Do you agree that the debate is over...

[blizzard1024]

Here is one newspaper that will not print opposing views

on the cause of climate change. Its primarily man-made. Period. 

 

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305

 

Wow. We have the whole complex climate system figured out. The

arrogance of these people! This is not science anymore. It is akin

to religion.

 

This is what disgusts me. The science here is gone and some climate "scientists" 

allow this. Those who allow this are not scientists in my opinion. If I were a

climate scientist that believed 100% in man-made climate change I would NOT

be happy at this type of stuff. 

 

If a climate scientist is so sure about the cause of the current climate change

then it should be pretty easy to prove. But it's not, a climate model is NOT proof. 

So shut down the other side, that will work. Freedom of speech. Nope.

Not with this topic.  

 

Do folks really agree with this viewpoint on shutting down scientific debate

on this issue??? 

[Msalgado]

There is no scientific debate on whether or not humans have caused climate change to occur in the past ~150 years on this planet.  There's not some equal split in the peer reviewed literature (or split at all) on that front. That is a fact.

 

if you think understanding that simple fact makes one a "religious" believer then you're free to believe whatever you'd like.  But the facts are the facts.  If there was a scientific debate among theories here it would certainly be present in the literature.  Its not.

[skierinvermont]

There is no debate by actual scientists that warming over the last 100 years has been primarily man-made. The only debate on that assertion occurs in the blogosphere by non-scientists. 

[AvantHiatus]

Yeah, the fake popular culture/big oil debate continues but the scientific evidence for global warming is almost on the same level as "gravity". Take what you want from it, and more importantly realize that you will need to inevitably deal with it and stop using carbon-based fuels.

[Jonger]

Yeah, the fake popular culture/big oil debate continues but the scientific evidence for global warming is almost on the same level as "gravity". Take what you want from it, and more importantly realize that you will need to inevitably deal with it and stop using carbon-based fuels.

 

Gravity is a constant force, easily identifiable and predictable. Climate change is poorly predicted, nearly impossible to test, "hides" and appears in manifestations that are trumped up and down by 2 different camps.

 

There is nothing similar between the two.

[OSUmetstud]

I thought the debate was centered on how much warming as opposed to whether humans are causing climate change. 

 

Are these three statements debatable?  

 

Acidification: Carbon from human activity of burning fossil fuels is being absorbed into and changing the pH of our oceans, thus affecting the growth of corals and the ability of mollusks to make their shells. Scientists are unclear on how ocean creatures will adapt to the rapid changes.

Ocean warming: The greenhouse gases — from a variety of sources — that prevent radiationalcooling have been raising the temperature of the atmosphere, melting glaciers and polar ice over the decades. The atmosphere warms further because there is less ice to reflect the sun, further diminishing radiational cooling. The oceans warm by absorption both of atmospheric heat and melting ice. Scientists are unclear about how new patterns of currents will affect fish populations and more energetic weather systems.

Sea level rise: The volume of water in the ocean increases because warmer water is less dense, and because more ice is melting. Scientists are not sure how rapidly the oceans will encroach on our coastal communities.

 

The article does not state that we have "figured out the whole complex climate system"...as the op exaggerates...

[sokolow]

Blizzard if you have a serious data-driven or analytical critique of any foundational part of the multidisciplinarily established AGW theory set I encourage you to send it as a Letter to one of the major journals, or if they reject it and you believe it is because they are too drenched in orthodoxy to accept it, post it as a polite comment at Tamino's blog because i know for fact he hates garbagey stats more than he "believes" in AGW. Failing that try Eli Rabbett. Failing that, Grumbine. Or Mauri Pelto. And so on. There are seriously a dozen climate or atmospheric scientists who blog publicly that probably are willing to talk to you. You are a met and a scientist. You have the technical knowledge to do this.

If all of them ignore you, send it to me and i will pass it on to a couple I know who test complex models for a living. Failing all these options I will literally, actually, carry your rejected Letter across the quad to Henry Hinds Hall and try to talk to Ray Pierrehumbert in person.

Founded critiques are not being shut out of the scientific debate!

There are disagreements within climate science but the reality of FF driven AGW is not one of them. The newspaper is within its rights and in the bounds of ethics to reject evidence-free speculation which is unsupported by any hint of scientific consensus. However one thing about this is -- you have no idea how dearly the followers of this "religion" would all love to be wrong, and how relieved they'd be for their god to be in the end nothing but a false idol.

[AvantHiatus]

The amount of warming is irrelevant in a meaningful debate-environment because paleoclimate contains an accurate record of global temperatures corresponding with CO2 levels. We are already too deep into heavy carbon emissions. Provided with enough time, the Earth would warm above unsustainable levels.

 

The expectation that we will continue using carbon fuels for at least the next 50 years only makes the problem exponentially worse.

 

It's only a debate if you exclusively care about the next 30 years and are willing to participate in the inter-generational injustice that is rampant throughout modern society.

[Jonger]

The amount of warming is irrelevant in a meaningful debate-environment because paleoclimate contains an accurate record of global temperatures corresponding with CO2 levels. We are already too deep into heavy carbon emissions. Provided with enough time, the Earth would warm above unsustainable levels.

 

The expectation that we will continue using carbon fuels for at least the next 50 years only makes the problem exponentially worse.

 

It's only a debate if you exclusively care about the next 30 years and are willing to participate in the inter-generational injustice that is rampant throughout modern society.

 

Virtually impossible.

[blizzard1024]

There is no debate by actual scientists that warming over the last 100 years has been primarily man-made. The only debate on that assertion occurs in the blogosphere by non-scientists. 

 

How can you say this? Primarily man-made in the last 100 years? The Earth was in a little ice age that ended in the 1800s. Some of the warming we have seen has been natural and THAT is where there is still debate. How much is natural and how much is man-made? These are valid scientific questions and NO ONE can say with any certainty that climate change is primarily man-made just as much as one can't say with certainty that climate change is primarily all natural. The debate is how much is natural and how much leverage does CO2 have on the climate system.  And Weatherguy701...to equate something as simple as gravity to the extreme complexity of the climate system shows tremendous ignorance and you have just proven yourself as someone who has little understanding of science let alone atmospheric science.   Also...again...the ice core data in my opinion is the most damning evidence that CO2 does NOT have the leverage on the climate system since it is totally in-sync with the ice core derived temperatures with a LAG of several hundred years. It did not drive the climate to change in the past...its concentration followed global temperature. It will have some effect if we keep adding it....how much is still up for debate. To close debate on this makes a paper like the one above irrelevant and ignorant of real climate science. And no I don't plan on doing peer reviewed climate papers just yet...I have a day job that keeps me very busy for now. Someday I will.... 

[ORH_wxman]

Saying "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" type statements does nothing to improve climate science...it only creates an awful lot of irrelevant and unnecessary diversion to the true important points of debate about climate science. Usually such statements are solely for the purpose of pushing forward certain policy action.

 

Using an extremist view such as those who don't think climate has changed at all vs extremist alarmist views creates a bad image for how the science is advancing.

[weatherwiz]

When it comes to the topic of Global Warming/Climate Change, the entire topic has always baffled me and I think the entirety of it all is just completely understood and misinterpreted...at least when it comes to what we all hear about and see.  

 

As everyone here knows, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling since day 1...that is no secret.  It's also no secret that this cycle of warming that Earth has gone through has been influenced by human activity.  This can be proven by looking at temperature graphs.  

 

However, when it comes to using the term, "Global Warming", we can't just say "Global Warming" is man made as the definition of Global Warming is, the average increase in the Earth's temperature.  

 

When it comes to saying this warming is leading to different weather patterns, stronger storms, stronger systems, more fluctuations in day-to-day weather...how can ANYONE in their right mind say that as a fact?  Weather records don't go back very far at all and the most reliable weather records don't even really go back at all.  

 

I don't disagree that we should continue to work on ways for more cleaner emissions and go more environmentally friendly...but to say humans are causing every single major/significant/catastrophic storm system is just not right.  Where's the blame in urban sprawl?  Humans keep developing...humans keep cultivating to areas and regions which are more prone to natural disasters.    

[skierinvermont]

How can you say this? Primarily man-made in the last 100 years? The Earth was in a little ice age that ended in the 1800s. Some of the warming we have seen has been natural and THAT is where there is still debate. How much is natural and how much is man-made? These are valid scientific questions and NO ONE can say with any certainty that climate change is primarily man-made just as much as one can't say with certainty that climate change is primarily all natural. The debate is how much is natural and how much leverage does CO2 have on the climate system.  And Weatherguy701...to equate something as simple as gravity to the extreme complexity of the climate system shows tremendous ignorance and you have just proven yourself as someone who has little understanding of science let alone atmospheric science.   Also...again...the ice core data in my opinion is the most damning evidence that CO2 does NOT have the leverage on the climate system since it is totally in-sync with the ice core derived temperatures with a LAG of several hundred years. It did not drive the climate to change in the past...its concentration followed global temperature. It will have some effect if we keep adding it....how much is still up for debate. To close debate on this makes a paper like the one above irrelevant and ignorant of real climate science. And no I don't plan on doing peer reviewed climate papers just yet...I have a day job that keeps me very busy for now. Someday I will.... 

 

I can say that because that is what scientific literature says. The earth was slightly cooler 100 years ago than it was for most of the previous 200-800 years, but not by much. The rebound from this period of low solar and high volcanic activity is estimated to be no more than 10-40% of the warming that has occurred (and that is a very generous range). In addition, the massive amount of sulfates humans have emitted over the last century would have caused severe global cooling probably near .5C were it not also for GHG emissions. If we restrict our attribution statement to GHGs alone, GHGs explain roughly 100-150% of the warming over the last century.

[skierinvermont]

When it comes to the topic of Global Warming/Climate Change, the entire topic has always baffled me and I think the entirety of it all is just completely understood and misinterpreted...at least when it comes to what we all hear about and see.  

 

As everyone here knows, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling since day 1...that is no secret.  It's also no secret that this cycle of warming that Earth has gone through has been influenced by human activity.  This can be proven by looking at temperature graphs.  

 

However, when it comes to using the term, "Global Warming", we can't just say "Global Warming" is man made as the definition of Global Warming is, the average increase in the Earth's temperature.  

 

When it comes to saying this warming is leading to different weather patterns, stronger storms, stronger systems, more fluctuations in day-to-day weather...how can ANYONE in their right mind say that as a fact?  Weather records don't go back very far at all and the most reliable weather records don't even really go back at all.  

 

I don't disagree that we should continue to work on ways for more cleaner emissions and go more environmentally friendly...but to say humans are causing every single major/significant/catastrophic storm system is just not right.  Where's the blame in urban sprawl?  Humans keep developing...humans keep cultivating to areas and regions which are more prone to natural disasters.    

 

I don't think anybody says humans cause every single storm system. However, humans have made several categories of weather events more likely including heat, drought, and most types of severe precipitation events. Media communication about changes in probability distributions has been less than desirable, as is usually the case with most types of science reporting. 

[weatherwiz]

I don't think anybody says humans cause every single storm system. However, humans have made several categories of weather events more likely including heat, drought, and most types of severe precipitation events. Media communication about changes in probability distributions has been less than desirable, as is usually the case with most types of science reporting. 

 

We don't know this though.  What about global oscillations?  Unless there can be arguments made, along with proof, or some sort of evidence that humans are affecting the atmosphere, which is turn is affecting these global oscillations...I just don't think at this point in time anyone can say humans have done enough or are doing enough to completely change the atmospheric patterns.  

[blizzard1024]

Saying "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" type statements does nothing to improve climate science...it only creates an awful lot of irrelevant and unnecessary diversion to the true important points of debate about climate science. Usually such statements are solely for the purpose of pushing forward certain policy action.

 

Using an extremist view such as those who don't think climate has changed at all vs extremist alarmist views creates a bad image for how the science is advancing.

 

 

well put. 

[ORH_wxman]

We don't know this though.  What about global oscillations?  Unless there can be arguments made, along with proof, or some sort of evidence that humans are affecting the atmosphere, which is turn is affecting these global oscillations...I just don't think at this point in time anyone can say humans have done enough or are doing enough to completely change the atmospheric patterns.  

 

The bell curve has shifted for heat waves and makes them more likely...the other stuff is still pretty speculatory. In North America especially, heavy precipitation events have seen an increase. Drought has not...climate models predict more drought but we haven't seen it manifested yet in the observations.

 

As for changing patterns like blocking...there is debate in the literature over that as we speak. As the world warms, the jet should move poleward...however, there is disagreement on whether it would be blockier on the whole or less blocky.

[weatherwiz]

The bell curve has shifted for heat waves and makes them more likely...the other stuff is still pretty speculatory. In North America especially, heavy precipitation events have seen an increase. Drought has not...climate models predict more drought but we haven't seen it manifested yet in the observations.

 

As for changing patterns like blocking...there is debate in the literature over that as we speak. As the world warms, the jet should move poleward...however, there is disagreement on whether it would be blockier on the whole or less blocky.

 

I don't disagree with the speculation with any of this but I disagree with anyone trying to really pass this along as fact.  

 

I want to see how everything transpires and how everything unfolds once the AMO transitions to the negative phase...much of this talk and everything that's occurred...it's all happened while the Atlantic has been in a very warm state...and that perhaps has led to more heat waves across the US.  What happens though if once the AMO goes negative and summers are not what we are used to?  Does that wipe out all these theories or does the all the talk shift towards saying, Global Warming and climate change is now shifting towards colder summers?  It may never be an endless cycle of debate.

[skierinvermont]

We don't know this though.  What about global oscillations?  Unless there can be arguments made, along with proof, or some sort of evidence that humans are affecting the atmosphere, which is turn is affecting these global oscillations...I just don't think at this point in time anyone can say humans have done enough or are doing enough to completely change the atmospheric patterns.  

 

Well first of all you have to understand the scientific consensus and evidence that global warming is primarily man-made. Radiative forcing from CO2 and CH4 has been 2.8 W/m2 thus far. That alone without any positive feedbacks is enough to raise surface temperatures .9C. Evidence of net positive feedbacks is overwhelming and inherent in our basic understanding of the atmosphere. Including positive feedbacks 2.8W/m2 is enough to cause around 2C of warming. Fortunately, aerosols from pollution have cancelled much of this warming (on their own aerosols and the associated blocking of the sun and global dimming would have caused cooling) and the thermal inertia of the oceans has delayed an additional portion of the warming. 

 

Once you understand this evidence it should be obvious that heat waves and droughts, which have become far more common, are made more likely by AGW. Heatwaves and droughts are in essence part of the definition of global warming. Heatwaves because warmer temperatures = more heatwaves and droughts because heat alters the surface water balance via evapotranspiration. In addition, changes in atmospheric circulation predicted by climate models shows declines in precipitation in some regions and increase in others. For example, the SW is expected to receive less precipitation. Combined with higher temperatures this means severe drought. Even on their own, higher temperatures are a major cause of drought even with normal precipitation probability distributions. 

 

Extreme precipitation is less straightforward. Climate models predict most areas to see increases in extreme precipitation. More simply, one can simply imagine how with global warming climate zones shift northward. As you know, tropical climates experience more severe precipitation events. As climate zones shift north, areas that were less tropical become more tropical. For example, the wettest day in NY state was 12" of rain, in Florida it was 38" and the number is even lower farther north (records are more like 4" north of the border). As the climate warms, which it is and which is caused primarily by AGW, these climate zones shift north. This is a basic illustration, but it is reinforced by climate models. Not only is this predicted to happen, but it is already happening globally (not just regionally like one might expect for a regional oscillation). 

[skierinvermont]

I don't disagree with the speculation with any of this but I disagree with anyone trying to really pass this along as fact.  

 

I want to see how everything transpires and how everything unfolds once the AMO transitions to the negative phase...much of this talk and everything that's occurred...it's all happened while the Atlantic has been in a very warm state...and that perhaps has led to more heat waves across the US.  What happens though if once the AMO goes negative and summers are not what we are used to?  Does that wipe out all these theories or does the all the talk shift towards saying, Global Warming and climate change is now shifting towards colder summers?  It may never be an endless cycle of debate.

 

The increase in heatwaves is not a regional phenomenon. It is global. The shift in the bell curve is very statistically significant and large. This is by definition related to AGW. 90F days have seen large statistical increases in locations around the world. 

 

Evidence of increased drought is less statistically significant globally, partially because it is harder to measure and there is debate about how to measure. But increases in temperature absolutely lead to increases in evaporation which lead to drought. In addition, as I said above, models help predict (somewhat speculative but considered fairly reliable for some regions like the SW U.S.) where precipitation will decrease. In addition, it is just basic logic that as the climate continues to warm global climate will be different. It would be naive to think that the boundaries of wet and dry climates will look exactly the same in a climate that is 2 degrees celsius warmer. It logically follows that some places that were wet will now by dry and vice versa. 

[sokolow]

How can you say this? Primarily man-made in the last 100 years? The Earth was in a little ice age that ended in the 1800s. Some of the warming we have seen has been natural and THAT is where there is still debate. How much is natural and how much is man-made? These are valid scientific questions and NO ONE can say with any certainty that climate change is primarily man-made just as much as one can't say with certainty that climate change is primarily all natural. The debate is how much is natural and how much leverage does CO2 have on the climate system.

These are all valid scientific questions! Great! What is the best consensus on those questions, what is the range of debate, how have they evolved over time within the scientific community and what competing viewpoints exist within each category of question?

If i asked you in good faith, well, whats the microclimate effect of a major city like Chicago on local temperatures or generally speaking whats the regional effect on climate from draining the Aral sea if you were feeling generous you would probably google that and tell me what the state of knowledge on those questions is.

So what on earth is stopping you from clicking over to google scholar and putting in the question of when did human activities begin to have a noticeable effect on global temperatures, a significant effect, and a prominent effect? Because that is a debate! There's debate! The range of debate on this is so wide has some archaeologists claiming that human activity begins to affect climate with the spread of agriculture; I've seen other speculation that North American reforestation post 1492 is discernable in the climate record. I am pretty skeptical about those claims: for the record I'm with Lonnie Thompson and Tamino as claimig the mid-nineteen seventies as the point where human impact emerges clearly, the start of the "modern Anthropocene"

I'm not being very kind in this post because I get a sense of profound disinterest from you in re: pursuing the questions you say concern you.

[ORH_wxman]

I would say on the whole that attribution studies are probably by far the flimsiest of climate science...at least ones not involving direct temperature such as heat waves where the connection is very straight-forward.

 

Here's just one example looking at chapter 2 of IPCC AR5 on trends in extreme events about drought...the bolded being how the science changes its conclusion within a few years:

 

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

 

 

In addition, the media tends to do an atrocious job reporting new studies on attribution...usually ignoring all the uncertainty in the study and parroting an alarmist headline.

[skierinvermont]

Saying "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" type statements does nothing to improve climate science...it only creates an awful lot of irrelevant and unnecessary diversion to the true important points of debate about climate science. Usually such statements are solely for the purpose of pushing forward certain policy action.

 

Using an extremist view such as those who don't think climate has changed at all vs extremist alarmist views creates a bad image for how the science is advancing.

 

Such blanket statements like that are useless or provocative if you were to say 'the debate on AGW is over' or 'the science of AGW is settled.'

 

But more specific statements such as 'the debate is over: humans are primarily responsible for global warming' are absolutely appropriate. That is a statement of fact not opinion. There has been no scientific debate that humans are the primary agent for at least the last 20 years. There's some debate as to the exact percentages. 70% humans? 90% humans? 

[skierinvermont]

I would say on the whole that attribution studies are probably by far the flimsiest of climate science...at least ones not involving direct temperature such as heat waves where the connection is very straight-forward.

 

Here's just one example looking at chapter 2 of IPCC AR5 on trends in extreme events about drought...the bolded being how the science changes its conclusion within a few years:

 

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

 

 

In addition, the media tends to do an atrocious job reporting new studies on attribution...usually ignoring all the uncertainty in the study and parroting an alarmist headline.

 

Flimsy is not an appropriate description as you've presented it. Inconclusive would be a more appropriate word choice IMO. Global attribution of drought has been inconclusive thus far. Regional attribution has been more conclusive.

 

In places with long-term evidence of increased drought frequency and which have a robust regional finding of increased drought frequency in climate models, concluding that AGW is and will increasing drought frequency is reasonable.

 

Flimsy makes it sound like they are drawing the wrong conclusion when in fact they're not drawing any conclusion at all. It sounds like the AR4 conclusions were a bit off.. but I would guess that the confidence level on those conclusions was listed as low or medium. You might have a case if they claimed high confidence of a global increase in drought in the AR4 but I very much doubt that that is what was said. 

[ORH_wxman]

Such blanket statements like that are useless or provocative if you were to say 'the debate on AGW is over' or 'the science of AGW is settled.'

 

But more specific statements such as 'the debate is over: humans are primarily responsible for global warming' are absolutely appropriate. That is a statement of fact not opinion. There has been no scientific debate that humans are the primary agent for at least the last 20 years. There's some debate as to the exact percentages. 70% humans? 90% humans? 

 

 

I agree...but then I wonder why the question is even entertained in some media or in advocacy groups as if that is what is actually being debated...because it isn't. With the exception of extremist blogs. I do agree with the newspaper that extremist views like that should stay in the blogs.

 

Unfortunately, that rhetoric of "the science is settled" is used completely out of context way too often.

[sokolow]

Saying "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" type statements does nothing to improve climate science...it only creates an awful lot of irrelevant and unnecessary diversion to the true important points of debate about climate science. Usually such statements are solely for the purpose of pushing forward certain policy action.

Using an extremist view such as those who don't think climate has changed at all vs extremist alarmist views creates a bad image for how the science is advancing.

South Coast Today and the Standard-Times aren't organs of climate science, though -- they're a news organization that requires an editorial policy as how best to inform an audience of lay readers. They say that:

We see no public benefit to allowing on these pages arguments denying the fact of climate change and a warming global environment as a result of human society's recent — in geological terms — combustion of fossil fuels, any more than we would allow "debate" on whether race determines inherent intelligence or habits of personal industry. To the contrary, we see it as a disservice to truth.

They're correct! And it in no wise does a disservice to the science because they're rejecting what is well known as a notorious stuctural weakness of the news media -- horse race, controversy reporting, and two-sides clickbait -- in order to accurately represent a broad scientific consensus on the fundamentals of the topic. They're also rejecting a well-developed antiscience "fear, uncertainty, doubt" propaganda strategy.

It is about policy, They identify the policy action they want, which is to *talk about policy* and the possibility of action and what those actions should be in the first place:

As UMass coastal systems scientist Brian Howse pointed out Tuesday, beyond the how and why of climate change is the question about what we will do about it. The longer we allow the jaded political denial, the longer it will be before the public unites in calling for political action in the complex process of reacting to what is happening.

... Instead of having to print, over and over, controversy pieces and editorials pro-and-conning on whether AGW is real.

[ORH_wxman]

South Coast Today and the Standard-Times aren't organs of climate science, though -- they're a news organization that requires an editorial policy as how best to inform an audience of lay readers. They say that:

They're correct! And it in no wise does a disservice to the science because they're rejecting what is well known as a notorious stuctural weakness of the news media -- horse race, controversy reporting, and two-sides clickbait -- in order to accurately represent a broad scientific consensus on the fundamentals of the topic. They're also rejecting a well-developed antiscience "fear, uncertainty, doubt" propaganda strategy.

It is about policy, They identify the policy action they want, which is to *talk about policy* and the possibility of action and what those actions should be in the first place:

... Instead of having to print, over and over, controversy pieces and editorials pro-and-conning on whether AGW is real.

 

 

You seemed to have missed my point...or ignored it. I actually agree that there's no use for opinion pieces about climate change being non-existant or 100% natural.

 

I was stating how "There is no debate on climate change" is a pretty awful headline which is exactly what they use. They do go on to specify what points they mean once you read deep into the article.

[sokolow]

You seemed to have missed my point...or ignored it. I actually agree that there's no use for opinion pieces about climate change being non-existant or 100% natural.

I was stating how "There is no debate on climate change" is a pretty awful headline which is exactly what they use. They do go on to specify what points they mean once you read deep into the article.

No I think i took your point. IMO the headline is fine. It works considered in terms of what headlines subs ledes and folds are trying to do, how lay readers read, who the audience likely is, what phrasing like "the debate" probably means in context to that audience, and the strategy adopted by e.g. fhe Heartland Institute ("500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares") to influence that context.

Given all that the headline improves the public's view of fhe consensus science, avoids being diverted into niceties intended to accomodate contrarian agitprop, and pursues the correct policy action.

By analogy given all the controversies in evolutionary biology there isn't much mistaking in the USA what someone means when they say the media needs to address the controversy, schools should teach the controversy, etc. or what's being said when a media institution out and out says there is no debate or controversy. Darwin was in fact wrong about a helluva lot, but:

edit or with media and NWS weather products the headline and sub are not being written for either pros or enthusiasts, but for everyone's idiot cousin Colton who's gonna repost it on Facebook. Cousin Colton, the one with all the knives and whose living room is decorated with "historic flags"

[weatherwiz]

Well first of all you have to understand the scientific consensus and evidence that global warming is primarily man-made. Radiative forcing from CO2 and CH4 has been 2.8 W/m2 thus far. That alone without any positive feedbacks is enough to raise surface temperatures .9C. Evidence of net positive feedbacks is overwhelming and inherent in our basic understanding of the atmosphere. Including positive feedbacks 2.8W/m2 is enough to cause around 2C of warming. Fortunately, aerosols from pollution have cancelled much of this warming (on their own aerosols and the associated blocking of the sun and global dimming would have caused cooling) and the thermal inertia of the oceans has delayed an additional portion of the warming. 

