Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

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

You see why I find none of your arguments credible?

 

[r-j]

Seriously, do we have to go another round of oddball, obscure, discredited theories to get back to the discussion that we should be having, which is what can we do to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

If you want a discussion about what you can do, there already exists such a thread. If you want to discuss Global Warming, then stop avoiding answering questions about basic things, like the definition, explanation and predictions made by global warming theory.

I note that you avoided actually saying ""Serious answer - there is no such thing as the Theory of Global Warming."

Much less providing a link to any peer reviewed science that explains the theory. Or who discovered it, or what it is. This poses some serious problems in a discussion when people use the term.

Why should he? "Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread, unless you tell us what you think it means how can anyone comment one way or the other except to repeat the science to you. Now do you have either a response to his statements about the science or are you simply going to keep complaining that no one will tell you what the term you invented means?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9437588#post9437588

Why should he?

That is simple evasion. If somebody is claiming something, and they refuse to even define their terms, much less explain what they mean, that is woo woo, not science.

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

That was laughable then, and still you are avoiding answering. Everybody is. Why is that?

unless you tell us what you think it means how can anyone comment one way or the other except to repeat the science to you.

That is one of the most ridiculous things ever seen on a science forum. And after all that evasion and nonsense, then we hear

Now do you have either a response to his statements about the science or are you simply going to keep complaining that no one will tell you what the term you invented means?

What kind of person will on the one hand say it doesn't exist, and on the other say it's well understood and nobody should have to define it?

woo woo, that's who

 

[Mikemcc]

If you want a discussion about what you can do, there already exists such a thread. If you want to discuss Global Warming, then stop avoiding answering questions about basic things, like the definition, explanation and predictions made by global warming theory.
...

If you want basic definitions then read the AR5 documents that have been released, or look at the 'Science of Doom' website. Svensmark's Cosmic Ray theory doesn't stand up to inspection because cosmic rays have not been found to form sufficient cloud condensation nuclei. Nor has the cosmic ray intensity changed over the time period of interest.

 

[r-j]

If you want basic definitions then read the AR5 documents that have been released

Once again, your evasion says deception, or ignorance. It does not tell us anything. You also are avoiding responding to the claim here that there is no such thing as a theory of global warming. Why is that?

Nor has the cosmic ray intensity changed over the time period of interest.

Of course it has, the nasa.gov site has many papers and presentations about this. You can't just make something up in science. If you want to be effective, you have to use evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

More made up claims, ...

Wrong r-j: The actual facts remain as:

Let me remind you that the answer is still that the phrase "Theory of Global Warming" is not used in the scientific literature, r-j!
...
To make it clear:
* the scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" does not exist, r-j.
* a theory (note the small t ) that global warming is caused by our emissions of CO2 does exist with plenty of evidence to back it up, r-j.
* another theory (note the small t ) that global warming is caused by cosmic rays does exist with evidence that it is wrong, r-j.

To make it clear enough for r-j to understand (probably not :eek!):
There is no scientific literature about any "Theory of Global Warming" (emphasis added). There is no evidence of a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming". There are no evidence of papers whose title is "Theory of Global Warming" and expound a "Theory of Global Warming". There is no evidence of textbooks called "Theory of Global Warming" or containing sections titled "Theory of Global Warming". Personally I am surprised by the lack. People do the strangest things - certainly someone somewhere would have done this!
There is the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 thus there are plenty of phrases like "the global warning theory" and even a few "theory of global warming" phrases. A phrase is not a scientific theory.

That you cannot tell the difference between news articles and the scientific literature may be new!
NASA Science News from 1997: How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere?

You may not even be able to tell the difference between dead links and the scientific literature:
The Newsroom section is no longer being maintained on the Earth Observatory. To locate NASA press releases from the past, please use the NASA Press Release Archive.

 

[CapelDodger]

r-j is back to his comfort-blanket I see.

I remember when AGW denial had some vitality to it but now it's just old geezers shouting at clouds with the occasional cry of "Squirrel!" followed by another rambling war-story. Terminally dull, frankly.

 

[r-j]

I remember when AGW denial

It's obvious that when the acronym "AGW" is used, there is no real scientific definition involved, much less a clear theory and scientific method used.

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

It appeared right here in this thread, which is why I asked about it. And obviously it is used by Nature, Science, Hansen, NASA and even skepticalscience.com

So why would anyone believe you about this?

Nobody but you is using the term. What is being talked about is the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by the injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, what is being 'talked about' is

When a new theory purports to challenge a nearly universally accepted theory that explains many things and is supported by many lines of data skepticism is the appropriate response.

I asked what the theory is that he was talking about.

A scientific theory isn't hard to explain, name and talk about. Except when it comes to global warming, where some people claim there isn't even a theory.

 

[Reality Check]

...insults snipped... Of course it has,

Yes Mikemcc was a bit ambiguous , r-j, so you should have addressed that with facts rather than insulting his post.
The cosmic ray intensity varies from moment to moment .
The cosmic ray intensity varies roughly inversely with sunspot number.
Over the time period of interest the trend in cosmic ray intensity has been insignificant, e.g.
Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period.

 

[Reality Check]

I asked what the theory is that he was talking about..

Which is obvious from the context (AGW), r-j so the question is moot.
However consider this:
* Henrik Svensmark has a theory that global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
This is the "theory of global warming" in your jargon.
* Some people have a theory that global warming is caused by the Sun.
This is the "theory of global warming" in your jargon.
* Some people have a theory that global warming does not exist.
This is the "theory of global warming" in your jargon.
* The majority of climate scientists have a theory that global warming is caused by increasing CO2 cause by humans.
This is the "theory of global warming" in your jargon.

Hmmm - can you see the problem with your the words "theory of global warming" is a scientific theory idea, r-j ?

 

[r-j]

There is the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 thus there are plenty of phrases like "the global warning theory" and even a few "theory of global warming" phrases. A phrase is not a scientific theory.

Nobody said that. The questions are clear, pretending not to understand, to avoid answering is terribly unscientific.

It doesn't matter if you call it "the greenhouse theory", or the "CO2 theory". (James Hansen)

Or "AGW" or Global Warming, or "the CO2 induced global warming hypothesis", or the theory of anthropogenic climate change, or "the enhanced greenhouse effect", all of which are used interchangeably.

The question is still the same. What is the theory? What does it predict? How can we know if it's valid? What changes are supposed to happen as CO2 increases?

Avoiding these subjects in a thread about Global Warming is more than evasive.

 

[r-j]

Over the time period of interest the trend in cosmic ray intensity has been insignificant, e.g.

This is why you shouldn't read blogs by unscientific people.

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=1319

Modulation of Cosmic Ray Precipitation Related to Climate

Try reading some science, instead of propaganda blogs.

 

[Reality Check]

This is why you shouldn't read blogs by unscientific people.

You should not imply that you have no idea of the contents or authors of a blog, r-j, especially when you expose the hypocrisy of citing the same blog

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

The time period of interest is the period of current global warming. You probably do not know this, r-j, but this is not the last 4.6 billion years !
What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

1.Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
2.Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
3.Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
4.Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements

followed by the scientific literature containing that empirical evidence .

Try reading the actual science literature rather than cherry picking a paper like a climate science denier, r-j.
The paper Modulation of Cosmic Ray Precipitation Related to Climate is interesting ... you really should read it sometime, r-j
* it is from 1998! You may be unaware that this is 2014 and science can progress even in 16 years.
* only 24 citations in those 16 years - implying that not many were impressed with it. As a comparison, Svensmark's 1997 paper has been cited by 996 others.
* the authors suggest a contribution to global warming not a measured cause of global warming.

 

[Mikemcc]

Once again, your evasion says deception, or ignorance. It does not tell us anything. You also are avoiding responding to the claim here that there is no such thing as a theory of global warming. Why is that?
Of course it has, the nasa.gov site has many papers and presentations about this. You can't just make something up in science. If you want to be effective, you have to use evidence.

Please show me the trend in the Cosmic Ray Intensity (shown by the blue line on the chart)

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/Misc/neutron2.html

The datasets are here:

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/

Here's another one:

http://www.bartol.udel.edu/gp/neutronm/

From the Pierce and Adams 2009 paper (doi:10.1029/2009GL037946, 2009
) and available here - http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL037946.pdf

Therefore, the changes in cloud cover and thickness from the changes in CCN induced by clear-sky ion-induced nucleation changes during both the solar-cycle and centennial-scale changes in cosmic rays should also be of order 0.01 W m2. Even including the feedbacks, this is two orders of magnitude too small to explain the changes seen in cloud cover [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997] or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.

My bold.

So once again, cosmic rays are not a significant driver of climate

 

[CapelDodger]

It's obvious that when the acronym "AGW" is used, there is no real scientific definition involved, much less a clear theory and scientific method used. It appeared right here in this thread, which is why I asked about it. And obviously it is used by Nature, Science, Hansen, NASA and even skepticalscience.com

So why would anyone believe you about this? No, what is being 'talked about' is
I asked what the theory is that he was talking about.

A scientific theory isn't hard to explain, name and talk about. Except when it comes to global warming, where some people claim there isn't even a theory.

You're like a stuck needle. It's pathetic.

 

[r-j]

There is the theory that global warming is caused by CO2

I know. That's why I asked you (or anyone else) to define it, link to a scientific source, explain what the predictions are, you know, science stuff like that.

"if you increase a greenhouse gas the planet gets warmer" is not the theory. Neither is "the destruction of ozone causes the planet to get warmer".

 

[Reality Check]

I know. That's why I asked you (or anyone else) to define it, link to a scientific source, explain what the predictions are, you know, science stuff like that

r-j, your implied ignorance about the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 does not mean that we have to run a class just to educate you !
There are plenty of sources - just do not Google for the imaginary "Theory of Global Warming" scientific theory you have been going on about. Look up the actual science such as the greenhouse effect.

But in case your Google skills are lacking here are some of the many available web pages about climate science that you do not know about.
Start with the basics - this is carbon dioxide .
Greenhouse effect
Global warming
Climate model

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (many, many climate papers)
There is this journal called Nature Climate Change that you may not know about .

 

[r-j]

There are plenty of sources

Everybody knows that. I asked you (or anybody else) what YOU mean when you talk about AGW, or global warming. What do you mean, what is your understanding of the theory. You know, the one that lolmiller talked about.

When a new theory purports to challenge a nearly universally accepted theory

What is the "a nearly universally accepted theory"?

It doesn't matter what you call it, or don't call it. If you use the phrase "a nearly universally accepted theory", you should be able to state the theory, provide a source, and explain what it means. Any other theory that is not a problem. But when it comes to the undefined universally accepted theory, there is evasion and denial.

Shoot, people are saying there is no theory. Some people are so scientifically illiterate they might actually believe that.

 

[Reality Check]

I asked you (or anybody else) what YOU mean when you talk about AGW, or global warming.

When I talk about AGW or global warming, I talk about AGW or global warming, r-j duh !
If you do not understand what the English meaning of AGW or global warming are then ask for their meaning.

But that is not what you asked - you asked for a complete education (definition, explantions, sources) in the causes of global warming as if you were ignorant about them.

To anyone who knows anything about climate science, "a nearly universally accepted theory" is the theory the global warming ins caused by increasing CO2 (and we are the cause of that increase). This is what 97% of climate scientists agree with. That qualifies as "nearly universally accepted" for me. But the % drops for the general public.
To you, who knows ?

 

[r-j]

More lies. The issue of what the enhanced greenhouse effect predicts will happen from an increase of CO2, other things being unchanged, came up in the winter of 2013. The scientific consensus of what we expect to see was disputed, after I brought up Cohen et al 2012, at which point I asked the person who was disputing the science to explain what they meant.

The evasion was epic. People actually said there was no theory, or that the theory didn't predict warming for the boreal winters. For example

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

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

Despite the efforts to educate, the original issue was never responded to. The very same thing I am trying to get you to discuss now. What the theory predicts.

 

[Reality Check]

More lies. ...

More insults followed by an rrelevant rant, r-j !

• If you do not know the English meaning of AGW or global warming then ask.
• If you do not know the climate science behind the accepted phenomena of AGW or global warming then learn it.
  But do not demand that we spoon feed you a class on climate science!
• If you have the fantasy that there is an actual scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" then back it up with evidence.
• If you still cannot understand that news articles and press releases are not scientific literature then there is no hope for you .
• If you still cannot understand that the words "theory", "global" and "warming" appear in the scientific literature then there is definitely no hope for you!

The ignorant theme of "did not predict warming for the boreal winters" raises its ugly head again from 23 May 2014:
Oh dear, r-j, the idiocy of saying that there are no true claims about winters and then quoting true claims about winter!

Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections.

ETA: I will emphasize this: The paper you cited states that there are global climate models that predicted warming during boreal winters. This is a consensus (i.e. majority) result.