Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lenny]

regret/retract misleading use of drunkard's walk

of course, entering the pub earlier tonight i suddenly realized that my use of "drunkard's walk" in an earlier post was incorrect without adding the condition that "he" is more likely to step back towards the light of the one and only lamp post than to step away from it. (i did not intend an analogy to Brownian motion, but to either an AR(1) or an OU process; some stationary red noise process.) the sum of one thousand dice is even bounded

this delay in posting (moderation) is odd, as i am retracting/clarifying a post in this thread which has not yet appeared in this thread; but at least this clarification is in the pipeline before the any confusion starts.

in any event, my bad.

 

[Trakar]

Very much splitting hairs, but nonetheless right. It should have read "formerly freak events, now worryingly normal". Of course, we now have to wait for the new freak...

AKA the "super freaky" storm!

"...she's a very kinked up zone, headed toward your mother,
she's wrapped in tightening pressure bands, unlike any other.
That storm is pretty wild now (she's a freak)
The kind you read about (super freaky!)..."

((hat tip to Rick James,...and James Hansen))

 

[Trakar]

...The denier energy being consumed defending their "no consensus" tactic is a boon in itself. They're getting old, they're dispirited (I'm sure that's not just subjective), there's no new blood to take up the torch, and this damned heat is debilitating, particularly for the old. Keep them frantic over this and they'll run out of juice all the sooner. There's no denying the Grim Reaper his harvest, and no reason not to chivvy him along in appropriate cases...

Unfortunately we need go no further than the daily news to see that while deniers may be down (in the middle of summer), they are far from "out."

Congressman on science panel calls global warming 'total fraud' -

If you're on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, it helps to believe in those things. But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) is a maverick. Despite the general scientific consensus that man-made climate change is heating up the Earth, the congressman told a town hall meeting that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government." The chuckling audience seemed to accept Rohrabacher's claim that humans were incapable of changing Earth's climate. In 2007, Rohrabacher astonished a congressional hearing by suggesting prehistoric climate change could have been caused by dinosaur farts.

 

[Trakar]

We need much more research along these lines...

...without such, plans of accommodation/acclimatization and adaptation lack the foundational framework necessary to ascertain viability.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128632&org=NSF&from=news

Press Release 13-137
Back to the future: Scientists look into Earth's "Deep Time" to predict future effects of climate change

Climate change alters the way in which species interact with one another--a reality that applies not just to today or to the future, but also to the past, according to a paper published by a team of researchers in this week's issue of the journal Science.

And the Earth's history provides the only real evidences of what occurs when the climate variables are shifted. While what is occurring currently is globally unprecedented there are some local and regional rapid changes from which we might draw extrapolations.

Not unexpectedly, the authors of this study found that simple models are too simple to account for the complexities of how biomes change under the influences of changing climates.

"One of the most compelling current questions science can ask is how ecosystems will respond to climate change," said Lisa Boush, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences.

"These researchers address this using the fossil record and its rich history," said Boush. "They show that climate change has altered biological interactions in the past, driving extinction, evolution and the distribution of species.

"Their study allows us to better understand how modern-day climate change might influence the future of biological systems and the rate at which that change will occur."

Wildlife corridors that interconnect and span continents north and south to allow the shifting of biomes (and most probably man-guided migration to help the survivability of species who cannot naturally travel fast enough to migrate to more suitable climate conditions). A genomic encyclopedia cataloguing our planet's variations of life. Things that were more scientific novelty a few decades back may well present an unfortunate pragmatic practicality over the coming decades.

"People used to think climate was the major driver of all these changes," Blois said, "but it's not just climate. It's also extinction of the megafauna, changes in the frequency of natural fires, and expansion of human populations. They're all linked."

People are comfortable with the way things have been, said Blois. "We've known where to plant crops, for example, and where to find water."