 

Once you understand this evidence it should be obvious that heat waves and droughts, which have become far more common, are made more likely by AGW. Heatwaves and droughts are in essence part of the definition of global warming. Heatwaves because warmer temperatures = more heatwaves and droughts because heat alters the surface water balance via evapotranspiration. In addition, changes in atmospheric circulation predicted by climate models shows declines in precipitation in some regions and increase in others. For example, the SW is expected to receive less precipitation. Combined with higher temperatures this means severe drought. Even on their own, higher temperatures are a major cause of drought even with normal precipitation probability distributions. 

 

Extreme precipitation is less straightforward. Climate models predict most areas to see increases in extreme precipitation. More simply, one can simply imagine how with global warming climate zones shift northward. As you know, tropical climates experience more severe precipitation events. As climate zones shift north, areas that were less tropical become more tropical. For example, the wettest day in NY state was 12" of rain, in Florida it was 38" and the number is even lower farther north (records are more like 4" north of the border). As the climate warms, which it is and which is caused primarily by AGW, these climate zones shift north. This is a basic illustration, but it is reinforced by climate models. Not only is this predicted to happen, but it is already happening globally (not just regionally like one might expect for a regional oscillation). 

 

This statement here shows you don't even understand what global warming means.  How can you say global warming is all man made when throughout the history of our planet, the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling?  Unless by global warming you are creating or referring to a different meaning of global warming.  

 

But to go on with the rest of your post...you talk about all these statistics and throw out number...but how far do these numbers go back?  How old is the Earth?  How long as the globe been shaped the way it has been?  Our data set...our knowledge of climate, is not very great...it's not very accurate and the accuracy of all our statistics is barely more than a century old.  

 

It's completely fine to come up with speculations of how things have transpired and how they may continue evolving...but to pass any of this stuff off as fact is absolutely insane.  

 

As for your second post, of course climate is going to differ over periods of time...climate is nothing more than just an average over a prolonged period of time but that doesn't mean you can't have periods of extremes which may even persist for a period of time.  The definition of climate and what it means is nothing more than just what scientists perceive it should be.  We tend to like to use 30-year intervals to define a climate or define averages...and then compare anything and everything to that...well what happens if that average period was extended and what seems extreme isn't that extreme?  

 

I still want to see how the globe responds once this +AMO state further wanes and we head into a -AMO phase.  

[blizzard1024]

This statement here shows you don't even understand what global warming means.  How can you say global warming is all man made when throughout the history of our planet, the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling?  Unless by global warming you are creating or referring to a different meaning of global warming.  

 

But to go on with the rest of your post...you talk about all these statistics and throw out number...but how far do these numbers go back?  How old is the Earth?  How long as the globe been shaped the way it has been?  Our data set...our knowledge of climate, is not very great...it's not very accurate and the accuracy of all our statistics is barely more than a century old.  

 

It's completely fine to come up with speculations of how things have transpired and how they may continue evolving...but to pass any of this stuff off as fact is absolutely insane.  

 

As for your second post, of course climate is going to differ over periods of time...climate is nothing more than just an average over a prolonged period of time but that doesn't mean you can't have periods of extremes which may even persist for a period of time.  The definition of climate and what it means is nothing more than just what scientists perceive it should be.  We tend to like to use 30-year intervals to define a climate or define averages...and then compare anything and everything to that...well what happens if that average period was extended and what seems extreme isn't that extreme?  

 

I still want to see how the globe responds once this +AMO state further wanes and we head into a -AMO phase.  

 

I agree....the Earth's climate is incredibly complex and to think we have it all figured out is insane. I agree all the global warming we have seen could be explained by ocean cycles. However, there likely is some contribution from CO2 and other GHG increases.

I do not doubt this basic scientific fact.  But to say that the feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive is ridiculous. Climate models do not 

even handle clouds or convection correctly which are major factors in the global energy balance!!! 

 

So I see aerosols are now the reason that the 2.8 w/m2 of extra forcing are muted? Is that the new excuse for the lack of warming? I know the deep oceans are absorbing heat too I guess since the ARGO floats show it. That's the other excuse.

 

Maybe it's the PDO going negative in the late 1990s but until the AMO trends down...we will remain at a pause.