The Problems with CAGW

[Isotherm]

Childish ranting from a childish man who thinks he is 100X smarter than he really is..

 

 

Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the quoted poster's remarks, your response aids in tearing down the overall value of the thread.

[blizzard1024]

Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the quoted poster's remarks, your response aids in tearing down the overall value of the thread.

amen brother. The alarmists have a free pass to bash those with more common sense on this issue. The thread and whole forum is very very biased toward climate alarmism with just a few posters that actually are accepting of other scientific viewpoints. I am sick of this and will be ending my posts on this forum. It's no use.But I do hope I made at least a few people question climate science and the whole CAGW faulty theory.  the whole climate field has become a highly politicized joke.

[Msalgado]

Youll be back.  And when you do come back, you'll come back with no data as per usual and just make posts about common sense and other nonsense instead of providing actual data.

[franklin NCwx]

amen brother. The alarmists have a free pass to bash those with more common sense on this issue. The thread and whole forum is very very biased toward climate alarmism with just a few posters that actually are accepting of other scientific viewpoints. I am sick of this and will be ending my posts on this forum. It's no use.But I do hope I made at least a few people question climate science and the whole CAGW faulty theory. the whole climate field has become a highly politicized joke.[/quote I ]I hope you choose to stay I have enjoyed reading your posts. There are many of us who question the silly arguments and solutions of the alarmists.

[LakeEffectKing]

amen brother. The alarmists have a free pass to bash those with more common sense on this issue. The thread and whole forum is very very biased toward climate alarmism with just a few posters that actually are accepting of other scientific viewpoints. I am sick of this and will be ending my posts on this forum. It's no use.But I do hope I made at least a few people question climate science and the whole CAGW faulty theory.  the whole climate field has become a highly politicized joke.

It's why I don't post much anymore....Will, bluewave and a few others, keep my faith that there are people that can interact with the doomsdayers. But for me, patience was lost long ago with them.

[Ground Scouring]

amen brother. The alarmists have a free pass to bash those with more common sense on this issue. The thread and whole forum is very very biased toward climate alarmism with just a few posters that actually are accepting of other scientific viewpoints. I am sick of this and will be ending my posts on this forum. It's no use.But I do hope I made at least a few people question climate science and the whole CAGW faulty theory.  the whole climate field has become a highly politicized joke.

Just out of curiosity, which serious peer-reviewed journals do you prefer? Just name names and let me know which ones are/aren't "alarmist." Also, what is your background in the climate field, in terms of experience and peer-reviewed publications? I would like to know the type of background that you think is needed to be a credible climate scientist.

 

Oh, for LEK, blizzard1024, and anyone else:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44219-do-you-think-cagw-is-just-a-un-scheme-to-impose-global-governance/

 

By the way, I am not a climate "alarmist"…I think that there is real warming going on but that the degree to which humans influence it is a complete unknown.

[skierinvermont]

It's why I don't post much anymore....Will, bluewave and a few others, keep my faith that there are people that can interact with the doomsdayers. But for me, patience was lost long ago with them.

 

Will and bluewave would disagree with just about everything you would have to say on AGW and basically fall into what you think of as the 'alarmist' category.

[skierinvermont]

Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the quoted poster's remarks, your response aids in tearing down the overall value of the thread.

 

There never was any value to this thread or most of the posts in it. Stupid ignorant anti-science buffoons should not be tolerated.

[StudentOfClimatology]

During Younger Dryas there was a LARGE amount of ice melting from the rapid transition from glacial to interglacial which could easily affect the North Atlantic MOC which then could rapidly affect climate...the "flickering" climate of that time. Once the ice melted the climate has become incredibly stable relative to the periods when there has been a lot of glacial mass. That is a well documented fact. The Greenland Ice Core data shows this remarkably well. And we all know that the Arctic regions respond most rapidly to any climate change so if the climate was fairly stable in Greenland it is suffice to say that globally the climate probably was just as stable or even more so. I also took courses in paleo climatology. In fact because of these courses I became even more skeptical of CAGW... not less.

