Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

Otherwise, I am losing interest in your concerns regarding the issues of this thread, and this rhetorical semantic knot sub-thread in particular.

It's beyond pointless, and is meant to be. Minor league sophistry.

An enhanced greenhouse effect will warm the planet, and we are enhancing it; that was the theory before it happened, has been while it's happened, and will remain the theory as it continues to happen. The two signals we fingered as most sensitive twenty years ago - Arctic sea-ice and absolute humidity - have come through very clearly in that time. Points to us .

 

[macdoc]

And grimly so
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/

 

[CapelDodger]

No way I'm reading the last +1000 posts! Let me guess: the usual seasonal irruption of denialists caused by the beginning of the Northern Winter and the time available during Xmas vacations was deepened and extended by record cold weather. Well, here record hot weather affecting part of six countries an an area comparable with the 48 contiguous states prevented me from posting (I was 8 days in a row without electricity). So I suppose it is not so cold there now the same way here is not so hot, then

Well, "there" is North America, a very parochial continent.

Did somebody replied the questions, like the causes of not so different OLR in Arctic and Antarctic or the mistakes in that governmental website? If so, please, point me to the proper post/s.

I recommend not caring, frankly; it works for me. There's plenty of interest to be found in stuff that's actually happening.

 

[r-j]

So tell us all about the theory.

Oh that is easy. It doesn't exist, remember?

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.

I had hoped somebody, anybody would have dealt with the rest of that flawed but earnest post.

There are established facts - that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% in little more than a century, that average global temperatures are rising etc etc

That is just pseudoscience. With out theory there is no prediction from that, much less causation.

and there are attempts to extrapolate from those facts (using computer models and/or the information gained by studying previous periods of rapid climate change) to predict what will happen both globally and regionally over the next century or so.

Yes, of course, but something has to be programmed in to the models. The theory has to have a predictive ability, it's not science if you just claim it happens. You also have to state what the predictions are. or it's not science.

Such attempts are fraught with difficulty due to the large number of variables affected, and the many ways those variables then affect each other.

That's an understatement, and you are just talking about the temperatures, not the complex areas of circulation, winds, precipitation and clouds. Even so, predictions are still required, and not the kind made after the fact.

You make no effort to discuss the science, you simply make erroneous statements backed by no reasoning or justification, then don't even try to defend them.

No, that would be you. I'm all about the science. And evidence. And links, like if I ask about AGW/global warming/theory of global warming I use evidence and links to support what I say. Obviously there is such a thing, it's used all the time here.

This show that the GW hypothesis does not account for all these differences, and anomaly variations.

No wonder Global Warming theory cannot be taken seriously.

DR, I am trying to persuade a specific individual that they should consider the validity of the theory of global warming.
Of course, if I misunderstand you and you disagree about the theory of global warming, that is a separate issue.

That is what was disproved here, the media hysteria, not the theory of global warming.

I actually accept the theory of global warming, although the argument that there is nothing much we can do about it is powerful, I don't think that should mean we shouldn't try.

This has nothing to do with whether global warming theory is correct.

Each time I make this point, it's like the constant chatter stops for a minute, then it's all ignored, and things go back to normal.

It's become quite funny.

 

[CapelDodger]

And grimly so
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/

I've always been more interested in the environmental sensitivity to temperature change. That's always been more uncertain than the climate change itself, given that we have no prior examples to go on.

Arctic sea-ice retreat and heavier precipitation have turned out to be the ones to watch to see AGW in real- time (which is to say, before you're dead).

 

[macdoc]

I must admit I'm finding the extreme weather rather entertaining - the bike might come out tomorrow given our well above average temps currently melting away the polar vortex debris.
Got a nice ride in last year in mid January.

••

Not all the regions are benefiting from wetter atmosphere...

Researchers have found a way to project future habitat locations under climate change, identifying potential safe havens for threatened biodiversity.
Associate Professor Grant Wardell-Johnson and Dr Gunnar Keppel from the Curtin University Institute for Biodiversity and Climate, along with lead researcher and former Curtin scientist Dr Tom Schut, now at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, developed an approach to identify potential refugia in declining rainfall environments.
For the first time, their novel approach, recently published in PLOS One and involving Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) instruments, is able to translate a traditional plot observation to the entire landscape.
Dr Wardell-Johnson said this enabled the team to apply expected future changes in rainfall to landscape-scale vegetation and find potential refugial sites, essential for conservation efforts.
"Global warming is a particular issue in Mediterranean-climate regions. It is especially so in the flat landscapes of south-western Australia – home to a global biodiversity hotspot," Dr Wardell-Johnson said.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-safe-havens-revealed-biodiversity-climate.html

this technique should be a real boon for agriculture.

 

[macdoc]

Nasty combo...

MONDAY, JAN 13, 2014 11:08 PM UTC
It’s not just sea level rise — the East Coast is sinking, too
The two factors together make the East Coast increasingly vulnerable to floods
LINDSAY ABRAMS

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/its_not_just_sea_level_rise_the_east_coast_is_sinking_too/

Venice and New Orleans were a given future scuba sites but this hits New York and New Jersey - especially with the funnel structure that exists in the river as we saw with Sandy.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good point.

Maybe that is why most everyone avoids answering the questions about global warming thepory, the predictions from it, how we can measure and know if the predictions are true, and the related issues. If somebody answers, they can be questioned about it. Or the claims can be examined. Who wants that?

But shucks, at this point I would accept a link to a third party. At least there would be a starting point for discussion. The biggest problem is that the scant links offered don't even contain the word "theory", much less explain it.

Instead we still get this "there is no theory", or "there are lots of different things that make up global warming", or "it's just a fact, "or some other such nonsense.

I have already given you a link to the Assessment Report 4, which covers most of what you ask. Have you read it yet?

 

[a_unique_person]

August 2000 Harris poll

72% believe the theory of global warming
20% did not
(Harris Interactive)

September 2002 Harris poll

74% believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures
19% said they did not believe this
(Harris Interactive).

This avoidance of answering the questions about AGW is not making me look bad. I know the theory well, and of course what the predictions are. I'm just surprised how nobody here seems to know, or even worse, how you claim it doesn't exist!

Too funny.

Pollsters are not scientists, they ask layman questions. The theory of how a greenhouse gas works seems to be pretty well nailed down, but that doesn't tell use what climate sensitivity will be, it can't tell us how the "A" part of AGW is going to respond to information about AGW.

 

[DC]

This avoidance of answering the questions about AGW is not making me look bad.

mainly ist the constant lies from you about this that makes you look very bad.

several People have explained to you AGW in great Detail. you ignore it and Keep on playing your dishonest game meanwhile on a daily Basis.

you are out of arguments, you have no evidence for your AGW denial.so you have to constantly lie.

 

[Haig]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later. Is that having your cake and eating it? and isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

 

[DC]

they can't counter the science so they concentrate on typos....

WUWT. no wonder people laugh about those clowns.

 

[Belz...]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later.

What "pause" ?

 

[DC]

when experts talk about "the pause" they talk about the slowed warming rate of the SAT (Surface air temperature.)

when deniers talk about "the pause" they talk about an alleged pause in global warming which is not happening.

 

[DC]

Plants and Animals are also in on it on this AGW swindle.

http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid...86D07CD2C&type=search&show_long=1&o_lang_id=2

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082490

Swiss plants, butterflies and birds have moved 8 to 42 meters uphill between 2003 and 2010

 

[Red Baron Farms]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later. Is that having your cake and eating it? and isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

Come on Haig. You are embarrassing yourself here. It's difficult to watch. There are natural cycles. No one denies it. The difference is that AGW adds to the total heat in the system. Heat is energy, not necessarily temperature in all cases, certainly not a 1-1 ratio. It takes a whole lot more heat to warm water from 31 to 33 degrees than it does to warm that same water from 33 to 35 degrees. That heat might in some weather patterns melt ice. Or in other weather patterns warm the ocean. Or in other weather patterns warm the air you and I live in. Or in other weather patterns drive a storm. The weather and climate are still just as complicated as they ever were. There will still be cold snaps, hot spells, floods, droughts, solar effects and every other type of change there always was.

The difference is that the total heat in the system, compared to what it would be if CO2 levels were lower, is increasing. That is not subject to debate unless you can somehow either prove CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that we haven't increased the CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[a_unique_person]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later. Is that having your cake and eating it? and isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

A more comprehensive look at the blow by blow variations in temperature in recent years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

Climate is what happens at longer time periods, though. IIRC, Thirty years is more appropriate.

 

[Mikemcc]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return! So that explains "the pause" but he still expects more AGW later. Is that having your cake and eating it? and isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

Incorrect, the various ocean cycles and variations (PDO, ENSO, ADO, etc) transfer energy within the system. They cannot change the total energy in the system. La Nina causes more energy to be transferred to lower depths.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

isn’t La Ninja he talks about, the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell ?

I find it amusing that someone staking claim to a very esoteric solar system wide "mysterious driver" even affecting Pluto does not even understand ENSO or that it's "inside" the radiative energy box. Quite revealing that little snark.

BTW the "pause" was an atmospheric phenomena which is transient...a slow down in the rate of warming.
The ocean accelerated.

care to explain??
Lotas little pixies had a camp out in the abyss perhaps??

 

[Peephole]

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?

• Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
• When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
• This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
• Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
• So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
• If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
• If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
• Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
• With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
• An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html