Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Lennart Hyland]

Wow talk about a broken record...

 

[DC]

Very minor flaws, easy to overlook. They do not detract from the effort. We could all learn from such clear and understandable writing. Also, it's seven years out of date, which is why it's more important in regards to the theory of global warming than the details he discusses. We have actually learned a lot since then. Recall that several people in this thread claimed there is no such thing as what he is discussing. And of course that ludicrous definition that DC/macdoc find dear. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/ Yes, the theory and the understanding evolves, it changes and adapts. This was 2006, the more recent troubles were still just a whisper at that time.
There is an honest statement about the possibility our measuring might be part of the trouble, and that there is of course trouble.

Real science has uncertainty, real science is not this mockery of science that claims it's all settled, or that the majority agrees, so it must be so. That puffery and boasting does not belong in a science discussion. It's the realm of belief, of politics, or religion.

all is settled? no. what is however settled is the fact that AGW is real and happening right now.... there is no doubt about that.

what is not settled is how much warming will be caused by us. and how the climate will change exactly. but AGW is an observed fact.
and no amount of denial will ever change that.

 

[Jules Galen]

all is settled? no. what is however settled is the fact that AGW is real and happening right now.... there is no doubt about that.

what is not settled is how much warming will be caused by us. and how the climate will change exactly. but AGW is an observed fact.
and no amount of denial will ever change that.

No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

 

[ideogram]

No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics.

 

[macdoc]

What is AGW r-j...??.

that was the question you asked and DC and I answered....obviously too condensed for your limited understanding of the field.

Now we want your own words....including why aerosols are problematic, what role does ENSO play, is the NAO shifting ???, the PDO?

be sure and include in your own words what AGW is and what roles those "troubles" could portend for the theory.

As before - my prediction was correct - you did not provide your own definition you caged one from where you were directed in the first place and one 7 years of date tho still more than adequate.

I predict once more you will not provide a definition of AGW in your own words

 

[macdoc]

.AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

you were shown earlier in this thread that a 1981 prediction was very accurate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
..why do you lie?? Is this a genetic problem you have?

Do you think the head of Exxon is wrong as well?

Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is ...
breakingenergy.com/.../exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk...‎
May 29, 2013 - He added that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

c'mon - is he full of **** or you?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

Wow.

 

[Jules Galen]

The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics.

No one doubts this is true. However, the unjustified positive feedbacks that many Climate Scientists use in their models is deplorable when they claim these models represent truth. These so-called Climate Scientists have made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have done a lot to hurt the reputation of all scientists.

 

[ideogram]

No one doubts this is true. However, the unjustified positive feedbacks that many Climate Scientists use in their models is deplorable when they claim these models represent truth. These so-called Climate Scientists have made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have done a lot to hurt the reputation of all scientists.

Less rhetoric, more facts please. I wouldn't mind an informed discussion of the justification for the positive feedbacks. Do you have specific examples?

 

[Jules Galen]

Less rhetoric, more facts please. I wouldn't mind an informed discussion of the justification for the positive feedbacks. Do you have specific examples?

Why use the Positive Feedbacks at all? What is the justification?

Listen...it is you and your ilk that are claiming knowledge of AGW...not me. So justify yourselves!

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Just JAQing off then?

 

[ideogram]

Why use the Positive Feedbacks at all? What is the justification?

Listen...it is you and your ilk that are claiming knowledge of AGW...not me. So justify yourselves!

I admit I have a lot to learn about AGW, especially compared to other posters here. This is precisely why I am interested in an informed discussion. Have you read this http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm ?

 

[Jules Galen]

Just JAQing off then?

So...you start losing an argument and your response is to sling Sexual Inuendo?

 

[macdoc]

he's hardly losing an argument - you don't have one and you won't answer questions.

Why use the Positive Feedbacks at all? What is the justification?

Is water vapor a GHG?

 

[DC]

No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

wrong. AGW is an observed fact. we know the world warmed, and we have a huge body of evidence showing that human activity is the main cause.

no need for climate models.

and the model assembly used by the IPCC have indeed proven to be accurate. atleast when it comes to temperature. sea level and ice melt is still underestimated by the models. but that's soon to be improved.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

 

[ideogram]

So justify yourselves!

There seems to be a pattern here where doubters ask questions, are presented with links to answers, and then don't read the answers.

 

[macdoc]

Let's see if he answers "Is water vapor a GHG?"

 

[Jules Galen]

and the model assembly used by the IPCC have indeed proven to be accurate. atleast when it comes to temperature. sea level and ice melt is still underestimated by the models. but that's soon to be improved.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

No...these models have not proven to be accurate. The IPCC uses a lot of models in typical "Shotgun" approach that covers the whole range of possibilities - so something is bound to be right.

It's the old "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where the rifleman shoots into the side of a barn and then paints a bullseye on whatever groupings he's made.

 

[DC]

No one doubts this is true. However, the unjustified positive feedbacks that many Climate Scientists use in their models is deplorable when they claim these models represent truth. These so-called Climate Scientists have made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have done a lot to hurt the reputation of all scientists.

not at all. even without positive feedbacks there will be warming. that is certain. and we already have observed a lot of warming. do to increased CO2 levels. no doubts there.

and many of the feedbacks are pure logic.

does sea ice reflect more or less incoming SWR than sea water?
does melting permafrost release GHG's?
etc etc.

 

[DC]

No...these models have not proven to be accurate. The IPCC uses a lot of models in typical "Shotgun" approach that covers the whole range of possibilities - so something is bound to be right.

It's the old "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where the rifleman shoots into the side of a barn and then paints a bullseye on whatever groupings he's made.

well the link i provided proves you wrong.