Global warming discussion III

[Mikemcc]

R-J, if you are expecting a nice neat theory that can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs then forget it. It's not going to happen. The climate is a complex system with many layers of complexity.

The basics are that:

1. CO2 is a known GHG, we understand the mechanism with great detail.
2. Humans emit nearly 10 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum.
3. Land changes (primarily human) add to the effective increase in CO2
4. Isotope analysis and CO2 concentration changes confirm the increase in CO2 is primarily due to human use of fossil fuels.
5. We know how much CO2 we have emitted and the excess CO2 matches that value once atmospheric fraction has been accounted for.
6. We know to a rather good degree the sensitivity of the global climate to the change in CO2 (most likely 3 deg C per doubling of CO2 concentration, though with a spread about that, but any realistic better would say between 2.5 and 3.5)
7. PDO, ENSO, etc only move energy within the system and this can affect the surface temperature. They cannot add or remove energy from the system as a whole.
8. There are other factors that drive global climate - Milankovitch cycles, the annual changes in orbital distance , and sun-spot cycles to name just three. But these affect climate either only very slightly or over very much longer time frames

Any alternative method has to deal with the elephant in the room. If that mechanism is controlling the climate, how is it suppressing the known GHG changes due to CO2 increases? No amount of whining about definitions is going to change the basic underpinning elements of AGW / climate change.

There is no all en-compassing 'Theory of Global Warming', no matter how many references you find to it. Every little study and paper, and the discussions of those, add to the understanding of the mechanisms and effects of climate change. But there will never be a succinct 'Theory of Climate Change' (ETA - Dammit, I just used both terms in the same paragraph and only just noticed... ) just as there is unlikely to be a discrete few equations that give physics a 'Theory of Everything'.

 

[DC]

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".

every few months you come with the same nonsense, people explain it to you in much detail , you ignore it and in a few months you will come again with the same nonsense.

this very same question has been answered to you at least 4 times already.
as you still don't understand it, you should try a simpler topic. a much much simpler topic. this one is evidetly too complicated for you.

 

[lomiller]

More made up claims, not even worth responding to, just like that the last time. Of course not a shred of any evidence supports your claim.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2234.html
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/12/un-climate-talks-stumble-as-scientists-raise-alarm.html


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


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


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

Again the issue is clearly your inability to read English. Note the lack of a capital T which indicates none of these are proper nouns. If these were referencing a name for a specific thing it would read “Theory” not “theory”. Most of these fall into:

theory - “the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
"music theory."

E.G. you can discus "music theory" even though there is no "Theory of Music"

This “Theory of Global Warming” is something you invented, that is why no one else will tell you what it is. Global Warming/Climate Change is a prediction of radioactive transfer theory which is an application of Quantum Mechanics, Conservation of Energy and several other scientific theories.

Now, if you have any other questions about how to read English I suggest you take it to a more appropriate place than the science forum.

 

[lomiller]

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

Again. Please learn to read. This is a general statement about how a sceptic should respond to an untested theory that purports to change our understanding. It is true regardless of the theory.

 

[r-j]

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.

You were asked what theory you were talking about. Your evasion is evident.

R-J, if you are expecting a nice neat theory that can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs then forget it. It's not going to happen.

Obviously not from you, or anyone here. Of course actual scientists both talk about the theory, and know what it is.

The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass

Even skepticalscience knows enough to explain "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. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries." - http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

They won't define, explain or tell you what the theory says will happen, but at least they don't pretend their is no theory.

"The good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature strongly supports the link that is predicted from basic global warming theory. " - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-in-a-Nutshell.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf

So it's pretty amusing the hoops and swings and tap dancing that greet a simple question about what "well established theory" you are talking about, on a science forum.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

If somebody claims there is a well established theory that pretty much everyone believes in, then it should be easy to explain it, link to it, and describe how we can know if the theory is valid. Instead of insisting there is no theory, or that it's too complicated for you to explain.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The first time I brought this up, it was really amusing. This time, not so much.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

R-J, if you are expecting a nice neat theory that can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs then forget it. It's not going to happen.

Of course it is, it already happened a long time ago.

In fact I explained it in a few paragraphs twice already. In the previous topics.