Now we need to know how to respond, she said, to changes that are already happening--and to those coming in the near future.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128632&org=NSF&from=news

We must understand the nature and scope of the problem before we can rationally discuss appropriate public policy to address the problem.

 

[aleCcowaN]

in any event, my bad.

your good

As far as I remember, the distribution to deal with climatic extremes is Gumbel's. As Gumbel, Gompertz and other niceties was what I was taking exam about almost thirty years ago, I rather prefer the past to remain the past instead of revising those and translating them to English -my English-. Believe me, no possible benefit can come from that.

Anyway, my explanation about extremes in recent posts doesn't come from ignorance about the background or speculation about what the background might be but it comes from the use of the bounded rationality principle in the field of public debate of climate science, that is, what heuristic methods can be used by educated laypeople to understand how the world works, specially when something is a bit counterintuitive at a first glance. It wasn't intended as an explanation designed to resist a full screening from a formal and specialized point of view -as yours wasn't too- but it was intended to trigger reflection by departing from general knowledge.

Let's admit the typical action of the denialist crowd is to shout "record cold" or "record snowfall" as an alakazam-shazaam contraposition to the notion of a global warming process going on. By the magic of the Manichean nature of ignorance, global warming comes to be that way counterbalanced and doubt is conveniently sown. Then you can explain that cold extremes can occur in a context of global warming, but people, following their black and white spirit would probably remember the number of times they were told "relax, it won't hurt" rather than accept it blindly. That's when explanations like mine might come in handy, as people don't use to look for explanations they can really understand but explanations they can control instead. If human comprehension was a beam of light this whole GW business would have been sorted out last century (and this site and foundation wouldn't exist).

 

[r-j]

That would tend to support Savory's hypothesis that desertification of grasslands is a key component to what we are seeing with AGW. He claims all those microclimates and local weather conditions caused by desertification, added up world wide, are partly the cause of what we are seeing on a global scale.

Thanks for that information. Never heard of him before, so I watched his TED talk, and looked at the Savory Institute site, very interesting person he is. The issues of grazing and grasslands reminded me of the movement in England where they used livestock to restore soils that had been ruined by growing too many crops. Then found that the cows not only restored the soil, they increased the amount of grass and hay that would grow, leading to an amazing discovery. The more cows, the more grass, which meant more cows, which meant even more grass. It became so profitable to raise cattle that England had a crop shortage, to the point the Government had to take action to force farmers to grow food crops, rather than dairy cattle. (I was just reading about this several months ago).

It seemed an amazing discovery that animals grazing create rich soils that increase grass growth and health. No, that isn't a joke, the farmers were actually surprised. The science of agriculture in the UK was primitive, not that long ago.

This was the era of Jethro Tull and his revolutionary ideas, as well as the start of selective breeding.

Having increases in cold records as well as hot records suggest that the variability has also increased as well as the mean

Or that there are more weather stations. Unless the all time records are being broken, it doesn't mean much from a climate perspective. The low highs and high lows may mean more than anything else. Global warming is hypothesized to reduce the difference between winter and summer, and daytime and night time temperatures. And to warm the poles, making less difference between latitudinal changes. In short, winters warm, nights warm, the poles warm.

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis. Neither does colder winters, record snow, or record cold events. Certainly there is global climate change, but at present it does not match any of the predictions based on CO2 increase driving the warming.

Especially not right now, as there isn't any warming. (as most know, the answer to that is the deep oceans switched to taking up all the excess heat, which is why the warming of SSTs and the troposphere stopped)

If that is the case, that also doesn't match the "CO2 as cause" hypothesis.

Before the requisite rage ensues, let's look at the evidence, and try to be scientific about it. Unless all the evidence is wrong, and absurd position, the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase. It may very well match other causes. Certainly the amount of methane produced, as well as the changes in water use, agriculture, soot and deforestation are producing changes.

To ignore all the other factors and cling to the unproven belief in CO2 as the only prime mover, is to be in denial.