If the AMOC were responsible for the Younger Dryas, the tropics would have warmed and the event would have been confined to the Arctic/NATL region.

However, it has been uncovered that the cooling occurred synchronously across the globe, over both hemispheres.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/104061829500049O

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6308/abs/349406a0.html

http://m.geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/10/877.short

The exception is over the Antarctic, which was out of phase with the rest of the globe. Reason for that is still a mystery.

[Isotherm]

There never was any value to this thread or most of the posts in it. Stupid ignorant anti-science buffoons should not be tolerated.

 

 

 

Science is about asking questions, critiquing other ideas, experimentation, and developing an objective understanding of something. Your statement right there is about as anti-science as one can get, ironically. Suppress alternative viewpoints and promulgate a one-sided way of thinking. Healthy, intellectual debate is like an informal peer-review process, a sort of check and balance system on prevalent ideas.

[blizzard1024]

There never was any value to this thread or most of the posts in it. Stupid ignorant anti-science buffoons should not be tolerated.

 

You are an the biggest anti-science buffoon there is. Science is about debate... not insulting those who disagree with you. And you are the biggest offender of this....

[nflwxman]

Science is also about knowing when to move on to tackle another issue.  If every single viewpoint was given equal weight indefinitely, nothing would ever get done.  At some point, the scientific community needs to form a "consensus" and move on.  At this point, the consensus of the scientific community is the following:

 

1) Humans are responsible for at least 60% of the warming since the industrial revolution.

 

2) Global warming will have more negatives for society than positives

 

3) A doubling of CO2 will lead to an ECS of 1.5-4.5 degrees C.

 

4) Arctic sea ice will vanish in the summer by mid century

 

5) Sea Level will continue to rise

 

Remember, there are people who still don't believe in evolution and modern medicine.  Can you imagine how much further back science would be if we gave equal weight to those viewpoints?  The science would be stunted.  Progress would slow to halt and many more people would have to die.   While the last point sounds melodramatic...in the example of medicine, that's absolutely true.

 

If you'd like to debate the details of any of the topics above, please do it within the bounds of the scientific consensus, or you will be continued to be ignored and shunned here.  Hell, ECS is a fine topic to debate.  The difference between 1.5 and 4.5 is huge and can have major major societial implications.  Bluewave, ORH, Phillip and many others have heated debates about ECS, but we do it with solid evidence that the scientific community has constructed overtime.  

 

Science should not have the time nor patience to deal with backwards thinking that falls way out of the consensus, especially when no evidence is provided.  And that's truly the bottom line.

[sokolow]

Science is about asking questions, critiquing other ideas, experimentation, and developing an objective understanding of something. Your statement right there is about as anti-science as one can get, ironically. Suppress alternative viewpoints and promulgate a one-sided way of thinking. Healthy, intellectual debate is like an informal peer-review process, a sort of check and balance system on prevalent ideas.

This is sorta an idealized and very liberal imagining of some kind of platonic, genteel debate where the best ideas win out through the power of free speech hooked to scholastic disputation.

Parlor debates are hardly ever the case and even where a genteel club atmosphere prevails, there are in fact there are ideas and concepts -- particularly in the social and human biological sciences -- that should be ruthlessly suppressed, their advocates marginalized wherever they pop up, and legitimate scientific research on the topics deliberately framed in language that is politically correct in the most literal sense.

Anywise it has been clear since the early Cold War and since Latour for certain, that the space of "healthy scientific debate" and who gets to participate in it is bounded by unspoken professional convention & continual policing of those boundaries through censorship & suppression -- sometimes with actual violence! -- in the normal, everyday course of science.

