• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

mhaze said:
Well, I noted where I got the 69% other factor (solar, peer reviewed).
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that you have a source for that estimate. I was admiring the total temperature vs CO2 due to the fact that it's a touchstone. That's the real-world limit of effects that we have to work with. No amount of argumentation can supplant it. I also like it because it takes the scare-factor away from the present climatological debate.

Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.
Click to expand...

That presumption would have to be justified. Given the fact that tne nature of the planet's warming and cooling have not yet been satisfactorily explained, it's difficult to say that two periods of time should be equivalent and thus one variable can be isolated. I do have to admit, though, that the geologic scale temperature charts don't appear to take any wild swings from one century to the next. So that would be a worthwhile approximation.

I asked a few AGW proponents on this thread a while back just how much GHG warming would be needed to qualify as AGW in their minds and have had no reply. I'm a purist, in case you haven't been able to tell, and would regard even a femtokelvin per millennium due to any or all GHGs as AGW. I'm not ready to dismiss AGW yet because the physics behind it makes sense but I do want to know that AGW is not the threat that some with agendas want to make it. Science is fascinating but, to me, the discovery is even more so.

How about we go that route?
Click to expand...

It's an open forum. Have at it.
 
Slimething said:
Quote:
Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.
​
That presumption would have to be justified. Given the fact that tne nature of the planet's warming and cooling have not yet been satisfactorily explained, it's difficult to say that two periods of time should be equivalent and thus one variable can be isolated. I do have to admit, though, that the geologic scale temperature charts don't appear to take any wild swings from one century to the next. So that would be a worthwhile approximation.
Click to expand...

Attributing Micro warming to AGW would not satisfy the essential greed for all the warming characteristic of AGW neither the fundamental strong desire to link it all to CO2. Of course there is that little cold spell from 1940-7970 to deal with.

Then again, a hypothetical planet with a set heat content and with unchanging solar forcing by no means must have a constant averaged global temperature.

This point is widely misunderstood or outright disbelieved.
 
Slimething said:
Yes.



I followed your links and the author's method of negating the tropical anomaly is by claiming that the rate of warming is very small indeed and that such trends can be measured in the tropical troposphere when considering decade-long trends in the measurements. The abstract of one paper linked to even refered to "other physical processes" controlling the temperature in the tropics. (A reasonable person would consider the tropics to be the region of the planet most susceptible to AGW.)
Click to expand...

A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/polar_climate.html
 
a_unique_person said:
A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/polar_climate.html
Click to expand...

But that warming at the poles is the accumulation of circulation from the tropics.... the troposphere hotspot.

And so there we are again.


Interesting question by Piekle-

we all agree that there has been strong global-average warming since the 1970’s. Well, how do you know this wasn’t the result of a small, natural change in cloud cover? Doesn’t it seem like (another) coincidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) just happened to shift to a different mode in 1977, about the time that the warming started? (Please don’t say that the greater warming over land versus ocean is consistent with manmade greenhouse gas forcing…because it is also consistent with ANY kind of change in the Earth’s radiant energy budget, whether natural or manmade.)

The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural, simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to the required accuracy – 1% or less.
 
Last edited:
Megalodon said:
Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.



Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.
Click to expand...

Watch a loud mouthed schmuk get his mouth slapped at climate-audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682

The Australian nutter, David Archibald, who gave a presentation at the recent 'climate conference' hosted by the heartland foundation, tries to get Lief Svalgaard to acknowledge his credibility as a 'scientist'. Svalgaard treats him like the idiot he is, and turns on Svalgaard, accusing him of being a secret 'warmer'. High drama, better than "Days of our Lives".
 
a_unique_person said:
You didn't read the link, did you?
Click to expand...

About half. I skipped penguins and polar bears, then gave up on...

