Tim the plumber Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 I believe that the papers in the list are not all saying that warming is imaginary. That is definately not a widely held view. I believe that the papers in the list all to some extent show that the problem of AGW is over hyped. The Greenland paper you chose which says that the centre of the ice sheet is not warming is thus showing that any melting is likely to be around the edge and not a general fall in altitude of ice. That clearly means that the projected 1m sea level rise by 2100 is off the cards. Also just because a paper assumes a situation as basis for looking at the damage doen by that factor does not mean that the effect of a weakening of the North Atlantic drift will be as bad as predicted. The general argument from the skeptical camp is not that CO2 plays no role in heating the Earth but that the effects of increased CO2 are being vastly over hyped.
Strange Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 I would prefer the world to be 1 degree c warmer. That is not what an increase of 1 degree means. I mean, really, if you don't even understand that, don't you think you should learn a little more before joining the discussion?
iNow Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 If you seriously think comparing Earth to Venus is valid in this regard you are hardly an expert in such matters. Earth, inhabited by people. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere. Venus, not so much. Carbon dioxide, principal component of its atmosphere. While the source and concentration may differ, the physics of the effect does not. I'm sorry you cannot see this simple truth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html 2014, "hottest year on record"? Hardly.Facts don't stop being facts just because you don't like them, nor do you lend your position any credibility by pretending they don't exist. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 1
mothythewso Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 F---- me in the heart! Even I recognize global warming's real, and I'm an asshat! 1
Harold Squared Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 If you are an AGW cultist the odds are good that you fit such a shoe, colleague. The questions however, are more regarding the cause, consequences, and degree of said warming.
Wild Cobra Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556139730929455105/photo/1
Harold Squared Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Okay both agencies are less than half certain that 2014 is warmest on record, so why don't they consult the satellite records? Maybe because some heads will roll if it is found NOT to be so?
Wild Cobra Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Okay both agencies are less than half certain that 2014 is warmest on record, so why don't they consult the satellite records? Maybe because some heads will roll if it is found NOT to be so? I won't guess the decision making process. I just find it laughable that most probable of a set of years is being reported as the hottest, when even NOAA and NASA has the probability such that it most likely isn't the warmest. Sure, of the list years, it is most probable, but still under 50% and being called the hottest is laughable in my opinion.
Harold Squared Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 You are correct, it may not be proper to speculate thus, but the pressure to conform to AGW is formidable, as you must be aware. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group pegs the margin of uncertainty at 0.05 C and the calculated difference between 2010 and 2014 at 0.01 C. So it might be trivial even if technically true.
iNow Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 For anyone wishing to better understand the process and not just blindly deny the fact that we are warming and consistently breaking records, I encourage a review of the following: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 Executive summary: It's hardly as inexact as our sadly misguided and agenda driven friends above would have you believe. It's getting warmer. We keep breaking records. It is probably a waste of time discussing this with folks who won't even stipulate those points as clearly they value their preconceptions and fantasy opinions more than reality. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 -1
Essay Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Okay both agencies are less than half certain that 2014 is warmest on record, so why don't they consult the satellite records? Maybe because some heads will roll if it is found NOT to be so? If they just stated a number/year, people might ask about the error margins. If you'll notice, the percentages add up to 90% or greater for each organization list. They probably do that purposefully.... So you can read each column as the 90% confidence level, for the hottest year, and with the diminishing chances shown for alternate years listed, which might actually be the hottest year ...going by each organization's data and error margins.
Tim the plumber Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 That is not what an increase of 1 degree means. I mean, really, if you don't even understand that, don't you think you should learn a little more before joining the discussion? Well if you have peer reviewed papers which show that the world warming up by 1 degree is something other than a 1 degree increase in temperature please enlighten me. What does it all mean then??
Strange Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well if you have peer reviewed papers which show that the world warming up by 1 degree is something other than a 1 degree increase in temperature please enlighten me. What does it all mean then?? It means a 1 degree increase in average temperature. Not, as you seem to think, that everywhere will be 1 degree warmer than it is now.
