Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Arnold Martin]

.
A question for the warmists ....

Is there a place , or a link , where I can find the names of all the "settled scientists" who claim mankind is warming the planet ??

Many thanks.

 

[a_unique_person]

.
A question for the warmists ....

Is there a place , or a link , where I can find the names of all the "settled scientists" who claim mankind is warming the planet ??

Many thanks.

No such thing as a "settled scientist".

 

[Arnold Martin]

No such thing as a "settled scientist".

I have been told the "science" is settled and there is a “consensus” among climate scientists.

Who are they ?

Of course you know that is what I meant in the first place

 

[Pixel42]

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

 

[r-j]

Been done

Obviously you are once more avoiding answering, or as you are so fond of saying, "you are a liar". Plus, and I find this quite funny, you say "Been done. Hopefully, there will be no need to re-explain this issue each and every year at this time.", at the same time Reality Check claims

There is no "AGW theory" and thus no predictions from it, r-j.

Isn't that funny?

You hooked yourself up in semantic knots last year with this mess

More lies. I asked what YOU mean when you say "AGW" or global warming. I asked what the theory is. What the predictions are. How can we know if it's human caused warming? That isn't semantics. It was the alarmists crowd here that tried to make it either complicated and confusing, or pretend there is no theory, hence no predictions. Oops, just like we see still being claimed.

There is no "AGW theory" and thus no predictions from it, r-j.

The distortion and confusion comes in when you say you want to talk about "the Theory of Global Warming," or "the Theory of AGW."

Lies. When I see NASA scientists, or NOAA, or a climate researcher, anyone using the term "Theory of Global Warming", or AGW or global warming, there is no doubt they mean something by it. And of course there is a theory. You can't predict the future of a chaotic system like climate with out theory.

Allowing for this variability, global warming theory does not posit a linear, year-to-year increase in temperatures. Nor does it say that harsh winter weather will simply end.

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

It's obvious and clear. The only confusion is coming from you and a few others who claim there is no theory.

and many of us tried to straighten you out on this,

More lies. Just as we see right now, it's confusion and evasion. There is no clarity. Not from you at least. Science deals with clarity, with clear definitions, but not you.

There are many scientific theories, understandings and concepts relating to climate change/global warming. There is no one, overarching "Theory of Global Warming."

You keep repeating that claim, but never offer any evidence.

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/

How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere?
Implications for Global Warming Theory

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

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

One of the predictions from global warming theory is that we should have warmer and wetter weather here

http://sirbikesalot.com/entry.php?fid=301

As greenhouse gas emissions rise, North America is likely to experience more droughts and excessive heat in some regions even as intense downpours and hurricanes pound others more often, according to a report issued yesterday by the US Climate Change Science Program.

The 162-page study, which was led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides the most comprehensive assessment yet of how global warming has helped to transform the climate of the United States and Canada over the past 50 years – and how it may do so in the future

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/20/9763/
After nobody here ever linked to, or explained the theory (instead multiple people claimed it didn't exist) I linked to a simple explanation, which clearly talks about the theory. From RealClimate

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.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/ Which is why the liars lose, as they always do.

There is no "AGW theory" and thus no predictions from it, r-j.

No, that is a lie.

The distortion and confusion comes in when you say you want to talk about "the Theory of Global Warming," or "the Theory of AGW."

More lies. Is it any wonder I don't buy anything you are selling at this point? You are a mockery of science.

There is no "AGW theory" and thus no predictions from it, r-j.

When alarmists lie, they lose all credibility. How do you think you are going to get away with lies when everything is still here in black and white? Anyone can read it.

 

[Belz...]

Forget the computer models and deal with the unsourced facts ...

Fixed that for you.

 

[Belz...]

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -18ºC rather than the equable +15ºC that has nurtured the development of life.

Why do you use arguments that counter the denier position ?

 

[Megalodon]

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

From the link:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12]

 

[DC]

.
A question for the warmists ....

Is there a place , or a link , where I can find the names of all the "settled scientists" who claim mankind is warming the planet ??

Many thanks.

that list would be imensely Long. i am not Aware of such a list. like there is no list of scientists that accept gravity, or a list of scientists that accept Evolution or electromagnetism.

 

[Trakar]

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate."

Even ones that I've never heard of. Like this grassland thing going on here.

There are some people who will debate their own name, that doesn't mean that there is an honest, substantive or valid alternative to what name is present upon their birth certificate.

 

[DC]

Forget the computer models and deal with the facts ...

10 Facts and 10 Myths about Climate Change: Prof Bob Carter

LOL it starts already with a strawman......

and in number 2 the lies start.....

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

channel TTT and TMT show clear warming of the atmosphere.

why do you spread lies without doing any fact checking? because it confirmed your bias so nicely?

why should anyone take your list seriously? it starts with strawmen and goes over to lies and that's only the first 2 points.....

 

[r-j]

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.

Some pseudoscientific claims can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engrams. Scientific theories not only explain empirical phenomena, they also predict empirical phenomena. One way we know a scientific theory is no good is that its predictions keep failing. Predictions can't fail unless a theory is falsifiable. Some pseudoscientific claims can't be falsified because they are consistent with every imaginable empirical state of affairs.

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

Obviously we see many predictions made by global warmist, as well as claims that the predictions have already been confirmed! So when somebody claims there is no theory, or it's made up, or only used by "deniers", they obviously don't know what they are talking about. "Scientific theories not only explain empirical phenomena, they also predict empirical phenomena." That future warming is predicted is exactly the sort of thing that a scientific theory is about.

The jackbooted warmists might want to tell you (more like ram it down your throat hole) that "AGW is a fact, not a theory", but that is more pseudoscience.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Some here seem to think AGW is a scientific law, not a theory. This is a very stupid thing to believe. Especially when combined with the stupid concept of

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.

What's a scientific person to think of such absurd claims?

Not only do scientific articles discuss the term, they define it, and talk about the predictions from it.

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

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/

How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere?
Implications for Global Warming Theory
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/

Global Warming Theory Affirmed
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

If changes in CO2 began after changes in temperature, didn’t that contradict the greenhouse theory of global warming?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

One of the predictions that arise from the theory of Global Warming is that as the climate system warms, as more energy accumulates in various parts of the system, weather in various ways will become more intense and also more erratic.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1296

So don't lie and say stupid things, it will come back to haunt you.

 

[Trakar]

.
A question for the warmists ....

Is there a place , or a link , where I can find the names of all the "settled scientists" who claim mankind is warming the planet ??

Many thanks.

There isn't even a place where you can find a complete and accurate list of all the names of actual scientists who reject the finding that mankind is warming the planet, and it is a list that is very close to 100x shorter than the list you seek. I can tell you that virtually all climate researchers and the overwhelming majority of affiliated field researchers (physicists, planetary researchers, chemists, geologists, etc.) who have objectively looked at the accumulated evidences and the mainstream climate science understandings, accept and acknowledge the methods and the findings of human forced climate change.

 

[Trakar]

No such thing as a "settled scientist".

not even sure what a "warmist" is, other than perhaps someone who disagrees with whatever the flavor of the day science denial is.

 

[Trakar]

I have been told the "science" is settled and there is a “consensus” among climate scientists.

Who told you that the "science" was settled and in what context? Do you understand that a consensus is simply a general agreement upon the state of climate understandings among climate scientists?

 

[macdoc]

r-j

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate."

Even ones that I've never heard of. Like this grassland thing going on here.

Debate is confrontational, scientist put up a thesis or conjecture and then support it with observations and underlying theory. You should try it some time.

There are a lot of things you've never heard of as is obvious from your posts while some of us have been reading the science for decades.

Science is about vigorous discussion including areas like aerodynamic theory.
But it does not prevent us from acting on what we do know and built planes and fly in them safely and confidently.

We DO know the rather basic and easy to understand physics of AGW ....have for over a century.
We do have observations that support the physics and the theory.
We have more than enough to act on.
Even those who wish it would go away like Exxon acknowledge the reality and the risk.

What we don't have is a stopper cork for foolish posters who think there is not enough support to act when in fact it is perhaps the most vetted bit of science in the history of human knowledge.

2,000 climate papers published in 2012, ONE denied global warming. The rest accept it along with every major scientific body on the planet.
And you think you can over turn that......I think you are wrong and KNOW your constant repetitive posts accomplish nothing in a science based climate thread.

Is there more to be learned - yes - as you even acknowledged with the biological component which indicates to me you do not understand the carbon cycle at all as the biome is integral to it.

Follow the lnks provided, go away and read the basics and then come back with sensible questions based on the science instead of the incessant nattering of the same nonsense over and over.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Arnold Martin View Post
I have been told the "science" is settled and there is a “consensus” among climate scientists.

Told by who.

There is concensus amongst climate scientist as to the primary underlying cause of the current warming of land and ocean. More than enough to act on.

Science is never settled but the optical properties of GHG and CO2 are very testable even on a tabletop and would require an overturn of the physics to change.
In addition cross observations from many diverse fields confirm both the reality of warming and the knock on physical data like a cooling of the stratosphere.

In that sense the science underlying AGW is settled as to why and what....more than enough to act on....it was enough to act on a decade ago.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

What is not settled tho it's getting more confidence is how fast there will be onset of consequences with the poles and noteably the Arctic experiencing consequences 4 x faster than mid latitudes.
Every year a multi-discipline Arctic report comes out charting the changes
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Have you read it? - it was supplied to you.
Have you read the links in my signature??

If you haven't why are you wasting our time. This is a climate science forum and the questions you ask are akin to dealing with some one in a chopper forum who doesn't think helicopters can fly.
That's exactly how ridiculous they are.

You'd give them short shrift and consider them very poorly informed....well....that's your position with AGW and the underlying science

The people here, some of whom are working scientists get rather impatient with repeated ignorance.

BTW you are being EXTREMELY insulting with the warmist crap ...you want a dialogue then cut the Faux news barf.
It's unbecoming of an honest inquirer in a climate science forum, tho expected of trolls.
Which you are will show by your future posts.

 

[macdoc]

So the differential is at least .11 to 3.04 MgC per Ha per year or more.

Okay so we have an improvement from neutral ( tho that seems odd ) to 0.11 up to 3.04 ...is that milligrams or micrograms of carbon per hectare.

 

[Trakar]

Obviously you are once more avoiding answering, or as you are so fond of saying, "you are a liar". Plus, and I find this quite funny, you say "Been done. Hopefully, there will be no need to re-explain this issue each and every year at this time.", at the same time Reality Check claims
Isn't that funny?

Please link to any post in this or the preceding original thread where I have stated "you are a liar."

As explained previously, there are many theories that deal with different aspects of Anthropogenic Global Warming but there is no one, formally worded and proposed overarching and all inclusive Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. All of these various human influence understandings and evidences are combined under the general banner of AGW in their common establishment that "human activities are a primary factor in the modern episode of climate change upon our planet."

More lies. I asked what YOU mean when you say "AGW" or global warming. I asked what the theory is.

And you have repeatedly been told that there is no formal, overarching theory of AGW, but that the term is rather more of a qualifier for a set of understandings which indicate that human activities are a primary factor in the modern episode of climate change upon our planet.

What the predictions are. How can we know if it's human caused warming?

There are various predictions tied to the various theories that support AGW, or the understanding that human activities are a primary factor in the modern episode of climate change upon our planet. For instance if we look at the understanding that AGW is largely the result of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere then we would need to look at the established theories of CO2 forced climate change and see what the predictions of that theory are and what negating factors would falsify CO2 forcing.

If you are trying to falsify the "A" in AGW, then you would need to demonstrate that evidences indicating human activities are a primary factor in the modern episode of climate change upon our planet are incorrect and that there are compelling evidences of another influence that is most likely responsible for the modern episode of climate change upon our planet.

That isn't semantics.

Looking for a way to twist common discussion terms through filters of selective application by mixing formalized references and common term explanations and discussions, you are (knowingly or unknowingly) attempting to confuse/conflate the semantics of this discussion in order to make a meaningless rhetorical argument that has nothing to do with the actualities of climate science,...aka a "semantic knot."

It was the alarmists crowd here that tried to make it either complicated and confusing, or pretend there is no theory, hence no predictions. Oops, just like we see still being claimed. Lies. When I see NASA scientists, or NOAA, or a climate researcher, anyone using the term "Theory of Global Warming", or AGW or global warming, there is no doubt they mean something by it. And of course there is a theory. You can't predict the future of a chaotic system like climate with out theory.http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

It seems like you are conflating commonspeak usage of the terms "theory of global warming/AGW," with the formal qualifications used when referencing a formal and specific scientific theory,...again, a semantic argument without substance or real significance in regards to climate science. If you want to look at specific, formal predictions of individual climate theories which support AGW, then we have to look at those specific understandings, that is where you find the predictions and falsifying factors. Of course, if all you are trying to do is attack the "A," then all you really need to do is provide compelling support for the conclusion that whatever understanding is being looked at isn't related to human activities.

It's obvious and clear. The only confusion is coming from you and a few others who claim there is no theory. More lies. Just as we see right now, it's confusion and evasion. There is no clarity. Not from you at least. Science deals with clarity, with clear definitions, but not you. You keep repeating that claim, but never offer any evidence. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004january/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241 http://sirbikesalot.com/entry.php?fid=301 http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/20/9763/
After nobody here ever linked to, or explained the theory (instead multiple people claimed it didn't exist) I linked to a simple explanation, which clearly talks about the theory. From RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/ Which is why the liars lose, as they always do. No, that is a lie. More lies. Is it any wonder I don't buy anything you are selling at this point? You are a mockery of science.

You say this after linking a discussion that deals (in part) with the semantics of the term "Theory of Global Warming," wherein Dr. Pierrehumbert gives his own personal description of his understanding of the term, how it relates to both actual scientific understandings and broader social discussion of the topic? More contextually important to this exchange, the well-respected researcher generally supports what I've already stated to you several times over the last couple of years. Which shouldn't be too surprising as his work has long shaped and guided much of my own understandings and considerations of modern climate change. Interesting to say the least.

When alarmists lie, they lose all credibility. How do you think you are going to get away with lies when everything is still here in black and white? Anyone can read it.

True enough, all can read it, but apparently, not all can understand and integrate to accurate understanding that which they read. If I had to guess, I'd say the semantic knots may not be an artifice of argument, but actually a mental state inherent to how some choose to consider the topic.

 

[r-j]

Since the previous response contained no evidence, I skimmed it. (not a single link to any evidence)

More evasion of course. But I bet it contains the lie "there is no theory of global warming", or some variant of that lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming