• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
we don't have variable star - we have a plain jane main sequence

The Sun today is roughly halfway through the most stable part of its life. It has not changed dramatically for four billion[a] years, and will remain fairly stable for four billion more

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

Changes in the magnetic field are not changes in radiation or luminousity.
We may get more CME's, lotsa auroras..no climate change from good Ol stable Sol

I suppose you are one of those thinking the earth swapping magnetic poles is a disaster in the making??

Do you understand how crazy Plutos orbit is???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto_Orbit.gif

Pluto’s orbit is also highly elliptical, stretching from 4.4 billion km to just over 7.3 billion km from the Sun. Doing the math again, that means the Sun goes from being 0.0012 to 0.0004 as bright as it is from Earth:

I'm really not sure you understand magnitudes....

Pluto is as whacky as they come but it's from the orbitals - not from any change in the sun....it actually cruises inside the orbit of Neptune at times.

http://www.universetoday.com/26464/plutos-atmosphere-boasts-methane-warmer-temps/

•••

oh yeah....some serious overturning you have to do boyo

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.
By Ashutosh Jogalekar | January 10, 2014 | Comments5

The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

and you can't even convince us....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
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?


I've made it quite clear: I've asked the naysayers for an explanation as to why so many scientists and climatologists from around the world have gotten and continue to get the research wrong when it comes to AGW. Are they all simply mistaken, in which case how can this be the case, or is it part of some worldwide conspiracy to present a false scenario, in which case to what purpose?
 
Last edited:
we don't have variable star - we have a plain jane main sequence...

your points are largely accurate, but our star is a main sequence star, classed as a G2V,...the "V" signifies that it is a variable star. A variable yellow dwarf. The variable aspect is mainly focused in the early life of such yellow dwarfs (rather like milder, meeker versions of the variable red dwarf family. Long-term our star is producing increased levels of output, as you point out, we can measure the TOA input and output, the escaping wavelength spectrum shift and intensity tells the story. Increased atmospheric ghgs are increasingly retarding the escape of thermalized solar radiations.
 
Hmmmm - when I see "variable" I think of stars like Cepheid Variables that shift their luminosity.

From reading a bit more the V in G2V seems to mean that it is in the hydrogen burning phase and offers no indication it is variable in the sense used above.

I don't get any sense of V standing for variable out of this...

WHAT KIND OF STAR IS THE SUN?

The Sun is basically a very ordinary star, about mid-way through its "life cycle." It is a dwarf star (astronomers call stars either "giants" or "dwarfs" - the normal stars are "dwarfs") with a surface temperature of about 6,000 degrees Kelvin. This makes it appear yellow in color. Hotter stars are more blue in color, and cooler stars are more red.

Technically, the Sun is classified as a G2V star. Stars are classified according to their surface temperature and luminosity (brightness). The Sun appears very bright because it is much closer to us than other stars, but in fact it is not unusually luminous. If we put the Sun at the same distance as other "nearby" stars, it would look about the same as many other stars. The main temperature classes are denoted (in decreasing temperature) by the letters O, B, A, F, G, K and M.

Each class is then divided into ten subclasses using numbers from 0 to 9, so a G2 star is roughly 20% of the way between a G0 and a K0 star. There are also five luminosity classes, denoted by the Roman numerals I, II, III, IV, V and VI. The Sun belongs in luminosity class V, and temperature (or spectral) class G2, hence the designation G2V.

The reasons for this messy system of classification are historical, and no doubt we could come up with a better system. However, astronomers have gotten used to this system, and with some experience you can use these classifications to tell an awful lot about a star. For example, knowing the surface temperature and luminosity class allows you to compute a star's size (a big star at a certain temperature is brighter than a small one at the same temperature).
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUN_TYPE

V is misleading here as its a Roman numeral designation for luminosity range
I'll stand by my original comment the sun is not a variable star :D
I think you are incorrect T.
 
Last edited:
and in other news.....Norway is basking in springtime temps...so much for a new ice age dawning :rolleyes:

Polar vortex over US brings abnormally mild weather to Scandinavia
Weather system disrupts flora and fauna in Nordic countries, with bears reportedly emerging from hibernation

Rainy weather in Finland is said to have brought many bears out of hibernation early. Photograph: Sylwia Domaradzka/Barcroft Media

The freezing polar vortex that has gripped the US has extended an abnormally mild winter in Scandinavia and disrupted the seasonal patterns of flora and fauna.

The weather system that brought snow, ice and record low temperatures to many parts of the United States this week left Iceland, Greenland and Scandinavia much warmer than normal.

On the back of a generally mild winter, there have been reports of bears emerging early from hibernation in Finland, changes in the behaviour of migratory birds off the coast of Sweden and plants appearing earlier than normal in Norway.

Scandinavia and Russia's cold weather during the winter comes from a high-pressure system that keeps warmer, more humid air and low-pressure systems with wind and rain from coming up from the Atlantic Ocean.

The weakening of the jetstream that holds this in place has allowed cold air to spill further south into much of the United States and Canada, while bringing above-average temperatures to parts of Europe.

The knock-on effects of the vortex follow one of the mildest Decembers in a century in Nordic countries. Ketil Isaksen, a scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, said the country had been 4.2C above the mean temperature for December with parts of Oslo and south-eastern Norway experiencing the third warmest December on record. "It was very unusual to see no snow in large areas where it is normal in December. Only in the mountains and certain parts of Norway could you find snow."

Much of the precipitation in lowland and populated areas had fallen as rain instead of snow, he said. "In general it was a very wet December. Large parts of Norway had up to three times as much rain as normal and the country as a whole had 180% more than average."

Finland too has seen heavy rain, with flooding in western coastal areas and the majority of Finland's lakes containing record volumes of water. Temperatures exceeded their normal seasonal average by 4-5C nationwide, with Helsinki and southern Finland recording the mildest second half of December in 30 years.

Temperatures in parts of Sweden have fluctuated greatly, at Nikkaluokta falling from 4.7C on 3 December to -40.8C on 9 December, then rising two days later to 7.7C. Many locations measured their warmest December temperatures on record. "In the north, winter has arrived, but in the south it's autumn according to the meteorological definition," the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute said.

The rainy weather in Finland has reportedly disrupted the winter slumbers of many bears, bringing them out of hibernation early. Heavy rains and high waters may have invaded some dens, forcing the animals to seek new shelter.

Prof Jon Swenson of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, leader of the Scandinavian bear project, said he was worried about the indirect effects of the warmer weather. "If you go down into southern Europe, it's warmer, and there are some bears that don't hibernate.

"It doesn't seem to be harmful not to hibernate," he said. "What we are afraid of is that it means there will be more thawing periods … this really stresses the berry-producing plants. This can cause some mortality, and can have a very adverse effect on berry production. And that's what the bears survive on in the autumn, and what they use to get them through the winter. So the results of this mild weather won't be seen for some time."

Last week, the local Norwegian newspaper Sunnmørsposten published reader photographs of daffodils emerging as early as 14 December as well as crocuses, daisies, dandelions and honeysuckle.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Norway chief executive, Nina Jensen, said she was "cautious about drawing conclusions from one mild winter into specific changes in nature", but there were signals that changes were happening.

more
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia
 
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.
1) No, you don't need a "mechanism". Ultimately, correlation or something like it is all we ever have. What, after all, is a "mechanism", other than another correlation or something like it? If, for example, the Mars polar ice caps grow and shrink in synch with the Earth's polar ice caps (I don't know that they do), that would suggest that an explanation unique to Earth is not needed to explain the growth and shrinking of Earth's polar ice caps. Regular long cycle ( thousands or tens of thousands of years) swings suggest astronomical origin. Nothing says "clockwork" like celestial mechanics. Closer to home, people knew that arsenic was poison before they had sufficient understanding of cellular physiology to describe a "mechanism" for it's action. "Eat this and you die" was an observed correlation (or something like it). No mechanism necessary for a murder conviction in a Roman court, even without the modern understanding of biochemistry, if you observe enough co-incident events.
(2,3) (a) The so-called "expected warming" is NOT "expected" without ad hoc fudge factors that AGW faithful call "positive feedback". I personally don't see anything wrong with using computer models and real world data together to deduce the values of parameters that you need to make the models match the measurements, but you can't honestly then assert that the derived values (of the strength of feedbacks) are a consequence of the theory, any more that your field measurements are a consequence of the theory. (b) The "expected warming" only appears in systematically adjusted data. Otherwise, the recent variation in temperature measurements doesn't look much different from prehistoric and historic variation in proxy temperature measurements.

More broadly, proponents of the AGW theory discredit their voice with the style in which they conduct the discussion. What is a "climate denier", for example? Nobody "denies" "climate". If anyone denies climate change, it's proponents of the AGW theory, who suggest that the Earth's climate would be stable if only humans didn't screw with it. AGW skeptics observe past and present climate variation and assert that you don't need any new phenomenon to account for recent observed changes. It got lighter around six this morning. I don't need to invoke something new to explain sunrise. It has happened before. Even Cro-Magnon man didn't need a new mechanism to explain each day's sunrise. All sunrises together, maybe. But each one? Ho hum, just another sunrise, whatever the mechanism. Just another natural variation in the Earth's near-surface air temperature, whatever the mechanism.
 
If anyone denies climate change, it's proponents of the AGW theory, who suggest that the Earth's climate would be stable if only humans didn't screw with it. AGW skeptics observe past and present climate variation and assert that you don't need any new phenomenon to account for recent observed changes.

That is a strawman and not true at all. It is a common strawman I see from most deniers though. So I am not accusing you personally of being dishonest in your argument. You may have just picked it up from somewhere else. Never the less you are incorrect in asserting this.

The second part is true enough, but the real problem is that it requires the AGW skeptic to ignore the well established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are pumping large quantities of it into the atmosphere, while simultaneously degrading the natural biomes responsible for sequestering it.

If humans add to the + side of the carbon cycle and subtract from - side of the carbon cycle, there is no possible result except increasing CO2. And CO2 is well established as a greenhouse gas.

Until a denier proves CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and isn't increasing in the atmosphere, they have no leg at all to stand on. Since they haven't and can't, the actual scientific consensus is squarely in favor of AGW.
 
If anyone denies climate change, it's proponents of the AGW theory, who suggest that the Earth's climate would be stable if only humans didn't screw with it.
Who here has said that?

Who anywhere has said that?

We know what the natural forcings of climate change are, we know roughly how much climate change we would expect to be happening now as a result of those forcings (a gradual cooling, for the record), we know roughly how much climate change we would expect to result from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in little more than a century (a rapid warming) and we can observe what is actually happening and see that it's pretty much what we expected on the whole, though some details are surprising us.

As for positive feedbacks: these aren't exactly rocket science either. Do you dispute

a) that ice reflects more sunlight than open ocean, so less ice means more warmth which means less ice which means more warmth which means ...

b) that warm air holds more water vapour than cold air and water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so warmer air means more water vapour in the atmosphere which means more warmth retained at the earth's surface which means warmer air which means ...

c) that cold water holds more carbon dioxide than warm water and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas so warmer water means more CO2 released into the atmosphere which means more warmth retained at the earth's surface which means warmer water which means ...

d) That the large swings in global temperatures which ice cores etc tell us follow the relatively small forcing of the Milankovich cycles can only be explained if you take the above (and other) positive feedbacks into account?

If you have any scientific evidence that counters any of the above by all means present it.
 
1) No, you don't need a "mechanism".

If you are going to propose a paradigm shifting new theory that would replace AGW as the premiere answer to why the Earth is heating up, yes, yes you do.

If, for example, the Mars polar ice caps grow and shrink in synch with the Earth's polar ice caps (I don't know that they do), that would suggest that an explanation unique to Earth is not needed to explain the growth and shrinking of Earth's polar ice caps.

It could also be a complete coincidence. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. A mechanism for why and how the polar ice caps on Mars and Earth are linked in their undulation would be needed, and it's not enough to say "it's the sun, d'uh".

Regular long cycle ( thousands or tens of thousands of years) swings suggest astronomical origin. Nothing says "clockwork" like celestial mechanics.

But according to the scientists that have looked at this problem, the sun cannot be the driver of the current warming on Earth. If one was to propose that these scientists are wrong, and that the sun is the driver, a mechanism for that would need to be shown, and it better be a damn good one. One would also need to explain why the greenhouse effect is not the cause of warming on Earth, as physics tells us it should be.

Closer to home, people knew that arsenic was poison before they had sufficient understanding of cellular physiology to describe a "mechanism" for it's action. "Eat this and you die" was an observed correlation (or something like it). No mechanism necessary for a murder conviction in a Roman court, even without the modern understanding of biochemistry, if you observe enough co-incident events.

But that's completely different. We aren't discussing whether or not arsenic kills you, or whether or not warming occurs. We are discussing why arsenic kills you and why warming occurs.

(2,3) (a) The so-called "expected warming" is NOT "expected" without ad hoc fudge factors that AGW faithful call "positive feedback".

Wrong. It is fully expected. It's pretty basic physics.

I personally don't see anything wrong with using computer models and real world data together to deduce the values of parameters that you need to make the models match the measurements, but you can't honestly then assert that the derived values (of the strength of feedbacks) are a consequence of the theory, any more that your field measurements are a consequence of the theory. (b) The "expected warming" only appears in systematically adjusted data. Otherwise, the recent variation in temperature measurements doesn't look much different from prehistoric and historic variation in proxy temperature measurements.

You are completely mistaken in this. The warming appears in measurements of heat content, not in computer models. The numbers derived from measurements are plugged into computer models to predict what it will be like in the future.

More broadly, proponents of the AGW theory discredit their voice with the style in which they conduct the discussion. What is a "climate denier", for example? Nobody "denies" "climate".

The phrase "climate denier" is derived from the phrase "climate change denier", which is someone that denies that the Earth is warming (like you did in the paragraph above), that the warming is unusual (like you did), that humans are the cause (like you have done) etc.

If anyone denies climate change, it's proponents of the AGW theory, who suggest that the Earth's climate would be stable if only humans didn't screw with it.

Nobody has denied that. In fact, this is a fairly offensive strawman. You know better than that.

AGW skeptics observe past and present climate variation and assert that you don't need any new phenomenon to account for recent observed changes.

First, there are no AGW skeptics on the denier's side. Skepticism appears solely on the scientific side of the argument. Secondly, the deniers assert what you say without evidence, and in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It got lighter around six this morning. I don't need to invoke something new to explain sunrise. It has happened before. Even Cro-Magnon man didn't need a new mechanism to explain each day's sunrise. All sunrises together, maybe. But each one? Ho hum, just another sunrise, whatever the mechanism. Just another natural variation in the Earth's near-surface air temperature, whatever the mechanism.

This is simply anti-science ramblings. It doesn't belong in a science thread.
 
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
If anyone denies climate change, it's proponents of the AGW theory, who suggest that the Earth's climate would be stable if only humans didn't screw with it.

The earth's climate over the Holocene HAS been relatively stable which allowed the growth of agriculture and human civilization. That's a matter of observation.
Several drivers can change the climate.

Large volcanos in a short period - 2 years or so - by cooling the earth with S02 - the global temperature change is observable with modern instruments and the signal is observable for about 2 years after the main eruption ceases.

The climb in emissions of SO2 created global dimming ( still a factor ) reducing sunlight reaching the earth ( ala Beijing) and thus reducing IR to be trapped.
This masked the effect of C02 and other GHG until the 70s when the Clean Air act reduced SO2 emissions and AGW accelerated sharply.

Orbital mechanics is a driver over thousands of years. Milankovich cycles. That is observable in the paleoclimatalogy records. It relies on the feedbacks both positive and negative that C02 and water vapor provide to magnify the shifts in solar radiation that are generated by the changes in tilt, wobble and distance from the sun near perihelion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Changes in the sun's output is observable in an 11 year cycle. The scale is a magnitude below the GHG signal.

Modern instruments can see the signals and with the notable exception of aerosols tease out the proportion of each in influencing the affect of global temperature which also includes the ocean.

We have a robust theory confirmed by observations from diverse fields.
It's getting warmer
The primary cause is use of fossil fuel and the subsequent increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

Models generally have been a bit on the conservative side and have been refined.

We have a set of observations and theory that fit well andare being constantly refined so policy can be developed.

This is the primary signal of our fossil fuel use.
Total_Heat_Content_1024.jpg


Atmosphere is a small and transient part and it too shows an increase of about .8C

TS.3.1.1 Global Average Temperatures <>
2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years in the instrumental global surface air temperature record since 1850. Surface temperatures in 1998 were enhanced by the major 1997–1998 El Niño but no such strong anomaly was present in 2005. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850. {3.2}
The global average surface temperature has increased, especially since about 1950. The updated 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C is larger than the 100-year warming trend at the time of the TAR (1901–2000) of 0.6°C ± 0.2°C due to additional warm years. The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C. The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Three different global estimates all show consistent warming trends. There is also consistency between the data sets in their separate land and ocean domains, and between sea surface temperature (SST) and nighttime marine air temperature (see Figure TS.6). {3.2}

figure-ts-6-2.jpeg
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html

Climate change deniers would like to say
a) it's not happening at all
b) if it is happening it's not due to our activities.

Both are wrong. Neither has a scientific basis for those statements.

Now perhaps you would like to move on to the very difficult decisions of best methods to mitigate what has occurred and reduce the underlying emmissions that caused it.
 
But according to the scientists ...
"Some scientists", not "the scientists". Other scientists have proposed variations in solar activity as a driver of climate cycles.
... that have looked at this problem, the sun cannot be the driver of the current warming on Earth. If one was to propose that these scientists are wrong, and that the sun is the driver, a mechanism for that would need to be shown, and it better be a damn ...
Vehemence is neither evidence nor logic,
... good one.
Seems to me, theory A need only beat alternative B.
One would also need to explain why the greenhouse effect is not the cause of warming on Earth, as physics tells us it should be.
It's my understanding that the basic physics does not predict an open-ended greenhouse effect and that the proposed CO2 theory needs to assume positive feedbacks to generate the warming observed in the industrial era. If Freeman Dyson, Lubos Motl, Richard Lindzen, and Ivar Giaever aren't worried, I won't worry either.
But that's completely different. We aren't discussing whether or not arsenic kills you, or whether or not warming occurs. We are discussing why arsenic kills you and why warming occurs.
Right. My point is, you don't need a "mechanism" (which ultimately means another correlation) to have confidence in predictions (or criminal convictions).
Wrong. It is fully expected. It's pretty basic physics.
I'd like to see a physicist say that to Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, or Lubos Motl. Are you a PhD physicist? btw, why doesn't JREF require people to post under their real names? That would cut considerable abuse.
This is simply anti-science ramblings. It doesn't belong in a science thread.
That is simply ad hominem and an attempt to enlist JREF moderators to participate in bullying.
 
Last edited:
The earth's climate over the Holocene HAS been relatively stable which allowed the growth of agriculture and human civilization. That's a matter of observation.
Welcome to the deniers' club.
Several drivers can change the climate.

