Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

That's the idea. It's just entertainment value for some. It was getting very quiet...no new denier chew toys in a while.....the cold must have driven them from their dens under the bridges.

 

[Iamme]

Macdoc---what?!!!! What a surprise you go after me rather than Haig! What?!!!
This is like some NFL team players fighting among themselves where the opposing team goes on to victory.
You just schooled me on nothing. When i refered to arctic ice i did not say sea ice melting. Its like land based glaciers in the arctic/Antarctica disappearing.
Dont go putting words in my mouth.
Maybe i erred by not being clear. But in that case first ask me what i mean rather than jump all over me.

 

[macdoc]

Iamme this is a science forum - you are expected to know what you are talking about and in this case you don't. There are no "sides" in this....there is evidence.

the rapid decline in arctic ice, leading to the rise of sea levels

The decline in Arctic ice did not, does not lead to the rise of sea levels.
AGW leads to both a decline in Arctic ice AND a rise in sea levels.

••

As to where the deniers come from .....take the time to watch this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

 

[r-j]

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html jet stream maps and animations

Current NH animation
http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjetstream_model.html

SH animation
http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/shemjetstream_model.html

The polar vortex did not "move south". Or what ever it is they keep repeating on TV. Why are people so easily fooled?

 

[r-j]

Sorry to have to inform of this, but that analysis is infantile and completely dishonest

It's a plot of the warming/cooling, not the anomalies. It's like the charts of CO2 "rate of increase" rather than the actual values each year.

Thank you , I expected that was the answer.

It is just that back a few years ago we had many wonderfully mild winters in a row and all the news and science hype attributed it to Global Warming.

Yes, and it is this sort of nonsensical "science" that makes it all look bad. You just can't do that.

Can't have it both ways.

But you can certainly try. It's like when I asked what would "disprove" the theory of AGW, and I was informed the laws of physics would have to be overturned. It's just terrible science.

This is clearly, again, an ideology-driven position. It's a fact that, at a certain point, and given the right amount of activity, we can affect the weather.

Oh the irony. The irony of the warmers objecting to anyone claiming any other factor can "control" the weather. "Only mankind is controlling the weather right now." Do you understand how insane that sounds? You are claiming the sun has little effect, and people have a huge effect. Hubris in the extreme.

It's not as simple as looking out the window, reading your thermometer, and concluding that, since it's cooler than yesterday, global warming is a hoax, like r-j is doing.

You can repeat that lie over and over, and it only makes you more of a liar.

If I had ever said that, you would be quoting it, rather than making it up. What a liar you are.

Shameful.

 

[r-j]

And...havent there been conferences held, worldwide, with various countries in attendance, in trying to come to grips with AGW?

There are also conferences for religions, so that line of argument doesn't really prove anything.

Why would this be, if AGW is some hairbrained theory, and not globally accepted yet?

Bad argument. There were plenty of conferences by Doctors who discussed bleeding ulcers all the while completly wrong about the cause and proper treatment. Numbers of experts do not sway facts. But facts will always sway experts in the end.

What is your theory on where all the increased manmade CO2 is going? Or do you think that increased CO2 leads to nothing?...and the Earth has its own way of dealing with it?

Obviously nature deals with CO2, even large increases. That's why there is no historic event where there was some sort of runaway warming, just as there is no runaway warming in the tropics from the intense heat of the sun. Water vapor does not cause runaway heating, or life would not even exist on earth. The part of the theory that assumes a small increase in heat will cause a huge amount of warming is an assumption. We see no evidence to support this in the natural world.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Warmists didn't predict the pause or this intense cold but others did

Arctic invader puts much of Midwest in deep freeze
[qimg] http://www.trbimg.com/img-52cba534/...ub-zero-temperatures-put-chicago-20140106/600[/qimg]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0107-polar-vortex-20140107,0,5548599.story

Ofcourse there will be cold weathers, record colds etc no one ever said this wouldnt happen.

And so what about a couple of really cold days in the US, would that disprove GW? Here were I live I havent seen -0 or below since november or early december which is very much above average.

 

[Mikemcc]

There are also conferences for religions, so that line of argument doesn't really prove anything.

Bad argument. There were plenty of conferences by Doctors who discussed bleeding ulcers all the while completly wrong about the cause and proper treatment. Numbers of experts do not sway facts. But facts will always sway experts in the end.

Agreed, and the data thus far gathered means there is an overwhelming majority of papers that provide confirmation of AGW, and next to none that counter the present theories, and none of those are show-stoppers that disprove those theories. The overwhelming majority of climatologists support those theories as shown by Cook et al 2013.