Here's an actual climate scientists to explain it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

 

[Reality Check]

...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

r-j, That post k (except for the clogging of bandwidth with images from old papers ) up to citing Dr. Roy Spencer's web site as if he was a credible source f climate science.

There is minor hypocrisy again - you demand that we do not cite web sites and you site a web site .

Relying on Roy Sponsor as a source of climate science explanations is dubious:

[Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[32] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[33] This view contradicts the scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". [34]/QUOTE]
His public statements about climate are equally dubious:, e.g.
Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments

Roy Spencer is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists whose research suggests that humans are playing a relatively minimal role in global warming. As one of those rare contrarian climate experts, he's often asked to testify before US Congress and interviewed by media outlets that want to present a 'skeptical' or false balance climate narrative. He's also a rather controversial figure, having made remarks about "global warming Nazis" and said, ...

But in this case you have found an web page from maybe 2008 where he does not evangelize his position. The obvious mistake which I am sure that you saw, r-j, is "a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming". This is so obvious that no explanation should be needed. However maybe you want to have a go, r-j .

 

[DC]

You were asked what theory you were talking about. Your evasion is evident.

Obviously not from you, or anyone here. Of course actual scientists both talk about the theory, and know what it is.

The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9056[/qimg]

Even skepticalscience knows enough to explain "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. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries." - http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

They won't define, explain or tell you what the theory says will happen, but at least they don't pretend their is no theory.

"The good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature strongly supports the link that is predicted from basic global warming theory. " - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-in-a-Nutshell.html

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9057[/qimg]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf

So it's pretty amusing the hoops and swings and tap dancing that greet a simple question about what "well established theory" you are talking about, on a science forum.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9058[/qimg]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

If somebody claims there is a well established theory that pretty much everyone believes in, then it should be easy to explain it, link to it, and describe how we can know if the theory is valid. Instead of insisting there is no theory, or that it's too complicated for you to explain.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9059[/qimg]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The first time I brought this up, it was really amusing. This time, not so much.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9060[/qimg]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Of course it is, it already happened a long time ago.

In fact I explained it in a few paragraphs twice already. In the previous topics.

Here's an actual climate scientists to explain it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Why do you constantly ask the same questions that have been answered to you several time in the last year? I and others have explained it to you in great detail. but you just keep ignoring that and ask the same question over and over again. something is wrong with you, you should have that checked.

 

[lomiller]

You were asked what theory you were talking about. Your evasion is evident.

Which is a stupid question as I addressed no specific theory. Rather I made made a general comment about how to properly respond to a new theory. Furthermore I already responded and informed you that no specific theory was referenced or needed. You on the other hand have failed to answer the questions you were asked:
“What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles”
And
“Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles?”
While he second is clearly rhetorical, it still deserves an answer as you made a comment that seems to suggest just this.

The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9056[/qimg]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-in-a-Nutshell.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9059[/qimg]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Quote mining for the word “theory” doesn’t support your contention there is (or needs to be) a “Theory of Global Warming”. None of these references suggests any such theory.

Here's an actual climate scientists to explain it.

I find that it’s best to disregard the commentary on the nature of science when it comes from people who think Intelligent Design is scientific.

By all means feel free to reference Spencer’s peer reviewed work when you think it’s relevant, but to be honest it’s marginal at best and contains no ideas of his own that can even be discussed.

 

[r-j]

I asked what the "accepted theory" was, and you replied.

The theory that greenhouse gases increase the time it takes for IR to exit the top of the atmosphere and therefore raise the temperature of a planet above its black body temperature and that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations therefore change planetary temperature.

Which is of course what we are discussing in a topic about global warming. But now

Which is a stupid question as I addressed no specific theory.

So you answered the question, but later claim it was a stupid question, because you were not talking about any theory.

Such a strange way to evade a scientific discussion.

 

[macdoc]

Pretty damn certain

What are the chances the world could clock up 353 consecutive months with average temperatures higher than the norm of the 20th century without humans being responsible?
CSIRO's now-defunct climate adaptation flagship crunched the numbers and found the chances were less than one in 100,000.
In other words, there's a 99.999 per cent certainty that human activities – from burning fossil fuels to land-clearing – are responsible for the warming conditions."Everyone since February 1985 has lived in a warm world," said Mark Howden, a CSIRO chief research scientist and author of the peer-reviewed report published on Thursday in the Climate Risk Management journal. "In my view, that's pretty extraordinary."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...es-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html#ixzz3CMoHd9uM

 

[CapelDodger]

I asked what the theory is that [CapelDodger] was talking about.

I wasn't talking about a theory, I was bemoaning the decrepit state of AGW denial, of which you have kindly given a specific example, but which is generally visible across the scene.

 

[lomiller]

I asked what the "accepted theory" was, and you replied.

So you are satisfied have your explanation of the “Theory of Global Warming” then?

Now that is resolved can we get back on topic and have you answer the questions you were asked when you chose to go off on this tangent

“What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles”
And
“Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles?”

 

[CapelDodger]

Has climate change become a business story?
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/climate_change_risky_business.php

But something different happened in June. Another report, yes. Only this one was of a different character. It was called “Risky Business,” and the team that produced the analysis wasn’t at all like the other climate-change sages. It was co-chaired by A-list titans of American business and former government officials, including Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer. With such headliners, media coverage wasn’t hard to come by.

The novelty of the report was that it talked relatively little about science and more about what this whole threat is going to cost us. With its emphasis on the economic impact of climate change, it broke down each region and endangered economic sectors to assess the looming damage. And with this shift in focus—from the physics of climate change to its financial consequences—came a subtle yet perhaps significant change in media coverage. While science and political reporters have primarily covered the topic during the past decade, the “Risky Business” report garnered the attention of business reporters and their editors.

What wasn't a novelty was the AGW denier response : slag off Tom Steyer.

“There have been so many reports that have come out in 2014 on climate and all of them have basically shown increasing concern, increasing awareness of climate change. Yet ‘Risky Business’ stands out and is possibly the most significant one,” says veteran environmental journalist Bud Ward of Yale Climate Connections, which provides analysis of climate-change coverage. “I think it helps to move climate change off the science page, where it has been ghettoized.”

AGW denialism, in contrast, is increasingly becoming ghettoised. Old geezers shouting at clouds.

 

[r-j]

- the debate is essentially settled since 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening.

What is AGW? By this, what do you mean when you use the term? Many sources have been supplied showing scientists discussing the theory, under various names. It's not that hard to read the actual scientific papers discussing the theory, and why it is a theory.

Nothing wrong with the article...no idea what RJ is on about as usual.

Asking for definitions and clear scientific explanations of a subject is considered, by you, to be hard to understand. How unscientific.

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..

Clearly you are talking about the CO2 theory, or AGW. Refusing to discuss what you yourself mention is evasion. Or worse, giving conflicting explanations.

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!

Obviously it is, it is even used in books, like The Discovery of Global Warming. The author
Spencer R. Weart is certainly a scientists, and beyond the smear efforts of lesser men.

If you want basic definitions then read the AR5 documents that have been released, or look at the 'Science of Doom' website.

When you say "basic definitions", definitions of what? Will you admit there is a theory? And discuss it?

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".

The evidence clearly shows you are wrong. It's called the CO2 theory, the greenhouse theory of climate change, (Science magazine), or AGW, global warming, or basic global warming theory, or the The theory of climate change involving CO2 variations, or simply the theory of global warming

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

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
Oops, there it is, in black and white. In a glossary from NASA.

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

I've never stated that increasing CO2 isn't the basis of global warming. But you are evading once again, What is the theory? You can't have it both ways, saying there is no theory, and also saying you don't have to educate about the theory. This started when I pointed out that the theory predicts the most warming in NH winters, at high latitudes, and this is what the climate models are programmed to show. Several people denied this, then started saying there was no theory.

When I talk about AGW or global warming, I talk about AGW or global warming, r-j duh !

A fallacy. If you use a term, and can't define it, or explain it, or show evidence to support it, it's not science.

If you do not know the English meaning of AGW or global warming then ask.

More evasion. I'm not asking because I don't know, I am asking to see if you know.

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 issue is not my understanding, it was the objections to talking about the global warming theory, that climate models are based on, the consensus view.

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!

Your evasion isn't working. The paper I quoted clearly states several facts,

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. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007
The objections (or denial if you will) were about several things.

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.

Everybody knows that. So what? The denial was over the theory, including denial there even is a theory.

R-J, if you are expecting a nice neat theory that can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs then forget it

There is no all en-compassing 'Theory of Global Warming', no matter how many references you find to it.

So you say. Obviously, just saying something has very little weight. In this case, none at all.

this very same question has been answered to you at least 4 times already.

So we have multiple answers, but none of them are about the theory. The one that the models use, the one that indeed makes predictions about how warming from AGW will happen.

It's quite interesting.

This “Theory of Global Warming” is something you invented, that is why no one else will tell you what it is.

Why do you constantly ask the same questions that have been answered to you several time in the last year?

 

[r-j]

So you are satisfied have your explanation of the “Theory of Global Warming” then?

I never had any confusion about the theory, or the predictions it makes. It was the denial that the theory predicts the most warming in NH winters, that was the issue.

That anyone would claim there was no theory, that was an amazing bit of ignorance to find.

 

[lomiller]

So we have multiple answers, but none of them are about the theory.

You just finished posting what you claim is a description of this “Theory of Global Warming”. Now here you are 5 posts later saying no one will describe this “Theory of Global warming” to you.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the questions that caused you to take this tangent:

“What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles”

And

“Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles?”

The one that the models use, the one that indeed makes predictions about how warming from AGW will happen.

Climate models don’t use any “Theory” they are a set of Navier–Stokes equations that describe the movement of energy though the atmosphere from the time it enters the atmosphere to the time it exists the atmosphere.

 

[r-j]

You just finished posting what you claim is a description of this “Theory of Global Warming”. Now here you are 5 posts later saying no one will describe this “Theory of Global warming” to you.

Stop trying to evade the issue. I pointed out that the theory predicts a type of warming, that climate models are based on theory (as well as actual measurements and experiments), and several people claimed there is no theory, or some other nonsense.

Climate models don’t use any “Theory” they are a set of Navier–Stokes equations that describe the movement of energy though the atmosphere from the time it enters the atmosphere to the time it exists the atmosphere.

You see that? You don't seem to actually know anything about the matter.

Here are a few examples from actual climate scientists, from a NOAA publication, about this very issue.

And another

You should probably read the entire thing, since you don't seem to know much.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1985/vol3/chapter15.pdf

You probably won't so here is an exact phrase that even you can't deny.

Now please, educate yourself before you continue.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j does not seem to be able to spell

What is AGW?

By this I mean the English meaning of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I will not cater to an insane demand to look up every discussion of AGW by scientists!

The delusion that the imaginary "Theory of Global Warming" exist as a scientific theory continues , r-j .
"Theory of Global Warming" is not spelt

• "greenhouse theory of climate change" as in your highlighting in that image
• "CO2 theory"
• "the greenhouse theory of climate change"
• "AGW"
• "global warming"
• "basic global warming theory"
• "theory of climate change involving CO2 variations"

This looks like the idiocy of looking up "theory", "global" and "warming" and imagining that every result is a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" !

 

[Reality Check]

r-j debunks his models "did not predict warming for the boreal winters" claim

Everybody knows that. So what? The denial was over the theory, including denial there even is a theory.

Wrong topic, r-j. This is about your claim that models "did not predict warming for the boreal winters" that you debunked with your own citation.
As I stated in More insults followed by an irrelevant rant

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!
...
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.

The other topic is your delusion that there is a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" for which you have presented no evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

It was the denial that the theory predicts the most warming in NH winters, that was the issue.

What denial, r-j?
We have been pointing out for months that the paper you cited states that climate models predict warming in NH boreal winters (where "most" comes from I do not know!). This is not the entire NH though.

As far As I can see, you brought up Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012) on 9th January 2014 to support a claim that "But NH winters, even with the entire NH included, don't show warming right now. In fact, it's cooling, even with the entire NH included."
And then changed to That's not evidence of the cooling trend for the boreal winters. You know, the subject of Cohen et al(2012).
But this is not what Cohen et al (2012) actually say as I told you on 3 March 2014:

They found that there was no trend in the boreal winters that they defined as December, January and February. They found that there were some areas of colder winters and some areas of warmer winters (see figure 1c). The eastern United States, southern Canada and northern Eurasia had cooling winters, the rest warming winters.