Large volcanos in a short period - 2 years or so - by cooling the earth with S02 - the global temperature change is observable with modern instruments and the signal is observable for about 2 years after the main eruption ceases.
We agree, here.
The climb in emissions of SO2 created global dimming ( still a factor ) reducing sunlight reaching the earth ( ala Beijing) and thus reducing IR to be trapped.
This masked the effect of C02 and other GHG until the 70s when the Clean Air act reduced SO2 emissions and AGW accelerated sharply.
Wait. The change induced by the US Clean Air Act dominated the effects of accelerated fossil fuel use by India and China? Does that sound likely to you?
Orbital mechanics is a driver over thousands of years. Milankovich cycles. That is observable in the paleoclimatalogy records. It relies on the feedbacks both positive and negative that C02 and water vapor provide to magnify the shifts in solar radiation that are generated by the changes in tilt, wobble and distance from the sun near perihelion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. Changes in the sun's output is observable in an 11 year cycle.
We agree, here.
The scale is a magnitude below the GHG signal.

Modern instruments can see the signals and with the notable exception of aerosols tease out the proportion of each in influencing the affect of global temperature which also includes the ocean.

We have a robust theory confirmed by observations from diverse fields.
It's getting warmer ...
Where I live it gets warmer and colder on a 24-hour cycle, a 365-day cycle, a 10-year cycle (I am told. I have to trust the people who claim expertise) called "the Pacific Decadal Oscillation", an 11-year solar cycle (I am told. Again I have to trust the people who claim expertise). One area where proponents of the AGW theory and skeptics of that theory differ is whether current observations differ enough from historical observations and pre-historical reconstructions as to require the introduction of a new factor (anthropogenic CO2).
The primary cause is use of fossil fuel and the subsequent increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
That's the issue, isn't it?
Models generally have been a bit on the conservative side and have been refined.

We have a set of observations and theory that fit well and are being constantly refined so policy can be developed.
Does policy drive the refinement of models
This is the primary signal of our fossil fuel use.
[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZCHz1c8hRTk/UsloSbBUNSI/AAAAAAAADi8/G-qm4-Vzjv8/s640/Total_Heat_Content_1024.jpg[/qimg]

Atmosphere is a small and transient part and it too shows an increase of about .8C


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html

Climate change deniers ...
Like, for example, people who say that the climate has been stable during the Holocene?
... would like to say
a) it's not happening at all
b) if it is happening it's not due to our activities.

Both are wrong. Neither has a scientific basis for those statements.
Are Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, Richard Lindzen, and Lubos Motl not scientists?
 
It's my understanding that the basic physics does not predict an open-ended greenhouse effect and that the proposed CO2 theory needs to assume positive feedbacks to generate the warming observed in the industrial era.

Your understanding is very flawed. If you actuallu just read the science in the links in my signature you will know that.
Water vapor IS a GHG - a very powerful one....there is no assumption needed ....but it is transient unlike CO2 which is for human purposes permanent.
C02 traps IR...you seem to have gotten that far.
Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor..there is your feedback...nothing exotic about it - been understood for well over a century.

No other competing theory stands any test to explain AGW.
There are some other contributors, land use being one, a quieter sun ( going the wrong direction unfortunately for that crowd ) but all of these are a magnitude or more below the AGW signal.

If you have all these "denying AGW" scientists where are their papers???

Here we have a year long look at the list of papers that deny global warming.....
mmmm er...lets make that paper...singular

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.
By Ashutosh Jogalekar | January 10, 2014 | Comments15

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

Now you COULD move on to solutions as Exxon has and others.....
or you could stay wrong.
 
Your understanding is very flawed.
True. I did okay in high school Physics and two years of college Physics, but otherwise I have to depend on authority. I accept the authority of Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, Lubos Motl, Richard Lindzen, and Harold Lewis. Since my scientific understanding is so limited, I must judge the arguments more on the manner in which participants to the discussion comport themselves. Withholding data, manipulating the peer review process, cherry-picking, and calumniating the opposition discredits the pro-AGW side, in my eyes.
If you actually just read the science in the links in my signature you will know that.
Water vapor IS a GHG - a very powerful one....there is no assumption needed ....but it is transient ...
Right.
... unlike CO2 which is for human purposes permanent.
Not according to Freeman Dyson. Plants eat it.
C02 traps IR...you seem to have gotten that far.
Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor..there is your feedback...nothing exotic about it - been understood for well over a century.
Clouds reflect sunlight. Nothing exotic about that--has been understood for over a millennium.
 
