Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

Notes for the Occasional Visitor

If you are here but you don't understand what is going on, I'd like to explain that this thread is about global warming, the anthropogenic one. There are people who constantly tried to falsify that there's such AGW going on, but failed miserably in the scientific side, so they replaced science with dialectics and posted, and posted, and post repeatedly nonsensical notions -including conspiracy theories- in order to support the wrong notion that there's still some debate about that happening and its cause. Their goal -conscious or not- is keeping this double standard alive:

They call for inaction, so they have to recreate the false notion that there's some kind of debate. And I promise this pattern will go on forever as it's the only thing they have. Science has abandon them long time ago. So expect this to continue but I promise that many among us will make an effort to guide the visitor and provide them with more user-friendly access to climate science.

 

[ideogram]

We have three sources talking about "global warming theory", but still nobody has linked to a scientific explanation of even one of the theories.

I don't know what you mean by a "scientific explanation". Perhaps you could provide a definition.

 

[lionking]

While we're at it, let's define "global". It apparently doesn't include the oceans.


Nah, I'm not serious, but it makes as much sense as calls to define AGW.

 

[DC]

I replied that you did explain what you mean when you use "AGW". You must have missed the post.



Does anyone agree with that? He claimed "I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your 'Theory of Global Warming'"


Does anyone agree with that? He claimed "AGW theory" doesn't exist. or "theory of global warming", or "global warming theory".


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


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

We have three sources talking about "global warming theory", but still nobody has linked to a scientific explanation of even one of the theories.

many people here have actually linked to a scientific explenation.

but here once again i post a link for you, and i bet you will not read it and continue your game. you seem to be under the impression there is someting for you to gain with this game of yours.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf

so happy reading.

 

[macdoc]

I think if this badgering from R-J continues a stiff word to the mods from a number of people concerns will produce some results he will not be pleased with.

••••

This will give you all the information you could need

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

and you may ask "informed" questions of the climate scientists there.

 

[r-j]

many people here have actually linked to a scientific explenation.

No, and neither is your latest link. It was obvious the last time this subject was brought up, that hardly a soul participating could describe any theory of global warming. In fact, quite a few insisted there was no such thing, as my quotes show quite well.

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

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

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

When faced with such wrongness, especially when real authorities speak of the theory, one may become skeptical. Of those proclaiming things that are obviously not true.

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

“Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide, control of carbon dioxide has been considered the most effective method of slowing warming,”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

Obviously there is a theory, perhaps multiple theories, as we see a claim they are taught to climate students.

To continue to insist asking for your definition, as well as what evidence you would consider, seems scientific. Quite unlike the multiple comments about persons, rather than the issue at hand,

 

[r-j]

We saw the same two red herrings the last time, neither link will take you to the detailed scientific explanation of the theory of global warming. Much less to anything resembling the DC/macdoc definition. These links are not the links you are looking for.

This will give you all the information you could need
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf

What you are failing to provide, much less understand, is the modern theory of AGW, which certainly exists, despite the mess Wikipedia makes of the science.

This module investigates climatic variability. It focuses on the evidence for global climate change. It includes investigations of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the geography and politics of stratospheric ozone, and the theory of global warming

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Mission_Geography/9-12/Module_3/III-3-1.pdf

Is global warming the figment of some scientists' imaginations? How can we reconcile the global warming theory with the reality of what we find when we step outdoors?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004january/

It's important to have a clear understanding of what one is discussing, or fighting over. In fact, it is an essential part of the scientific process, the method if you please, to use clear terms, that everyone agrees on.

A jumbled mess, or worse, avoiding the entire thing, as we see on Wikipedia, benefits only those who would confuse and deceive. Even if that isn't what they think they are doing.

 

[DC]

No, and neither is your latest link. It was obvious the last time this subject was brought up, that hardly a soul participating could describe any theory of global warming. In fact, quite a few insisted there was no such thing, as my quotes show quite well. When faced with such wrongness, especially when real authorities speak of the theory, one may become skeptical. Of those proclaiming things that are obviously not true.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

Obviously there is a theory, perhaps multiple theories, as we see a claim they are taught to climate students.

To continue to insist asking for your definition, as well as what evidence you would consider, seems scientific. Quite unlike the multiple comments about persons, rather than the issue at hand,

i already explained to you the definition, and it is consistent with anything you will find in teh scientific literature.

i also posted a link to the IPCC AR4 WG1. it does explain AGW in a very detailed way.

so what exactly is your problem?
what is your problem iwht the definition i gave to you?
have you found any other definition of it?
what do you understand when someone is refering to AGW? how would you define it?
will you for once answer a qustion posed to you instead always insiting others answer your questions?

and most people do understand what we are discussing here. there are not many so extremely dumb as to not even understand what is being talked about when they talk about AGW.
our planet is warming do to human activity, very very simple.
how extremely dumb must one be to not udnerstand that? tell me. why don't you understand it?

 

[DC]

We saw the same two red herrings the last time, neither link will take you to the detailed scientific explanation of the theory of global warming. Much less to anything resembling the DC/macdoc definition. These links are not the links you are looking for.

What you are failing to provide, much less understand, is the modern theory of AGW, which certainly exists, despite the mess Wikipedia makes of the science.
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Mission_Geography/9-12/Module_3/III-3-1.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004january/

It's important to have a clear understanding of what one is discussing, or fighting over. In fact, it is an essential part of the scientific process, the method if you please, to use clear terms, that everyone agrees on.

A jumbled mess, or worse, avoiding the entire thing, as we see on Wikipedia, benefits only those who would confuse and deceive. Even if that isn't what they think they are doing.

the link i posted does explain it very very detailed in scientific way. that you do not understand it, is your problem.
its very very simple, but the details may be a bit diffuclt to follow if one has a lack of knowledge on basic physics like you obviously must have.

 

[macdoc]

We saw the same two red herrings the last time, neither link will take you to the detailed scientific explanation of the theory of global warming. Much less to anything resembling the DC/macdoc definition. These links are not the links you are looking for.

You are just tiresome r-j

you don't read anything ....you spew horsepucky....

You have not answered a single question asked of you

How about YOU provide us with YOUR hand crafted scientific explanation of AGW theory.

I predict...you won't.

 

[r-j]

While the following leaves out a great deal, at least he is trying to simply explain what is meant, as well as some physical mechanism to explain the theory.

Just what is the theory here?

First, we need to get straight on just what we might be talking about when referring to "The Theory of Global Warming." There’s a natural tendency to identify such a theory with the statement that "The Earth is Warming." That’s wrong because it confuses a theory with observations that might be used to test a theory. It’s also wrong because it would imply that the only reason we think that the Earth will continue warming in response to increased CO2 is that we already see it warming today; it loses the chain of physical causation. Somewhat better would be the statement, "The Earth is warming, and the warming is largely due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases." This is defensible as a hypothesis, but I think it would be far better to consider this statement, too, as more properly in the domain of one of the tests we might apply to the Theory of Global Warming.

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.

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

It's well worth reading the entire article there. While flawed, it is at least honest and straight forward for the most part.

A theory can never be definitively proved; there is always the possibility that some new observation will overturn it, and most theories are imperfect and fail in one way or another to account for some of the data. The question thus emerges as to the extent to which global warming skeptics are holding the theory up to an "unreasonable standard of proof," much as ID proponents do in the case of Evolution. Given that the intensity of interest in the Theory of Global Warming stems largely from its policy implications, it is fair to ask how the standards of proof to which global warming has been held stack up against other theories that have been used to make policy decisions of enormous consequence. "Supply Side Economics" (the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth) is a telling example that comes to mind (to say nothing of the "theory" that Iraq had WMD).

It's a sign of the scientific method, the scientific tradition, to question, attack, and demand a new or revolutionary idea, or hypothesis, be subjected to a lengthy and rigorous trial.

The politics and religious like overtones on this matter do much to distort and cloud the science. Let us not fall to that so very unscientific failing.

 

[r-j]

i already explained to you the definition, and it is consistent with anything you will find in teh scientific literature.

No, it isn't even close.

the link i posted does explain it very very detailed in scientific way.

No, it does not. See the above for an easy to follow example of explaining something like the theory of global warming.

How about YOU provide us with YOUR hand crafted scientific explanation of AGW theory.

I predict...you won't.

Ah, such sweet irony. We were both busy composing. I, providing clarity and a link to the theory of global warming. You, the same tiresome nothing.

 

[aleCcowaN]

While flawed, it is at least honest and straight forward for the most part.

False, r-j. It is not flawed.

 

[r-j]

Both posted at exactly the same time! 2:25 pm

you don't read anything ....you spew horsepucky....

While the following...

... The politics and religious like overtones on this matter do much to distort and cloud the science. Let us not fall to that so very unscientific failing.

Serendipity favors the traveler.

 

[tsig]

When all deniers have left is pedantry, they have lost the debate. Comprehensively.

What's your definition of Comprehensively?

(answering post with complete definition)

What's your definition of Comprehensively?

(another post with definition

What's your definition of Comprehensively?

*Repeat 14 times*

(XXXX&&&&&*******)

 

[macdoc]

So after being challenged you finally decide to read something in RealClimate which you were sent to innumerable times.

You've demonstrated time again you have no understanding of physics....you did not write that yourself and there is not one iota of disagreement between my understanding and definition , DCs and that one.

All we did was use short forms which you clearly DO NOT understand.

You are neither honest, nor straightforward

 

[r-j]

False, r-j. It is not flawed.

Very minor flaws, easy to overlook. They do not detract from the effort. We could all learn from such clear and understandable writing. Also, it's seven years out of date, which is why it's more important in regards to the theory of global warming than the details he discusses. We have actually learned a lot since then. Recall that several people in this thread claimed there is no such thing as what he is discussing. And of course that ludicrous definition that DC/macdoc find dear.

Besides the ongoing problem with clouds, the general theory of Earth’s climate, like any good scientific theory, continues to be confronted by phenomena it cannot yet fully explain, and to evolve in response.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/ Yes, the theory and the understanding evolves, it changes and adapts.

An especially notable unresolved challenge is the inability of models to reproduce the low North-South gradient in warm climates such as the Cretaceous.

This was 2006, the more recent troubles were still just a whisper at that time.

In this case as well as in others (such as the problem of vertical structure of tropical tropospheric warming) the problem may lie as much in the data sets being used to test the theories as in the theories themselves.

There is an honest statement about the possibility our measuring might be part of the trouble, and that there is of course trouble.

Real science has uncertainty, real science is not this mockery of science that claims it's all settled, or that the majority agrees, so it must be so. That puffery and boasting does not belong in a science discussion. It's the realm of belief, of politics, or religion.

 

[ideogram]

While the following leaves out a great deal, at least he is trying to simply explain what is meant, as well as some physical mechanism to explain the theory.

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

It's well worth reading the entire article there. While flawed, it is at least honest and straight forward for the most part.

It's a sign of the scientific method, the scientific tradition, to question, attack, and demand a new or revolutionary idea, or hypothesis, be subjected to a lengthy and rigorous trial.

The politics and religious like overtones on this matter do much to distort and cloud the science. Let us not fall to that so very unscientific failing.

Great! We have a definition that apparently satisfies you. I am not interested in an argument over whether anyone else was able to link to this definition.

In fact AGW has already been subject to a lengthy and rigorous trial.

 

[ideogram]

Real science has uncertainty, real science is not this mockery of science that claims it's all settled, or that the majority agrees, so it must be so.

The article you linked to is celebrating the birthday of Darwin. The theory of evolution has uncertainty too. Arguing against the "theory of global warming" is like arguing against evolution.

 

[DC]

No, it isn't even close.

No, it does not. See the above for an easy to follow example of explaining something like the theory of global warming.



Ah, such sweet irony. We were both busy composing. I, providing clarity and a link to the theory of global warming. You, the same tiresome nothing.

it's not only close, its spot on, and the link i provided explains it much more detailed in a scientific way, exactly what you asked for. but as you never have red it, you don't know that.

but now as you know what AGW means, do you accept the definition?
care to move on? to the evidence supporting the theory for example, have you ever looked at that? links to the evidence have been provided over and over again.

do you accept the evidence? does it convince you?
how about answering questions others have asked you? will you answer them? will you answer my questions?