Being "carbon neutral" means removing as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as we put in. How can we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? One way is to buy "carbon offsets". This supports projects like a wind farm or solar park. It helps make clean energy more affordable. It reduces future greenhouse gas emissions to make up for our travel and electricity use today.
 
a_unique_person said:
Watch a loud mouthed schmuk get his mouth slapped at climate-audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682

The Australian nutter, David Archibald, who gave a presentation at the recent 'climate conference' hosted by the heartland foundation, tries to get Lief Svalgaard to acknowledge his credibility as a 'scientist'. Svalgaard treats him like the idiot he is, and turns on Svalgaard, accusing him of being a secret 'warmer'. High drama, better than "Days of our Lives".
Click to expand...

Got to watch out for those "secret warmers!":D
 
And yet, barring theoretical considerations and argumentations, the empirical observations continue to accumulate. These are measures of worldwide glacier balance:

Glaciers1.png


Glaciers2.png


Link for methodology and references:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html

I would like to point out that besides theoretical arguments there isn't a single empirical observation that contradicts AGW.
 
Last edited:
And a good presentation on the history of climate change, and how the contrarian movement began, by Naomi Oreskes herself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

I am about halfway through and I would recommend it to everyone. Its very useful for the basic questions that the contrarians keep bringing up. Most were answered in the 1950s or earlier.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
And yet, barring theoretical considerations and argumentations, the empirical observations continue to accumulate. These are measures of worldwide glacier balance:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers1.png

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Glaciers2.png

Link for methodology and references:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html

I would like to point out that besides theoretical arguments there isn't a single empirical observation that contradicts AGW.
Click to expand...

Alric, when did glaciers start melting?
 
mhaze said:
Got to watch out for those "secret warmers!":D
Click to expand...


That is what I have been talking about. Deniers. Svalgaard is a serious scientist, and treats his colleagues with respect, even if he disagrees with them, and slaps down nutcases when they call for it. Archibald deserves no recognition, he is just a self acknowledged 'cancer researcher', (read "nutcase"), yet he was given time at the recent 'climate change' conference, along with similar nutcases like Corbyn. If the deniers want to be known as sceptics, they have got to lift their standards.

I noted that McIntyre also deleted (censored!) references to another nutcase, landscheidt, one of Fred Daly's pals, because, despite his pretensions to science, he was an astrologer.
 
Alric said:
If you have a point please go ahead and discuss.
Click to expand...

Let's make it simple so you can understand.

"Arctic ice lowest since records began". Apply that to glaciers as well.

How long have records been kept? Is that simple enough?
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
That is what I have been talking about. Deniers. Svalgaard is a serious scientist, and treats his colleagues with respect, even if he disagrees with them, and slaps down nutcases when they call for it. Archibald deserves no recognition, he is just a self acknowledged 'cancer researcher', (read "nutcase"), yet he was given time at the recent 'climate change' conference, along with similar nutcases like Corbyn. If the deniers want to be known as sceptics, they have got to lift their standards.

I noted that McIntyre also deleted (censored!) references to another nutcase, landscheidt, one of Fred Daly's pals, because, despite his pretensions to science, he was an astrologer.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you.

That was pretty funny.

Seems like I brought the Svalgaard discussion to your attention a while back sort of along the lines of "here is when you can overload on all the solar stuff" (which I do not really understand that well), but those threads have a needed sense of balance.
 
Last edited:
What is most upsetting is that contrarians will not listen or discuss new arguments and will continue rehashing old debunked ones. Over, and over....

We discussed solar input before and there was nothing said to contradict this:

tsi_vs_temp.gif


Although there might be a solar input component it will only be exacerbated by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As you can see since the 1970s solar activity and temperature do not correlate.

I specially like this image from LASP that shows how solar input has correlated with temperature and volcanic activity and the correlation is LOST in the 1970s due to greenhouse gases:

Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg


What about addressing increased rate of glacier loss in an intelligent manner?
 
Last edited:
Well, first you started out with worldwide glacial balance, now it's "increased rate of glacier loss?"

We have discussed solar, and I did propose splitting the recent warming between solar and AGW based on an article. The article in question does in fact address your assertion "since 1970 solar and temperature do not correlate".
 
You are still not addressing it. Each point in the graph is glacial balance, the slope curve in the graph is the rate. The idea of graphing is to estimate the rate.

Why don't YOU discuss how the article in question addresses solar input. And what is the article?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom