Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

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.

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

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".

"For clarity's sake" ask about the actual thing you mean, not a Theory Of Global Warming (out of interest, would that be separate from a Theory Of Global Cooling? It does happen sometimes). You might want to get your clarifications in first in future, it would save time and efort all round.

I just want somebody to clearly state what they mean by the term.

Nobody but you is using the term. What is being talked about is the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by the injection of CO₂ into the atmosphere. An enhanced greenhouse effect implies an increase in surface temperatures (details available on request), and it has most certainly been increased - 40% more CO₂ will do that.

The reason this is not a niche interest (as climate science was until the late 80's) is that the increase in surface temperatures due to this effect can be calculated within an order of magnitude and at 40% (and rising) it is not negligible. There was some worry about this in the 60's, rather more concern in the 70's, and outright alarm by the end of the 80's. Margaret Thatcher had brought it onto the world stage by then, and it's never left it since.

I, for one, knew AGW was serious when Fred Singer started denying it. No industry hires Singer unless their own research confirms beyond reasonable doubt that there's a problem. Reasonable doubt can be presented by any scientist. Unreasonable doubt is Singer's business, and he's very good at it.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Why should he? "Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread, unless you tell us what you think it means how can anyone comment one way or the other except to repeat the science to you. Now do you have either a response to his statements about the science or are you simply going to keep complaining that no one will tell you what the term you invented means?

 

[lomiller]

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.

What? Were you not just complaining that you couldn't find it referenced anywhere, now you want to say it's everywhere in the scientific literature? Personally I don't recall seeing "Theory of Global Warming" anywhere in the scientific literature though...

For clarity sake, AGW, forcing due to CO2 increase, or the greenhouse effect can be substituted for "Theory of Global Warming".

Ah so you were just moving the goalposts around. As it happens multiple people have already given you explanations and evidence for radiative forcing due to CO2 increase. you dismissed it as "not addressing your demands for an explanation of The Theory of Global Warming".

 

[Trakar]

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/

I personally don't recommend blogs for learning science, but this one and a handful of others can occasionally be helpful to those with some basic science already under their belts.

 

[r-j]

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.

What I stated was

Unless all the evidence is wrong, an 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.

You deny anyone has ever claimed this, which is ludicrous in the extreme.

The Increasing CO2 is Causing Global Warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Using 15 of the most robust proxy records of marine and terrestrial climate, Das Sharma et al. employ new statistical and mathematical techniques to quantify the interactions among climatic parameters and to investigate which of these parameters could be the primary drivers of climate change during MIS 11. The authors find that atmospheric CO2 concentration was indeed the primary driver of both terrestrial and marine climate: Sea surface temperature and the isotopic makeup of carbon in terrestrial and marine reservoirs responded "instantaneously" (i.e., within 1,000 years) to changes in atmospheric CO2 content.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120731200630.htm

Studies: atmospheric CO2 concentration drives climate change. August 2, 2012.

http://www.historicalclimatology.co...drives-climate-change-ancient-and-modern.html

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

To even suggest that nobody has placed rising CO2 levels as the prime driver of recent warming is ludicrous.

Evidence that CO2 drives climate change in journal ‘Nature’.

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2008/08/31/evidence-that-co2-drives-climate-change-in-journal-nature/

I mean, if I stated CO2 is not the main driver of global warming, I would be called a denier for the trouble. In fact, I stated that the recent changes do not match the hypothesis that CO2 is causing it, and look what occurred. Now you are agreeing with this?

no one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only prime mover of climate

Perhaps you are beig clever, using semantics and a slight change to what I stated, in order to avoid the issue. Who knows?

It's as mysterious as how nobody here can state the theory of global warming (under any name), much less state the primary signs that warming matches what it predicts.

In fact, now we are hearing

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.

How strange to hear that.

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

And oh look, both the term used (by a real scientist, on a real science site) and CO2 named as the prime cause of warming.

“Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide, control of carbon dioxide has been considered the most effective method of slowing warming,” Jacobson says in an interview. “Whereas carbon dioxide clearly causes most global warming, control of shorter-lived warming constituents, such as black carbon, should have a faster effect on slowing warming, which is the conclusion I have drawn from this study. "

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

How unpleasant it must be to find your words so very wrong, when you considered them so right.

But wait, there is more.

This module investigates climatic variability. It focuses on the evidence for global climate change. It includes investigations of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the geography and politics of stratospheric ozone, and the theory of global warming

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Mission_Geography/9-12/Module_3/III-3-1.pdf

Is global warming the figment of some scientists' imaginations? How can we reconcile the global warming theory with the reality of what we find when we step outdoors?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004january/

How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere?
Implications for Global Warming Theory

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/

It would seem a lot of real climate scientists use the term, and seem to know what it means.

Unlike the responses we see in this topic. But what about the go-to site for all things warm?

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

How strange.

One of the predictions that arise from the theory of Global Warming is that as the climate system warms, as more energy accumulates in various parts of the system, weather in various ways will become more intense and also more erratic.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1296

I'm going to bet there is indeed a theory of global warming, or a global warming theory. The evidence is pretty strong.

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.

I think defining what you mean when you use a term, is the essence of science. Same for when you say "according to AGW". You need to show some scientific evidence for your claims. Insulting people isn't science.

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.

Once more, please link to the topic here where this has been answered before. What is meant by "it" in your sentence.

it has been considered an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s.

What has? What is the name? Where is the definition? What is the theory? And what does it predict?

These are not offhand questions. These are the heart of the matter.

Global warming is a theory.

http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/f/global_warming_climate_change.htm

 

[r-j]

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.

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

Global Warming – Theory which states that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf

I do not know how much simpler I can make this

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

 

[Pixel42]

For clarity sake, AGW, forcing due to CO2 increase, or the greenhouse effect can be substituted for "Theory of Global Warming".

None of these substitute terms are theories, let alone theories of global warming.

I just want somebody to clearly state what they mean by the term.

The meaning of all these terms is clearly explained in numerous sources. The one I usually recommend is the Royal Society's excellent summary. Here is the link again:

http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/

 

[Loss Leader]

So, first you complain that nowhere on the internet is there a Theory of Global Warming. Then, when people agree that there is no fully worked out "theory" as the scientific word is used, you link to plenty of sites that do talk about the theory of global warming.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

And yet, through all of this, you refuse to talk about the actual observations of our environment - the increase in carbon and sulfur dioxide, the co-extensive temperature increases, the observed global climate instability, the observed shrinking of the polar ice, or any other observations.

One might get the impression that you were doing nothing other than playing word games. Redefining words is not science. It is, at best, a bit of taxonomic cleanup. No new scientific information can be gained or gain-said by arguing about the meaning of words. So, which observations do you deny, if any?

 

[DC]

i often use "AGW theory" and for me that simply means anthropogenic increases of CO2 levels create a positive forcing on the climate system.

 

[Trakar]

What I stated was

inaccurate and generally incorrect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Scientific sources occasionally poorly state and explain their findings, blogs (even otherwise respectable and generally rigorous science blogs like skeptical science) are much more likely to exhibit such lapses, particularly when sans contextual cherry-picking is utilized as a preferred reading style

In the modern episode of climate change, anthropogenic emissions resulting in atmospheric GHG enhancement is the primary forcing factor driving an increase in our planet's retention of solar insolation. This is not the only forcing factor, but it is the primary forcing factor,...currently.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120731200630.htm

What was said above with regards to blogs, is equally true of pop-sci publications. That said, the only thing the bolded statement rejects, is your own erroneous statement that "the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase."

http://www.historicalclimatology.co...drives-climate-change-ancient-and-modern.html

You seem to be confusing (deliberately or incompetently?) a headline for a properly qualified scientific summation. Your link clarifies: "...According to the authors, the results 'unequivocally' establish that atmospheric carbon dioxide was the key influence behind the warmer climate of the period, with important consequences for our understanding of the relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and today's changing climate."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Former blog qualifications apply, but ultimately this does not support your statement and rather confirms and supports exactly what Unique Person stated:

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.