Wait. The change induced by the US Clean Air Act dominated the effects of accelerated fossil fuel use by India and China?

Ummm you need to review your timeline. - It's seriously flawed. Besides the US is not COTU except for AGW deniers. SO2 abatement began seriously in the 70s in Europe and North America.....China only started ramping up in the early 80s ( I know I was there ) and India later.
Both now have rising SO2 emissions and if you'd care to read the literature instead of peddling tom foolery you note that aerosols are considered a factor in the atmospheric energy gain slow down.....that slow down is NOT reflected in the ocean which has in fact accelerated.

Where I live it gets warmer and colder on a 24-hour cycle, a 365-day cycle, a 10-year cycle (I am told. I have to trust the people who claim expertise) called "the Pacific Decadal Oscillation", an 11-year solar cycle (I am told. Again I have to trust the people who claim expertise). One area where proponents of the AGW theory and skeptics of that theory differ is whether current observations differ enough from historical observations and pre-historical reconstructions as to require the introduction of a new factor (anthropogenic CO2).

The PDO, NAO , ENSO are all "in the box" movements of energy within the atmosphere and ocean. They indeed affect local climates, they do not drive global changes in the radiative balance. AGW overlays natural cycles.

There are no credible scientists that have any alternate mechanism to account for changes far beyond that globally of any inside the box events.

Indeed La Nina might damp down the temps in North America but it's just shifting heat around. I could care less what whackos' claim are just natural cycles.
The world's science community says with 95% confidence they are human induced changes that fit both theory and observation.

Even Exxon got the memo after risking at a board room revolt.
Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is ...
breakingenergy.com/2013/.../exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significan...‎
ExxonMobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson acknowledged the risks posed by climate ... “We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,” Tillerson told shareholders. .

Even the oil sands heads want a carbon tax.
Why Canada Oil-Sands Industry Wants CO2 Tax Harper Hates ...
www.bloomberg.com/.../why-canada-oil-sands-industry-wants-co2-tax-h...‎
Feb 1, 2013 - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vilified political opponents who support a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. The oil-sands ...

“We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,” Tillerson told shareholders.

is he wrong? or are you??
••

The need for policy indeed does refine models as to plan a response smaller error bars are useful

Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate.

The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback.

The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

This will change policy...this is science doing it's job to inform of risk ....the rest is political will......present in some nations like Sweden...lacking in nations like Canada and Australia.

If you have climate science papers from climate scientists that disprove AGW trot them out.
Dyson is not a climate scientist, Lindtzen is an embarrassment to his colleagues
Richard Lindzen - Infamous embarrassment for MIT: ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52247598‎
Sep 30, 2013 - Richard Lindzen - it could have been predicted with even more certainty than global warming. He has become an infamous embarrassment for MIT
-
I have no idea who the others are but present their thesis and evidence instead of vague dissent waving.

In 2012 there was ONE paper denying AGW out of 2,000 on the topic....not much to lean on for a contrarian view.

It's not a scientific battle you can win...you may do better dealing with the policy choices where opinion counts instead of evidence which is the currency here.
 
Not according to Freeman Dyson. Plants eat it.

Name a biome on the planet we humans haven't degraded. You say plants eat it. That's true. Maybe compare the sequestration potential of a soybean field with a tall grass prairie. Or a man made desert with savannas. Or a parking lot with a forest. You make those comparisons and your argument that "plants eat it" falls apart. If a plant no longer exists it can't "eat" anything.

Sorry but "plants eat it" doesn't work unless the ecosystem services provided by those plants are functioning. They are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom