Global warming

[a_unique_person]

He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

The topic is "Global Warming", that is, H2O is not causing the warming, CO2 is. "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere.", but that's not the issue.

 

[rockoon]

Jeez, dude, if you don't know, how do you expect me to explain it to you?

Ok let me rephrase, because in the spirite of politeness I will let your intentionally ignorant reply go with a pass...

What do YOU THINK my position is?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ok let me rephrase, because in the spirite of politeness I will let your intentionally ignorant reply go with a pass...

What do YOU THINK my position is?

I think it is silly!

 

[rockoon]

The topic is "Global Warming", that is, H2O is not causing the warming, CO2 is. "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere.", but that's not the issue.

The issue is global warming and in that context a factual error was made regarding the greenhouse effect..


..I corrected it.

Where is the debate?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I think my mistake was thinking that you were saying, as a_unique_person posted, that Co2 is not responsible for AGW, or that AGW is not real, because H2O is a more significant greenhouse gas. And many do say just that, which is probably why I jumped the gun on you. Sorry, mate.

 

[chillzero]

Please remember:
Be civil and polite.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Keep the thread on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[mhaze]

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

Don't you think you should be qualifying that statement in terms of

"I believe" or "My opinion is" ?

Certainly you do not have a scientific fact there.

You have a belief that there is "climate change" (I assume that means, outside the bounds of natural variability) and then you have an opinion as to a single (or primary, this is unclear) causative agent, CO2.

 

[a_unique_person]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

 

[mhaze]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

That qualifies as a non answer, and ducking and dodging, in a context in which you are debating with people who have read these reports, and whom had often quoted them to you often to correct errors you made.

Perhaps you could read the IPPC reports indeed of RC.

Then perhaps respond to my assertion that Wentz 2007 clearly invalidates the climate modeling as used to support the conclusions of IPCC 2007.

 

[mhaze]

I think my mistake was thinking that you were saying, as a_unique_person posted, that Co2 is not responsible for AGW, or that AGW is not real, because H2O is a more significant greenhouse gas. And many do say just that, which is probably why I jumped the gun on you. Sorry, mate.

Repeating my comment to AUP.

Don't you think you should be qualifying that statement in terms of

"I believe" or "My opinion is" ?

Certainly you do not have a scientific fact there.

You have a belief that there is "climate change" (I assume that means, outside the bounds of natural variability) and then you have an opinion as to a single (or primary, this is unclear) causative agent, CO2.
​

 

[David Rodale]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

Show us.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Please remember:
Be civil and polite.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Keep the thread on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

Hi Chill,
Perhaps you haven't heard....it's all civil here. Absolutely no vitriol.

 

[mhaze]

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.

We don't have time.

A. We have time, plenty of it.
​

The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

B. 5-15 years
​

The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.

C. Natural climate variability. Naturally occurring feedbacks.
​

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

D. Sounds great. We could address substantial problems of the world instead of imaginary ones.
​

 

[a_unique_person]

That qualifies as a non answer, and ducking and dodging, in a context in which you are debating with people who have read these reports, and whom had often quoted them to you often to correct errors you made.

Perhaps you could read the IPPC reports indeed of RC.

Then perhaps respond to my assertion that Wentz 2007 clearly invalidates the climate modeling as used to support the conclusions of IPCC 2007.

Wentz does not invalidate the models. There are plenty of areas where the models are wrong.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php

A whole project dedicated to improving climate modeling. They are way ahead of you, there are several projects that deal specifically with precipitation.

 

[mhaze]

Wentz does not invalidate the models. There are plenty of areas where the models are wrong.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php

A whole project dedicated to improving climate modeling. They are way ahead of you, there are several projects that deal specifically with precipitation.

Perhaps what you are meaning here is that as the models incorporate new scientific findings, such as Wentz 2007, they become more accurate. Although arguably, that may make them less accurate by exposing alorithmic flaws. (climate is not a linear system)

But that is no different from my prior comment, that Wentz 2007 invalidates modeling done yesteryear and used by the IPCC in large part as the basis for its conclusions and future scenarios.

Look at it this way.

You are a general in a war. You have a modeled scenario that you have some confidence in in which your troops are facing the enemy across the valley. Your troops are facing the enemy across the valley. You need to decide whether to tell your troops to attack across the valley. The model says you will win if you do so. A courier comes in and says the enemy has moved....
​

 

[a_unique_person]

We don't have time.

A. We have time, plenty of it.

​

You just have to see how Kyoto was effectively knackered to realise that realistic efforts to reduce CO2 will take years to produce results, if ever.

The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

B. 5-15 years

​

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.

C. Natural climate variability. Naturally occurring feedbacks.

​

Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.

Text and graphics may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form
for educational or non-profit purposes, provided that credit is given to the source.

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

D. Sounds great. We could address substantial problems of the world instead of imaginary ones.
​

The IPCC findings beg to differ.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The Arctic is already worst case scenario, don't tell me they can't happen.

Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

 

[mhaze]

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.
Fact.
There are no tipping points.

You can prove that?

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will. I can and have made a pretty strong case for it. But the burden of proof remains with you to convince others of it or not.

There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.
​

Yes, it's a fabrication from Singer at al. At what point would you be prepared to admit it's not just a cycle?

First, if you had been actually listening and reading the references you would know that the 60-80 year cycle is not referenced to Singer but several other scientists. Second, I would be happy to conclude that it was not a 60-80 year nature cycle when a substantial part of that cycle had not gone according to the dynamics of that cycle as laid out in the scientific literature. That could be determined either as a statistical anomaly or just via common sense approach. So I am ready to change my opinions thus as the facts change.

And you...?

I object strongly to your disparaging of scientists you don't agree with.

"He's a nutter". (Lindzen)
"It's a fabrication"(from Singer)
"CO2 science who made up supposed qualities of the models"
"CO2 science and others ... misrepresent"
​

The demonstrated scientific frauds and fabrications are all on your side. I repeat my previously offer -

If you want to go ballistic if a ref to co2science, idso, or daly comes in, here's the deal. I'll not mention them, but I get to pick three people or websites you don't like or reference.​

The ones I pick will be ones that if engaged in the business of stock market promotion would now be spending time alone in their little room with iron bars.

 

[mhaze]

Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

They have these concepts of "tipping points", where one thing leads to another more horrifying thing, and on and on and on.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

Now, this is supposed to prove up the "CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years" hypothesis. I said 5-15. Your reference is 2005, mine is 2007. Do you have anything not disproven by recent work?

Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif
The IPCC findings beg to differ.

Sure, we can look at the 60-90 glaciers that are monitored out of the total of what, 67,000?

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?

If you think not, let's make a little chart up with average glacial retreat and CO2 levels on the same page.

Otherwise your evidence presented refutes your hypothesis.