Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

There are AGW theories dealing with agricultural/land-use practices, various emission/pollution practices and even various surface alteration/albedo changing practices both intentional and incidental. The distortion and confusion comes in when you say you want to talk about "the Theory of Global Warming," or "the Theory of AGW." One of the primary AGW theories of climate change is that the CO2 emissions from the long-term, large-scale human combustion of fossil fuels brings enough carbon into the active planetary carbon-cycle to generate climatic change forcings.

It doesn't matter how many there are, post them or shut up. A theory has to be supported by evidence that matches the theories predictions. If you can't explain the predictions, it's not a theory, it just "CO2 rises" = "global warming".

Or worse, as we heard here, "It's not a theory, it's just a fact".

Not science. It's been almost a year since the regulars here, who post multiple times each day, have avoided explaining what they mean, what the theory, or theories are, and how we can know if they are correct theories.

I predicted it wouldn't happen, and it still hasn't.

 

[r-j]

The closest anyone came to explaining any theory was when I quoted a NASA page to show that there indeed is a theory, after several of the regulars denied there was, or worse, claimed I made it up.

"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?

Too funny. He thinks that is an explanation of the theory!

This particular sidetrack, arguing that there is no theory, or no "one theory", started when I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source? (you meaning everyone who is participating here) That's when we got this instead.

More C02 - warmer world, less C02 cooler world - the interaction with the oceans and biosphere is complex but that's the basic mechanism.....it impacts the radiation from the planet into space.

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming,

(Hint: there is no single, all encompassing "Theory of Global Warming")

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.

"Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread,

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

This does not mean that there is a scientific theory called "the theory of global warming" that you seem to demand has to exist.

Posting a link to the IPCC (which does not contain the theory of global warming, much less explain the predictions), isn't going to work. If you know the theory, you know the answer. If you don't know what you are talking about, it's pretty obvious.

 

[r-j]

In essence, the paper I linked to explains that what has been observed doesn't match what the models predicted would happen. The models are based on theory (as well as physics), but certainly they make assumptions about what will happen. Which is why there is a theory, or theories involved. While it's massively complicated, it's certainly not impossible to explain.

Do you deny that what's happening was predicted in principle over a century ago? Do you deny there's a scientific concensus that AGW is real, and the largest anthropogenic influence is through atmospheric CO₂? Just what is it you don't get about what is, frankly, a pretty simple subject?

I've made it quite clear. I asked you, and everyone else, what the theory is, what the predi ctions are. How can we tell if it's human CO2 causing it? Or just nature doing what nature does?

That's the key issue, no matter how hard you avoid answering.

We know fossil fuels are part of the increase. The question is about how do we know the warming is due to them? It's not hard to understand why this question is important, and avoiding ansering (by posting a link to nowhere) isn't going to help.

 

[DC]

as if you didn't lie enough already. you had to include another lie.

posting a link to the IPCC (which does not contain the theory of global warming, much less explain the predictions)

from the link.

The Earth’s global mean climate is determined by incoming energy from the Sun and by the properties of the Earth and its atmosphere, namely the reflection, absorption and emission of energy within the atmosphere and at the surface. Although changes in received solar energy (e.g., caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun) inevitably affect the Earth’s energy budget, the properties of the atmosphere and surface are also important and these may be affected by climate feedbacks. The importance of climate feedbacks is evident in the nature of past climate changes as recorded in ice cores up to 650,000 years old.

Changes have occurred in several aspects of the atmosphere and surface that alter the global energy budget of the Earth and can therefore cause the climate to change. Among these are increases in greenhouse gas concentrations that act primarily to increase the atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation, and increases in aerosols (microscopic airborne particles or droplets) that act to reflect and absorb incoming solar radiation and change cloud radiative properties. Such changes cause a radiative forcing of the climate system.[1] Forcing agents can differ considerably from one another in terms of the magnitudes of forcing, as well as spatial and temporal features. Positive and negative radiative forcings contribute to increases and decreases, respectively, in global average surface temperature. This section updates the understanding of estimated anthropogenic and natural radiative forcings.

The overall response of global climate to radiative forcing is complex due to a number of positive and negative feedbacks that can have a strong influence on the climate system (see e.g., Sections 4.5 and 5.4). Although water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, its concentration in the atmosphere changes in response to changes in surface climate and this must be treated as a feedback effect and not as a radiative forcing. This section also summarises changes in the surface energy budget and its links to the hydrological cycle. Insights into the effects of agents such as aerosols on precipitation are also noted.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html

and they go into much m uch more details, as this is merely a summary.
they also explain the projections very well. they even show alot of impact studies that show how global warming will impact out planet.....

but sure as you have never in your life read any of the IPCC reports. you don't know it....

go read and learn. come back and ask when there are too complicated words or when you lack the knowledge needed to understand (basic physics)

 

[r-j]

Like I said, still no explanation of the theory, much less how we can know if the climate change observed matches the predictions.

A key prediction is about the NH boreal winters, which the peer reviewed paper clearly states, "The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections."
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

If you knew about global warming theory, you would already know why they say that. And why it is a prediction. That's what is missing from this "educational" topic, an understanding of AGW theory, and how we can know if it's right.

That's what is missing from the discussion. No matter how many times somebody claims it is here, with out evidence your claim is meaningless.

 

[r-j]

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

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

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/

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

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

According to the experts here, it's either really simple, a bunch of different theories, no theory, or the "theory" is something made up by deniers. I tend to believe NASA before I believe you.

 

[DC]

Like I said, still no explanation of the theory, much less how we can know if the climate change observed matches the predictions.

A key prediction is about the NH boreal winters, which the peer reviewed paper clearly states, "The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections."
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

If you knew about global warming theory, you would already know why they say that. And why it is a prediction. That's what is missing from this "educational" topic, an understanding of AGW theory, and how we can know if it's right.

That's what is missing from the discussion. No matter how many times somebody claims it is here, with out evidence your claim is meaningless.

what cooling are they talking about?

http://www.academia.edu/4077734/Has...ing_the_boreal_winter_of_the_last_few_decades

 

[lomiller]

The closest anyone came to explaining any theory...

Since you have conveniently ignored and edited around the responses you received here it is again.

AGW is a mathematical prediction arising from the laws of physics. There is no specific theory associated with it, there never has been nor is one needed. There are of course theories underpinning these predictions, but these are things like conservation of energy. Basic physical laws that are not specifically tied to global warming.

 

[Haig]

Just try to grasp the climate situation here on Earth (the subject of this thread), Haig, and how humans are significantly affecting the climate: Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming.

You're not answering the questions posed HERE in the video and science links RC, why not?

As the sun is weakening all the planets in the solar system are changing, including earth. Care to comment on this "big picture" RC ... anyone?

Just a few of the recent changes in the solar system:-
Mercury: change in the magnetosphere & magnetic field, 2008 (NASA)
Venus: 2500% increase in green glow, 1978-1999 (SRI International)
Mars: 50% erosion of ice features, 2001 (Mars Ski Report); appearance of clouds & ozone, 1975-1997 (NASA)
Jupiter: disappearance of white ovals, 1997-2000, 18-degree warming since (USA TODAY); increasing thunderstorms, 2008 (NewScientist)
Saturn: plasma torus 1000% denser, 1981-1993 (NASA); massive x-ray emissions, 2004 (University of Hamburg)
Uranus: unseen seasonal brightness changes, 2000 (HST Daily Report)
Neptune: 40% brighter, 1996-2002 (NASA)
Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, 1989-2002 (NASA/ESA)

CO2 vs Solar Activity it is NO contest, the sun is driving climate change and weather extremes, as it always has.

The suns magnetic field is weakening along with the earths and our atmosphere is shrinking too.

This thread is about climate change but you don't consider ALL the relevant facts. Why not?

C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hOhq0vHfMI

S0 News January 10, 2014: C(lie)mate, Spaceweather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LZQ7TOwO6o&feature=share&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

 

[uke2se]

snipped

Try science instead of wootube.

 

[Haig]

The "ship of fools" farce is far from over ...
Risking lives to promote climate change hype
Yet another global warming expedition gets trapped in icebound ideology

Will global warming alarmists ever set aside their hypotheses, hyperbole, models and ideologies long enough to acknowledge what is actually happening in the real world outside their windows? Will they at least do so before setting off on another misguided adventure? Before persuading like-minded or naïve people to join them? Before forcing others to risk life and limb to transport – and rescue – them? If history is any guide, the answer is: Not likely.

The absurd misadventures of University of New South Wales climate professor Chris Turney is but the latest example. He and 51 co-believers set out on the (diesel-powered) Russian charter ship Akademik Shokalskiy to prove manmade global warming is destroying the East Antarctic ice sheet. Perhaps they’d been reading Dr. Turney’s website, which claims “an increasing body of evidence” shows “melting and collapse” across the area. (It is, after all, summer in Antarctica, albeit a rather cold, icy one thus far.)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/risking-lives-to-promote-climate-change-hype/#more-100875

Australian Antarctic Division head Tony Fleming says they’ll make efforts to recover the cost of #spiritofmawson rescue

Tony Fleming, director of the Australian Antarctic Division tells Louise Maher the AAD wasn’t linked to the Australasian Antarctic Expedition despite an implication by the expedition head that he had an “official stamp of approval”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...he-cost-of-spiritofmawson-rescue/#more-100868

 

[uke2se]

The "ship of fools" farce is far from over ...
Risking lives to promote climate change hype
Yet another global warming expedition gets trapped in icebound ideology

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/risking-lives-to-promote-climate-change-hype/#more-100875

Australian Antarctic Division head Tony Fleming says they’ll make efforts to recover the cost of #spiritofmawson rescue

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...he-cost-of-spiritofmawson-rescue/#more-100868

More Wattsupisbutt. When are you going to realize that nobody takes this crap seriously?

 

[Haig]

Try science instead of wootube.

The science is ALL here ... you need to deal with it instead of fussing over a trace gas.

You need to look at the recent changes in our solar system to realise how insignificant human activity is. Just try and grasp the big picture.

Our World is Changing: Looking Beyond 'the 2012'

Movement of North Magnetic Pole is accelerating

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest

Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says

Earth's Shrinking Atmosphere Baffles Scientists

Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field Discovered

Deep Solar Minimum

Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age

Giant Ribbon Discovered at the Edge of the Solar System

Jupiter's New Red Spot

Now Broadcasting From Radio Jupiter

Big Mystery: Jupiter Loses a Stripe

Explosion Spotted on Jupiter: A Comet or Asteroid?

Super Storm on Saturn

What caused a giant arrow-shaped cloud on Saturn's moon Titan?

Is Venus’ Rotation Slowing Down?

The above is ONLY a few of the recent changes, there are a lot more if you care to do a little work.

If you can't see the implications of these changes in the solar system to us on earth with climate change being just part of it, then just wait until the grand solar minimum really kicks in with SC25. It will become obvious to everyone.

 

[uke2se]

The science is ALL here ... you need to deal with it instead of fussing over a trace gas.

I see some wootube, and a bunch of links that don't support your conclusion. Fail. Try again.

You really must be able to realize that it's not enough to throw a bunch of mud on a wall to see what sticks. You need to present a mechanism for why the perceived changes in the solar system are 1) linked to the same causal agent, 2) responsible for the warming on Earth, and 3) why the expected warming resulting from C02 emissions (according to accumulated physical knowledge over 200 years) is not happening.

 

[Haig]

I see some wootube, and a bunch of links that don't support your conclusion. Fail. Try again.

So our variable star is weakening and ALL the planets are changing and you DON'T think that might be relevant to us here on earth and climate change

 

[uke2se]

So our variable star is weakening and ALL the planets are changing and you DON'T think that might be relevant to us here on earth and climate change

My ETA above:

You really must be able to realize that it's not enough to throw a bunch of mud on a wall to see what sticks. You need to present a mechanism for why the perceived changes in the solar system are 1) linked to the same causal agent, 2) responsible for the warming on Earth, and 3) why the expected warming resulting from C02 emissions (according to accumulated physical knowledge over 200 years) is not happening.

Like I said: Fail. Try again.

ETA: Can we now expect you to keep to this "hypothesis" in the future, and not jump straight back to "it's not warming" whenever the mood takes you?

 

[Belz...]

You're not answering the questions posed HERE in the video and science links RC, why not?

As the sun is weakening all the planets in the solar system are changing, including earth. Care to comment on this "big picture" RC ... anyone?

Just a few of the recent changes in the solar system:-
Mercury: change in the magnetosphere & magnetic field, 2008 (NASA)
Venus: 2500% increase in green glow, 1978-1999 (SRI International)
Mars: 50% erosion of ice features, 2001 (Mars Ski Report); appearance of clouds & ozone, 1975-1997 (NASA)
Jupiter: disappearance of white ovals, 1997-2000, 18-degree warming since (USA TODAY); increasing thunderstorms, 2008 (NewScientist)
Saturn: plasma torus 1000% denser, 1981-1993 (NASA); massive x-ray emissions, 2004 (University of Hamburg)
Uranus: unseen seasonal brightness changes, 2000 (HST Daily Report)
Neptune: 40% brighter, 1996-2002 (NASA)
Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, 1989-2002 (NASA/ESA)

CO2 vs Solar Activity it is NO contest, the sun is driving climate change and weather extremes, as it always has.

The suns magnetic field is weakening along with the earths and our atmosphere is shrinking too.

This thread is about climate change but you don't consider ALL the relevant facts. Why not?

C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hOhq0vHfMI

S0 News January 10, 2014: C(lie)mate, Spaceweather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LZQ7TOwO6o&feature=share&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

Are you going to answer my requests at any time ?

 

[lomiller]

Like I said, still no explanation of the theory, much less how we can know if the climate change observed matches the predictions.

A key prediction is about the NH boreal winters, which the peer reviewed paper clearly states, "The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections."
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

Link doesn't match your assertions about it. In fact this paper explicitly says AGW is occurring.

Global surface temperatures have generally warmed for the
entire length of the instrumental record. The most significant
and strongest warming occurred in the most recent 40 yr,
with Arctic temperatures warming at nearly double the global
rate

The author, as well specifically says the planet is warming

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=2&

What this paper is actually discussing is a mechanism where global warming could cause an increase in sever winter weather in some locals and discuss how climate models may better capture such regional trends.

Other climate scientists disagree with these conclusions, however.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...omment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=2

They argue that an explanation for the “pause” in global warming would have to explain this particular pattern. But this is not compelling: there could be two independent mechanisms superimposed. One that dampens global warming – which would have to be explained by the global energy balance. And a second one that explains the cold Eurasian winters, but without affecting the global mean temperature. I think the latter is likely – these recent cold winters are part of the much-discussed “warm Arctic – cold continents” pattern (see, eg, Overland et al 2011) and could be related to the dwindling ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, as we explained here. Since the heat is just moved around, with Eurasian cold linked to a correspondingly warmer Arctic, this hardly affects the global mean temperature – unless you’re looking at a data set with a large data gap in the Arctic … - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...witcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=2#sthash.4vIYB4eO.dpuf

I won't bother linking to them, but the typical climate denier suspects have a significant dislike for the author and his predictions that global warming will cause an increase in severe winter weather.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

This thread is about climate change but you don't consider ALL the relevant facts. Why not?

Because they are not relevant. Through all of this there IS NO MECHANISM nor is there scale of energy.
Electromagnetic phenomena makes for pretty light shows..apparently even on Venus..but the aurora borealis is not driving climate change - looks cool tho.

 

[lomiller]

So our variable star is weakening and ALL the planets are changing and you DON'T think that might be relevant to us here on earth and climate change

Notes astronomer and debunker of astronomy related woo Phil Plait, addressed and debunked this notion.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/