I mean that that's the case doesn't imply people shouldn't strive for collegiality or whatever goal for their community. Just that there's not a censorship / refusal to debate on someone's chosen terms red card that flags automatic antiscience

[LocoAko]

Science is about asking questions, critiquing other ideas, experimentation, and developing an objective understanding of something. Your statement right there is about as anti-science as one can get, ironically. Suppress alternative viewpoints and promulgate a one-sided way of thinking. Healthy, intellectual debate is like an informal peer-review process, a sort of check and balance system on prevalent ideas.

 

You say this as if certain posts are even open to hearing the "other side" (ie the one supported by peer-reviewed literature). It is incredibly obvious certain people already have their minds made up and are selectively finding posts and logical fallacies to support their viewpoint. It isn't worth anyone's time to bother responding since just about no one is going into this with an "open mind" as much as you'd like to try to believe that to be the case. 

[Ground Scouring]

If you'd like to debate the details of any of the topics above, please do it within the bounds of the scientific consensus, or you will be continued to be ignored and shunned here.  Hell, ECS is a fine topic to debate.  The difference between 1.5 and 4.5 is huge and can have major major societial implications.  Bluewave, ORH, Phillip and many others have heated debates about ECS, but we do it with solid evidence that the scientific community has constructed overtime.  

 

Science should not have the time nor patience to deal with backwards thinking that falls way out of the consensus, especially when no evidence is provided.  And that's truly the bottom line.

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44068-the-problems-with-cagw/?p=3020229

 

It's quite revealing that you want people to debate your points when you don't even address blizzard's evidence-based data in this post. For political (not science-based) reasons you, Jacob, and skier just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit your contentions.

[LocoAko]

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44068-the-problems-with-cagw/?p=3020229

 

It's quite revealing that you want people to debate your points when you don't even address blizzard's evidence-based data in this post. For political (not science-based) reasons you, Jacob, and skier just want to ignore evidence that doesn't fit your contentions.

 

This is an evidence-based response?

4. Of course the cloud cover data is bad...in the long run... because it would prove that warming or cooling is almost entirely due to changes in cloud cover. Of course the data is bad. /sarc

 

How about this one?

7. and you are certain of the oceanic measurements of 100 years ago compared to today? really?? wow such faith.

 

And this?

a whole 2.4% will spiral the climate out of control. I doubt it.

 

Frankly I was very impressed with the point-by-point blow skier dealt him with plenty of reasonable evidence, but when the "comeback" are things like the above, it isn't worth anyone's time trying to convince him of otherwise. There's clearly no convincing to be done...

[AvantHiatus]

Science is about asking questions, critiquing other ideas, experimentation, and developing an objective understanding of something. Your statement right there is about as anti-science as one can get, ironically. Suppress alternative viewpoints and promulgate a one-sided way of thinking. Healthy, intellectual debate is like an informal peer-review process, a sort of check and balance system on prevalent ideas.

The issue is that arguing againist AGW theory would be like trying to disprove gravity.

 

[Isotherm]

Science is also about knowing when to move on to tackle another issue.  If every single viewpoint was given equal weight indefinitely, nothing would ever get done.  At some point, the scientific community needs to form a "consensus" and move on.  At this point, the consensus of the scientific community is the following:

 

1) Humans are responsible for at least 60% of the warming since the industrial revolution.

 

2) Global warming will have more negatives for society than positives

 

3) A doubling of CO2 will lead to an ECS of 1.5-4.5 degrees C.

 

4) Arctic sea ice will vanish in the summer by mid century

 

5) Sea Level will continue to rise

 

Remember, there are people who still don't believe in evolution and modern medicine.  Can you imagine how much further back science would be if we gave equal weight to those viewpoints?  The science would be stunted.  Progress would slow to halt and many more people would have to die.   While the last point sounds melodramatic...in the example of medicine, that's absolutely true.

