Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

Again, I wish this weren't brought up as a counter to the "it's freezing, global warming isn't true" argument. At best, it proves that global cooling isn't happening either.

What he’s proving is that you can’t use anecdotal evidence to prove either warming or cooling because examples of both are always present someplace in the world.

The proof that the world is warming comes from datasets like this one from the GISS group at NASA.

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

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

[lomiller]

'Twas me. Haig quoted his predictions, I picked out the 10 most specific and tracked them over the next few months. Just 2 proved correct.

Thanks, I thought it may be you but I wasn’t sure. IIRC even his most specific predictions were not really all that specific.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi View Post
So I'm reading through one of the documents that was suggested to me (at http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...4294972962.pdf) and I want to document some of my reactions.

- In paragraph 21 it says that the warming has been concentrated in two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. What is the explanation for the 35-year halt in the interim type period? Is it the same as or similar to the sun-cycle explanation for the current pause? If so, is the current pause expected to last 35 years as well? If so, should this information not be preemptively distributed so deniers don't get to use it to discredit global warming for the entire time span?

what sun cycle explanation??....there is not one from any climate scientist I am aware of and there is no pause in ocean warming...in fact there is an increase

The atmosphere is a small part of the AGW phenomena....you certainly understand how much more energy it takes to heat water or melt ice.
Atmosphere is transient. The ocean and ice are very very long term situations - it does not change fast but the changes are very long lasting.

The current ice mass loss in Greenland is the thermal equivalent of carpet bombing the glaciers with 2,000 Hiroshima level nukes a DAY!. That's just what it takes to melt 100-150 cukm of ice due to latent heat.

The energies are enormous. That's why some of the consequences of AGW will already be with us for the next 3 millenia.

It would be prudent to stay within the Holcene temperature envelope....2C above 20th century average....not the 4C and up that BAU will bring.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Did I say it proves AGW? It was a response to the ridiculous posts about icebound ships etc.

The "weather is not climate" meme has been drummed into anti-AGWs' heads for so long that the "it's hotter elsewhere" response is now seen as a target of ridicule. Stick with "weather is not climate" - don't go too far in the other direction, because it makes you sound defensive.

Yerushalmi, why aren't you pointing out to the deniers that pictures of frozen in ships and waffling about the cold weather in the US makes their side look weak?

Post #1981

Thanks. Sorry, Yerushalmi.

I may be a denier, but I'm nothing if not intellectually honest

 

[Haig]

So the Sun defines the climate

New paper predicts another Little Ice Age within the next 30 years
A new paper by solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.

The observed long-term decline of TSI and forthcoming deep cooling will, first of all, essentially affect climate-dependent natural resources and, hence, influence, in the first place, economic closely connected with state of the climate. The most reasonable way to fight against the coming Little Ice Age is a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production in order to adapt mankind to forthcoming period of deep cooling which will last approximately until the beginning of the 22nd century.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html

 

[uke2se]

So the Sun defines the climate

The sun isn't the primary driver for the current climate change.

 

[macdoc]

Geez Haig get out of the sewer.

Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[4] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[5][6][7] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[8] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[9][10]
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[11] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.

In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[12]

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

 

[lomiller]

New paper predicts another Little Ice Age within the next 30 years

LOL. The LIA featured ~0.5 Deg C cooling over ~300 years. if it happened it would barely register as noise compared to the current warming trend.

A new paper by solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...ation=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

No papers in climate related journals and no one is citing his work in peer reviewed journals. (I see he was cited a few times in “Energy and the Environment” though. For those unfamiliar this is more or less the equivalent of UFO today.)

Clearly no one is taking this research very seriously. This is likely because he’s making predictions without physical basis and minimal statistical basis.


Edit to add the following...


For reference a real, practicing climate scientists should look more like this:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...ation=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

or This

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:Mann&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Note that in the second link many of the papers (Highly cited, and published in some of the worlds premier science journals) actually quantity climate change occurred during the Maunder minimum and LIA and show how small it was to what’s going on now.

 

[macdoc]

Yeru

I may be a denier, but I'm nothing if not intellectually honest

that remains to be seen

 

[Yerushalmi]

Yeru


that remains to be seen

You're so mean.

 

[Belz...]

The "weather is not climate" meme has been drummed into anti-AGWs' heads for so long that the "it's hotter elsewhere" response is now seen as a target of ridicule.

It's used to turn the argument on its head, Yeru. In other words, if the "it's cold here" argument had any value, the "it's warm here" one should cancel it out.

 

[Belz...]

So the Sun defines the climate

Would you mind demonstrating that, like I asked ?

 

[Yerushalmi]

It's used to turn the argument on its head, Yeru. In other words, if the "it's cold here" argument had any value, the "it's warm here" one should cancel it out.

I know what your intended point is, Belz. I'm just telling you how the argument is viewed among climate deniers: as an opportunity to show that you're not playing by your own established rules.

 

[lomiller]

It's used to turn the argument on its head, Yeru. In other words, if the "it's cold here" argument had any value, the "it's warm here" one should cancel it out.

Yeah, it seems pretty clear to me it’s being used as a sarcastic way to point out how little value this type of anecdote some really has.

As I said, the evidence for warming comes from places like the GISS dataset, the HadCRU dataset, changes in long established florae and fauna patterns, proxy climate data, glacier melting, reduced sea ice, etc etc etc.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Yeru


that remains to be seen

You're so mean.

No, intellectually honest.

If you do not have reading time then use it looking at the science of climate change and put the riffraff on ignore.

If there is ONE image to take home to hang your hat on it's this.....

and the only explanation for this observed reality is AGW.

 

[DC]

His empirical evidence is here

You need to check your facts DC ... his education is good:-
He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London,
He studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College, London, later examining the relationship between Earth's weather and climate and solar activity. Later he formed WeatherAction

Weather Action TV 26/4/2013 The Mini Ice Age Is Upon Us & Arctic Ice Claims Disproved Published on 2 May 2013

DC it started with SC24 ... you know ... the pause

Mmm ... I think that's projection

Have you nothing else to say about the big picture video and links?

Maybe you don't understand, try this video They Want to Blame You - (A21CS Section 1.2)

cute, you really think that is evidence?

and your video, closed it after 1 minute, what a laughable argument.

 

[DC]

This video is good too, may help you understand DC, best to see it in HD

How To Watch The Sun

really?

after 10 minutes still nothing about climate..... so i stopped it.

do you have any science instead of YT?

 

[lomiller]

I know what your intended point is, Belz. I'm just telling you how the argument is viewed among climate deniers: as an opportunity to show that you're not playing by your own established rules.

The same climate deniers who insisted on bringing forward this type of anecdotal evidence to begin with. That’s the point, if they accept the logic used in their own posts they have to admit warming, if they reject the logic they are hypocrites.

Again, it’s important to actually follow the discussion and look at the comment in context. If you do so, it’s pretty clear what people posting counterexamples are saying. If you remove these posts from their context or you refuse to look at them in context you change their meaning and are attacking something never forwarded to begin with, which doesn’t further the discussion.

 

[lionking]

It's used to turn the argument on its head, Yeru. In other words, if the "it's cold here" argument had any value, the "it's warm here" one should cancel it out.

That was clearly (to most anyway) my intention.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

The same climate deniers who insisted on bringing forward this type of anecdotal evidence to begin with. That’s the point, if they accept the logic used in their own posts they have to admit warming, if they reject the logic they are hypocrites.

Again, it’s important to actually follow the discussion and look at the comment in context. If you do so, it’s pretty clear what people posting counterexamples are saying. If you remove these posts from their context or you refuse to look at them in context you change their meaning and are attacking something never forwarded to begin with, which doesn’t further the discussion.

I think the global warming activists are a little out of touch with reality.

Global warming has become political, right now the White house is declaring that the cold spell is due to global warming.

Politicians use global warming to push green energy and loans to Solyndra. Obviously there is evidence that the planet is warming and CO2 is factually a global warming agent.

But you miss the point entirely. No one really is disagreeing with global warming in theory. Its all the political activism and 90Billion spent on green energy people have a problem with.

Oh and the majority of the global warming activists are just as misinformed as the skeptics.