Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

again what don't you understand about hysteresis??

you don't understand scale either.....

and scientists working in the field who actually understand the risk .....would beg to differ with you on your downplaying of the risk and the range

the only one dealing in puerile pejoratives like "boiling oceans" is you.

and you really clearly don't understand the persistance of carbon and it's cumulative impact

Fortunately others do

oh yeah..IPCC has proven conservative consistentally and sealevel change is a minor factor in the short term and unstoppable at this point in the longer term

You're still touting studies that have now been shown to have fatal flaws. The SORCE data shows the total solar irradiance used in GCM's for the last 20 years was unacceptably out of range.This isn't a minor variance, this is HUGE.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sun could cause 15-20% of Global Warming- July 18, 2008

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming- May 12, 2009

Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change-January 17, 2011.

Wait a second, I thought the science was settled. Didn't anyone notify the Sun about anthropogenic causes of Global Warming?

I don't understand how on a skeptical website you can see something as pivotal as total solar irradiance change from year to year and still have faith in AGW?

This report on solar radiation flux just scratches the surface. Reading it you should get an idea of how primitive our understanding of the climate really is.

it says quite clearly in your link

ScienceDaily (July 18, 2008) — Global warming is mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities; however, current climatic variations may be affected “around 15% or 20%” by solar activity, according to Manuel Vázquez, a researcher from the Canary Islands’ Astrophysics Institute (IAC) who spoke at the Sun and Climate Change conference, organised as part of the El Escorial summer courses by Madrid's Complutense University.

 

[Furcifer]

Same argument every creationist makes when evolutionary relationships are reassigned.

Really? They cite published articles in peer reviewed journals by NASA scientists? I'd like to see them because if they exist I might consider revisiting my views on evolution.

 

[Furcifer]

Just a few days ago you said you know the world is warming up and we are the main cause. this is actually the scientific consensus.
and now you deny it? why?
You have not present anything in the meanwhike that would show AGW to be wrong or not happening etc.

There's compelling evidence to suggest humans may not have had a significant part in the warming. Nobody said it wasn't happening, so that's just a strawman of your own creation.

This is just a hollow refutation without any supporting evidence that fails to address the science.

 

[Furcifer]

No you don't as has been evident any number of times from your dependency on rhetorical statements without evidence.

and no, the links are not evidence of your assumption...



I notice you don't include the title of the piece



Science advances in incremental steps - you want to toss well founded, established and observed climate science out due to "well it's not perfected" nonsense

Nuclear theory is still being "understood and refined", aeronautics, evolution - there is a long list of works in progress - we still act on the information the theory and observations provide while "improving out understanding.

Not a single link there brings into question AGW - except perhaps in the ill-informed mind with another agenda.

This is another vapid refutation that fails to address the science.

Until the alarmists get the denial machine in motion I expect there won't be much more to discuss here. The Copypasta isn't available just yet.

 

[Furcifer]

it says quite clearly in your link

Yes it does indeed say it quite clearly. It quite clearly says it isn't, then it quite clearly says it is. Then it quite clearly says it might be, now it quite clearly says it might be even more.

 

[DC]

There's compelling evidence to suggest humans may not have had a significant part in the warming. Nobody said it wasn't happening, so that's just a strawman of your own creation.

This is just a hollow refutation without any supporting evidence that fails to address the science.

sorry, no strawmen intended, but you change your position like a flag in the wind.
it is hard to tell what your possition about AGW is today......

but you did not present any evidence that would even indicate Humans are not the main cause of AGW. All the scientific studies you brought up do not support that idea, they rather confirm indeed Humans are the main cause.

 

[Dancing David]

• What is it about greenhouse gasses that reflect the sunlight back onto the earth while it does not reflect the sunlight outside the earth back into space? If its property was that it reflected light, wouldn't it not be changing the temperature at all since it would be reflecting the same percentage of light in both directions.
• If these gasses reflected light, wouldn't we be worried about global cooling since more light would not be reaching the land?
• How does an actual greenhouse work? Does a greenhouse actually work by trapping heat inside while not reflecting it away in the first place? Doesn't it actually work because plants produce the heat somewhat and also the oxygen they produce is thinner?
• If greenhouse gasses were reflecting light back onto the surface of the earth, wouldn't the land be warmer now at higher elevations? Instead, it is colder there. Snowfall is always reported first in the mountains.