Essay Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well if you have peer reviewed papers which show that the world warming up by 1 degree is something other than a 1 degree increase in temperature please enlighten me. What does it all mean then?? One degree extra also means that there will be 4% more water vapor in the atmosphere, on average globally, though with the higher temperature it's harder to get precipitation to form. However, wherever it finally does get cool enough for precipitation to form, then there is a lot more than there would have been without the 1 degree increase--both from the extra 4%, and from the areas where rain would previously, with cooler temps, have fallen ...but now doesn't. ~
Harold Squared Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) While the source and concentration may differ, the physics of the effect does not. I'm sorry you cannot see this simple truth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html Facts don't stop being facts just because you don't like them, nor do you lend your position any credibility by pretending they don't exist. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 While the source and concentration may differ, the physics of the effect does not. I'm sorry you cannot see this simple truth.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html Facts don't stop being facts just because you don't like them, nor do you lend your position any credibility by pretending they don't exist.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 The fact is that combustion of all known and estimated unknown reserves of carbonaceous fuels will not boost the levels of terrestrial CO2 to Venereal levels. Earth also has these funny not so little things called "oceans" which sop up lots and lots of dat ole debbil CO2 and which are conspicuously absent on Venus. And if you have evidence that the inhabitants of Venus were driving too many SUVs at some point, trot it out, why don't you? You argument is indeed sorry and when you are prepared to make rational comparisons and get real let us know. Edited January 31, 2015 by Harold Squared -3
iNow Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The fact is that combustion of all known and estimated unknown reserves of carbonaceous fuels will not boost the levels of terrestrial CO2 to Venereal levels.This is either yet another example of a blatant strawman or instead of your persistent issues with reading comprehension. Neither bode well for the credibility or validity of your position. Nobody claimed that we would reach the same CO2 levels seen on Venus. I sure didn't. You even quoted me... Twice for some reason... And still managed to miss it. My point was the physics of the CO2 effect are the same, regardless of source and concentration. Add CO2 and you generally increase the greenhouse phenomenon. The magnitude of the warming will vary based on the magnitude of the concentration, but warming will still occur (other variables being equal). I shared this when you suggested otherwise... When you suggested (to paraphrase) that because the amounts of CO2 on earth are seemingly small they aren't relevant and cannot account for the overall warming trend we're experiencing in global annual average temperatures. You're claim, however, is trivially false and we've known this since at least the 1800s. Earth also has these funny not so little things called "oceans" which sop up lots and lots of dat ole debbil CO2 and which are conspicuously absent on Venus.That's an excellent point, and you're quite right that the oceans here on earth do act as a carbon sink/reservoir. Unfortunately, the ocean can only uptake about 50% of all of the human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which means that net annual CO2 levels in the atmosphere remain significantly positive despite the aforementioned absorption. Worse still, these CO2 sinks (aka: our oceans) continue to weaken each year since their ability to absorb CO2 decreases as they become more acidic from that absorbed CO2. Note also that as atmospheric CO2 warms the air the ocean surface also warms which further reduces its ability to take up more CO2. This further increases the the already too large deficit between amount absorbed by the oceans and amount added anthropogenically to the atmosphere. tl;dr? The oceans help, sure, but they don't help nearly enough given the amounts under discussion and their ability to help unfortunately weakens each day as this trend continues. And if you have evidence that the inhabitants of Venus were driving too many SUVs at some point, trot it out, why don't you?If ever you find yourself wondering why nobody of reasonable intelligence takes you seriously on this issue, I encourage you to take a moment and reread this comment above which might offer you clarity on that point.