 

If you'd like to debate the details of any of the topics above, please do it within the bounds of the scientific consensus, or you will be continued to be ignored and shunned here.  Hell, ECS is a fine topic to debate.  The difference between 1.5 and 4.5 is huge and can have major major societial implications.  Bluewave, ORH, Phillip and many others have heated debates about ECS, but we do it with solid evidence that the scientific community has constructed overtime.  

 

Science should not have the time nor patience to deal with backwards thinking that falls way out of the consensus, especially when no evidence is provided.  And that's truly the bottom line.

 

 

I think one of the major issues can be seen in the fact that most of your points there are "wills", in other words, yet to be proven out. There may or may not be a majority (>50%) opinion on the direction we are headed, but until reality demonstrates that the vast majority of global temperature rise is due to anthropogenic activities, I don't believe we can move on from the debate.

 

One may ask, well, when should we "move on from this debate"? When it becomes glaringly apparent that natural forcing(s) which should promote an overall global cooling trend, are not doing so, and global temperatures continue to rise in the face of natural mechanism(s) that dictate otherwise. This is why, for me, I'm curious to see how the next one to two decades shake out, as we should be seeing a greater prevalence of natural forcing(s) that promote potential cooling. The jury's still very much out as far as the relative contribution of anthropogenic activities on global warming. Many studies suggest that natural forcings take the driver's seat.

 

As far as debate, I agree that ECS is one of the most important topics of contention. If one's argument can be backed up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, I believe it's fair game for debate, regardless of its position within certain bounds of a "consensus" range.

[Isotherm]

The issue is that arguing againist AGW theory would be like trying to disprove gravity.

 

 

 

I assume (hope) you're joking, because the comparison you've made is an apples to oranges one. Gravity can be proven and verified by every single person on this planet right now. The AGW theory cannot be verified until we determine the relative influence of our activities on temperatures. And I think "AGW theory" is too black and white. What exactly are we talking about here? Humans are responsible for 90% of the temperature rise, 70%, 50%? Which percentage will be considered a verification of the theory? Those are massive differences in percentage influence, and obviously would have drastically different effects on our climate.

[Isotherm]

You say this as if certain posts are even open to hearing the "other side" (ie the one supported by peer-reviewed literature). It is incredibly obvious certain people already have their minds made up and are selectively finding posts and logical fallacies to support their viewpoint. It isn't worth anyone's time to bother responding since just about no one is going into this with an "open mind" as much as you'd like to try to believe that to be the case. 

 

Yes, most people are close-minded about most aspects of life, and are difficult to convince. It's a shame but a definite truth of human nature. Once an opinion is formed, people like to latch onto it.

 

 

Again, I believe that this issue is one of such high complexity, that isolating one side or the other is too black and white. You don't have to be either "for" or "against" AGW. I believe that anthropogenic forcing and natural forcings influence the climate. My mind isn't made up on the relative influence of natural factors vs anthropogenic. Speaking for myself, I'm still very much convincible on that front. The research that I've read and been presented with has led me to the conclusion, that right now, it cannot be said with certainty that anthropogenic activities are responsible for the majority of warming.

[AvantHiatus]

Yes, most people are close-minded about most aspects of life, and are difficult to convince. It's a shame but a definite truth of human nature. Once an opinion is formed, people like to latch onto it.

 

 

Again, I believe that this issue is one of such high complexity, that isolating one side or the other is too black and white. You don't have to be either "for" or "against" AGW. I believe that anthropogenic forcing and natural forcings influence the climate. My mind isn't made up on the relative influence of natural factors vs anthropogenic. Speaking for myself, I'm still very much convincible on that front. The research that I've read and been presented with has led me to the conclusion, that right now, it cannot be said with certainty that anthropogenic activities are responsible for the majority of warming.

Well, I guess we are just unlucky then. Natural forces disrupting arctic sea ice followed by the true surge of GHG forcing caused by 450 ppm CO2, which is an about face from the holocene range and implies long-term (unknowable timespan?) of +2-3C above pre-industrial, in addition to future increases in CH4 and CO2.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If AGW wasn't the primary driver there is no way this could be happening.

 

[FPizz]

Is this the new go to graph? Just wondering because it has been used a few times recently. Is this the one we should now use? Thanks.

[Isotherm]

If AGW wasn't the primary driver there is no way this could be happening.

 

 

 

 

0-700m ocean heat content has essentially flat-lined over the past decade, in concert with the leveling off of temperatures over a similar time frame.

 

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

 

 

The deeper oceans still show the heat from the global temperature surge over the 1990-2000 period. The 0-700m layer seems to be more reflective of what's happening right now atmospherically.

[AvantHiatus]

0-700m ocean heat content has essentially flat-lined over the past decade, in concert with the leveling off of temperatures over a similar time frame.

 

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

 

 

The deeper oceans still show the heat from the global temperature surge over the 1990-2000 period. The 0-700m layer seems to be more reflective of what's happening right now atmospherically.

No, the pooling of heat in the deep layers is caused by upwelling-based wind transfer from the surface. An equal or greater amount of heat is still incoming. People keep forgetting how much the winds have increased in equatorial regions since the 20th century.

 

Hence another reason why the tropics are so hostile, the trades have become insanely fast and are driving heat into the deeper layers.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It hasn't flat lined.  Nor has it gone down at all.  Those are two obvious signs a force far greater than all others combined is happening.

[skierinvermont]

I am all for open debate, objectivity, constructive critique etc. The problem is people who already have their mind made up and whose arguments are not based in fact, contain logical fallacies, and/or are based in sarcasm. Blizzard has shown his mind is completely made up and he is impervious to any facts or reasoning. 

 

Preaching 'debate, objectivity, questioning, critique etc.' is just a way for deniers to pretend to be open minded and ignore the obvious lack of facts and logic in their beliefs. 

 

Blizzards original post was entirely made up facts, logical fallacies, and sarcasm. 

 

I responded as substantively as possible. He responded with even more made up 'fact's', fallacies, and sarcasm.

[skierinvermont]

0-700m ocean heat content has essentially flat-lined over the past decade, in concert with the leveling off of temperatures over a similar time frame.

 

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

 

 

The deeper oceans still show the heat from the global temperature surge over the 1990-2000 period. The 0-700m layer seems to be more reflective of what's happening right now atmospherically.

 

Again, a blatant logical fallacy in this post.

 

The warming of the deep oceans is just a magically delayed response to the 1990-2000 warming.

 

 

If that is the case, where is the heat coming from? It's not coming from the atmosphere because the atmosphere has warmed. It's not coming from the 0-700m layer because that layer has warmed slightly as well. Heat doesn't magically come from no where. It either comes from a global imbalance, or it comes from somewhere else on earth.

 

The massive warming of the oceans the last 10 years represents the massive global imbalance of energy. 

 

You also appear to not understand quite how large this energy imbalance is. 

 

Those people who actually engage long enough and sincerely enough on the subject can agree on the basic facts of AGW. Like Snowlover123. And ORH.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The heat is transferred from the upper oceans to the deep oceans via diffusion and vertical overturning. The deeper you go, the longer the time to equilibrium is, as specific heat capacity increases. So even if we were to wave a wand and magically bring CO^2 levels down to 300ppm, the deep oceans would probably continue warming for decades, if not longer..

[skierinvermont]

The heat is transferred from the upper oceans to the deep oceans via diffusion and vertical overturning. The deeper you go, the longer the time to equilibrium is, as specific heat capacity increases. So even if we were to wave a wand and magically bring CO^2 levels down to 300ppm, the deep oceans would probably continue warming for decades, if not longer..

 

Yes but the upper oceans would cool. The heat has to come from somewhere. The deep ocean can't warm, while the upper ocean stays the same (actually it is warming too) and the atmosphere warms, unless the earth is gaining net energy (in this case, large amounts @ ~.5W/m2. ).