Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Pipirr]

Please no arm waiving.

I have no intention of relinquishing my arms.

Haven't you heard of the second amendment?

 

[Spud1k]

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.

Find me somewhere that asserts CO2 can only cause warming in conjunction with feedbacks, please. Feedbacks change the magnitude of forcing, not create it.

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]

You're taking my quote way out of context. I was referring to the main variable by which the climate models were validated in contrast to point measurements. The forcing attributions are also important but weren't what was under discussion.

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

A "smoking gun" is nothing more than a crowd pleaser. If you want the actual 'proofs' in the IPCC report (of which there are many), I suggest you read it instead of just looking for something you think you can refute.

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.

But they don't disprove it, that's the point. The principle of AGW doesn't rely on feedbacks and the oceans haven't stopped for any longer than would be considered a blip in the overall trend.

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?

How exactly can cloud dynamics cause a net warming?

Clouds aren't handled well in GCMs. No one is disputing that. But clouds cause cooling, so if we are underestimating their effect, it means whatever is causing the warming is bigger than we thought. If they cause less cooling, then that still leaves us with warming to think about. Neither scenario changes the fact that CO2 is still prime suspect.

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?

Depends entirely on the question, so stop looking for dichotomies. If you're asking if AGW is real, then that is 90% settled. That a good enough answer for you?

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:
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/hansenapproved1.jpg[/qimg]

Uh-huh. Meanwhile, in the real world, they're using things like this which have nothing that even resembles the old-school mercury thermometers. The likes of NOAA and the Met Office and all the other weather services put a lot of effort into their surface observations and making sure they are calibrated and accurate. After all, the provision of commercial weather forecasts is a competitive environment and it's in their financial interests to make sure their data is all correct.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I have no intention of relinquishing my arms.

Haven't you heard of the second amendment?

I think he's said that before. Does he understand the phrase?

 

[TrueSceptic]

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

So, once again you ignore the question and try to change the subject.

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.

It seems that you are obsessed with Gore. We couldn't care less. Got that yet?

Now, show us where you cite any real science.

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.

Let me make this clear to you. You offer nothing but insults and quotes from crackpots. You are highly delusional if you think you know anything about science and how it is practised.

BTW for real paranoid schizophrenics, I recommend Marohasy's blog. You'd slot right in there.

It beggars belief that you would criticise anyone of hijacking scientific discussions. Your entire MO is about accepting only the most dubious sources of information while attacking anything from the mainstream with personal attack and misrepresentation.

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?

The evidence is there and it is overwhelming. That fact that you are too delusional to see that it your problem, not ours.

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
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348ba210c97935.jpg[/qimg]


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]


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


From ch. 8


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.

So why didn't Watts complain all those bad weather stations when he was employed as a weatherman? Why don't you hound the world's weathermen for using such crap data? Well?

Below is the rule, not the exception:
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/hansenapproved1.jpg[/qimg]


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

You have no idea just how delusional you are, do you?​

 

[varwoche]

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

When you lead your post by quoting my two challenges, one would hope that the incoherent diatribe that follows would have something to do with said challenges. But alas.

 

[Pipirr]

Gore is simply using his sources, which you parrot. Not quoting Gore directly does not let you off the hook.

I'll add that to the blacklist: Any scientific research quoted by Gore.

It must get infected with Gore cooties, or something.

 

[lomiller]

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.

I certainly don’t now of any who think it’s possible, at least not in the way Dave Rodale implies. A true Venus style runaway greenhouse effect would require boiling away the oceans before the runaway could begin. Clearly this is something no one is predicting.

 

[Spud1k]

I certainly don’t now of any who think it’s possible, at least not in the way Dave Rodale implies. A true Venus style runaway greenhouse effect would require boiling away the oceans before the runaway could begin. Clearly this is something no one is predicting.