 

[CapelDodger]

i don't recall you being such an optimist in the old days, CapelDodger.

If you're rating "There's no denying the Grim Reaper" as optimism now, perhaps it's you that's changed? The clear positive trend in discouragement over the last decade or three might mean there's a calibration issue. De-trend the data and you'll find me as cynical as ever - and I'll fight any man who says different. Fairly, if I absolutely have to.

I'm sure I mentioned the demographic imperative way back when I first got involved here. It's just a variant of the "one funeral at a time" theory of scientific progress, taken one step back to the stage of being easily tired, often confused, and prone to repetition. The term "going emeritus" is one I wish I'd come up with back then, it is such a gem .

Trakar raises the issue of dinosaurian politicians, but like the AGW denial cult in general they're clapped-out but still rolling. Slow on the uptake, to be generous. The fossil-fuel players aren't interested anymore, they're going head-to-head against renewables on all grounds but AGW denial, which would simply make them look ridiculous. Even Heatland have twigged, belatedly.

Renewables have always been the target. The old policy was to associate renewables with AGW in the public mind, dump on AGW, and job done. The new policy is to not even mention climate but instead to focus on economic arguments, energy-security, anything but what's going on with the weather. Not even to deny it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Thanks for that information. Never heard of him before, so I watched his TED talk, and looked at the Savory Institute site, very interesting person he is. The issues of grazing and grasslands reminded me of the movement in England where they used livestock to restore soils that had been ruined by growing too many crops. Then found that the cows not only restored the soil, they increased the amount of grass and hay that would grow, leading to an amazing discovery. The more cows, the more grass, which meant more cows, which meant even more grass. It became so profitable to raise cattle that England had a crop shortage, to the point the Government had to take action to force farmers to grow food crops, rather than dairy cattle. (I was just reading about this several months ago).

It seemed an amazing discovery that animals grazing create rich soils that increase grass growth and health. No, that isn't a joke, the farmers were actually surprised. The science of agriculture in the UK was primitive, not that long ago.

Yes and now the UK is actually a leader in managed intensive rotational grazing systems. (not necessarily exactly like Savory's holistic managed grazing, but functionally very similar.) It is actually the dominant form of grazing in the UK now.

The problem of MIRG systems reducing the land under crop production is a problem I am personally tackling. I believe the solution lies in integration of animals and crops in the same fields at the same time. It is tricky though. The key is not destroying the pasture with the crops, and at the same time keeping the animals from destroying the crops by grazing. Seems impossible on a large scale, but with careful management and modern technology, I believe it can be done. (I haven't proven it yet, but I am working on it)

What is generally being tried by others now is grazing to restore cropland, then raising crops as many years as you can before going back to pasture again. This multi year rotation works as you noted. The disadvantage is that it is one or the other. I think that if the rotations are condensed into the same year, it then increases total food productivity AND at the same time increases the quality of the soil each year. That truly would be sustainable (a word that is used too much IMHO).

The key here I think is to relate it to AGW. Of course the carbon cycle is not the only ecosystem service benefited by MIRG, but concentrating the focus on soils as an important and significant place to sequester carbon is actually a pretty slick plan. Here is why. Pretty much all potential solutions to AGW are expensive. BUT this actually is profitable! Not just less cost, but actually generating more profits. Just like your farmers in the UK found out first hand. So if integrating crops with MIRG is proven just as profitable or more, then you could do it and wouldn't have the governments taking action to stop you, as happened in the UK with too much MIRG and no crops. Then you could let the market forces handle the issue. When there are profits to be made, that is a powerful force for change.

Renewables have always been the target. The old policy was to associate renewables with AGW in the public mind, dump on AGW, and job done. The new policy is to not even mention climate but instead to focus on economic arguments, energy-security, anything but what's going on with the weather. Not even to deny it.

Why not? The strategy worked with soil. Just ignore the fact that soils are depleting and the cause of a significant portion of the problems we are seeing and hopefully it will go away (for a while). After all the "animals grazing create rich soils" that r-j spoke about is actually carbon. And the "soils that had been ruined by growing too many crops" that r-j spoke about is the lack of carbon. (over simplified, but true)

So we have two problems. One is too much carbon in the atmosphere causing AGW and too little carbon sequestered in the soil forcing us to use high external inputs to raise crops. Ironically the high external inputs actually cause even MORE carbon to be put into the atmosphere and even less in the soil, forming a negative feedback loop. Nature already solved that problem ages ago. All we have to do is use biomimicry and pump it up a notch or two and we can do what nature did, but even better and faster. That actually causes a positive feedback loop instead.

So of course the deniers are going to use a strategy of ignoring. If you have a vested financial interest in the status quo, you are not going to want to even discuss AGW. When the solution to AGW also destroys your vested interest in favor of a new more profitable Ag model, you don't even want that connection being made in peoples minds, not even if you are attacking it. If even the idea of it gets out and you have 10's thousands of farmers and agricultural scientists working on it instead of just a few crazy "lone wolves" like me, it will be solved very quickly. Of that I am sure.

 

[lomiller]

Related to recent discussion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815084845.htm

Meanwhile, more-severe summer heat waves -- classified as five-sigma events -- will go from being essentially absent in the present day to covering around three per cent of the global land surface by 2040.

Under a high emission scenario, the projections show that by 2100, 3-sigma heat waves will cover 85 per cent of the global land area and five-sigma heat waves will cover around 60 per cent of global land.

 

[Trakar]

...Trakar raises the issue of dinosaurian politicians, but like the AGW denial cult in general they're clapped-out but still rolling. Slow on the uptake, to be generous. The fossil-fuel players aren't interested anymore, they're going head-to-head against renewables on all grounds but AGW denial, which would simply make them look ridiculous. Even Heatland have twigged, belatedly...

I don't like intelligence tests for the electorate, but full batteries of intellectual, social morals and psychological testing with full public results disclosure should have long ago been mandatory for all public office candidates.

 

[Trakar]

Related to recent discussion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815084845.htm

Terrifying, especially given the conservative nature of these types of assessments.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why not? The strategy worked with soil. Just ignore the fact that soils are depleting ...

Off-topic, but back in the 80's the UK Soil Survey produced a report revealing very troubling soil loss on the chalk hills of Southern England since WW2 (after which farming practices changed quite radically). The then thatcher government tooks steps to make sure such things never happened again - they halved the Soil Survey's budget so it couldn't do the research required. Fortunately farmers and agribusiness did get the message and made some fairly minor changes in practice to alleviate the problem.

So we have two problems.

Would that life were so simple .

All we have to do is use biomimicry and pump it up a notch or two and we can do what nature did, but even better and faster. That actually causes a positive feedback loop instead.

One problem is the nature of "we". If you mean humanity as a whole, you first have to get concensus on a strategy, then on who pays for it, then get the landowners (who may well be under-represented in the consensus) to allow it. That's "all" we have to do. Given people's attitude to land, there would have to be bloodshed.

I'm all in favour of what you advocate, but it isn't going to save the world or make much more than a local difference in what's coming. We (that's you and me ) will do what we can, and good luck to you.

 

[CapelDodger]

This was the era of Jethro Tull and his revolutionary ideas, as well as the start of selective breeding.

Not to get into this, but it was hardly the start of selective breeding. It gained a more scientific basis but it had been going on for thousands of years. More important was the rise of capitalist farming : selective breeding programs require long-term investment to produce something really special.

Or that there are more weather stations.

Let's just look at lon-term records then. You get the same result.

Unless the all time records are being broken, it doesn't mean much from a climate perspective. The low highs and high lows may mean more than anything else. Global warming is hypothesized to reduce the difference between winter and summer, and daytime and night time temperatures. And to warm the poles, making less difference between latitudinal changes. In short, winters warm, nights warm, the poles warm.

All of which have happened.

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis.

Yes, it does.

Neither does colder winters ...

Colder winters where?

... record snow ...

More moisture in the atmosphere means more snow.

... or record cold events.

All-time record cold events where?

Certainly there is global climate change, but at present it does not match any of the predictions based on CO2 increase driving the warming.

Yes, it does.

Especially not right now, as there isn't any warming. (as most know, the answer to that is the deep oceans switched to taking up all the excess heat, which is why the warming of SSTs and the troposphere stopped)

If that is the case, that also doesn't match the "CO2 as cause" hypothesis.

Why on Earth not? The reason why surface temperatures didn't rise as quickly in the last decade as in the decades before is that there was a preponderance of La Nina conditions in the Pacific. Colder than usual surface temperatures in the East extending further West. That cold water came up from deep down, and was replaced by warm water.

What this means (as you'll have realised) is that there is a greater positive energy imbalance during a La Nina than during neutral or El Nino conditions. El Nino's send a blast of heat up into space (while sending surface temperatures up for that year) but we haven't had one of those since 1998, not to speak of anyway.

Before the requisite rage ensues, let's look at the evidence, and try to be scientific about it. Unless all the evidence is wrong, and absurd position, the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase.

But it has.

It may very well match other causes. Certainly the amount of methane produced, as well as the changes in water use, agriculture, soot and deforestation are producing changes.

Small influences, and mostly self-cancelling. AGW is the constant warming influence that will keep coming through the noise.

The last La Nina year was 2011, and it was the warmest La Nina year on record. 2012 was up there with the top few neutral years, and of course the last El Nino year was 1998 and we know what an outlier that was. The next one will like as not be average and still warmer than 1998.

To ignore all the other factors and cling to the unproven belief in CO2 as the only prime mover, is to be in denial.

Ummm ... you do know you said that out loud?

 

[Mikemcc]

Thanks for that information. Never heard of him before, so I watched his TED talk, and looked at the Savory Institute site, very interesting person he is. The issues of grazing and grasslands reminded me of the movement in England where they used livestock to restore soils that had been ruined by growing too many crops. Then found that the cows not only restored the soil, they increased the amount of grass and hay that would grow, leading to an amazing discovery. The more cows, the more grass, which meant more cows, which meant even more grass. It became so profitable to raise cattle that England had a crop shortage, to the point the Government had to take action to force farmers to grow food crops, rather than dairy cattle. (I was just reading about this several months ago).

It seemed an amazing discovery that animals grazing create rich soils that increase grass growth and health. No, that isn't a joke, the farmers were actually surprised. The science of agriculture in the UK was primitive, not that long ago.

This was the era of Jethro Tull and his revolutionary ideas, as well as the start of selective breeding.

Or that there are more weather stations. Unless the all time records are being broken, it doesn't mean much from a climate perspective. The low highs and high lows may mean more than anything else. Global warming is hypothesized to reduce the difference between winter and summer, and daytime and night time temperatures. And to warm the poles, making less difference between latitudinal changes. In short, winters warm, nights warm, the poles warm.

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis. Neither does colder winters, record snow, or record cold events. Certainly there is global climate change, but at present it does not match any of the predictions based on CO2 increase driving the warming.

Especially not right now, as there isn't any warming. (as most know, the answer to that is the deep oceans switched to taking up all the excess heat, which is why the warming of SSTs and the troposphere stopped)

If that is the case, that also doesn't match the "CO2 as cause" hypothesis.

Before the requisite rage ensues, let's look at the evidence, and try to be scientific about it. Unless all the evidence is wrong, and absurd position, the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase. It may very well match other causes. Certainly the amount of methane produced, as well as the changes in water use, agriculture, soot and deforestation are producing changes.

To ignore all the other factors and cling to the unproven belief in CO2 as the only prime mover, is to be in denial.

