Global warming

[mhaze]

Do we really have a choice, except to try to adapt to the weather/climate we are dealt ? Even if some of it is man made. It is what it is ..

Exactly what is the expected net effect of global warming in the next hundred years or so ? Rising unemployment at ski resorts ? The deserts will be even more agri-unfriendly than they are now ? More people will die from the heat than from the cold ?

The IPCC, to Stern report, Voltok, recently Nordhaus have studied the economics, including the "do nothing" option.

Alarmists focus on the worst of the worst scenarios not the middle estimates.

Middle estimates are no big deal.

 

[a_unique_person]

It was all that was required.



Fact: H2O is the chief greenhouse gas

So what is the debate? There is no debate.. right?

I say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
You say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
The IPCC says it is the chief greenhouse gas.
All the science says that it is the chief greenhouse gas.

So who is nitpicking? All I did was correct a person who posted incorrect information. Since then I have been descended upon with replies to my correction with unrelated information.. as if these "nit picks" change the fact.. they don't.. and you even say that they don't.. so again I ask you.. WHAT IS THE DEBATE?

You are trying to appear smart.. but fail to see the obvious.. that you are going on and on and on about something unrelated to the situation..

CD did already acknowledge it, but it's not the point. The point is why is it changing. That is not because H2O is he most powerful greenhouse gas. And as the thread title says, it's all about the change that is happening.

 

[a_unique_person]

The IPCC, to Stern report, Voltok, recently Nordhaus have studied the economics, including the "do nothing" option.

Alarmists focus on the worst of the worst scenarios not the middle estimates.

Middle estimates are no big deal.

The Arctic is already worst case scenaio, don't tell me they can't happen.

 

[a_unique_person]

And me too! I said it too!

The debate is this -

AUP used RC, a 2005 essay, to try to refute Wentz 2007, but obviously that no work.

Means the Models are broke.

I'm trying to get them to admit it.

The models are not broke. I am waiting for an evaluation of that paper from somewhere other than CO2 science. I have seen one already, but can't find it yet. The spin from CS is the usual 'broke (tm)' from the denier camp.

The models are not perfect, the models are improving, the models tell us a lot more about the projected climate than sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'M NOT LISTENING". Hansens much more primitive model from 1996 has already done a pretty good job of projecting the rise in temperature for the past decade.

 

[mhaze]

The Arctic is already worst case scenaio, don't tell me they can't happen.

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.

Fact.

There are no tipping points.

There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.
​

 

[mhaze]

The models are not broke. I am waiting for an evaluation of that paper from somewhere other than CO2 science. I have seen one already, but can't find it yet. The spin from CS is the usual 'broke (tm)' from the denier camp.

The models are not perfect, the models are improving, the models tell us a lot more about the projected climate than sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'M NOT LISTENING". Hansens much more primitive model from 1996 has already done a pretty good job of projecting the rise in temperature for the past decade.

Broke is a good word for the models. Yes they will get better - figure 10-20 years. Models would be a good subject for discussion but that would get technical. RC talking points would not work.

To put it really simple

If data quality is so questionable that people have to go out and survey the ground temp stations, then is no way you can trust a model which must be based on hard data. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[a_unique_person]

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.

Fact.

There are no tipping points.
​

You can prove that?

There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.

Yes, it's a fabrication from Singer at al. At what point would you be prepared to admit it's not just a cycle?

 

[a_unique_person]

Broke is a good word for the models. Yes they will get better - figure 10-20 years. Models would be a good subject for discussion but that would get technical. RC talking points would not work.

Even the simplest are useful, from a zero dimensional model up.

To put it really simple

If data quality is so questionable that people have to go out and survey the ground temp stations, then is no way you can trust a model which must be based on hard data. Garbage in, garbage out.

The ground data is not so questionable. Mr watt has told us about his experiment with the paint on Stevenson boxes. He said it would take a month to reveal his findings, three months ago. All I can assume is the experiment didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

Australia is experiencing widespread drought, as predicted. The results are already in.

 

[rockoon]

CD did already acknowledge it, but it's not the point.

Why is it that corrections to factual errors such as this cannot be accepted gracefully by the AGW camp?

..as if even though the fact presented was patently wrong, its heart was in the right place so lets hit the reply button and downplay the error.

Cowpucks.

I got news for you.. facts matter.

When people get it wrong they should be informed of their error and held to the standard that the facts really do need to be correct and no matter how many people try to downplay the error, its still an error.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why is it that corrections to factual errors such as this cannot be accepted gracefully by the AGW camp?

..as if even though the fact presented was patently wrong, its heart was in the right place so lets hit the reply button and downplay the error.

Cowpucks.

I got news for you.. facts matter.

When people get it wrong they should be informed of their error and held to the standard that the facts really do need to be correct and no matter how many people try to downplay the error, its still an error.

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

 

[rockoon]

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

You simply cannot let it go, can you?

The error statement, quoted in full, is:

Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere.

But you easily let THIS go.. right?

You are having the same problem, again. You cannot tell the difference between "greenhouse effect" and "global warming."

The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is......

(A) H2O
(B) CO2
(C) REO SPEEDWAGON

Guess which answer is correct?

 

[JoeEllison]

You simply cannot let it go, can you?



But you easily let THIS go.. right?

You are having the same problem, again. You cannot tell the difference between "greenhouse effect" and "global warming."

The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is......

(A) H2O
(B) CO2
(C) REO SPEEDWAGON

Guess which answer is correct?

Wow, you look silly.

 

[rockoon]

Wow, you look silly.

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

 

[a_unique_person]

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

CD says quite clearly.

And so on through the same old same-old. Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere. Yes, in a warmer climate there's more H2O in the atmosphere. The atmosphere gets wetter when it gets warmer. It doesn't get warmer because it suddenly got wetter. The atmosphere is always as wet as it can be in the prevailing circumstances. H2O is not a forcing, it doesn't impel warming (or cooling). It reacts, as a positive feedback.

I don't think it get's much clearer than that.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

Nope, you still look silly.

 

[JoeEllison]

Pardon and excuse me.

For the sake of politeness, and the rules of most websites of this sort, let me say that rockoon's position looks silly. I make no comment about any person specifically.

 

[rockoon]

Pardon and excuse me.

For the sake of politeness, and the rules of most websites of this sort, let me say that rockoon's position looks silly. I make no comment about any person specifically.

What is my position?

 

[JoeEllison]

What is my position?

Jeez, dude, if you don't know, how do you expect me to explain it to you?

 

[rockoon]

CD says quite clearly.

He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

 

[JoeEllison]

He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

Awww... more of the silliness!