The Earth somehow being moved closer to the Sun notwithstanding of course. There are people who try to claim that will happen as soon as the LHC becomes fully operational. Don't think many of those had much input into the IPCC report, mind...

 

[BenBurch]

I certainly don’t now of any who think it’s possible, at least not in the way Dave Rodale implies. A true Venus style runaway greenhouse effect would require boiling away the oceans before the runaway could begin. Clearly this is something no one is predicting.

Clearly that isn't gonna happen.

What is gonna happen is that we melt all the ice on the planet, destroy much of the fertility of our agriculture, lose all coastal cities, suffer massive famine, war and pestilence, and then what is left of civilization (100 million persons or so will remain) will most closely resemble 1850, and there won't be much chance we'll ever get beyond that again.

Not a climate runaway; A new equilibrium will be reached. Not the end of humanity (unless we have a full nuclear exchange over the last of the resources.) And not the end of civilization. But I don't think that the people who are left will hold us in very high regard.

 

[mhaze]

Clearly that isn't gonna happen.

What is gonna happen is that we melt all the ice on the planet, destroy much of the fertility of our agriculture, lose all coastal cities, suffer massive famine, war and pestilence, and then what is left of civilization (100 million persons or so will remain) will most closely resemble 1850, and there won't be much chance we'll ever get beyond that again.

Not a climate runaway; A new equilibrium will be reached. Not the end of humanity (unless we have a full nuclear exchange over the last of the resources.) And not the end of civilization. But I don't think that the people who are left will hold us in very high regard.

Wait, are we going to lose 100M or just have 100M left? Will there still be youtube? Diet cokes? 1850...so are we going to re-invent slavery, too?

 

[Spud1k]

Clearly that isn't gonna happen.

What is gonna happen is that we melt all the ice on the planet, destroy much of the fertility of our agriculture, lose all coastal cities, suffer massive famine, war and pestilence, and then what is left of civilization (100 million persons or so will remain) will most closely resemble 1850, and there won't be much chance we'll ever get beyond that again.

Not a climate runaway; A new equilibrium will be reached. Not the end of humanity (unless we have a full nuclear exchange over the last of the resources.) And not the end of civilization. But I don't think that the people who are left will hold us in very high regard.

My personal outlook isn't quite as drastic but still isn't rosy. Already people are trying to make up their mind about what an 'acceptable' amount of warming would be so in all likelyhood, the future is likely to be one big compromise. I can see a situation where we manage to eventually put the brakes on CO2 output, but not before we've screwed up the planet to a fair degree and had all the badness that comes with it (extinctions, famines, mass migrations, wars, etc.). Then the whole situation of trying to recover it will end up much like the situation we have now in trying to restore wild fish stocks; everyone will be haggling over quotas and stuff so much that we won't ever get to go back to the way things were. To continue with the comparison, you'll still have people using whatever lame argument they can lay their hands on to claim GHG quotas are wrong, much like there are people now claiming that stopping people from fishing isn't the best way to allow fish populations to recover.

But that's just my opinion. An alternative is we get fusion power working and the world is saved from all its energy worries and we all live happily ever after. Until we run out of food and water that is.

 

[BenBurch]

Spud1k, it's the "Prisoner's Dilemma" recast a little. If you stop burning the coal you have, you lose to the nation that keeps burning theirs. If you decide to not exploit seabed Methane, ditto. Only if EVERYBODY stays in the anti-warming camp can the situation be averted, once one defects, the game is lost.

We have about a century's worth of coal and about two century's worth of oil shale if we tear down every mountain in the country; And we will. I also predict we will emulate the Japanese and have underwater coal mines as we are quite certain that some of the US coal fields on the East Coast extend under the Altantic for some distance.

And since coal liquefaction is expensive, I think we shall see a return to direct-burning of coal in some fashion in vehicles. Perhaps not steam engines, but possibly we will solve the problem of erosion in powdered coal turbines, or come up with a MHD plant that scales to a locomotive or a ship.

