Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

Maybe it sounds odd to you but that doesnt make it less true.

The way to argue is to present evidence. Show me don't tell me.

It's not hard ether.

 

[r-j]

At worst, I'm misunderstanding your position.

That's a positive attitude. Try giving everyone else the same benefit of the doubt. You have several times claimed I said something, but when I ask you to quote where I did, you avoid doing so. I know you are making it up, so you can't actually quote where I said what you are claiming. Also, it's a stupid argument, that you keep attributing to me, which is the worst part of the lie.

Tell you what, what's you position, then?

On what?

I know you'll say the evidence doesn't support AGW, so what I mean is: how do you know it doesn't support it ?

Again, you don't know, and claiming you do is woo woo. You should apply for the challenge, with your mind reading skills.

What do you mean by "AGW" when you say, "the evidence doesn't support AGW"? Clearly I have stated multiple times that large scale cooling trends for the NH winters is not a prediction of the current climate models. These models are based on AGW theory. Both of those statements are facts, and I supported the with evidence. In actuality, I got both claims from the scientific literature, I didn't make them up. You can read where it is stated clearly, in multiple sources.

So why is "my position" on this such a mystery to you?

I did not, and would never say a weather event, like it being cold in winter, disproves anything, much less the theory of AGW.

But, you need to answer, clearly and with evidence to support it, what you mean by "AGW" when you say, "the evidence doesn't support AGW".

 

[r-j]

Not that I think for a moment you, or anyone else here, will actually just state, with evidence, what you mean by AGW, and how we know it is AGW causing climate change.

it was just over a year ago half the warming people in the thread claimed there was no such thing as "the theory of AGW", and the other half of the warming people never commented on this most strange exchange.

 

[DC]

Not that I think for a moment you, or anyone else here, will actually just state, with evidence, what you mean by AGW, and how we know it is AGW causing climate change.

it was just over a year ago half the warming people in the thread claimed there was no such thing as "the theory of AGW", and the other half of the warming people never commented on this most strange exchange.

it has been answered to you so many times. what do you think to gain with your stupid game?

AGW is clearl< defined
GW stands for global warming, it means the increase in the global average temperature.
A stands for anthropogenic and means, caused by human activity....

very very simple. one has to be extremely dumb to not understand it, yet you are asking over and over and over again. you seem to have trouble understand this..... wich explains alot about your ignorant posts......

this topic is way above your head.

 

[Belz...]

That's a positive attitude. Try giving everyone else the same benefit of the doubt.

I did, by asking you to explain where I'm wrong.

You have several times claimed I said something, but when I ask you to quote where I did, you avoid doing so.

That's a lie. I quoted you when I made the claim.

On what?

Again, you don't know, and claiming you do is woo woo.

Know what ? I'm asking you a question.

I did not, and would never say a weather event, like it being cold in winter, disproves anything, much less the theory of AGW.

Let's quote you, then, shall we ?

Does it usually snow in the middle of summer in Australia? I thought it was the hottest ever there right now.

How can it be snowing? Or is that a year round thing?

Sure, you didn't mean anything by that. Perhaps you have cooling Tourette's.


By the way, I notice you have failed to apologise for misrepresenting my position entirely, all the while quoting me saying something entirely different. For someone claiming that I'm lying about your position, you sure are strong with the irony.

 

[r-j]

Sure, you didn't mean anything by that. Perhaps you have cooling Tourette's.

That's really sad. You are sounding like just another liar with an insult problem.

Since I don't know anything about snow in summer in Australia I asked. That you see that as making a claim is not scientific at all. Your claim is ignorant.

Meanwhile you (and everyone else) still avoid the clear and easy to follow science (with evidence) that I presented to explain my position.

 

[DC]

That's really sad. You are sounding like just another liar with an insult problem.

Since I don't know anything about snow in summer in Australia I asked. That you see that as making a claim is not scientific at all. Your claim is ignorant.

Meanwhile you (and everyone else) still avoid the clear and easy to follow science (with evidence) that I presented to explain my position.

why should anyone follow your links? you deniers never follow the evidence that is presented to you.
nor do you guys ever answer questions posed to you.
or responf to replays that points out errors or blatant lies.

like with haid. i followed his evidence, saw it does not support his claim. pointed it out and asked some questions.... he simply disapeared and will soon be back to merely spamm more nonsense and lies....

why should anyone listen to nutty deniers? they are all laughable clowns and have nothing to offer of any wirth in such a debate.

and you just keep playing your dumb and dishonest game "nobody explains AGW to me".....

wich is a clear lie on your part, but then you have the nerve to accuse others of lying.... hillarious.... and you wonder why people laugh at deniers and do not take them serious?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

The way to argue is to present evidence. Show me don't tell me.

It's not hard ether.

Are you serious? You even posted a link with scientist confirming this. And for once do some research yourself.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, it means I can't find any evidence. Just like we see in this topic. If there is evidence showing the increase in global water vapor, as well as increasing temperatures, then post it. Or a link to it. So far I seem to be the only one posting any definition and explaining what AGW means.

OK here is the result of a VERY quick google search on AGW and water vapor. The very first link I tried. Scroll down to "Satellite-Observed and Model-Simulated Changes in Atmospheric Water Vapor".

The Role of Water Vapor in Climate:
The Outlook from Models, Observations and Theory

And this has been posted by MacDoc for ages on temperatures:

OSS Foundation chart

So there is evidence. I found it in about 15 minutes or less. That's why I said if you can't find evidence, you are not looking for it in the right places, and I'll add probably are not looking at all, because it was so easy to find even a child could do it quickly.

You'll also notice the actual observed temperature increase is less than 1 degree C, so what I said about a huge amount of heat creating a small amount of warming is confirmed. The AGW is actually a smaller increase than the yearly weather fluctuations. That's why all your posts showing various weather anomalies are not evidence in the least to your denial of AGW. Weather fluctuations and climate fluctuations are two very different things. They may be related, and the AGW models do take that into account, but they are completely different animals.

And one last point I would like to note based on your earlier comment that "nature could handle it". Notice when the OSS foundation chart shows a clear divergence. It happens late 50's early 60's. Exactly the same time as the "green revolution" in agriculture. It is a very strong correlation. Most the people here at the JREF science forum are not buying the correlation can be tied to a causation. We have argued at great length about that. But it certainly is plenty enough to show that "nature" is not "handling it" now.

I personally think better management might make it possible for a biological solution. That is a minority opinion, but I am sticking to it until someone shows convincing evidence otherwise. However, in either case, what we have now in the current state of affairs with nearly every ecological biome on the planet negatively affected by human use, "nature" isn't able to "handle it".

 

[lomiller]

The Sun controls the climate

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Barring some heretofore undiscovered fairy dust the Sun is remarkably stable and showed very little change. Even the 11/22 year sunspot cycle is minuscule in terms of solar output, amounting to only a fraction of a % change. If you showed the full Y axis changes in solar output would be completely invisible, all you would see is a flat line

How do you explain such tiny changes impacting the earth’s climate, and if something is magnifying them to the point where they make a difference how does it know to only amplify changes in Solar output and ignore the much larger effect of greenhouse gasses?

 

[Belz...]

That's really sad. You are sounding like just another liar with an insult problem.

Meanwhile you (and everyone else) still avoid the clear and easy to follow science (with evidence) that I presented to explain my position.

When can I expect your retraction about the misrepresentation you made of my post, and your addressing of its points ?

 

[DC]

he is not here to adress points, he is here to spread his myths and doubts.
he is too ignorant on this topic to actually adress any points.

 

[Belz...]

Since I don't know anything about snow in summer in Australia I asked.

You're not fooling me, r-j. You know full well that Australia is pretty damn hot, and that it doesn't have snow year-round.

 

[lomiller]

Obviously nature deals with CO2, even large increases.

Why is this “obvious” or even true?

That's why there is no historic event where there was some sort of runaway warming

No one had argued a Venus type runaway greenhouse effect; it’s a strawman to argue against it. (And you would also be wrong, because Venus itself is an example of a Venus style runaway)
If you are simply confusing runaway with positive feedback, you are simply wrong. There are a great many examples of positive feedback involving CO2. Positive feedback from greenhouse gasses is, for example, required to explain the advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 4 million years.

The part of the theory that assumes a small increase in heat will cause a huge amount of warming is an assumption.

It’s not an assumption since feedback control systems are very well understood and underpin pretty much all modern technology.

In any case, you seem more than happy to make this “assumption” when it fits your beliefs. Changes in solar output are tiny and would require much more feedback amplification in order to have climate impacts, but you don’t seem to have issue with them here.

 

[macdoc]

I suggest that everyone that wants a bit of sanity in the thread use their ignore option appropriately.

 

[r-j]

OK here is the result of a VERY quick google search on AGW and water vapor. The very first link I tried. Scroll down to "Satellite-Observed and Model-Simulated Changes in Atmospheric Water Vapor".

There is a misunderstanding. I was speaking clearly about the lack of evidence for an observed rise in water vapor, based on rising CO2 levels, a key feature of AGW theory. Which is what the following is discussing. AGW theory

How do we know this global warming is human caused, or man made?

A scientific source would explain the theory at this point, and then show how evidence supports the theory. Instead we get an ill conceived and poorly executed mish mash, not science.

Consider the facts: the climate has left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of evidence and studies from different fields all point to the human fingerprint on current climate change;

And yet not a single bit of evidence, much less explaining the "human fingerprint", which we know means CO2.

The only identifiable cause is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Science has simply not found any other cause factor that can account for the amount of current increased radiative forcing and associated warming.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused/
I do believe this,
"Science has simply not found the cause that can account for the amount of current increased radiative forcing and associated warming"

There is simply no cause we know of to explain the warming we have observed and measured. It isn't CO2 forcing alone, because the warming we have observed does NOT MATCH THE THEORY of what we should be seeing. The key things that CO2 forcing theory predicts have not been observed, no matter how you try to say they have.

That is the evidence you can't find. The CO2 fingerprints are what is missing, that is the evidence I am saying can't be found, nor has it been presented in this thread so far.

Notice when the OSS foundation chart shows a clear divergence. It happens late 50's early 60's. Exactly the same time as the "green revolution" in agriculture. It is a very strong correlation. Most the people here at the JREF science forum are not buying the correlation can be tied to a causation. We have argued at great length about that. But it certainly is plenty enough to show that "nature" is not "handling it" now.

That is a very interesting point, and quite different than the issue of evidence for AGW theory. But, and this is massively interesting, what you pointed out is also evidence that it isn't CO2 forced warming we are observing.

Which is why it's so important to understand the theory of global warming, or the theory of AGW, or the theories of anthropagenic global warming, as well as climate theory in general. Until it is understood what those mean, the rest is hardly scientific.

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

That still makes me chuckle. Every time.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Meanwhile, in Sweden, the few Swedish denialists (all kooks, mainly internet based) are having a rough time with an extremely warm winter, with December temperatures up to 8 degrees above normal.

This is my problem with AGW. I used to accept it was happening, then I gradually stopped believing, now I'm reassessing again and slowly bringing my opinion closer in line with scientific consensus. But it's statements like this that drive me crazy.

Every time it's unseasonably (or even seasonably) cold, all the AGW deniers start crowing about how global warming is a myth. The response from the scientists is always the same: weather != climate. This is obvious and sensible.

But the legitimacy of the position is undercut every time unseasonably (or even seasonably) warm weather brings out the exact opposite! You get the global warming crowd saying "See? See? It's warmer than usual in Country X! Global warming!" Which of course just allows the anti-science crowd to ridicule them with "I thought weather != climate?"

The worst part is, the world is huge. There will always be the one country with higher-than-average temperatures to point to on the AGW side, and the one country with lower-than-average temperatures to point to on the denialist side. Why can't AGW activists stick to average global temperatures like they're supposed to, and stop spouting nonsense that can be refuted so easily it in fact weakens their position?

It's the same thing with hurricanes. We have a year in which hurricane strength and numbers is at decades-old lows, and weather != climate. But one big hurricane happens to hit a major city, and all of a sudden "It's all because of global warming!" Hurricane Sandy was the worst example of this, because those who attributed it to AGW seem to have completely forgotten that this is not the first time a hurricane hit New York, nor was it the strongest to do so.

How is a scientifically-minded person supposed to see through all this nonsense to the truth?

 

[uke2se]

This is my problem with AGW. I used to accept it was happening, then I gradually stopped believing, now I'm reassessing again and slowly bringing my opinion closer in line with scientific consensus. But it's statements like this that drive me crazy.

Every time it's unseasonably (or even seasonably) cold, all the AGW deniers start crowing about how global warming is a myth. The response from the scientists is always the same: weather != climate. This is obvious and sensible.

But the legitimacy of the position is undercut every time unseasonably (or even seasonably) warm weather brings out the exact opposite! You get the global warming crowd saying "See? See? It's warmer than usual in Country X! Global warming!" Which of course just allows the anti-science crowd to ridicule them with "I thought weather != climate?"

The worst part is, the world is huge. There will always be the one country with higher-than-average temperatures to point to on the AGW side, and the one country with lower-than-average temperatures to point to on the denialist side. Why can't AGW activists stick to average global temperatures like they're supposed to, and stop spouting nonsense that can be refuted so easily it in fact weakens their position?

It's the same thing with hurricanes. We have a year in which hurricane strength and numbers is at decades-old lows, and weather != climate. But one big hurricane happens to hit a major city, and all of a sudden "It's all because of global warming!" Hurricane Sandy was the worst example of this, because those who attributed it to AGW seem to have completely forgotten that this is not the first time a hurricane hit New York, nor was it the strongest to do so.

You completely missed my point, which was to demonstrate exactly what you are saying: Weather != climate, and unseasonable cold in one place is offset by unseasonable warmth in another. That's why I made the quip about not knowing what "global" meant in the end of the post from which you drew out a snippet.

And how could this possibly be your problem with AGW?

How is a scientifically-minded person supposed to see through all this nonsense to the truth?

By reading the science, of course.

 

[lomiller]

If .5 W/m2 is supposed to be the amount CO2 is currently increasing the energy of the planet, a variation of 1.3 W/m2 would cause a clear change in the earth's energy balance. But we don't see that.

So many mistakes...

First of all greenhouse forcing is estimated a little under 3W/m^2. (There is also ~-1 W/m^2 from aerosols for a net forcing of a little under 2W/m^2)

Second you need a lesson in basic geometry. The Sun only shines on the earth form a single direction, while greenhouse gasses and aerosols impact outbound IR in all directions. The conversion between the area of a circle and the surface area of a sphere of the same diameter is 4X so this translates into an equivalent change in solar activity would permanent increase of 8W/m^2.

a variation of 1.3 W/m2 would cause a clear change in the earth's energy balance. .

No it wouldn’t. I’ve done the math on these forums before. An 11 year cycle of +/- 0.5W/m^2 only results in enough energy to change the temperature of the atmosphere and top 100m of the ocean by +/- 0.01 Deg C.

A longer period than 5.5 years of warming/cooling would result in larger swings. Climate scientists tell us that it takes about 30 years for the impact of a change to be fully, or very near fully felt.

Then there is the fact that we don't actually have a direct measurement of the sun's change in total energy reaching us each moment.

There have been satellites directly observing the suns energy output since the 1970’s. They show a slight decrease in energy output. There is proxy data going back farther which also shows changes in solar output are much smaller than the changes caused by greenhouse gasses.

Does anyone else find it bizarre that he wants to dismiss all the proxy evidence that could tell us how the suns energy output changes prior to the satellite era while still insisting that this is the very thing causing climate change? People with genuine science based arguments don’t insist we dismiss the very evidence that could prove/disprove their position.

 

[r-j]

How is a scientifically-minded person supposed to see through all this nonsense to the truth?

Excellent and well spoken. That is exactly the problem any skeptic faces when looking into the hype and the crazy on all sides, when global warming is around.

This madness about "Global warming theory" is just one example of what you describe. Some say there is no theory, others say I made up the concept, others say deniers made it up, others say it is well understood, others say it is a simple thing, while others just completely ignore the questions.

If you can't get a clear understanding of the science of the "global warming theory", how can any of the rest of it make sense?

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