Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Piggy]

It's hard to tell whether people are kidding or not.............

do people really have a poor opinion of the climatedebatedaily website?


I think that it has a great link list, at the very least.

Yes, people really have a poor opinion of it.

The links are not what could be called "great".

 

[Piggy]

Looks like in local Warmopia, no one bothered to read your reference document

Yes, we did read it. We also bothered to notice that it's an op-ed piece slapped up on a community Web site.

It's not science.

But you've proven on this thread that you have no clue what a valid source is, or even how to follow sources.

 

[a_unique_person]

Do we really have to explain what is actually happening there?

No, because it would be a waste of time.

 

[BenBurch]

No, because it would be a waste of time.

Truly we are talking about somebody who is so stupid that its amazing he can turn on the machine, or so unmanned by ideology that he would jump into a furnace if his masters even suggested that might be a good idea.

 

[fsol]

Hello, by the way.

It's not that the local warmers have a poor opinion of climatedebatedaily, it is just that they are deathly afraid and frightened of anything that might reek of an attack on their belief set.

There is a group of tactics the warmers use, ridicule, insult, muddy the discussion, derail, smear the article/scientist/writer, denigrate the journal or source, accuse of being in bed with Big Oil, etc. They have stupid little websites funded by left wing sources where they actually go and look up smeardata on any scientist you might bring into the discussion. That's more typical when the little scripts they read off the internet on "How to talk to a climate denial" break down. This is their concept of "science".

They are only being nice to you right now because they think you're a naive newby and can be converted.

All those words and nothing useful to say.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Hello, by the way.

It's not that the local warmers have a poor opinion of climatedebatedaily, it is just that they are deathly afraid and frightened of anything that might reek of an attack on their belief set.

There is a group of tactics the warmers use, ridicule, insult, muddy the discussion, derail, smear the article/scientist/writer, denigrate the journal or source, accuse of being in bed with Big Oil, etc. They have stupid little websites funded by left wing sources where they actually go and look up smeardata on any scientist you might bring into the discussion. That's more typical when the little scripts they read off the internet on "How to talk to a climate denial" break down. This is their concept of "science".

Whoaa! My Hypocrisy Meter went way off scale there.

Evidence?

Or should we provide the copious evidence of you doing the thing you accuse others of? It's not hard is it? It's all you do.

BTW how about answering a direct question just once ?
Does the greenhouse effect exist? A simple yes or no will do. I asked this many times before and you keep ignoring the question.

They are only being nice to you right now because they think you're a naive newby and can be converted.

My ironometer is busted!

 

[kallsop]

Any one here who still believes in AGW ?

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there. We don't have the technology to build a second earth with no humans to compare against this one, so I don't think you'll ever have proof of AGW.

The bogus GW scare seems to have run it's course, rather like the ice age apocalypse predicted for year 2000 by the 1970's experts.

 

[TrueSceptic]

(<< 1st time use, saved for special occasion)

Are you able to point to even one instance where a "warmer" participating in this thread has cited agenda driven non-scientists concerning scientific matters as is your* common practice to the point of self-parody and beyond?

Your truthfullness concerning the metafacts is on par with your truthfullness concerning the facts.

* In fairness, mhaze is not reponsible for the entire list. Most of it though.

It needs to be pointed out (yet again) that mhaze has lied repeatedly on a personal level in this forum.

This is a simple matter of record.

 

[TrueSceptic]

varwoche, I think our leg is being pulled. mhaze is some other member of this board with a sock puppet and he has been playing a little game with us all these months. He isn't a real denier; He is a stick-figure parody of a denier created with google to turn up text to lightly re-write and post here chosen from the myriad of little privately-funded right-wing kook sites.

Dunno. Maybe a TTC?

I will admit he/it is much cleverer than the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ at Watts/Marohasy...or maybe...?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there. We don't have the technology to build a second earth with no humans to compare against this one, so I don't think you'll ever have proof of AGW.

The bogus GW scare seems to have run it's course, rather like the ice age apocalypse predicted for year 2000 by the 1970's experts.

Another drive-by?

Or are you actually going to say something?

 

[Piggy]

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there. We don't have the technology to build a second earth with no humans to compare against this one, so I don't think you'll ever have proof of AGW.

The bogus GW scare seems to have run it's course, rather like the ice age apocalypse predicted for year 2000 by the 1970's experts.

Feel free to ignore Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

As for global warming, that's what the bulk of climate research is focusing on now, so your "run its course" statement is profoundly ignorant.

The "ice age apocalypse" prediction you mention has already been dealt with on this thread, and in fact it was a blip of pop media hype -- it never was the scientific consensus. More ignorance on your part.

The basic science underlying AGW is well understood and accepted now.

But apparently, you choose to ignore it.

 

[kallsop]

Another drive-by?

Or are you actually going to say something?

Oh my, another groupie! Sorry, there's a waiting list now.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh my, another groupie! Sorry, there's a waiting list now.

So, you confirm what I said?

You have nothing to say, do you? You never stay around to support your non-point.

 

[BenBurch]

So, you confirm what I said?

You have nothing to say, do you? You never stay around to support your non-point.

They have obviously let them use the computer at the asylum for the holiday weekend.

 

[varwoche]

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there.

Ya sure. Similar challenge for you as for mhaze: Point to one instance where a forum regular "warmer" has cited Gore on matters of science. If you can't, this tells me you're making stuff up.

I'll bet you a forum membership you can't cite one, single, solitary instance.

 

[mhaze]

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there. We don't have the technology to build a second earth with no humans to compare against this one, so I don't think you'll ever have proof of AGW.

The bogus GW scare seems to have run it's course, rather like the ice age apocalypse predicted for year 2000 by the 1970's experts.

Yes, that would be true. The component of 1970 and forward warming which has reversed in the last decade is clearly a PDO oscillation. An intellectually honest warmer could still try to claim all or part of the background trend of the last 100 years (max some 0.4C). But this implies at the worst a mild and non alarming AGW effect. Even this should be debated and defined in extent or lack of.

 

[David Rodale]

Ya sure. Similar challenge for you as for mhaze: Point to one instance where a forum regular "warmer" has cited Gore on matters of science. If you can't, this tells me you're making stuff up.

I'll bet you a forum membership you can't cite one, single, solitary instance.

The next thing you'll claim is no prominent warmer scientists promote a runaway climate.

Gore is simply using his sources, which you parrot. Not quoting Gore directly does not let you off the hook. Most of what you and other warmers cite are regirgitation from blogs and AGW talking points, which is why you rarely reference your sources.

One could note in this thread alone the shear vacancy of evidence offered to support warmer's assertions. There are too many ludicrous statements to address them all, but you should be commended however for successfully hijacking scientific discussions on global warming by turning them into a chat room for paranoid schizophrenics and speculative drivel.

With all the talk about CO2 doing this or that, what you cannot show is it is responsible for any net warming. Without the effect of a strong positive feedback from water vapor (the "amplification" clause which includes clouds), tying the last 30 years of warming to CO2 increases is a bit of a problem wouldn't you agree? Probably not, but we are accustomed to Warmaholics ignoring data.
How Much More Rain Will Global WarmingBring?

Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.

You might say that is only a report, but it is nevertheless based on empirical data and is supported by Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations which demonstrates the utter failure of GCM's to simulate reality of atmospheric cloud dynamics.

A picture can say a thousand words



I believe it was Spudk1 who said
Stuff like this is really just trying to muddy the waters. The conclusion that human activity is warming the planet is based around one key variable - the mean surface temperature. As soon as you start making the comparisons more and more specific, e.g. by comparing to a discrete site, the models are going to perform less well. There's no news there and it certainly doesn't prove the models don't work.