Obviously nature deals with CO2, even large increases. That's why there is no historic event where there was some sort of runaway warming, just as there is no runaway warming in the tropics from the intense heat of the sun. Water vapor does not cause runaway heating, or life would not even exist on earth. The part of the theory that assumes a small increase in heat will cause a huge amount of warming is an assumption. We see no evidence to support this in the natural world.

The first point is true, the oceans and biosphere are continuing to draw in a significant portion of the emitted gases and there is no indication that they will stop in the near or mid term.

Your later points are a strawman though no-one is seriously predicting a Venusian-style runaway. Recent work is still supporting an ECS of 3 deg C per doubling of CO2 concentration (can't remember the paper at the moment a bit of googling would uncover it though - it was due to a faulty representation of water vapour flows to the upper atmosphere in some models - in reality more rained out at lower altitude meaning that fewer higher clouds formed)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Obviously nature deals with CO2, even large increases. That's why there is no historic event where there was some sort of runaway warming, just as there is no runaway warming in the tropics from the intense heat of the sun. Water vapor does not cause runaway heating, or life would not even exist on earth. The part of the theory that assumes a small increase in heat will cause a huge amount of warming is an assumption. We see no evidence to support this in the natural world.

When you say "we see no evidence" you are simply not looking. I have a lot of problems with many of your arguments. You say "nature deals with CO2". OK fair enough. Name a biome or ecosystem that humans haven't dramatically changed. How could you for example expect the prairie in North America to "deal with CO2" when the prairie is gone and has been replaced with a net CO2 emissions source?

Then your biggest error of all. You say AGW claims a small increase of heat will cause a huge amount of warming. That is categorically false. Closer to the truth is a huge increase in heat causes a small amount of warming.

So since you are framing AGW and what it means incorrectly, of course you see no evidence. You are not even looking in the right places.

 

[r-j]

And so what about a couple of really cold days in the US, would that disprove GW?

First, that isn't the argument, it's a straw man. But, it's funny because the global warming actually claims it proves global warming, and global warming caused it. Which is really pretty funny.

Ofcourse there will be cold weathers, record colds etc no one ever said this wouldnt happen.

It's even worse, now some people are claiming global warming predicted this! That it's global warming causing the cold!

Here were I live I havent seen -0 or below since november or early december which is very much above average.

You realize how ironic it is that you ended with that?

Plus, using your location to mean anything about global trends is really off topic.

 

[Belz...]

Oh the irony. The irony of the warmers objecting to anyone claiming any other factor can "control" the weather. "Only mankind is controlling the weather right now." Do you understand how insane that sounds? You are claiming the sun has little effect, and people have a huge effect. Hubris in the extreme.

Before I even begin to address your objection, can you quote me saying any of those things ? It seems to me like you didn't actually read the post you were replying to.

You can repeat that lie over and over, and it only makes you more of a liar.

I don't lie. Your say-so doesn't make it so.

If I had ever said that, you would be quoting it, rather than making it up. What a liar you are.

I did quote you, but given your tendency to ignore what is actually posted, I'm not surprised you missed it.

Your attempt at flame-baiting will be ignored.

 

[DC]

Humans are the main driver of climate CHANGE. there are no changes in TSI that could explain the warming we saw in the past 50 years.

 

[r-j]

The overwhelming majority of climatologists support those theories as shown by Cook et al 2013.

What theories? Just like in this topic, the paper doesn't define what it is talking about.

When you say "we see no evidence" you are simply not looking.

No, it means I can't find any evidence. Just like we see in this topic. If there is evidence showing the increase in global water vapor, as well as increasing temperatures, then post it. Or a link to it.

So since you are framing AGW and what it means incorrectly, of course you see no evidence. You are not even looking in the right places.

So far I seem to be the only one posting any definition and explaining what AGW means. Quite a few people actually denied there even was a "theory of AGW" when I brought it up!

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.

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

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

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.

So far, nobody has responded to that strange little exchange. Including you.

What do you make of papers saying Earths temps are steadily climbing so many decimals Centigrade, while also saying we can/have been measure/ing solar energy output... and that has NOT gone down?

Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%,[3][4][5] or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2.[1][6][7] There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

If .5 W/m2 is supposed to be the amount CO2 is currently increasing the energy of the planet, a variation of 1.3 W/m2 would cause a clear change in the earth's energy balance. But we don't see that.

Then there is the fact that we don't actually have a direct measurement of the sun's change in total energy reaching us each moment. Much less a long term record of the same.

It's one reason the solar issue is so jumbled.

 

[r-j]

Yeah, that's because your argument boils down to "it's cold now, therefore no warming."

Lies, I never claimed that. It's why you can't quote me saying it. You are a liar.

I have no idea why you want to bring this stuff up?

You can't understand why I want to bring up the definition of AGW? Or what the predictions that were made based on the theory?

You really want to say that?

 

[DC]

What theories? Just like in this topic, the paper doesn't define what it is talking about. No, it means I can't find any evidence. Just like we see in this topic. If there is evidence showing the increase in global water vapor, as well as increasing temperatures, then post it. Or a link to it. So far I seem to be the only one posting any definition and explaining what AGW means. Quite a few people actually denied there even was a "theory of AGW" when I brought it up! So far, nobody has responded to that strange little exchange. Including you.


[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png[/qimg]

If .5 W/m2 is supposed to be the amount CO2 is currently increasing the energy of the planet, a variation of 1.3 W/m2 would cause a clear change in the earth's energy balance. But we don't see that.

Then there is the fact that we don't actually have a direct measurement of the sun's change in total energy reaching us each moment. Much less a long term record of the same.

It's one reason the solar issue is so jumbled.

TSI is measured TOA...........

and its people like you that think they know more than the scientists actually doing the research.... oh dear. no wonder people laugh at denier clowns

 

[Belz...]

Lies, I never claimed that. It's why you can't quote me saying it. You are a liar.

No, I'm not. Your flame-baiting will not work.

Are you going to address my request about your own lies ?

Where did I claim anything ressembling this:

Oh the irony. The irony of the warmers objecting to anyone claiming any other factor can "control" the weather. "Only mankind is controlling the weather right now." Do you understand how insane that sounds? You are claiming the sun has little effect, and people have a huge effect. Hubris in the extreme.

?

 

[r-j]

Before I even begin to address your objection, can you quote me saying any of those things ?

If there is a quote box and a link to your post, it is a quote of you. The other words are mine. unlike you, I quote what people say, I don't make things up like you do.

It's not as simple as looking out the window, reading your thermometer, and concluding that, since it's cooler than yesterday, global warming is a hoax, like r-j is doing.

That is a lie, and you know it. If I said that, there would be a quote box and a link to where I said it. Quit making things up, that is called "a lie".

 

[Lennart Hyland]

First, that isn't the argument, it's a straw man. But, it's funny because the global warming actually claims it proves global warming, and global warming caused it. Which is really pretty funny.

So to what was the point with the link?

It's even worse, now some people are claiming global warming predicted this! That it's global warming causing the cold!

Maybe it sounds odd to you but that doesnt make it less true.

 

[Belz...]

If there is a quote box and a link to your post, it is a quote of you. The other words are mine. unlike you, I quote what people say, I don't make things up like you do.

No, that's a lie. I never implied any of the things you claimed that I said. Here it is again:

The irony of the warmers objecting to anyone claiming any other factor can "control" the weather.

When did I object to someone claiming that other factors can affect the weather ? The answer is: I didn't, and this is a fabrication on your part. Or, at best, a misunderstanding, I guess. We're all well aware that several factors are at work, and have been since well before humans even existed. To deny that would be quite silly.

"Only mankind is controlling the weather right now."

I never claimed anything of the sort. What I said was that "at a certain point, and given the right amount of activity, we can affect the weather." This does not and cannot infer that nothing else can affect the weather. I also didn't say we controlled it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Another fabrication by you.

You are claiming the sun has little effect, and people have a huge effect.

Again, I didn't compare the sun's effect to the humans' effect. This is another complete fabrication by you, since it isn't even twisting what I said, but inventing it altogether. That you are conflating me with strawmen of your own design is not my problem.

That is a lie, and you know it.

No it isn't. At worst, I'm misunderstanding your position. Tell you what, what's you position, then ? I know you'll say the evidence doesn't support AGW, so what I mean is: how do you know it doesn't support it ?

 

[uke2se]

It's amazing that every winter all the denialists crawl out and declare global warming dead because it's cold where they are, especially since they are shown, every year, exactly how they are wrong. Is it simple dishonesty or chronic stupidity? It's one or the other, for sure, and it might differ from denier to denier.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, the few Swedish denialists (all kooks, mainly internet based) are having a rough time with an extremely warm winter, with December temperatures up to 8 degrees above normal.

Some people really do have a problem with the word "global".