Your source:

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

"Over half" is attributable to CO2, implying that a bit less than half of the increases are due to other factors and influences over the last century and a half.

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.

Once more, please link to the topic here where this has been answered before. What is meant by "it" in your sentence.

What has? What is the name? Where is the definition? What is the theory? And what does it predict?

As stated rather clearly in the statement of mine that you quoted, I was talking about the "Theory of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer," or as it is sometimes referred to, "Radiative Transfer Theory." This well evidenced and supported scientific understanding deals with how EM energy transits our planet's atmosphere. This is the physical background and basis of the process more colloquially described as the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

These are not offhand questions. These are the heart of the matter.

Indeed! Which is why it is rather surprising that you seemingly have no understanding or familiarity with even the most fundamental aspects of the foundational science underlying nearly two centuries worth of work and understanding relating to modern climate research.

 

[lomiller]

What I stated was

You deny anyone has ever claimed this, which is ludicrous in the extreme.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120731200630.htm

http://www.historicalclimatology.co...drives-climate-change-ancient-and-modern.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

To even suggest that nobody has placed rising CO2 levels as the prime driver of recent warming is ludicrous.

None of this in any way contradicts what he said. CO2 can be the main mover of climate at any particular time without it being the only thing that ever moves climate, which was the straw man you were trying to argue against.

Current climate change is well documented as being the combination of a number of forcing, the largest of which are anthropogenic. Warming from human greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and Methane), cooling form human aerosols and warming from land use changes are all factored into the total forcing with Greenhouse Gasses being the largest.

 

[Reality Check]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
...

Yes the internet does contain the phrase "the theory of global warming". Given the billions of words on the Internet this is not a surprise!
This does not mean that there is a scientific theory called "the theory of global warming" that you seem to demand has to exist.

The serious and scientific answer remains that there is no theory named the "Theory of Global Warming" in science. Global warming is described by the theory of climate science.

I am surprised that you have not mentioned the few almost "the theory of global warming" phrases in the literature, e.g. How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory

 

[r-j]

Since no one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only prime mover of climate

Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

 

[CapelDodger]

"The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

There it is, the Theory of Global Warming explained. You even posted it yourself. So where's the problem?

 

[CapelDodger]

Scientific sources occasionally poorly state and explain their findings, blogs (even otherwise respectable and generally rigorous science blogs like skeptical science) are much more likely to exhibit such lapses, particularly when sans contextual cherry-picking is utilized as a preferred reading style

One can hardly blame r-j for being confused then. It's the scientists fault for not always being clear enough. By now, with us being so very clear, r-j will have grasped the basics of the greenhouse effect and learnt of the existence (who knew?) of Radiative Transfer Theory.

In the modern episode of climate change, anthropogenic emissions resulting in atmospheric GHG enhancement is the primary forcing factor driving an increase in our planet's retention of solar insolation. This is not the only forcing factor, but it is the primary forcing factor,...currently.

It's perhaps worth mentioning here that not even the wildest estimates of other forcings come close to matching what has occurred (let alone what will happen).

What was said above with regards to blogs, is equally true of pop-sci publications. That said, the only thing the bolded statement rejects, is your own erroneous statement that "the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase."

How r-j would know what is predicted for an increase in a greenhouse gas without even understanding the greenhouse effect is not obvious. Why r-j thinks he knows what is predicted is another matter (the answer also includes a hyphen .)

This is the physical background and basis of the process more colloquially described as the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

I knew it! I knew the colloquials were behind it all along! It was never about CO₂, it's always been about the vulgarisation of society in order to bring down capitalism and establish a one-world, lowest-common-denominator culture.

Indeed! Which is why it is rather surprising that you seemingly have no understanding or familiarity with even the most fundamental aspects of the foundational science underlying nearly two centuries worth of work and understanding relating to modern climate research.

When we do it, it's irony. When the vulgar do it, it's sarcasm. I'm not surprised the colloquialist case is collapsing so abjectly.

Meanwhile stuff actually happens. The meandering jet-stream is, for me, an emerging issue : I don't recall discussing it until fairly recently. I understand it was predicted by some models but (like so many things) not this soon. Since it depends on the surface temperature gradient from equator to pole, it could be that the recent La Nina frequency has brought it forward. A few years of ENSO calm would give us a better snapshot of the current normal.

When I first heard about greenhouse warming it didn't occur to me I'd see any of it unfolding, if it even happened. Of course, in those days it seemed a good idea to name a sci-fi comic 2000AD.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

r-j please. Don't you see you are making a mistake in logic called equivocation? Theory has many meanings depending on the context. Global warming has many meanings depending on the context. You are asking questions that can not be answered only because to answer them would mean making the same Equivocation informal logical fallacy by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. Your continuing the same misleading use of those terms which have more than one meaning or sense may be unintentional on your part. That I don't know. But your continued use of the Equivocation fallacy is certainly the source of this current banter.

There is no such thing as "The Theory of Global Warming". However, Many scientists do have a theory that the cause of the current observed global warming is partly due to human caused fossil fuel CO2 emissions and other human caused things like deforestation, desertification, etc.

Remember, observing Global Warming, and devising a theory as to why, is not the same thing as "The Theory of Global Warming". You trying to gloss over that subtle difference is the logic error that is confusing you.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think defining what you mean when you use a term, is the essence of science.

This from the person who posted

For clarity sake, AGW, forcing due to CO2 increase, or the greenhouse effect can be substituted for "Theory of Global Warming".

Same for when you say "according to AGW".

I haven't said "according to AGW", and I can't imagine any situation where I would.

You need to show some scientific evidence for your claims.

You could show some evidence of me saying "according to AGW". I'm as likely to say "according to the economy".

Insulting people isn't science.

A false accusation. I haven't insulted you.

Sophistry isn't science, and that's what you're engaged in. Look it up and you might get better at it.

Once more, please link to the topic here where this has been answered before. What is meant by "it" in your sentence.

Trakar defined what "it" referred to in his post. You should read it for comprehension (not for some transparent sophist's hook); it's quite precise.

What has? What is the name? Where is the definition? What is the theory? And what does it predict?

What do you care?

These are not offhand questions. These are the heart of the matter.

And they're the best you can do, let's face it.

By the way, if you want me to insult you just ask.

 

[Pixel42]

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

Exactly. There are many drivers of climate change - the Milankovich cycles, variations in the sun's output, the drifting of the continents, periods of unusually high (or low) levels of volcanic activity and so on - which is why it is always happening to some extent. Currently the prime driver of (i.e. the single biggest contributor to) climate change is the burning of fossil fuel. That doesn't mean that all the other drivers have ceased, just that they're currently being drowned out by the new kid on the block. Got it now?

 

[DC]

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

yes CO2 was the prime cause in the late 20th century. but your claim was this :

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 other factors were not ignored at all, would you read the IPCC AR's you would know that. the other factors got quantified. and it became clear that the late 20th century warming was caused mainly by CO2 level increase.
but it was not the only factor.

nor can one say that CO2 is the only prime mover of climate in general. and nobody did. and dishonest quotemining will not change that fact.

 

[aleCcowaN]

There it is, the Theory of Global Warming explained. You even posted it yourself. So where's the problem?

His/her problem with GW is that for it to exist, if it does, a non anthropogenic cause MUST be found.

But many may dismiss this because of its excess of logic and rather point to the pleasure of having one's intellectual doodles replied by everyone, which seasoned with a pinch of Dunning-Kruger ends up adding to one's ego and self-enjoyment. I don't think these many were right, in spite of some rambling aspects of the argumentation.