Because you see, its a trap; We cannot just stop using energy without an even worse and immediate catastrophe. We cannot convince people that breeder-cycle nuclear is a good idea (and one-pass use will use it all up very quickly) and wind, solar, and geothermal are all to limited and all so much more expensive than just burning coal and shale that it will not manage to do more than augment that.

I really do hope I am wrong. I really do. We might get sane and pick up with nuclear where we left off in 1975. We might make a breakthrough in solar-electric that makes it competitive with burning mountain-range-removal coal. But we already know how to keep the lights on with coal and shale, and social-technological inertia is a powerful thing.

 

[Spud1k]

Spud1k, it's the "Prisoner's Dilemma" recast a little.

That's the phrase I was looking for. I think. I once I ended up sat next to a Liberal politician on a plane. His background was in macroeconomics and he had a lot of interesting opinions when it came to applying game theory to global environmental policy.

But like I said before, policy and politics aren't really my bag. That's probably something for a different thread anyway.

 

[Hindmost]

Spud1k, it's the "Prisoner's Dilemma" recast a little. If you stop burning the coal you have, you lose to the nation that keeps burning theirs. If you decide to not exploit seabed Methane, ditto. Only if EVERYBODY stays in the anti-warming camp can the situation be averted, once one defects, the game is lost.

We have about a century's worth of coal and about two century's worth of oil shale if we tear down every mountain in the country; And we will. I also predict we will emulate the Japanese and have underwater coal mines as we are quite certain that some of the US coal fields on the East Coast extend under the Altantic for some distance.

And since coal liquefaction is expensive, I think we shall see a return to direct-burning of coal in some fashion in vehicles. Perhaps not steam engines, but possibly we will solve the problem of erosion in powdered coal turbines, or come up with a MHD plant that scales to a locomotive or a ship.

Because you see, its a trap; We cannot just stop using energy without an even worse and immediate catastrophe. We cannot convince people that breeder-cycle nuclear is a good idea (and one-pass use will use it all up very quickly) and wind, solar, and geothermal are all to limited and all so much more expensive than just burning coal and shale that it will not manage to do more than augment that.

I really do hope I am wrong. I really do. We might get sane and pick up with nuclear where we left off in 1975. We might make a breakthrough in solar-electric that makes it competitive with burning mountain-range-removal coal. But we already know how to keep the lights on with coal and shale, and social-technological inertia is a powerful thing.

Well, we are starting to get sane with nuclear power, however, it isn't going to solve anything in the US. (or most of Europe) At best we might be able to keep about 100 plants online. Many are getting old and will have to be shut down soon. New plants just take too long to build. If Vogtle does get built, it will be about 2016 for initial criticality. We are on the edge of being too late.

glenn

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll add that to the blacklist: Any scientific research quoted by Gore.

It must get infected with Gore cooties, or something.

Heaven forfend that Gore ever mentions thermodynamics or gravity. Where would that leave us ?

Where David Rodale is, that's where, and that is not a good place, IMO.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have no intention of relinquishing my arms.

Haven't you heard of the second amendment?

I don't think he's heard of the Fifth.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wait, are we going to lose 100M or just have 100M left?

Wait and see.

Will there still be youtube? Diet cokes?

Who could possibly care?

1850...so are we going to re-invent slavery, too?

What do you mean "we", white man?

 

[Piggy]

1850...so are we going to re-invent slavery, too?

Slavery's still around; it doesn't need to be re-invented. But yeah, if the **** hits the fan, it may well become more popular.

 

[fsol]

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.

Such certainty, yet so little evidence presented to support your case.

 

[CapelDodger]

Such certainty, yet so little evidence presented to support your case.

mhaze has also expressed the certainty that no El Nino can occur during the current phase of the PDO.

Why is nobody talking about Solar Cycles 24 and 25 these days? Celebrity without substance is fleeting. Fifteen minutes of fame at best.