Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

You made up a phrase: "theory of global warming".

I don't see anyone denying that there is "a theory of global warming,"

Well, I guess if you just ignore something, you can claim "I don't see anyone denying", but it looks mighty odd.

Your word game is still nothing more than a game of words.

That is deep man, deep.

 

[lomiller]

I've quoted multiple times where terms are used

I don't care how others have used these terms or how you have misrepresented their use . It's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm taking issue with your usage not theirs.


Again, global warming is a prediction of basic physical laws. Greenhouse gasses allow energy to enter the atmosphere and restrict it from leaving. This causes temperatures to increase. This prediction is confirmed by the actual observation of the predicted warming.

What part of this do you think is "theory". It's prediction and observation. The theory is better called thermodynamics...

 

[r-j]

I don't care how others have used these terms

That is very obvious. In science, terms actually matter, you don't get to "not care" about them.

Much less claim somebody made them up, and they have no meaning.

 

[Trakar]

Well, I guess if you just ignore something, you can claim "I don't see anyone denying", but it looks mighty odd. That is deep man, deep.

Quote mining my statements does not enhance your accuracy or credibility. This behavior, however, does add support to my finding that you were (and continue) playing word games.

I don't see anyone denying that there is "a theory of global warming," what we have been saying, is that there is no "Theory of Global Warming." Your word game is still nothing more than a game of words.

 

[r-j]

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.

Oh that just gets better with time.

AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Yes, everybody knows it's an acronym.

• Global warming is predicted by the theory of climate science.

I do not know how much simpler I can make this

Oh that's pretty simple. And if you had any evidence to back any of it up, it might mean something. But, you don't have anything.

I think I will listen to NASA and NOAA and those sort of sources, not you.

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

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

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
aug 20

 

[macdoc]

The theory is better called thermodynamics

Maybe if we called it the "optical and thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere of current earth".....

•••••

 

[Belz...]

The more you deny it, the worse you sound.

I fully agree.

 

[Trakar]

Maybe if we called it the "optical and thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere of current earth".....

•••••

"The Anthropogenic Modification of the Optical and Thermodynamic Properties of the Modern Terrestrial Atmosphere/Biosphere"

Let me talk to a few people, it could happen. Sounds like a good radiative transfer mechanics paper.

 

[r-j]

Then back up what you say with references to the scientific literature, r-j.

Unlike you, I always have a scientific source (or at least a technical reason) for claiming something. If not I make sure to say IMO, something we could all learn to love.

I am still waiting for you to post something intelligent, whether I agree or not.

That's a slight, and you know it. It's not the lack of science or intelligence, but the sheer volume, and of course the bulldog persistence when I know good and well somebody is avoiding discussing the science. Or in this case, the meaning of AGW/theory of global warming/global warming theory/greenhouse theory,/enhanced greenhouse effect, or what ever term is used.

My own preferred statement of The Theory of Global Warming is this:

An increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to ultimately increase so as to maintain a balance with the absorbed solar radiation. The increase is amplified by water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), which increases with temperature in such a way as to keep relative humidity approximately constant. Melting of ice will further amplify the warming, particularly in high latitudes. The resulting widespread warming corresponding to a doubling of CO2 will be large enough and rapid enough to be well outside the range of past experience of the human species, by an amount comparable to the difference between a glacial and interglacial climate. Changes in atmospheric cloud properties may somewhat reduce or increase the sensitivity, but do not substantially alter the conclusion.
The last part of the statement of the theory is, of course, the hard part, and the most uncertain.

I have deliberately left the matter of the severity of the impacts of such a climate change out of the hypothesis. Theories regarding the impact are nascent and in many regards still rather ill-formed, in comparison to the theory dealing with the physical dimensions of climate change. Also, insofar as there are uncertainties about the severity of the impacts of climate change, it is a matter for the political apparatus to decide how to deal with the uncertainties, and the extent to which one should pay attention to the worst case vs. the most likely case. The question of how to factor in the uneven distribution of harms (and possibly benefits) across the peoples of the Earth, and between human societies and natural ecosystems, is also at heart a matter of ethics and values. These are questions that can be informed by science, but they are not themselves scientific questions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/

It's not that hard to say what you mean when you say "AGW" or "global warming". It's also not hard to explain what the predictions are, and how we measure objective reality, so we can determine if the theory is accurate. Refusing to explain these things, or worse, saying there are no predictions, or there is "no theory" is classic pseudoscience.

 

[macdoc]

Sooooo what is our acronym....

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nellie Oleson and her mother also think global warming is a myth. They are planning to make hundreds of posts here in order to make that true.

But, why would you all engage in discussing global warming with Nellie and her mother?

 

[r-j]

The Empirical Evidence

One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Postma runs into this mistake again when he claims that the low water vapor in hot deserts is a problem for greenhouse theory, but this is largely due to the lack of evaporation cooling, which is just one component of the surface energy budget, and nearly absent in a desert. This is one scenario where a detailed consideration of the surface budget is critical, as well as in other weakly coupled regimes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=385

The same accuracy as the theories predict, or at least enough to see if we can see an actual increase, enough that the “greenhouse” theory some propose may be shown to be true or partially true. However, the theory of “global warming” is not limited to CO2, but includes H2O as well.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/

Now there is an interesting point, and it ties in with why this entire side conversation about what "AGW theory" means is important. If you talk about "global warming theory", but are only talking about the physics of CO2, and the other trace gases that act as greenhouse gases, ozone and methane and CfCs, you are leaving out key parts of the theory of global warming, which involve feedbacks, and an increased hydrological cycle, as well as albedo changes and land use changes, it's not this simplistic "CO2 makes it hotter and it's a fact" nonsense some people want you to believe.

And of course, the really big issue, clouds. Because when water vapor increases, it can mean changes in cloudiness, and there is no doubt at all that cloudiness effects the climate. Or lack of clouds, that really can effect the climate.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
...

I can also highlight: theory of greenhouse gases
And: greenhouse theory
I could even quote what you quoted.

Other than an exercise in pretty formatting and a display of ignorance (that climate models do not just include CO2, that the GW from those modes does not just include CO2) , what is your point r-j?

ETA: Make that a display of assumed (more formatting !) ignorance, B]r-j[/B]: You are stating the obvious as if the posters in this thread do not know about it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

OK r-j, and the point of the monologue is?

 

[r-j]

But the predictions issue arose because I brought up the issue of the cooling NH winters, which seemed appropriate last winter, since it was in the middle of a very unusually cold and snowy winter.

This one is looking a lot worse, for some areas. Yes, Australia is cooking, but that doesn't change the NH winter trend. Which is not what the models (which are based on the theory) predicted. Not at all.

And that change in climate, is something important and dangerous. Not in 50 years, but now. If we are actually causing the winters to become worse, this is important to know.

The denial over the winters is eroding, because the data shows it clearly

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Ok r-j,
Winters are colder, at least for now. I heard that prediction debated 10 years ago. They even made a woo B-movie based on the debate of the time. And your point is?

 

[r-j]

Read the. Results and discussion section carefully. Then read it again, Then read the last part again.

This 2012 paper may possibly be of real importance, and it is talking about important things, in regard to our planet. I find it very interesting, especially with yet anotrher record cold winter upon us.

Increasing autumn snow cover has important dynamic
implications for the winter climate as its variability can
force the wintertime phase of the AO, the leading mode of
wintertime climate variability in the NH (Gong et al 2002,
Fletcher et al 2007, Orsolini and Kvamsto 2009, Allen and
Zender 2010, 2011). As discussed in Cohen et al (2007),
increasing snow cover leads to stronger diabatic cooling and
a strengthened Siberian high. This further leads to an increase
in upward propagation of planetary waves, a weakened polar
vortex and westerlies, but strengthened meridional flow.
This results in a negative AO in the lower troposphere and
increased Arctic outbreaks into the middle latitudes. The
increasing trend in Eurasian snow cover over the past two and
a half decades is concomitant with an overall weakening of the
polar vortex.

Isn't that an interesting thing?

 

[lomiller]

That is very obvious. In science, terms actually matter, you don't get to "not care" about them.

I told you I don't care how others use the terms, you are the one using them incorrectly in this thread. Please refrain from misrepresenting my posts in the future.

I note you failed to answer which part of AGW you think is a theory, so again which of the following do you think is a theory?
CO2 is transparent to visible light
CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of IR
If energy comes in but is not allowed out this energy must restored someplace or temperatures will rise

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Isn't that an interesting thing?

It's an interesting hypothesis. That AGW can counter-intuitively cause cold winters, and that these cold winters can cause the general public, who are generally ignorant of the science behind AGW, to become increasingly skeptical. Not the first time I heard that hypothesis though. I had a discussion a couple weeks ago with my brother who is skeptical of AGW. I told him the same thing. Expect a greater number of extreme weather events. Hotter summers combined with colder winters is certainly well within the possible range of effects. The only for certain observational effect that can't be denied though, the average is ever increasing.

 

[Trakar]

Read the. Results and discussion section carefully. Then read it again, Then read the last part again.

This 2012 paper may possibly be of real importance, and it is talking about important things, in regard to our planet. I find it very interesting, especially with yet anotrher record cold winter upon us.

Isn't that an interesting thing?

Interesting, that some sections of the Canadian and Eurasian boreal forest regions are experiencing episodically cool periods over the last couple of decades due to warmer, wetter air masses dropping large amounts of snow. Yes, that is an interesting phenomena. I see nothing that refutes or claims to refute any major aspect of modern climate change understandings:

Trend analysis of annual land surface temperatures for the most recent two decades shows a continuation of the aforementioned warming trend (figure 1(a)). As shown in figure 1(b), for the same period over which annual-mean NH temperatures have increased, boreal winter (December, January and February (DJF)) NH winter land surface temperatures exhibit no linear trend. The absence of a warming trend in winter is especially surprising given traditional global warming theory and the divergence of observed winter trends from coupled model projections

These researchers acknowledge the key aspect which GHG warming predicts, namely: "annual-mean NH temperatures have increased," They find the regional and sporadic seasonal cooling to be curious, and seek an explanation for that phenomenon.

While the hemispheric winter trend is neutral, specific regions have experienced negative temperature trends. As shown in figure 1(c), spatially, the strongest winter cooling trends are observed over the eastern United States, southern Canada and much of northern Eurasia.

They identify which regions seem most impacted and when the impacts seem to occur, While noting that these cooling trends are completely offset by warming in the other NH regions during these episodes.

An increase in available moisture potentially results in higher precipitation efficiency over Siberia, where temperatures are still sufficiently cold enough to yield snow, which is consistent with the studies of Ghatak et al (2010) and Orsolini et al (2011). Figure 2(d) illustrates that the mean October snow coverage over the Eurasian continent has increased over the last two decades (figure 2(d); black curve), contrary to the expected negative trend predicted, by the coupled models (figure 2(d); brown curve). So, there is an unexpected asymmetric trend not only in seasonal temperatures but also in Siberian snow cover, with increasing continental autumn snow cover amidst an observed hemispherically shrinking cryosphere (Solomon et al 2007,
Flanner et al 2011).

Here they identify a mechanism that may explain this anomaly and the shortcoming in the coupled models that do not account for this increased regional snow cover or the impacts it has on surface temperature in those regions.

And their concluding statement which is pretty much a summation that restates that which I've stated above:

Though we cannot conclude definitively that warming in the summer and autumn is forcing winter regional cooling, analysis of the most recent observational and modeling data supports links between strong regional cooling trends in the winter and warming trends in the prior seasons. A warmer, more moisture-laden Arctic atmosphere in the autumn contributes to an increase in Eurasian snow cover during that season. This change in snow cover dynamically forces negative AO conditions the following winter. We deduce that one main reason for models failing to capture the observed wintertime cooling is probably their poor representation of snow cover variability and the associated dynamical relationships with atmospheric circulation trends (Hardiman et al 2008, Jeong et al 2011). Incorporation of the snow cover–AO relationship into seasonal forecasts is shown to greatly improve their abilities, and hence long-term climate solutions from coupled climate models may also benefit from improved snow–AO relationships.

Good for them! The more the models can be tweaked to make them better reflect the reality they model the more accurate and refined our understanding of climate variables and factors.