Absorbtion and re-emission not reflection, and no, green house work by trapping the infrared, not from the heat of the plants.

 

[Warmer1]

And I wonder; Is it possible to reach these people with any argument based on facts and reality,

The answer to that would be NO and I'll stop wasting my time.

The current useless banter that yeilds no interesting ideas and produces no new science reminds me of time on the forum when the idea about creating a denier software program was posted. It's obvious at this point that there is no hope of any meaningful repsonse and the attempts at goal post shifting have been worn out many times before.

What was interesting though and a little sadening was how many right-wing garbage sites Google picked up when I searched for "Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range". Someone must be paying a web programmer to crank these sites out and have a number of them all link to one another. I did laugh though when I saw that the Above Top Secret site had the nonsense posted as well. There's nothing more meaningful than having ATS sharing one's ideas.

Is there any site that lists garbage websites which is something like Snopes? Perhaps it would be an interesting public service for people that are new to conducting research on the internet to have a web site that teaches them how to scrutinize websites and to easily disregard the garbage sites? It seems like the fossil fuel industry is pumping new denier sites out at the moment.

Looking forward to the updated global temperature graph from NASA.

Tourist dive sites in Thailand have recently been closed down to diving activities due to the coral bleaching happening there, and bleaching due to warmer water has been happening in many other areas in Asia as well. The Carribean is predicted to suffer severe bleaching this summer also. Creating reefs with Reef Balls and other materials may be very beneficial for helping sustain fish populations as the reef structures deteriorate and lose the 3D structure that the fish live in.

Hopefully we can get back to more meaningful discussion soon.

 

[Furcifer]

sorry, no strawmen intended, but you change your position like a flag in the wind.
it is hard to tell what your possition about AGW is today......

No I've never changed my position on AGW. I've always been quite sure it exists. I repeat that at least 10 times a week. It's been saying the same thing since I first heard about GW.

 

[macdoc]

This is what you are looking for

http://www.desmogblog.com/

••••••

So 3b you have nothing to show.....you make great claims about over turning Carbon Cycle theory and AGW established for a century and hide behind an excuse that's it's not available yet.

You do know the paper you are staking your hopes on is not published yet and may never be.

Show us the science that does what you contend. You've presented a claim - now defend it.

•••••

Meanwhile in the real world of climate science...the progress moves forward....

Quote:
Infrared radiation and planetary temperature
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
University of Chicago

ABSTRACT

In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22×1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth's temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.

For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs primarily in the subrange of the IR spectrum with wavelengths of 5–50 µm for planets with temperatures between about 50 K and 1000 K.

For purposes of this article, that subrange is called the thermal IR. The key role of the energy balance between short-wave solar absorption and long-wave IR emission was first recognized in 1827 by Joseph Fourier, about a quarter century after IR radiation was discovered by William Herschel.

As Fourier also recognized, the rate at which electromagnetic radiation escapes to space is strongly affected by the intervening atmosphere. With those insights, Fourier set in motion a program in planetary climate that would take more than a century to bring to fruition. ©2011 American Institute of Physics

http://ptonline.aip.org/getabs/servl...ifs=Yes&ref=no

Pardon my intense skepticism that any sort of black swan is going to emerge to save the failing meme of AGW denial and over turn more than a hundred years of proven and observed climate science..

 

[DC]

No I've never changed my position on AGW. I've always been quite sure it exists. I repeat that at least 10 times a week. It's been saying the same thing since I first heard about GW.

what are you sure exist? the GW or also the A?

 

[Furcifer]

You do know the paper you are staking your hopes on is not published yet and may never be.

"Received: 14 January 2011 – Accepted: 18 January 2011 – Published: 25 January 2011"

Today is January 31st 2011. You may want to reconsider your math.

Show us the science that does what you contend. You've presented a claim - now defend it.

I don't have to defend published articles in scientific journals. It's yours to refute. It's known as "the burden of proof".

The models are wrong and based on theoretical values not supported by empirical evidence. It's shown quite conclusively in the study. Unless the SORCE data is refuted there's nothing to do but wait until the models are corrected and tuned.

 

[Mikemcc]

Are you sure you read the story? It doesn't "deny" global warming, it's about Himalayan glaciers.

Now the other link, the one about radiation flux, the one you ignored, comes a whole heck of a lot closer to denying AGW. Since you can't find an alarmist site to get your opinion from I imagine you will continue to ignore it.

The study that you linked to looked at a couple of scenarios of 'what would happen if' irradiance varied, not the actual observations, though those what also plotted. So what is the point that you are trying to make from it?

 

[Furcifer]

The study that you linked to looked at a couple of scenarios of 'what would happen if' irradiance varied, not the actual observations, though those what also plotted.

Are you sure you're looking at the right study?

Here's the link again: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/45/2011/esdd-2-45-2011.pdf

 

[Pixel42]

Sun could cause 15-20% of Global Warming- July 18, 2008

So variations in solar radiation can explain about a fifth of the warming observed. Sounds reasonable. That leaves the other four fifths to be explained by other causes, e.g. the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming- May 12, 2009

So a possible warming mechanism which it has been theorised would be triggered by increases in solar radiation appears not to be have any significant effect after all. OK. So little or none of that 15-20% can be due to that particular mechanism then.

Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change-January 17, 2011.

So climatologists should soon be able to produce an estimate much better than that 15-20% ballpark figure.

Wait a second, I thought the science was settled. Didn't anyone notify the Sun about anthropogenic causes of Global Warming?

Huh?

 

[lomiller]

It’s worth thinking about this for a min. This says the atmosphere + ocean have gained 2^23 J in the last 50 years. That’s a truly enormous amount of energy. To put that in perspective that’s:
~5X the energy of the K-T impact that killed off the dinosaurs
~100X the energy of the Toba super volcano 70K years ago.
~2000X the energy of the eruption of Krakatoa
~1 000 000X the energy of the largest hydrogen bomb on the planet.

(Keep in mind that there is some disagreement on some of these)

 

[Trakar]

You don't see how over estimating the total solar irradiance in every single climate model since 1990 changes things?

If this proves correct the current GCM predictions have absolutely no basis in reality.

It may also explain why we've observed so little warming over the last 100 years.

This is the most significant finding in climate science history since the roll of CO2 was first proposed. If it's correct of course.

ROFLOL, yes, finding out the problem is worse than we believed it to be by 0.003% (4.6/1365.4) means that we should throw everything out and ignore the issue of global warming! Exactly how do you see a correction of 3 one thousandths of a percent being a game changer?

 

[macdoc]

The models are wrong

models are always wrong - what else is new.... some models are useful..nothing new thre...

YOU are the one claiming this material over throws all of the AGW and carbon theory.....

so prove it.

The burden of proof is to substantiate that stupendously all encompassing claim based on a .34% adjustment in solar irradiance against previous measurements which were melded.

Instead lets look at the actual results....

e has also used the facility to analyse a replica of the SORCE sensor and validate that satellite's readings. On the basis of those and other measurements, Kopp and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC, calculate that during the 2008 solar minimum, the Sun emitted about 0.34% less energy than previously estimated (G. Kopp and J. L. Lean Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L01706; 2011). That is not enough to affect estimates of human influence on climate, but it is important for solar physicists. "This is a fundamental quantity that has been pursued for more than 100 years," Lean says.

wow 0.34 % shift in observed versus estimated.....

and how do you account for this statement from the originator.....

That is not enough to affect estimates of human influence on climate,

and THIS is your climate science overturning event????!!!!.....

You made the claim about SORCE - now defend YOUR argument that it casts C02 impact and AGW into doubt....
that's your argument - there is certainly nothing there to support it....except perhaps wishful thinking

pardon me but really...........

 

[Trakar]

This year will be hotter, and 2012 even hotter. It's part of the natural cycle of the sun. It's perfectly normal and expected, no cause for alarm.

Which is in denial of AGW and mainstream climate science understandings.