Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

Why not?

One prediction of AGW is a greater frequency of unusual weather events - and the extensive cloudiness appears to be unusual.....its cloudy grimness" strikes me as a bit strange, given ""What seemed like endless days of cloud cover kept the daytime highs averaging 3 degrees below normal ... Inversely, the cloud cover helped to keep overnight temperatures up." A lack of clouds would have affected both elements of that.)

Don't let one Alaskan summer get your hopes up.

Last year when you were told by me that 97 cloud free days played a highly significant role in the unusual Arctic ice melt, you shrugged that off with a similar grade school level argument.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It would be a lot easier for all of us that CD and the likes of him/her recognize that the AGW hypothesis isn't falsiable. For now you can expect him/her to state that warming or cooling are sure proofs of AGW.

Anyway,I'm not even here (vanishes)

 

[Pipirr]

AGW is falsifiable.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Yeah, if by 2100 earth warmed less than 1.4 C and C02 emmiscions have doubled at least then AGW is falsified. Is that your criteria?

 

[Pipirr]

Yeah, if by 2100 earth warmed less than 1.4 C and C02 emmiscions have doubled at least then AGW is falsified. Is that your criteria?

Sure, that could work. Save for quibbling about the details, that looks to me like a test for falsifiability.

Well done there.

 

[easycruise]

Does this professor of atmospheric science at MIT give us a reality check? He says..

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

[easycruise]

Show me an ice core record which shows changes in carbon dioxide and methane DRIVING (ie PRECEDING) changes in temperature. Its nearly five years since I first asked you for one and you've failed to answer.

I see AUP still hasn't provided evidence to your challenge. Try as I might, I still can't find proof that CO2 precedes temperature. I guess AUP gave up too.

 

[mhaze]

Sure, that could work. Save for quibbling about the details, that looks to me like a test for falsifiability.

Well done there.

fine. Come back in year 2100 with your current bunch of slimey Warmologists who want to take reasonable peoples' money away, and we shall settle up. Bring all the nutty carbon trading and offset schemes, and the whole bunch of liars.

 

[David Rodale]

Why not?

One prediction of AGW is a greater frequency of unusual weather events - and the extensive cloudiness appears to be unusual.

Another prediction of AGW is that winter and nighttime minimums will increase more rapidly than summer and daytime maxima. You'll have noticed that ""The minimum temperatures in the summer of 2008 only ranked as the 34th coolest on record."

("All that stopped this summer from winning a place as coldest ever was, strangely enough, its cloudy grimness" strikes me as a bit strange, given ""What seemed like endless days of cloud cover kept the daytime highs averaging 3 degrees below normal ... Inversely, the cloud cover helped to keep overnight temperatures up." A lack of clouds would have affected both elements of that.)

Don't let one Alaskan summer get your hopes up.

One prediction of AGW is a greater frequency of unusual weather events - and the extensive cloudiness appears to be unusual.

Oh of course it does; AGW causes everything don’t ya know.

Another prediction of AGW is that winter and nighttime minimums will increase more rapidly than summer and daytime maxima. You'll have noticed that ""The minimum temperatures in the summer of 2008 only ranked as the 34th coolest on record."

LOL. You have just described an element of the urban heat island effect which has been empirically demonstrated in the many papers posted. Note this study is an actual scientific experiment rather than the garbage put forth by the AGW fraudsters in IPCC and is based on the heat inside of buildings. It doesn’t even include solar effects as is found in cities with many paved roads, parking lots and brick buildings.
Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001–2005

("All that stopped this summer from winning a place as coldest ever was, strangely enough, its cloudy grimness" strikes me as a bit strange, given ""What seemed like endless days of cloud cover kept the daytime highs averaging 3 degrees below normal ... Inversely, the cloud cover helped to keep overnight temperatures up." A lack of clouds would have affected both elements of that.)

Careful, you are wandering into forbidden territory; low climate sensitivity and negative feedback dominance. Do clouds have disproportionate amounts of CO2 in them?

Don't let one Alaskan summer get your hopes up.

Warmer terminology:
Weather: when conditions are not favorable to AGW it is weather. Ten years without warming is noise. Seven years of downward trend is too short to mean anything. Nobody ever said temperatures would be a continuous upward process (except IPCC).
Climate: when weather is warm and conditions are opportune for AGW dogma. One year anomalies such as Arctic ice melt is proof of AGW. A return to colder Arctic weather is only temporary and further proof of a strong AGW signal. Faulty predictions do not disprove climate models.

 

[Pixel42]

I see AUP still hasn't provided evidence to your challenge. Try as I might, I still can't find proof that CO2 precedes temperature. I guess AUP gave up too.

Sigh.

See post #507 and #512

 

[Pipirr]

fine.

Sounds like you agree that it is, in fact, a test of falsification. And that therefore AGW is, in fact, falsifiable.

Come back in year 2100 with your current bunch of slimey Warmologists who want to take reasonable peoples' money away, and we shall settle up. Bring all the nutty carbon trading and offset schemes, and the whole bunch of liars.

There there. Doesn't that feel better?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Sure, that could work. Save for quibbling about the details, that looks to me like a test for falsifiability.

Well done there.

So the Mayan prophecy about the end of the world in 2012 has the same predictive value. Anyway, do you think that AGW is falsiable :

a) Now
b) In 2010
c) Only in 2100 and beyond.

If a or b, what are the falsiability claims? (just the ones appliable only to the anthropogenic part of AGW)

 

[a_unique_person]

I see AUP still hasn't provided evidence to your challenge. Try as I might, I still can't find proof that CO2 precedes temperature. I guess AUP gave up too.

Not much use replying to anything Diamond says anymore.

If you want to see proof that Anthropogenic CO2 precedes temperature rises in the geological record, you're not going to ever get it, because for 99.99% of the geological record we werent' around. IIRC, there are some examples of non anthropogenic CO2 increase preceding a temperature rise, but that is irrelevant. There is a physical basis for CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

 

[CapelDodger]

Last year when you were told by me that 97 cloud free days played a highly significant role in the unusual Arctic ice melt, you shrugged that off with a similar grade school level argument.

So many cloud-free days was just another unusual bout of weather, so I would indeed have dismissed it as insignificant. The record minimum of ice-extent (20% less than the previous record in 2005) is a subject of a different order. That was the result of a long-term process, as was the second-lowest ice-extent this year (despite rather different weather in Alaska).

Highschool science is more than sufficient to understand such simple matters.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see AUP still hasn't provided evidence to your challenge. Try as I might, I still can't find proof that CO2 precedes temperature. I guess AUP gave up too.

What you haven't grasped is that it's not important. We are increasing atmospheric CO₂, directly, right now and for a good while past. It has increased by about a third, not as a response to climate change but by the planet's first ever industrialised society.

It was predicted a century ago that such direct injection of CO₂ would lead to global warming. What we are experiencing is global warming.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sure, that could work. Save for quibbling about the details, that looks to me like a test for falsifiability.

Well done there.

It works for me too. So that's general agreement (even including the other chap) that AGW is falsifiable. After we're all dead, of course, but the principle is established. AGW is falsifiable.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh of course it does; AGW causes everything don’t ya know.

In Morahasy's fevered imagination.

LOL. You have just described an element of the urban heat island effect which has been empirically demonstrated in the many papers posted.

More to the point, I demonstrated (and you continue to back me up) that the UHI is a big thing for folks like you. It's not a big thing for the planet.

Note this study is an actual scientific experiment rather than the garbage put forth by the AGW fraudsters in IPCC and is based on the heat inside of buildings. It doesn’t even include solar effects as is found in cities with many paved roads, parking lots and brick buildings.

The "AGW fraudsters in [the] IPCC" would include thousands of scientists in institutions across the world, whose work the IPCC collates for the benefit of the real decision-makers of the world. Who take the IPCC reports very seriously. The important players have their own scientific advisors and national scientific institutions to turn to for confirmation or otherwise, and what they're getting is confirmation. In fact, the IPCC was created because the issue was being raised quite insistently by senior scientists across the globe.

Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001–2005

Nobody questions the UHI.

Careful, you are wandering into forbidden territory; low climate sensitivity and negative feedback dominance. Do clouds have disproportionate amounts of CO2 in them?

Low climate sensitivity would preclude interglacials, and it can't have escaped your attention that we're living in one. Climate sensitivity isn't tuned to allow interglacials but not allow the world's first industrial society to have a significant impact.

Warmer terminology:
Weather: when conditions are not favorable to AGW it is weather. Ten years without warming is noise. Seven years of downward trend is too short to mean anything. Nobody ever said temperatures would be a continuous upward process (except IPCC).
Climate: when weather is warm and conditions are opportune for AGW dogma. One year anomalies such as Arctic ice melt is proof of AGW. A return to colder Arctic weather is only temporary and further proof of a strong AGW signal. Faulty predictions do not disprove climate models.

The usual mindless bile.

2007 wasn't a "one-year anomaly", it tore 20% of the 2005 minimum, which was itself described as "remarkable" in its day. That's a bit more than an anomaly.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not much use replying to anything Diamond says anymore.

It all seems to have got a bit much for him.

If you want to see proof that Anthropogenic CO2 precedes temperature rises in the geological record, you're not going to ever get it, because for 99.99% of the geological record we werent' around.

It bears repeating that we started this. Unwittingly, but there it is, and it would be witless to deny it.

 

[Pipirr]

Low climate sensitivity would preclude interglacials, and it can't have escaped your attention that we're living in one. Climate sensitivity isn't tuned to allow interglacials but not allow the world's first industrial society to have a significant impact.

Worth repeating.

 

[DogB]

That was the result of a long-term process, as was the second-lowest ice-extent this year (despite rather different weather in Alaska).

Highschool science is more than sufficient to understand such simple matters.

Crack about high school science not withstanding. Surely the extent of this year’s ice is a direct result of the unusually large amount of thin first year ice, which is a result of the unusual 07 melt season.

Like it or not the amount of ice trended upwards this year.

It's hardly proof that GW isn't occurring but to use it as proof that it is could be seen as being just a tiny bit disingenuous as well.