Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

You say that the conclusion is obvious.

No, the official NWS data shows this. It's obvious.

However the climate scientists of the world disagree with you.

Not only do you not know that, you can't know what every climate scientist think.

You say they are wrong.

Said who was wrong? You are being unclear with your questions.

How can they be all wrong and you be so right ?

Fallacy. Leading question.

Do you not agree that it's much more likely that you are wrong about this ?

Likely? Is that scientific? The NWS Chicago weather data is crystal clear with their data. Nobody has to be confused. The Berkeley pair made a very bad move, and they got caught.

 

[greybeard]

Nobody has to be confused. The Berkeley pair made a very bad move, and they got caught.

So you have caught two climatologists out r-j? What did they say when you contacted them to ask about this? You would not be accusing two professional scientists of lying without asking them for an explanation first. Who else have you reported this conspiracy to? Or have you found a major conspiracy but have only reported it to members of the jref forum?

 

[Belz...]

Not only do you not know that, you can't know what every climate scientist think.

I know and you know what the consensus is: AGW is a real thing. If you think all of the scientists who say so are wrong, then by all means explain how come they, as specialists on this topic, are all wrong and you're right. Why don't they conclude what you conclude, using the same data ?

Said who was wrong? You are being unclear with your questions.

Dodge noted. I've been very clear.

Fallacy. Leading question.

Well, so now it's clear enough for you to think it's leading. How is it leading ? I'm asking you a question and voicing my own conclusion. Feel free to correct me by answering it.

ikely? Is that scientific?

Not every sentence in every debate is scientific. I'm asking for your opinion: what are the odds that a random layman somehow understands the data and the science better than the specialists ?

The Berkeley pair made a very bad move, and they got caught.

Only by you and other AGW deniers ? How is that possible ? That is the only question I am asking you.

 

[r-j]

So you have caught two climatologists out r-j?

Yeah, who would have thunk it? But because I'm not interested in the blog wars, I haven't notified the other side about it. Can you imagine what Watts et al would do with this information?

I'm still hoping the Berkeley duo will come to their senses, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[r-j]

AGW is a real thing.

Now we are back to the original conflict. What do you mean by "AGW"?

Is it a theory?

What is it?

 

[greybeard]

Yeah, who would have thunk it? But because I'm not interested in the blog wars, I haven't notified the other side about it. Can you imagine what Watts et al would do with this information?

I'm still hoping the Berkeley duo will come to their senses, but I'm not holding my breath.

Pathetic! You could just simply have admitted pages ago that you had made up your claims about climate scientists illicitly changing data to show warming where there was none. Instead of that you constructed a story around a blog article, at the same time slandering people just doing their job. Pathetic, really pathetic.

 

[ideogram]

You don't understand how science works.

You have a lot of nerve saying that when it took you three days to answer a simple question.

 

[macdoc]

Anthropogenic Global Warming...

Do you require a dictionary?

 

[Belz...]

Now we are back to the original conflict. What do you mean by "AGW"?

Is it a theory?

What is it?

Don't dodge my question. You know full well what AGW means, and that's not the question. Explain why all those experts are wrong and you're right.

Let's think about this for a moment: you want to convince the general public that you are right. They ask you, justifiably so, why they should believe you over the experts. Don't expect all of them to read up the data. What do you tell them ?

 

[r-j]

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features//Paleoclimatology/paleoclimatology_intro.php

Despite his theory, most scientists didn’t believe that humans could affect climate until the 1960s, when evidence of human impacts on the natural world were becoming increasingly obvious. Once again, climate change became controversial, as the theory of global warming became one of the biggest scientific debates of the late twentieth century.

(this would be the 11th nasa.gov source)

He was also trounced on the "theory of global warming" thing but he seems to have erased that from his memory too.

link

Let's make it an even dozen.

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Mission_Geography/9-12/Module_3/III-3-1.pdf

Like it was explained, in very long and detailed posts, with sources, over and over again.

Why would the science based person avoid answering a question about the very subject of a thread?

Why all the avoidance?

 

[r-j]

You know full well what AGW means, and that's not the question.

Once again, you don't know what I know, in fact you can't know that I know what you mean by a term. If you won't answer a simple question, I can't know what you mean by it.

That's why I asked you what you mean when you use the term.

 

[Reality Check]

An actual 2014 paper, by real scientists, about climate, that says, literally, "the Global Warming Theory"....

Sorry, r-j but that is an actual lie about an actual 2014 paper, by real scientists, about climate that literally contains the phrase "global warming theory" and not literally "the Global Warming Theory".
r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"! is getting ridiculous, r-j. It is simple enough - in order for you to show that a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" exists you have to find a paper or textbook that describes that theory. There are plenty of sources as you have shown who use the phrase "global warming theory" in the general English meaning of an idea.

The unsupported assertions about the URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley article[/URL] article continues

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.
4. r-j (25 September 2014) new unsupported, vague assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way"
5. r-j (25 September 2014): How about a simple list with source of the temperatures of that specific weather station from the period in question, e.g. July 1934?
   Not the NWS Chicago anonymous list of temperatures!)

 

[r-j]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970027846.pdf

Global Warming Theory

http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Jeremy.Schnittman/Wiscombe_Climate-I.pdf

The CO2 Theory of Climate Change:

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/eo_pdfs/Mar_Apr10.pdf

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features//Paleoclimatology/paleoclimatology_intro.php

Despite his theory, most scientists didn’t believe that humans could affect climate until the 1960s, when evidence of human impacts on the natural world were becoming increasingly obvious. Once again, climate change became controversial, as the theory of global warming became one of the biggest scientific debates of the late twentieth century.

Aside from that, science is not done by polls but by evidence and theory and the evidence is overwhelming and the theory sound.

source

 

[Reality Check]

...

Still no scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warning", r-j !
r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!

In fact your reading comprehension is getting even worse, r-j: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.
...
The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The idea (theory) is that increasing CO2 increases temperature (the greenhouse effect).
This needs a

 

[Belz...]

Once again, you don't know what I know, in fact you can't know that I know what you mean by a term. If you won't answer a simple question, I can't know what you mean by it.

That's why I asked you what you mean when you use the term.

You have been participating in this debate for years, now. I can't believe you don't know what anthropogenic global warming is.

Now, stop dodging:

Explain why all those experts are wrong and you're right.

Let's think about this for a moment: you want to convince the general public that you are right. They ask you, justifiably so, why they should believe you over the experts. Don't expect all of them to read up the data. What do you tell them ?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Now we are back to the original conflict. What do you mean by "AGW"?

Is it a theory?

What is it?

That portion of the measured change in climate that is a result of human influence on the ecosystems of planet Earth. ie.. Primarily the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since up to now almost all the effects of human activity on planet Earth have been negative, with very few exceptions, AGW is almost universally perceived as a bad thing, likely to cause even more destruction to Earth's ecosystems. Although that is just a prediction and not a measured change like the current temps, atmospheric CO2 levels, reduction of the ice sheets etc....

 

[macdoc]

, likely to cause even more destruction to Earth's ecosystems. Although that is just a prediction

There are measured destructive changes to glaciers, to mountain island ecosystems as well as permafrost, cloud forest ecosystems and coral reefs.

 

[r-j]

That portion of the measured change in climate that is a result of human influence on the ecosystems of planet Earth. .

Using your definition, what is the value?

And when did it start?

How much of the last 20 years is from human fossil fuel burning? How much from deforestation?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Using your definition, what is the value?

And when did it start?

How much of the last 20 years is from human fossil fuel burning? How much from deforestation?

The value is to my knowledge approx 2 degrees +/- increase in average surface atmospheric temps. With a fair degree of scientific uncertainty in the value. Plus there is a measured increase in ocean temps I am told. (I don't remember those figures and I don't know how robust they are either.)

When did it start? Or when was the influence great enough to begin overwhelming the ecosystems on a global basis? Beginning of agriculture approx ~10,000 +/- years ago for the first and when it got so large that it began overwhelming global systems was around ~50-100 +/- years ago.

About ~60% +/- is from agriculture, deforestation, desertification, draining of swamps and other land use, and about ~40%+/- is from fossil fuels. But the effects of agriculture have been spread over a longer period of time and are much easier to correct. Thus the difficulty is in maintaining an industrial society while at the same time reducing fossil fuel reliance.

Personally I have been advocating the de-industrialization of agriculture so that we can still maintain the advantages of industrial society. Takes the load off trying to do it all on the fossil fuel side of things. The technology to change agriculture is pretty well proven. The technology to convert us to a fossil fuel absent industrial society, not quite there yet.

 

[Belz...]

I asked you what do you mean by anthropogenic global warming?

Exactly what it says on the can. STOP DODGING and answer the question:

Explain why all those experts are wrong and you're right.

Let's think about this for a moment: you want to convince the general public that you are right. They ask you, justifiably so, why they should believe you over the experts. Don't expect all of them to read up the data. What do you tell them ?