Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[a_unique_person]

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

Since no one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only prime mover of climate is to completely misunderstand the current case for global warming. The IPCC reports list what are considered to be the 'prime movers' of climate, and they don't just list CO2. No climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the "Prime Mover". The current circumstances mean that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. No doubt, at some time in the future, it will be something else, just as has been the case in the past.

 

[macdoc]

And where is the source of your answer?

in the science which you refuse to read and fail to understand. GHG and the companion AGW are not in any way restricted to current events.

What is current is our mining of fossil carbon and doubling the amount in the atmosphere making C02 a driver of change instead of it's normal role as a feedback mechanism

You have no argument and no scientific understanding. Others here do. Your skepticism is not based on knowledge.....it's based on ignorance of the fundamentals....<snip> and there are plenty of basic primers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/online-video-lectures-on-climate-change/

What your latest post is doing it retreating behind a smoke screen of semantics.

QT is a theory, Evolution is a theory ..hell aerodynamics is still a theory but you still get on a plane and fly. Each represents and ongoing and expanding body of knowledge.

Try acquiring some about the geophysics of your planet...the basics are not in the least bit hard to understand. <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Moderated Thread.

 

[aleCcowaN]

<snipped because of brevity; consult the original post>

And where is the source of your answer?

I didn't find either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_the sun rising each day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_heavy objects falling downwards

neither

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory of_genome

nor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory of_quarks

I'm sorry. I, like many other people here, cannot indulge ourselves in going far back in our growth and discussing propaedeutics of epistemology and taxonomy of knowledge (fancy pansy names for what we learnt in the last years of K-12). It's as simple as a word salad doesn't prove the absence of speech nor the absence of vegetables.

In my opinion, the sake of people who may anonymously be reading these pages requires that we don't reply the contents of your posts every time they consist mainly in a dialectic approach to a wished conclusion; about climate not changing in a dire manner by means of human intervention or about the contrary, it doesn't really matter.

 

[DC]

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.

they are actually doing alot already. CO2 taxes have been introduced in many countries, efficiency has been increased in many products. renewable energy is on the increase in many countries etc etc.

 

[DC]

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

can you show me a single scientific puvlication that claims that CO2 is "the only prime mover"?

where did you get that idea grom? that is not what the IPCC reports say at all. nor any other scientific paper i have come across. never heard that.
what is your source?

 

[lenny]

and of course the last El Nino year was 1998 and we know what an outlier that was.

and we knew that an "outlier" it was going to be when it happened. it is a pity the community did not say this louder and more often in print at the time.

(i avoid the use of "outlier" as it means so different things often to the same person; here i intend only "unusually warm in the context of nearby years both before and after". hopefully similar to that of the original post.)

 

[lenny]

(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)

curious. i wonder what you will think of the claim

The favorable agreement between observations and models suggests that the multi-model mean can provide reasonable estimates of future changes in heat extremes on monthly time scales.

given the usual disclaimers against looking at too fine a spatial or temporal scale with these models, given their systematic temperature offset/bias and rather coarse resolution.

is the ordering of operations in their application of SSA sound?

 

[CapelDodger]

Every pound of CO2 used by a tree in the USA would actually be making money off of their pollution.

How?

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

It's actually about science. Whatever you think it's about, there's probably a more appropriate Forum than this one to discuss it on.

You make no effort to discuss the science, you simply make erroneous statements backed by no reasoning or justification, then don't even try to defend them. You demand that there be a Theory Of Global Warming simple enough for you to comprehend, which is an impossible standard, then gleefully declare the science is overturned or something, it's hard to quite get where you're going with things. Do you deny global warming? Do you deny the greenhouse effect? Do you deny that what's happening was predicted in principle over a century ago? Do you deny there's a scientific concensus that AGW is real, and the largest anthropogenic influence is through atmospheric CO₂? Just what is it you don't get about what is, frankly, a pretty simple subject?

 

[Reality Check]

What is "the theory of global warming"? Serious question.

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

There is climate science.
There are climate models.
There is the facts about climate, e.g. that the global surface temperature are warming. This is not a theory.
There is the relatively simple physics that increases in CO2 basically lead to increases in global surface temperatures.

If you were a skeptic like me, you would look up the correct terms and find thousands of scientific papers published over the last 100 years or so on climate change. Some of these would mention the term "global warming". You would also go to reliable Internet sources that provide education on climate change, e.g. Skeptical Science.

 

[Pixel42]

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science. There are established facts - that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% in little more than a century, that average global temperatures are rising etc etc - and there are attempts to extrapolate from those facts (using computer models and/or the information gained by studying previous periods of rapid climate change) to predict what will happen both globally and regionally over the next century or so. Such attempts are fraught with difficulty due to the large number of variables affected, and the many ways those variables then affect each other.

 

[r-j]

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

I note that you avoided actually saying ""Serious answer - there is no such thing as the Theory of Global Warming."

Much less providing a link to any peer reviewed science that explains the theory. Or who discovered it, or what it is. This poses some serious problems in a discussion when people use the term.

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature

snip
The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails.

Of course it is abbreviated to AGW, but this just means The theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is exactly what I am asking about. You might think, since it's being discussed, and has been for years here, it wouldn't be hard to just say what it is. What it predicts will happen.

Here it is used in two ways. As AGW, and as theory of global warming.

Individual weather events nor not proof positive or negative for AGW. It is possible, however, to make conclusions about climate from a data-set of weather events. The difference is key, and it seems to be the one you are missing.

The fact that it is colder than usual in place X is, on its own, irrelevant. No theory of global warming posits warm weather everywhere, all the time. Find me a link to anyone, here or elsewhere, who has said that is does.

What does AGW theory mean?

Here it used as both hypothesis, and as theory.

This show that the GW hypothesis does not account for all these differences, and anomaly variations.

No wonder Global Warming theory cannot be taken seriously.

Here it is used in two different context

DR, I am trying to persuade a specific individual that they should consider the validity of the theory of global warming.

Of course, if I misunderstand you and you disagree about the theory of global warming, that is a separate issue.

And here it is again.

That is what was disproved here, the media hysteria, not the theory of global warming.

and again

I actually accept the theory of global warming, although the argument that there is nothing much we can do about it is powerful, I don't think that should mean we shouldn't try.

and again

This has nothing to do with whether global warming theory is correct.

and on and on in all possible ways.

GW, AGW, AGW theory, theory of AGW, it's a constant in all kinds of conversations.

I described warming due to increased CO2 as hypothesis, which led to the firm insistence that it is theory.

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.

OK, what is the name of the theory? What is the definition of the theory? If you want to hide behind semantics, I don't care if you call it a hypothesis, theory, law, axiom, or idea. What IS it? If it's science, it can be described. There will be a paper describing it. There has to be. what is the link?

If we are discussing "an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s.", then it should be child's play to link to it, describe it, and discuss it.

I say winter cooling doesn't fit with it, you say it does, I ask where is the "established and well evidenced scientific theory" we are arguing over? What does it say?

When I read

The impact of AGW can increase or decrease the cold events depending on how the blocking highs develop.

I want to know where that is stated, in the "AGW theory", or whatever you want to call it. If you use a term, like "AGW", and especially claim "it" can cause things to happen, it's obvious there should be clear evidence of the "established and well evidenced scientific theory" stating this. Especially since it's been well established for a hundred years now.

When I say "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.", I got that from the scientific literature that describes what "AGW theory" predicts.

To see a claim such as

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

and then find nobody can respond to an inquiry about AGW, it doesn't feel like science.
In the policy thread it says

When a member posts something that gets to the basics that has been discussed before, point that member to the place it was discussed. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8851415&postcount=5

There is no possible way that the clear definition, and explanation, of AGW/GW/the theory of global warming hasn't been discussed here already. Please point me to it. Or answer the questions.

Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[r-j]

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming,

I didn't see that post before my following one, due to the time lag for getting a post approved. So, now we have somebody saying there is no "theory of global warming", and yet the phrase appears all the time, both here and in literature, in stories and scientific papers.

No wonder it is a hard question to answer. For clarity sake, AGW, forcing due to CO2 increase, or the greenhouse effect can be substituted for "Theory of Global Warming". I just want somebody to clearly state what they mean by the term.

 

[macdoc]

If we are discussing "an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s.", then it should be child's play to link to it, describe it, and discuss it.

It's been linked numerous times and you consistently ignore it.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

from that background...

Here's what all scientists agreed they knew by 1988

To stay at a constant temperature, the Earth must radiate as much energy as it receives from the Sun. We receive this energy mostly as visible light which warms the surface. Being much cooler than the Sun, the Earth radiates most of its energy as infrared rays. A calculation using basic laws of physics shows that a planet at our distance from the Sun, emitting the same total amount of energy as it receives, will have a temperature well below freezing. Then why is the actual average surface temperature higher, about 14°C? Infrared radiation beaming up from the surface is intercepted by "greenhouse" gas molecules in the lower atmosphere, and that keeps the lower atmosphere and the surface warm. The radiation that finally escapes is mostly emitted from higher levels of the atmosphere, levels that are indeed well below freezing (-18°C, for details see the essay on simple models).

The nitrogen and oxygen gases that make up most of the atmosphere don't intercept infrared radiation. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was observed to be rising rapidly, and the only reasonable explanation was that this was due to the enormous emissions from human activities.

A rather straightforward calculation showed that doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... which would arrive in the late 21st century if no steps were taken to curb emissions... should raise the temperature of the surface roughly one degree C. However, a warmer atmosphere would hold more water vapor, which ought to cause another degree or so of warming. Beyond that the calculations got problematic. Cloudiness was likely to change in ways that could either enhance or diminish the warming, and scientists did not understand the complex processes well. Moreover, humanity was emitting ever increasing amounts of smoke and other pollution; again scientists were not sure how this might affect climate. Only better observations and computer models could attempt to project the outcome.

AGW is a simple concept.
Anthro means humans have engendered the warming through release of fossil carbon by way of fuels.
The role of C02 in global warming and cooling ( yes it works in two directions ) is understood - in most scenarios C02 is not a primary driver, it is a feedback.
That said....the mechanism of it's affect on the atmosphere is the same. More C02 - warmer world, less C02 cooler world - the interaction with the oceans and biosphere is complex but that's the basic mechanism.....it impacts the radiation from the planet into space.

The science is sound, demonstrable both in the lab and in field.
Now what "AGW science" would you like to discuss?

Specifics...not a wall of nonsensical quotes that are irrelevant.

 

[Trakar]

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
...

Theories of global warming, are quite different than you seem to be thinking about the terms. I don't really want to get into a derail discussion about what kind of skeptics you and I are, which seems out of place here, but, suffice it to say that most scientifically minded individuals would not waste more than a few minutes on such sources as Google or Wiki, especially with such il-defined and generally inappropriate search parameters.

The place to look for mainstream scientific understanding is in mainstream science sites, government science/environmental organizations and educational sites that deal with the types of information you are seeking to understand.

Places like the American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

The EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/

Oak Ridge National Laboratories:
http://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/

IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

(etc.)

(Hint: there is no single, all encompassing "Theory of Global Warming")

 

[Trakar]

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

This is your unsupported conspiracy claim to provide support for, hopefully in the appropriate conspiracy forum.

 

[Trakar]

they are actually doing alot already. CO2 taxes have been introduced in many countries, efficiency has been increased in many products. renewable energy is on the increase in many countries etc etc.

True, but taking steps in the right direction doesn't change the fact that our GHG emissions are still growing at an accelerating pace.

 

[Mikemcc]

r-j (or more likely, for others who are really interested in the question), you could try the Science of Doom blog which has a good primer on the situation.

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

 

[lenny]

So, now we have somebody saying there is no "theory of global warming", and yet the phrase appears all the time both here and in literature, in stories and scientific papers.

that was a pretty selective quote r-j. what pixel42 said was:

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

suggesting that the your request was ill-posed.

given previous posts and your reply to them, it is hard to tell what it is you are after. but taking you at your word:

For clarity sake, AGW, forcing due to CO2 increase, or the greenhouse effect can be substituted for "Theory of Global Warming". I just want somebody to clearly state what they mean by the term.

then i'd suggest:

"The Carbon Dioxide Theory. ... Chamberlin, adopting a idea suggested by Tyndall, fired the imagination of geologists by his skillful exposition of the part played by carbon dioxide in the causing of climatic changes. Today this theory is probably more widely accepted than any other."

that is from Huntington and Visher (1922)

i do not have a copy of Chamberlin's 1899 paper to hand to quote from. as i recall, Tyndall's original idea was that reducing carbon dioxide would (did) cause glaciation. his enthusiasm was damped when it became clear that Arrhenius's calculations were "overstrained" (as H&V put it in 1922). still, in the 1920's it was recognized that increasing carbon dioxide would (was) increase the temperature of the planet.

Specifically, Huntington and Visher note that Humphreys had done a calculation suggesting that doubling carbon dioxide (alone, with no feedbacks) would raise the earths average temperature by about 1.3 degrees C. and they note that there would be feedbacks.

does that tell you "what they mean by the term"? would a description of Humphreys' calculation do the job? can you give us an example of what you would count as a satisfactory answer to your request? i'd be happy to then try and formulate one as per your template.

 

[aleCcowaN]

In recent posts r-j seems to have discovered that packing all the notions he or she resists under one label ("the theory of global warming") allows him or her to focus Internet searches to collect pieces of text dismissing the whole label -the container-, and thus, all the feared notions -the contents- in just one stroke without disputing each backing concept, i.e., dismissing warming driven by excess in CO2 without even bothering in understanding, not even challenging, how that CO2 implies a radiative forcing. This way, CO2 can continue to be a greenhouse gas without any noticeable effect in the climate of r-j's planet. Minds more cynical than ours would regard this as a loophole to sententiously dismiss global warming without exhibiting the lack of foundation in the required fields of knowledge or gaps in it as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Additionally, by means of such categorical doubts, an "anthropogenic global warming" not only isn't happening but it doesn't even exist. By the lack of foundations and a theoretical frame that encompasses the phenomenon, AGW would be this way like those animist practices whose witch doctors can't explain thoroughly and consistently from a theological point of view, so it's easy to the arguer to set up himself as Saint So-and-so debating with heathens who doesn't know what they are talking about.

It looks like new dialectic turns are not possible; only a confusing recycling of the same old thing.

 

[Reality Check]

I note that you avoided actually saying ""Serious answer - there is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming".

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.
Thus it would be insane to expect any peer reviewed science that explains this imaginary theory.

It is not rocket science - it is climate science, r-j !
FYI, r-j: AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Yes, it really is this simple, r-j:

• There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!
• Climate science exists.
• Global warming exists.
• Global warming is predicted by the theory of climate science.

I do not know how much simpler I can make this