The ocean hasn't 'switched to taking up all the excess heat' nor has the warming stopped. The oceans have always absorbed approximately 94% of the energy from greenhouse gases. So small variations in that energy split have big impacts in the global surface temperature, leading to 'hiatus' decades. These are plainly visible in SkS' Climate Elevator (though there are also other factors - aerosols, and volcanic events)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

Nor do I understand your contention that '[e]xtremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis. Neither does colder winters, record snow, or record cold events'. There's no reason why there shouldn't still be record cold events in a warmer world, just that the rate of such events should decrease, whilst the rate of extreme hot events should increase. If there is also an increase in variability, the incidence of cold events could increase slightly, but the rate of incidence of hot events would increase dramatically. At the moment I'm not aware of any studies showing that the variability has increased to that degree. That's simply a basic understanding of how a probability distribution changes in response to changes in mean and standard deviation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Related to recent discussion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815084845.htm

From one of the authors, this document about a -sort of prequel- paper. It contains straightforward figures about what we discussed a few days ago (that what is behind the succession of record highs and lows).

Terrifying, especially given the conservative nature of these types of assessments.

I cannot see that in the text. It simply says something like in a warming world what nowadays is labelled as extreme will become kinda usual. No ****, Sherlock! I bet extreme events like those infrequently experienced in recent years will occur with temperatures 1.5 to 3.5 degrees higher. The article is not clear at all though it promises an interesting paper, specially those 50 past years trend supposedly matching the model and thus giving credibility to the conclusions.

(While I was writing this, the paper popped out in my search bin. Here it is along with its supplementary data. I promise to give it a read during this weekend -a long one here- and come back to you)

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[macdoc]

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis. Neither does colder winters, record snow, or record cold events. Certainly there is global climate change, but at present it does not match any of the predictions based on CO2 increase driving the warming.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

AGW fits just fine with all of the above if you actually understood some science.

Here's your colder winters....

Warm Arctic, Cold Continents - NOAA

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

Here is your snow

Global warming means more snowstorms: scientists

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
which is so blindingly obvious it hurts and makes your claim to being scientific ludicrous.

Here is your record cold events.....once more you demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of the geophysics of your planet.

Why So Cold? Blame the Greenland Block

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/why-so-cold-greenland-block_2010-01-11

Blocking highs are becoming more prevalent and since the north in winter WILL be cold since it has little sunlight and a the clear skies under a stalled dome means heat is radiated to space rapidly those stalled high pressure domes means it gets colder and colder if the cold air is not swept away by atmospheric circulation.

The central cause is a "blocking high" - a large region of settled high pressure that may stay put for weeks - in the region of Scandinavia. This diverts the jet stream south.

So why is the blocking high there? Several factors.

Melting of Arctic ice due to global warming encourages the development of regions of high pressure.
Arctic warming also weakens the contrast between northern cold and southern warmth, which normally keeps the jet stream in a tight band.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

•••

MMC

There's no reason why there shouldn't still be record cold events in a warmer world, just that the rate of such events should decrease,

Actually there is no reason for them to decrease - the northern hemisphere will generally always get cold when there is no sunlight so that's a static aspect of our planet.
The impact of AGW can increase or decrease the cold events depending on how the blocking highs develop.

Of course when intense cold develops in say Siberia - the release of that front then sweeps across Europe and the UK bringing cold and because of a moisture laden atmosphere...often record snow.
The Pyrenees were very deep in snow in June when we were there this year.....and a 500 year rain storm swept through as we there.

 

[Trakar]

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis.

In the mid 1800s, it may still have been appropriate to call the radiation transfer interactions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect the "CO2 hypothesis," it has, however, since then, amassed a compelling body of supporting evidences and interrelated understandings such that it has been considered an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s. Speaking of this subject in the terms you have, merely exposes the scientific naiveté and inaccuracies of your understandings and considerations.

 

[r-j]

What is "the theory of global warming"? Serious question. As important as it is made out to be, certainly the theory should be easy to find, easy to state, and easy to know if it has been proven.

If you were a skeptic, like myself, and first heard of the theory of global warming, you might check Google, or Wikipedia. Neither have a page for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_global_warming nothing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_global_warming nothing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_theory_of_global_warmingnothing

Huh? Oh well certainly the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming article will have it within it. Nope. The word theory only appears one time, and that is in reference to study about belief in the theory!!

A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[209]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Public_opinion

How can you even ask that if there isn't a definition of the theory?

Certainly the dictionary should explain what ttogw means. But of course it doesn't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory of global warming

Now global warming at least has an entry, but nothing about the theory.

an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global warming

You see why I am asking about The Theory Of Global Warming? TTOGW

The Google isn't much help.

the Earth is subject to steady and potentially damaging rise in temperature -- a phenomenon known as "global warming" -- and that this condition is in large part a byproduct of Western industrial growth.

But wait! Here we go.

The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2).

Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the greenhouse effect.

No no no!!! Where is TTOGW?

In 1988 James Hansen who was the director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies testified before the Senate that based on a computer model and temp. measurements he was "99 percent sure...the greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now." His statement was widely covered by the press, and the term "Global Warming" was coined..

OK, clearly this isn't an easy task. What is TTOGW? Albert Einstein published his GTOR in 1916, and we can read all about it. I know about the theory of biological evolution, the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, cell theory, the theory of plate tectonics, even Newton's Theory of Gravitation, which has now become a law.

even WITH IT NOW BEING A LAW, the word theory is mentioned 37 times in the Newton article.

If you are going to argue about what a theory predicts, it's vital to post the theory, and what it predicts. How can anyone argue about something that has no scientific foundation?

Using the Wikipedia article as a starting point, it has the word "predictions" used once, in the context of "Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be".

"Prediction" appears once, in the context of "One of the mathematical results of these complex equations is a prediction whether warming or cooling will occur"

The word "predicts" doesn't appear at all. And "predict" is used 2 times, but not in regards to the theory. In context:

" Instead the models predict how greenhouse gases will interact with radiative transfer and other physical processes." and " Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than global climate models predict"

So, where is the definition of the theory, and the predictions from the theory?

I see several people making claims about it. OK a whole of people have made claims about this. What is the source? What are the predictions made by the theory of global warming?

And where is the source of your answer?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Extremes in both heat and cold does not fit with the CO2 hypothesis.

By translating that fuzzy "CO2 hypothesis" into a more proper and actual greenhouse-gases-driven forcing, your assertion is still wishful thinking. The categorical fashion you chose to say it doesn't make it less wishful thinking than it is and it won't become true no matter you had it repeated a thousand times in an even more categorical manner.

 

[r-j]

The key here I think is to relate it to AGW. Of course the carbon cycle is not the only ecosystem service benefited by MIRG, but concentrating the focus on soils as an important and significant place to sequester carbon is actually a pretty slick plan. Here is why. Pretty much all potential solutions to AGW are expensive. BUT this actually is profitable! Not just less cost, but actually generating more profits. Just like your farmers in the UK found out first hand. So if integrating crops with MIRG is proven just as profitable or more, then you could do it and wouldn't have the governments taking action to stop you, as happened in the UK with too much MIRG and no crops. Then you could let the market forces handle the issue. When there are profits to be made, that is a powerful force for change.

I agree, and if it was actually about reducing CO2 levels, this would be already happening. I saw a plan to harvest CO2 by planting trees, which it seems are growing much faster in some areas, both due to CO2 fertilization, longer warm periods, and extra rain (all of which are due to global warming). It was brilliant, especially since China is a long way away from stopping fossil fuels. Every pound of CO2 used by a tree in the USA would actually be making money off of their pollution. The more pollution, the more profit from using it.

But, it's not really about stopping CO2. If it was, the people so concerned over it would be doing something about it.