Actually, that is not true. The conclusion in IPCC AR4 that human activity is warming the planet is based on [FONT=&quot]Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications[/FONT]

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

This conclusion was the "smoking gun" (i.e. proof) as Dr. James Hansen (one of the authors) declared “This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for”

One can easily locate the "smoking gun" in IPCC AR4

The pronouncement of the "smoking gun" was prominently displayed in countless publications, including:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050428173224.htm

You will be hounded on every GW thread until you are up to the task of providing a viable explanation for why the oceans stopped warming and why satellite data does not support the strong positive feedback (high climate sensitivity) as promoted by AGW hypotheses. Simple minded replies such as "it doesn't disprove AGW" is unacceptable.

No volcanoes to blame, no unknown aerosols masking warming, and in fact we have clearer skies now than any decade the last 100 years. Please no arm waiving.

So, are you up to the task?

BTW, what do these statements IPCC AR4 mean?

From Ch. 1

The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities.

From ch. 8

In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity (e.g., Senior and Mitchell, 1993; Le Treut et al., 1994; Yao and Del Genio, 2002; Zhang, 2004; Stainforth et al., 2005; Yokohata et al., 2005). Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks (Colman, 2003a; Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006; Section 8.6.2, Figure 8.14). Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.

So, if GCM's can't simulate cloud dynamics properly, and if the climate sensitivity is not only overestimated, but possibly even the wrong sign, how does that fit in with your herd mentality consensus? I'm sure you realize a great deal of GCM output is based on speculation and assumptions. Listening to a typical warmer one would think GCM code is based on pure physics, when in reality climatology is anything but a pure science. In one breath you say the climate is extremely complex, then the next you say the science is settled. Which is it?

It was AUP who said
There have been several problems to date with the satellite record, too, since it is not actually a direct measurement, but inferred from readings. The UAH record has had to be updated several times. That's not to say that it's wrong now, but it has been just as problematic as the ground station readings.


AUP, when you read a mercury/glycerine thermometer and see the little line move up the scale, what do you think that is? The satellite corrections are documented and accounted for and the satellites are calibrated, whereas surface station data is neither calibrated or maintained. We have presented numerous peer reviewed articles on the surface station network, which warmers and IPCC ignore. As much of my line of work is metrology, digesting comments such as yours is humorous to say the least. My interest is in accuracy and precision of data, not what supports my POV.



Below is the rule, not the exception:

Penalizing warmers for using logical fallacy arguments would keep you in a perpetual negative score.

 

[a_unique_person]

The next thing you'll claim is no prominent warmer scientists promote a runaway climate.

and the rest
​

The consensus is no runaway climate, although some think it is possible. The scientist I know thinks not, since we have had more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and there was no runaway then.

As for the rest, you seem to be saying that is more rain due to global warming, but there's no warming anyway, because the measurements are wrong. Which is it?​

 

[Tubbythin]

I haven't the time to read the entire thread, but there are still plenty of Al Gore / AGW disciples out there. We don't have the technology to build a second earth with no humans to compare against this one, so I don't think you'll ever have proof of AGW.

Using that definition, we'll never have proof of anything in astronomy or cosmology either. We can't build another solar system witout the Sun therefore we can't prove the Earth gets most of its energy from the Sun etc etc.

 

[Spud1k]

Yes, that would be true. The component of 1970 and forward warming which has reversed in the last decade is clearly a PDO oscillation. An intellectually honest warmer could still try to claim all or part of the background trend of the last 100 years (max some 0.4C).

Wait a second... weren't you claiming it was due to arosols earlier on this thread? Or was it solar cycles? I wish you'd make your mind up.

But this implies at the worst a mild and non alarming AGW effect. Even this should be debated and defined in extent or lack of.

That depends on what criteria you use for 'implies', 'at worst', 'mild' and 'non alarming', which in your case seems to be at odds with what most other people use. And rest assured that this is continuously debated and defined in the scientific literature and the concensus is that while all these effects contribute, the bulk of the overall increase is most likely due to CO2.