiency and cutting waste will actually end up saving money.

Well, I do respect an honest opinion.

And agree that increasing energy efficiency and cutting waste is good.

But it looks to me like the facts indicate that we have plenty of time to figure things out very precisely, as to whether there is a problem, if so exactly what it is, and what should be done about it.

So we can disagree about that, of course.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, I do respect an honest opinion.

And agree that increasing energy efficiency and cutting waste is good.

But it looks to me like the facts indicate that we have plenty of time to figure things out very precisely, as to whether there is a problem, if so exactly what it is, and what should be done about it.

So we can disagree about that, of course.

We don't have time. The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.

By just agreeing to disagree, you win, since we end up effectively doing nothing.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is?

Then why do you respond to my correction of this error with information not relevant to that correction?

You are downplaying the correction. Why?

You quote one line of my carefully crafted post to respond to. That hurts.

My point was (you'll have heard this before) that a wetter atmosphere is a response to a warmer climate, not a cause of a warmer climate. So your nit-picking over greenhouse components bears no relation to greenhouse forcings, or any other climate forcing.

It doesn't matter that H2O is the dominant greenhouse component because H2O responds to climate change, it doesn't cause it. It's a feedback, not a forcing. Climate change is what we're talking about. And seeing, of course.

You can call that "downplaying" if you like, I call it dismissing.

 

[a_unique_person]

You quote one line of my carefully crafted post to respond to. That hurts.

My point was (you'll have heard this before) that a wetter atmosphere is a response to a warmer climate, not a cause of a warmer climate. So your nit-picking over greenhouse components bears no relation to greenhouse forcings, or any other climate forcing.

It doesn't matter that H2O is the dominant greenhouse component because H2O responds to climate change, it doesn't cause it. It's a feedback, not a forcing. Climate change is what we're talking about. And seeing, of course.

You can call that "downplaying" if you like, I call it dismissing.

It's also all explained in the link from Realclimate I have already provided. Is it possible we at least get this point sorted out with Rockoon and Mhaze?

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course there's a problem.

... if so exactly what it is ...

Why exactly or precisely? Isn't the sign good enough? "Warmer than now" is the prognosis.

How can "the facts" indicate that we "have plenty of time" when Arctic sea-ice facts are way ahead of the predicted time-horizon? Ditto Greenland ice-facts. The observable facts indicate that we really don't have much time left to get a handle on things.

Which we won't. There was never even a forlorn hope of that. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

 

[rockoon]

You quote one line of my carefully crafted post to respond to. That hurts.

It was all that was required.

My point was (you'll have heard this before) that a wetter atmosphere is a response to a warmer climate, not a cause of a warmer climate. So your nit-picking over greenhouse components bears no relation to greenhouse forcings, or any other climate forcing.

Fact: H2O is the chief greenhouse gas

So what is the debate? There is no debate.. right?

I say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
You say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
The IPCC says it is the chief greenhouse gas.
All the science says that it is the chief greenhouse gas.

So who is nitpicking? All I did was correct a person who posted incorrect information. Since then I have been descended upon with replies to my correction with unrelated information.. as if these "nit picks" change the fact.. they don't.. and you even say that they don't.. so again I ask you.. WHAT IS THE DEBATE?

You are trying to appear smart.. but fail to see the obvious.. that you are going on and on and on about something unrelated to the situation..

 

[mhaze]

I say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
You say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
The IPCC says it is the chief greenhouse gas.
All the science says that it is the chief greenhouse gas.

So who is nitpicking? All I did was correct a person who posted incorrect information. Since then I have been descended upon with replies to my correction with unrelated information.. as if these "nit picks" change the fact.. they don't.. and you even say that they don't.. so again I ask you.. WHAT IS THE DEBATE?

And me too! I said it too!

The debate is this -

AUP used RC, a 2005 essay, to try to refute Wentz 2007, but obviously that no work.

Means the Models are broke.

I'm trying to get them to admit it.

 

[rockoon]

H2O is the chief greenhouse gas.

What does this statement say?

Does this statement say anything about global warming?

No.

Does this statement say anything about CO2's role in altering H2O content in the atmosphere?

No.

This statement says that H2O is the chief greenhouse gas.

Is this statement correct?

Yes.

How was this statement used?

It was used to correct a poster who claimed that CO2 was the chief greenhouse gas. He was wrong. Everyone who has posted since agrees with this fact or makes no statement at all about its validity.

Now kindly STFU about it unless you disagree with this fact.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I sit corrected, apparently we have no vitriol here.

So what do we have? Basically two camps that downplay and or dismiss any possible study the "other" side provides.

Does that sound familiar?

I thought it might.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......
Which we won't. There was never even a forlorn hope of that. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Do we really have a choice, except to try to adapt to the weather/climate we are dealt ? Even if some of it is man made. It is what it is ..

Exactly what is the expected net effect of global warming in the next hundred years or so ? Rising unemployment at ski resorts ? The deserts will be even more agri-unfriendly than they are now ? More people will die from the heat than from the cold ?

 

[mhaze]

Of course there's a problem Why exactly or precisely? Isn't the sign good enough? "Warmer than now" is the prognosis.

How can "the facts" indicate that we "have plenty of time" when Arctic sea-ice facts are way ahead of the predicted time-horizon? Ditto Greenland ice-facts. The observable facts indicate that we really don't have much time left to get a handle on things.

Ice and bears do not get you the trillions you want, sorry.

Facts look perfectly fine to me. Plenty of time. Probably or possibly no problem to be concerned about.

But admittedly, you are a alarmist and I a skeptic, so that is expected.

 

[mhaze]

I sit corrected, apparently we have no vitriol here.

So what do we have? Basically two camps that downplay and or dismiss any possible study the "other" side provides.

Is that right? I have looked at everything presented and rebutted it where newer science existed.