Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Laidbackracer]

There are many climate swings that coincide with the solar proxy record, the Homeric Minimum is another example along with the warming periods of the MWP, Roman and Minoan. Volcanic eruptions have a limited effect of around 2 years... if they are big enough.

The last few decades are the best example of solar and ocean cycles that affect climate. Both cycles have to be viewed together and cannot be dealt with in isolation. 1980 to 2000 witnessed a warm PDO region which encourages a greater tendency and strength of El Nino in the ENSO record along with high solar cycles that promote a positive AO/NAO (less disruption to the polar vortex). Since then the PDO went into its cool phase (more La Nina) and the AO/NAO experienced more negative events from low solar conditions.

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?

 

[lomiller]

Over the solar cycle there is a small fluctuation in the TSI or heat output of the Sun, this is used by the IPCC to discredit any solar influence in our climate but they omit any reference to other solar factors that vary considerably more.

Just clarify, are you trying to argue that it isn't the heat given off by the sun that warms the earth, but some other effect you can't identify that that is amplified by some enormous, but unknown force into something that can supply the energy needed to warm the planet?

EUV can vary by over 100% depending on the spectrum over a typical solar cycle a

So?

Only a tiny Small fraction of the Sun's energy output is in UV, so even if the change here is twice as big it still doesn't change the fact that the change in energy flux over the solar cycle is far to small to explain current warming and not heading in the right direction to explain current warming.

downstream effect of EUV on ozone in the Mesosphere and Stratosphere and ultimately the Troposphere are a serious area of research that needs to be considered in any debate.

Again, So?

How does this change create the massive amount of energy needed to explain a warming planet? Energy doesn't just spring into existence, it has to come from somewhere and for your explanation to work you need to explain where the energy is coming from.

Remember, you start your argument that it's not changes in energy coming from teh Sun that's warming the planet, if it's not coming from the Sun then where?

 

[Yerushalmi]

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.

Can't do that. That defeats the whole purpose of my current mission: looking at the evidence presented by all sides and choosing which makes the most sense. I did come here with the express purposes of getting AGW data to oppose the anti-AGW positions I regularly encounter in my day-to-day life, so I haven't engaged the anti-AGW people in this thread very much, but I'm not going to ignore them when they address me directly on your say-so.

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.

Yet at the same time, by bringing forward anti-AGWers' logic, you are attempting to defend AGW with the same invalid reasoning. The only thing an "it's hotter than usual in place X" anecdote can accomplish is to convince an anti-AGW activist (of the type who believes that such things are evidence) of the fact that the world is not cooling. Now, while there are going to be a couple of cranks who believe the world is actively cooling, those aren't the ones you're going to be able to convince - and when you use that argument to try to convince them, you lose all the unwashed masses, who see your use of logic you would deny anti-AGWers as hypocrisy.

The only way to respond to an anti-AGWer who brings up an individual cold-weather event is to explain that weather is not climate. Bringing up an individual warm-weather event merely sinks you to their level and discredits your cause.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Some other facts to ponder:

World sea ice extent is not reducing since records began in 1979.

The oceans are the most alkaline for the past 100 million years.

 

[macdoc]

You have these little sound snips that say nothing...yes the proxies show a magnitude, no the magnitude does not compare to AGW. Have a hard time understanding that???
Apparently so.

 

[macdoc]

Now we are really getting into the extreme weather swings..

and THIS says 15

-24 a couple of days ago to plus 15 this weekend mid January !!!!

 

[Yerushalmi]

The fact of Goddard's assertion, does not support the validity of Goddard's assertion. I asked you what facts led you to believe that Goddard's assertion was "valid."

I think we're using "Goddard's assertion" to mean two different things. You use it to mean "global warming is not happening". I use it to mean "Time magazine said something that appears on the face of it ridiculous and requires explanation". The former is a conclusion Goddard drew that I am not prepared to draw myself, because I believe there is only evidence for the latter. The latter is also trivially true. Or do you not believe that Time magazine did this?

Then you have not actually investigated, yet alone tried to actually understand the phenomena at hand? What led you to disbelieve the mainstream science with regard to AGW?

Um... is not my presence in this forum, asking people who claim to know something about it, my attempt at making exactly that investigation?

 

[Laidbackracer]

You have these little sound snips that say nothing...yes the proxies show a magnitude, no the magnitude does not compare to AGW. Have a hard time understanding that???
Apparently so.

The last few decades are the best example of solar and ocean cycles that affect climate. Both cycles have to be viewed together and cannot be dealt with in isolation. 1980 to 2000 witnessed a warm PDO region which encourages a greater tendency and strength of El Nino in the ENSO record along with high solar cycles that promote a positive AO/NAO (less disruption to the polar vortex). Since then the PDO went into its cool phase (more La Nina) and the AO/NAO experienced more negative events from low solar conditions.

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?


You have not dealt with the facts that I presented?

 

[macdoc]

Or do you not believe that Time magazine did this?

did what ?? and what possible relevance to ANYTHING is what Time magazine did or did not do .....or for that matter what an electrical engineer with no climate science training, who rattles on in a fossil funded blog site has to do at ALL with climate change science....

What is there a shoal of red herrings in Israel??

 

[lomiller]

Yet at the same time, by bringing forward anti-AGWers' logic, you are attempting to defend AGW with the same invalid reasoning.

Again I will point out that you need to read more carefully and pay more attention. As I already pointed out the logic in such a response is completely different and I explained why it's completely different. If you are simply going to ignore all our response what;s the point in answering your posts at all?

 

[macdoc]

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?

How many times do you need to look at the same graph ..

a) 1998 is an outlier - a sure clue to a deniers idiocy.

b) this is a fact....what you present is opinions that are wrong...