Harold Squared Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) For anyone wishing to better understand the process and not just blindly deny the fact that we are warming and consistently breaking records, I encourage a review of the following: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 Executive summary: It's hardly as inexact as our sadly misguided and agenda driven friends above would have you believe. It's getting warmer. We keep breaking records. It is probably a waste of time discussing this with folks who won't even stipulate those points as clearly they value their preconceptions and fantasy opinions more than reality. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 Pot regarding kettle with respect to "agenda", there, my dear colleague...and your laughable planetary comparison gives a petty good insight into your conception of "reality". "We", the AGW cultists, do indeed keep breaking records- for mendacity. Venus has no place in a discussion of AGW and you have no one but yourself to blame for introducing it. Mars is another planet with a primarily carbon dioxide atmosphere but you didn't pick that one, did you? Just as well, as it is also irrelevant. For more examples of Green "reality", recall the Mann "hockey stick" graph and the long saga of failed predictions and fabrications by AGW cultists. Edited January 31, 2015 by Harold Squared -2
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 ! Moderator Note Harold Squared, do you have anything constructive to contribute here? in other words, have you any valid science to back up your counterpoints or issues with other posts here? If not, please don't bother posting in the thread.
Harold Squared Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 My point, dear lady, is that those in opposition to the AGW are not the only ones with a so-called agenda, and that Venus, being uninhabited at present and very likely to have been so for its history to date, has no legitimate place in the discussion as implied in the topic as stated. Venus, as you are certainly aware, has no Moon as well, further contributing to the extensive suite of reasons it is most unlike our own planet. Hopefully this clarifies matters.
Essay Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 For more examples of Green "reality", recall the Mann "hockey stick" graph and the long saga of failed predictions and fabrications by AGW cultists. You act as if "the Mann 'hockey stick' graph" isn't still completely valid. Do you think there is some problem with it? Has something changed, or has it been updated or superseded? Also, if you want examples of environmental, or 'green' reality, why would you care what cultists predict? You should look at the predictions from geophysicists and climatologists. ~
Harold Squared Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The deficiencies of the notorious graph are well known as are the attempts by Mann to eradicate "debate where none should exist"(more proof, as if any were needed, that the controversy is NOT settled) in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the popular press. Unfortunately, the United States Constitution is thwarting his noble plan to silence those who would point out his errors. iNow, whatever would John Stuart Mill have to say about Mann? Well, colleagues, we DO know with certainty what the verdict of the Royal Statistical Society was back in 2010. The graph is the product of "inappropriate methods" and "exaggerated". "Completely valid", colleague? Not so much, not for years now. Evidence suggests that Mann started where scientists are supposed to end, the conclusion, and selectively cobbled the data together to support said conclusion.
Strange Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 So, no evidence to support your opinion? Just rants?
Essay Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I'd like to see the context surrounding those quoted words, which you indicate come from the RSS in 2010. I'm not very familiar with the details, though I know some popular media made a big deal about it. And I know it was claimed to be bunk by the usual denialist types, but I figured I'd wait for the scientific process (or legal process) to sort out any errors or wrongdoing. There was some problem with a small part of a few of the many proxies used to construct the graph--something about recent tree-ring proxies, iirc, which he eventually removed from the graph altogether, iirc. I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in on any misconceptions I might have about the status of the famous graph, but I thought it had been reviewed and reworked until it was again completely valid, including statistically. Does the Royal Statistical Society have some new questions? Whatever happened.... === Did removing a small percentage of (barely) questionable data change the overall shape of the hockey stick? No. Did adding in more proxies, and newer proxies, confirm the overall hockey stick shape? Yes, from what I could tell by briefly trying to search the topic in the scientific literature. ~
Harold Squared Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that climate change is a fact, why don't we reverse this for once? Just prove to us that climate change is a myth... then we can bust that myth. I'm sick and tired of having to explain the whole climate theory... and then some stupid climate skeptic finds 1 little point which is perhaps not explained well, and claims that the entire theory falls to pieces. Let's reverse that process. You can prove that it's bunk, and we'll shoot holes in the climate skeptics' theories. Well, CO2 is going up, agreed? Temperatures have not significantly increased for 18 years and counting.
Strange Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Well, CO2 is going up, agreed? Temperatures have not significantly increased for 18 years and counting. Citation?
Recommended Posts