Do you really think the atmosphere presents the whole of the picture.....

shot down on solar now denying warmer entirely.....

its' easy....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible..

Now move on like the rest of the adults to what to do about it.

 

[Laidbackracer]

The usual crap from the denier mantra.

Expanding sea ice in Antarctic means the glaciers are thinning, they are moving faster and the water is less saline...that plus increased winds = more sea ice there.

The sea ice in the Arctic is under an entirely different regime and is disappearing as it is ocean based not land base.

it gets wearisome explaining basic facts about the planet to total climate dunderheads swallowing Faux news koolaid by the gallon.

The sea ice in the Arctic is a different regime, it floats around and is the pole most affected by wind. This year has seen a solid recovery but importantly if all the north pole melted there would be no change in sea levels.

It is better to argue the facts than resort to the normal ad Hom tactics that seems to stem from zealotry.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Again I will point out that you need to read more carefully and pay more attention. As I already pointed out the logic in such a response is completely different and I explained why it's completely different. If you are simply going to ignore all our response what;s the point in answering your posts at all?

I'm not ignoring your response. I am talking about what your logic appears to be in the public eye. I know you are only trying to negate an anecdote with an anecdote. But neutral people don't see it that way!

I'll give you an example from my own anti-woo specialization, vaccines. If somebody comes up to me and says "I know this kid who got the MMR vaccine and ended up with autism", would it help at all if I were to answer "Well, my kid got the MMR vaccine and is fine"? Of course not. It doesn't negate the fact that the kid has autism. It doesn't prevent anybody from believing that the MMR vaccine did it. If you believe in the science, you must present the science and only the science. My answer is always that the child had autism from the beginning, and that if you look at the percentage of vaccinated people with autism it's no higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people with autism. Combating anecdote with anecdote does nothing to negate the purpose of the first anecdote!

If somebody brings up a particular spout of unusually cold weather, and you respond with a spout of unusually hot weather, the conclusion is that the world has different weather in different places. The conclusion is not "the world is warming". You sink science to the level of anecdote, and in doing so, discredit the science. It's simply not a good argument.

 

[lomiller]

World sea ice extent is not reducing since records began in 1979.

First of all this is flat out false. there is a statistically significant trend of decreasing sea ice since the 1970's.

Second of all, stop trying to change the topic. the concern wrt sea ice is Arctic summer sea ice which is plummeting. Since that always been comparatively little summer sea ice in Antarctica, such a decline was never possible there.

 

[Laidbackracer]

How many times do you need to look at the same graph ..

a) 1998 is an outlier - a sure clue to a deniers idiocy.

b) this is a fact....what you present is opinions that are wrong...



Do you really think the atmosphere presents the whole of the picture.....

shot down on solar now denying warmer entirely.....

its' easy....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible..

Now move on like the rest of the adults to what to do about it.

Another case of cherry picking.

The correct graph to judge temperature is the UAH, RSS, GISS and HADCRUT land temperatures. Even the highly manipulated GISS and HADCRUT graphs show no rise in temperature since 1998.

 

[lomiller]

I'm not ignoring your response. I am talking about what your logic appears to be in the public eye.

I disagree. The only way it can appear this way "in the public eye" is if someone has deliberately taken excerpts from the discussion out of context in order to change their meaning. While there are certain media source who do this regularly in order to mislead, they will find a way to do it anyway so it's not worth considering. My recommendations to people who frequent such media sources is to find better ones.

In context it's almost impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to miss the meaning of the response unless they are doing so deliberately.

 

[Corsair 115]

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?

And yet nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1998. So says NASA and NOAA at any rate. What do you make of that?

 

[Yerushalmi]

did what ?? and what possible relevance to ANYTHING is what Time magazine did or did not do .....or for that matter what an electrical engineer with no climate science training, who rattles on in a fossil funded blog site has to do at ALL with climate change science....

What is there a shoal of red herrings in Israel??

Ignore Goddard. Seriously. Skip over him and look at the single piece of data he presented: Time magazine used the same weather event to justify global cooling as global warming.

The following are valid rebuttals of the conclusion Goddard drew from the data:
1) Time magazine is full of it, and either or both explanations of the polar vortex are not scientifically valid;
2) There are good reasons a polar vortex can result from both cooling and warming, (insert long climatology explanation here).

There may be other valid rebuttals as well. But "Goddard is a moron" is not a valid rebuttal! He could be the single most idiotic person in the history of mankind, and it still wouldn't change the fact that Time magazine said what it said and it confuses me. Attacking Goddard is an ad hominem response, and even if the dumbest person in the world says the sun is shining that doesn't make it dark out.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Still waiting for a reply to these facts..

The last few decades are the best example of solar and ocean cycles that affect climate. Both cycles have to be viewed together and cannot be dealt with in isolation. 1980 to 2000 witnessed a warm PDO region which encourages a greater tendency and strength of El Nino in the ENSO record along with high solar cycles that promote a positive AO/NAO (less disruption to the polar vortex). Since then the PDO went into its cool phase (more La Nina) and the AO/NAO experienced more negative events from low solar conditions.

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?

 

[Yerushalmi]

I disagree. The only way it can appear this way "in the public eye" is if someone has deliberately taken excerpts from the discussion out of context in order to change their meaning. While there are certain media source who do this regularly in order to mislead, they will find a way to do it anyway so it's not worth considering. My recommendations to people who frequent such media sources is to find better ones.

In context it's almost impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to miss the meaning of the response unless they are doing so deliberately.

You can disagree if you like. But don't accuse me of actively doing what I'm trying to warn you that other people will do. I live in the right-wing world, people there are conditioned to see AGW activists' uses of individual weather events as reasons for ridicule. Context becomes very quickly irrelevant when the knee-jerk response is "heh heh heh, I thought you said weather isn't climate?"