Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[beneficii]

You've basically just screwed your own argument.

This isn't a serious discussion to begin with.

Let me ask you something, What would it take to convince you of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming?

If you can't answer that question, this whole discussion is a joke anyway.

Here's how you can convince me that my position is wrong:

1) If you can show over a long time a temperature change that can't be explained by AGW.

2) If you show the upper atmosphere warming, rather than cooling as it is right now.

3) If you can show that CO2 does not have the radiative forcing effect.

4) If you can show that humans are not producing the large amounts of CO2.

So give us something to work with for you. What, if you see it, would tell you that AGW is the best explanation for the observed warming of the climate?

[stormitecture]

I need to pull out the National Geographic special issue from the early 80s (I think) that I kept that talked all about global cooling...which I use to pull out for Global WARMING discussions. Not to debate the issues (don't know enough facts either way), but just to put in perspective the amount of discussion and claims that tend to go around and around and around.

[beneficii]

I need to pull out the National Geographic special issue from the early 80s (I think) that I kept that talked all about global cooling...which I use to pull out for Global WARMING discussions. Not to debate the issues (don't know enough facts either way), but just to put in perspective the amount of discussion and claims that tend to go around and around and around.

According to this source, for the period 1965-1979, 62% of scientific studies predicted global warming:

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

There was a big thing in the media about global cooling, but even then the scientific view strongly favored global warming.

Nowadays, 97% of climatologists agree on anthropogenic global warming, according to this source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[Littleiceage]

According to this source, for the period 1965-1979, 62% of scientific studies predicted global warming:

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

There was a big thing in the media about global cooling, but even then the scientific view strongly favored global warming.

Nowadays, 97% of climatologists agree on anthropogenic global warming, according to this source:

http://www.skeptical...c-consensus.htm

I never understood the notion that, because some proposition is believed or supported by a consensus, that this makes the issue being dissented upon by so-called "skeptics" incontrovertible. Might I remind you that it only took one man, not a consensus, to overturn the traditional understanding of space and time, and the man to do it was a clerk working in a patent office at the time. If any individual today were to present such an unconventional view for scientific review, he would immediately be dismissed as a charlatan or his ideas would be discounted before they were even subjected to material scrutiny, all on the basis that a man working in a patent office is obviously not qualified to present opinions, on scientific matters for review -- at least serious review, by serious scientists. What an arrogant position to take. I suspect that there might might be a few people serving fries that are more intellectually qualified to pass scientific judgment about many matters of scientific import, yet they would not be acknowledged simply because of where they work, would automatically disqualify them.

Consensus is not a fixed view, otherwise it's no different than dogma. Consensus always seems to shift toward a new consensus as the minority position becomes more credible, with time, testing and observation of current theories. Yes, it's true that sometimes the theory is only modified in scale, its basic character and content unchanged, but many times current theory is not salvagable and it must be reworked, reconsidered and essentually dormant ideas give renewed life to abandoned notions as the fulcram itself has moved, effecting a change in the weights and scales used to measure the utility of an obolete idea, of a fading theory, and ultimately paving the way for its replacement. That is how science operates and that is how it always has, even before peer review. What would Newton do without Peer Review, anyway?

[beneficii]

I never understood the notion that, because some proposition is believed or supported by a consensus, that this makes the issue being dissented upon by so-called "skeptics" incontrovertible. Might I remind you that it only took one man, not a consensus, to overturn the traditional understanding of space and time, and the man to do it was a clerk working in a patent office at the time. If any individual today were to present such an unconventional view for scientific review, he would immediately be dismissed as a charlatan or his ideas would be discounted before they were even subjected to material scrutiny, all on the basis that a man working in a patent office is obviously not qualified to present opinions, on scientific matters for review -- at least serious review, by serious scientists. What an arrogant position to take. I suspect that there might might be a few people serving fries that are more intellectually qualified to pass scientific judgment about many matters of scientific import, yet they would not be acknowledged simply because of where they work, would automatically disqualify them.

Consensus is not a fixed view, otherwise it's no different than dogma. Consensus always seems to shift toward a new consensus as the minority position becomes more credible, with time, testing and observation of current theories. Yes, it's true that sometimes the theory is only modified in scale, its basic character and content unchanged, but many times current theory is not salvagable and it must be reworked, reconsidered and essentually dormant ideas give renewed life to abandoned notions as the fulcram itself has moved, effecting a change in the weights and scales used to measure the utility of an obolete idea, of a fading theory, and ultimately paving the way for its replacement. That is how science operates and that is how it always has, even before peer review. What would Newton do without Peer Review, anyway?

In science, nothing is incontrovertible for all time, as all science is ultimately based on inductive reasoning. All it takes is one counterexample. Nevertheless, scientists generally assume that the universe is not playing tricks on them, and when they have had a very productive study of a phenomenon in terms of evidence where they have a clear understanding, generally that view does not get overthrown. Also, if there are two or more different views that can explain all the evidence relating to a phenomenon, scientists will generally choose the simplest, because the simplest makes the fewest assumptions. This is parsimony.

In your example of classical mechanics; it is true that Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics are more accurate, particularly at the atomic scale, but for many of Newton's generation, and in fact even today for human-scale applications, classical mechanics is good enough. In Newton's time, the general assumption of matter was that it was infinitely divisible, in that you could keep dividing it in half forever. Of course, we know that view is now wrong, but in Newton's time it was the simplest explanation for what we knew at the time. It was a simple explanation for something that we had a complete blind spot.

As for AGW, we know that humans produce CO2, but provide no new way to absorb it, causing a net increase of CO2. We know from the properties of CO2 that though it does not dim the sunlight reaching earth, it does reflect some of the heat, that would otherwise radiate away from earth, back down to earth. We have observed global warming, with this past decade, and this past year, being the warmest. We see that the warming has been concentrated in the lower atmosphere (and especially in the oceans), while we have observed cooling in the upper atmosphere, so the warming trend is not due to any changes in the sun. Something's keeping that heat in the lower atmosphere, and right now for the restraining of the heat in the lower atmosphere, human-produced CO2 is the best explanation.

Let me ask you something, I have shown how I could be convinced that AGW is wrong (see a few posts above), but I'm wondering, what would convince you of AGW?

[BethesdaWX]

This isn't a serious discussion to begin with.

Let me ask you something, What would it take to convince you of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming?

If you can't answer that question, this whole discussion is a joke anyway.

Here's how you can convince me that my position is wrong:

1) If you can show over a long time a temperature change that can't be explained by AGW.

2) If you show the upper atmosphere warming, rather than cooling as it is right now.

3) If you can show that CO2 does not have the radiative forcing effect.

4) If you can show that humans are not producing the large amounts of CO2.

So give us something to work with for you. What, if you see it, would tell you that AGW is the best explanation for the observed warming of the climate?

1) You can't prove or disprove that the current rise is AGW caused, in any timeframe. Thats why thw word "theory" is in play here...

2) The cooling upper atmosphere can be explained by water vapor changes....obviously not related to CO2. I could say the same to you about LT anoms & Surface anoms.

3) We understand how the CO2 molecule works, but there just isn't enough CO2 around to cause mass warming....escpecially given its logorithmic WP fade. Its a silly argument.

4) Bascially ties in to #3

One big issue, relaitive forcing. Hansen, in 1988, stated NYC would be under 20ft of water with a global temp of about 1.2C at this time..... doesn't that seem silly?

[beneficii]

1) You can't prove or disprove that the current rise is AGW caused, in any timeframe. Thats why thw word "theory" is in play here...

Science isn't about proving anything, as it is ultimately based on inductive reasoning. Also, a theory is the highest level an explanation for a phenomenon can rise to, so the term only a theory is BS.

Nevertheless, it is falsifiable.

2) The cooling upper atmosphere can be explained by water vapor changes....obviously not related to CO2. I could say the same to you about LT anoms & Surface anoms.

Source?

3) We understand how the CO2 molecule works, but there just isn't enough CO2 around to cause mass warming....escpecially given its logorithmic WP fade. Its a silly argument.

Well, all the studies quoted here and the major science academies of the world disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia....%27s_atmosphere

They tell us that CO2 has a strong effect. Why should I believe you over them?

One big issue, relaitive forcing. Hansen, in 1988, stated NYC would be under 20ft of water with a global temp of about 1.2C at this time..... doesn't that seem silly?

Source?

Also, let me ask again, What would it take for you to become convinced of AGW?

[Carvers Gap]

And lets say you are right... - unfortunately you are not, this acceleration in temp man made will (is beginning) to cause mass extinctions because of the time frame compression is just way to fast. Over several hundred years, thousand years eco-systems can then catch up yes, otherwise it's lights out for multitudes of species, and dude well that's the food chain. It's very ignorant to apply tropical beauty to temperate reality let alone temperate to arctic and playing god is disturbing without consideratiion off all things connected arrogance!

Honestly, I don't get into these matters much. However, I am a big believer that our climate is driven much more by the sun, volcanoes, orbital path, and normal natural cycles to name a few drivers. That said, I am very concerned about mass extinctions. Population declines in species that are endangered and threatened have more to do w/ us not being responsible stewards of those creatures' habitats. Deforestation, pollution(water, air, soil), overfishing/overhunting(though I am not against fishing or hunting), invasive species, and encroachment into wilderness areas are a few of the examples that are driving exctinction for many species. If anything, mankind must leave its dependence of fossil fuels for the very reason that it is a strategic Achilles heel.

[Littleiceage]

In science, nothing is incontrovertible for all time, as all science is ultimately based on inductive reasoning. All it takes is one counterexample. Nevertheless, scientists generally assume that the universe is not playing tricks on them, and when they have had a very productive study of a phenomenon in terms of evidence where they have a clear understanding, generally that view does not get overthrown. Also, if there are two or more different views that can explain all the evidence relating to a phenomenon, scientists will generally choose the simplest, because the simplest makes the fewest assumptions. This is parsimony.

In your example of classical mechanics; it is true that Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics are more accurate, particularly at the atomic scale, but for many of Newton's generation, and in fact even today for human-scale applications, classical mechanics is good enough. In Newton's time, the general assumption of matter was that it was infinitely divisible, in that you could keep dividing it in half forever. Of course, we know that view is now wrong, but in Newton's time it was the simplest explanation for what we knew at the time. It was a simple explanation for something that we had a complete blind spot.

As for AGW, we know that humans produce CO2, but provide no new way to absorb it, causing a net increase of CO2. We know from the properties of CO2 that though it does not dim the sunlight reaching earth, it does reflect some of the heat, that would otherwise radiate away from earth, back down to earth. We have observed global warming, with this past decade, and this past year, being the warmest. We see that the warming has been concentrated in the lower atmosphere (and especially in the oceans), while we have observed cooling in the upper atmosphere, so the warming trend is not due to any changes in the sun. Something's keeping that heat in the lower atmosphere, and right now for the restraining of the heat in the lower atmosphere, human-produced CO2 is the best explanation.

Let me ask you something, I have shown how I could be convinced that AGW is wrong (see a few posts above), but I'm wondering, what would convince you of AGW?

Theory is a conceptual construct used to explain phenomena by making predictions that build upon interpretations of raw data. Of course raw data can't be equated with facts, because the only utility such data can claim is the degree to which its interpretations yield explanatory power. Sometimes that power is incomplete; it lacks a desired comprehensiveness in the sense that there remains open to discovery, provisional data, which if withheld, would be a perversion and a distortion of the central enterprise of Science -- the quest for truth. Not all theories have been found to be complete, even though, in the general case that may be true; but general assertions are often entangled in the lofty web of epistemic uncertainty; and because, as you've mentioned the truths of science are ascertained by employing the inductive method of reasoning, history, as a result, has unsuprisingly found itself in the uncomfortable, and sometimes embarrasing position of abandoning notions that were pronounced to be iron clad and impervious to the necessity of remediation, which all incomplete ideas are subject to.

Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute. He taught that time was another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. Newton's theory was incomplete, in that its explanatory power was limited in its applicable extension. Newton's theory can be used and practically applied to many areas, and his ideas have certainly advanced both the scientific world and the world in general, but Newton's conception of space and time were incomplete and because of this shortfall, his theories could not be absorbed beyond the macrocentric frame of reference, especially involving motions approaching the speed of light. This failure of Newton's theories, in the respect I described, is important for one particular reason: The macro and micro world are not mutually exclusive; their worlds do mesh and to describe the world without a description of how they effectively interact, will yield a result having explanatory power that is inadequate to accurately and effectively capture the necessary elements of a particular phenomenon, the full understanding of which is absolutely demanded before confidence can rise to a level which is less and less susceptible to being dismounted by provional data. To not acknowledge the criteria that would establish a theory as inadequate is to embrace dogmatism and to do that is to open the door of self-deception.

The problem with dogmatism is that it is always a form of self-deception. If Socrates taught us anything, it's that we always know a lot less than we think we know. Dogmatism deceives us into thinking we have attained ultimate mastery and that divergence of opinion is futile. Self deception is the original sin because it deceives us into believing that self-deception is impossible. Richard Feynman put it this way: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." He then went on to say that "You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, estra type of integrity that is more than not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong." Unfortunately I don'y see the type of integrity Feynman valued in the science of AGW today.

To answer your question as to what will convince me that AGW is a correct and adequate theory of climate change, I would submit to you, that fisrt of all, I do believe that the evidence is adequate enough, at this point, to implicate C02 and other GHG species, as at least partially responsible for the 0.6 C temperature rise measured during the last 100-yrs. To deny this is to deny that GHG's, when incorporated in a model of radiative equilibrium, such as (1-A)F*pia^2=4pi8a^2*the emissivity*T^4, have more adequate explanatory power with respect to yielding the actual temperature of 288K, rather than the much colder 255K. I understand the physics and, while not perfectly, I believe my understanding is adequate enough to confidently attribute some of the warming to a human footprint. That being said, Intermodel comparisons give different results to at least warrant a bit of caution: Different models often give different resuts for a similar forcing and therefore attribution seems very likely to be obscured by the backround noise of natural variability. Also, Clouds and water vapor are not adequately simulated by GCM's and this, I believe, as far as I've read in several papers, is an empirical matter; the models do not reflect reality in this respect. And finally, while I believe the evidence is strong enough to say with confidence that C02 can explain the warming, I do not believe it is adequate enough to discount aleternative drivers of climate change. So, with the Sun showing unprecedented and weak activity (in the modern sense), If during the next 20-yrs the Earth does not cool substantially, in the range of 1 to 1.5 degrees F, then that will be strong enough evidence for me to fully embrace the theory of AGW as the more complete description of modern global temperature change.

[DoctorMu]

Actually any reasonable source will show CO2 is 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. However the 40% increase of CO2 in the last century or two is caused by humans. There's no other reasonable mechanism. The radiative effect we know for a CO2 doubling is around 1.2C. WIth feedbacks including water vapor it rises to around 3C (depending on other feedbacks). These are the important numbers. The only debate I see as relevant is what are the other feedbacks, including aerosol changes.

It's true the total greenhouse effect is tens of degrees caused largely by water vapor. However it's the human caused changes (smaller than the total H2O, yet still significant) that are the focus of this debate.

Succinctly and correctly stated. As temp increases the ability of the air to cause evaporation and hold water vapor increases as well, providing a mechanism. Aerosols from human and volcanic sources (ex. Mt Pinatubo) also have played a role. The influence of sunspot cycles will be getting a nice test. The sun is nearly quiet, and if we were to reap "benefits" from reduced solar radiation, we should see these in the next 20 years.

We know that the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere because C14 levels have decreased in the atmosphere. Since the half-life of C14 is 5730 years, and all the C14 in a sample would disappear in 6X the half life, CO2 from burning fossil fuels (hundreds of millions of year old) would contain no C14...and the decrease in the C14/C12 ratio in the atmosphere indicates exactly that.

Atmospheres are unstable, complex systems. So are economies (as we've seen in the last few years). We would be wise to invest even more in clear fuel R&D not only to reduce CO2 emissions and pollutants, but as source of industry and jobs in the 21st Century. Food, clean fuel, and sources of clean & potable water are the lynch pin of surviving and thriving.

[Kevin Druff]

Food, clean fuel, and sources of clean & potable water are the lynch pin of surviving and thriving.

Although this is off-topic to the thread, we'll go here anyway.

The anti-AGW crowd, a group whose "research" is largely funded by vested interests in the fossil fuel industry, is so focused on being against whatever the environmentalists are for that they miss the forest for the trees. Whether burning fossil fuels warms the earth significantly is, in my view, really irrelevant, as we're well on the way to running out of easily recoverable quantities of the stuff.

We need to get on with figuring out how to feed, clothe, shelter, and water, 6+ billion humans without fossil fuels. Think of the amount of energy that goes into your meals. Fertilizer: fossil fuel. Diesel for the tractor: fossil fuel. Train to carry it to processing: more diesel. Electricity in the processing factory: probably coal. Back on a truck for delivery to the grocery store: more diesel. Grocery store to your house: gasoline. Electricity to run your freezer: more coal.

Without all of these fossil fuels we can't feed 6 billion people. We're rapidly draining the Ogallala aquifer. We can't go on like. Yet you all want to debate whether these fossil fuels warm the earth or not. It doesn't matter. It's time to get busy moving away from fossil fuels whether they warm the earth or not.

[beneficii]

Atmospheres are unstable, complex systems. So are economies (as we've seen in the last few years). We would be wise to invest even more in clear fuel R&D not only to reduce CO2 emissions and pollutants, but as source of industry and jobs in the 21st Century. Food, clean fuel, and sources of clean & potable water are the lynch pin of surviving and thriving.

One word: thorium.

[DoctorMu]

My understanding is that water vapor contributes to approx 70% of the greenhouse effect, with clouds providing up to 20%.

Freidenreich & Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

Indeed, increases in CO2 would have to be amplified by elevated water vapor in order to see 3°C+ changes.

[DoctorMu]

One word: thorium.

If it works for France!

Seriously, I agree that with proper waste disposal that nuclear energy has to be a significant part of the solution....unfortunately, people are afraid of irradiated food and growth hormone in their hamburgers.

[DCMetroWinston]

MSNBC is about to have a segment on climate change. Should be interesting.....

[Riptide]

I am going to veer off a little from this argument. If humans are indeed causing global warming, the fastest and least expensive solution would be less humans. Think how many world problems go away, or become manageable with a smaller population. Every species has its carrying capacity,

I think you waited too long.

[Riptide]

He's talking about the accelerating rate of change in the temperature causing major adaptive issues for many organisms. Were the warm up much slower, organisms would have been better able to adapt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[beneficii]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Why-Do-Skeptics-Think-in-Only-Two-Dimensions.html

[BethesdaWX]

Science isn't about proving anything, as it is ultimately based on inductive reasoning. Also, a theory is the highest level an explanation for a phenomenon can rise to, so the term only a theory is BS.

Nevertheless, it is falsifiable.

Source?

Well, all the studies quoted here and the major science academies of the world disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia....%27s_atmosphere

They tell us that CO2 has a strong effect. Why should I believe you over them?

Source?

Also, let me ask again, What would it take for you to become convinced of AGW?

I refuse to debate you until we first agree to a logical fallacy.

What are you actually trying to argue here? I posted a few pages back a basic rebuttal, and you took out a few statements........and when you rebutted them, the argument you gave contradicted my original statements that you did NOT include in your post. Therefore this will go on in circles unless we find a BASE on what to debate.

As for "what it would take for me to believe in AGW"... If We continue warming through 2045 wiith decreasing solar, then I'm definitely in the AGW camp.

PS.....Please don't post Hansen Data in our upcoming debate, or play the "conensus" card, ok?

[Riptide]

http://www.skeptical...Dimensions.html

I completely understand the overall trend. It is just that this period of ice growth has been particularly impressive. I'll become less of a skeptic when it stops. Correlates really well with diminished solar activity.

[beavis1729]

Sure you can make a determination that it is impossible for any action undertaken by a human is a natural once since it is impossible to remove us from nature. That doesn't mean our decision making process is ultimately limited to survival as other lifeforms on this planet. Merely surviving is not the only qualification for humans. We very much factor in quality of life and morality into our decision making.

Your argument is a complete straw man. No one is asking you to commit suicide for the better health of the planet. No need to feel guilty about living, but maybe more about in the manner in which you live. Somehow, the rest of the world gets by with much lower consumption than Americans. You play a nice martyr though. I mean can you believe the NERVE of some people? Asking you not to LIVE? (lol)

Merry Christmas to you too. This holiday season maybe as a start you'll turn down your thermostat a bit and wear a sweater indoors. You needent use solar, wind, or oil.

Great response...spot on. Unfortunately, many folks will label you (or me) as socialist/communist/etc. because we actually want to begin a public policy debate about living sustainably over the next 2+ generations. That's the big hurdle. If folks can come up with a better way forward, that's great...but the discourse in this country is so tainted and politicized that we can't even have an academic debate without nasty political labels flying around.

The U.S. was "lucky" to have been first in the Industrial Revolution, and unfortunately many other developing countries (e.g., China) want to emulate us. In some ways, you can't blame them, i.e. "if the U.S. got to do it, why can't we?" The problem is that there may not enough resources to go around. To me, it's sad that the U.S. doesn't even realize how lucky it is.

Do people even realize how much energy it took to fuel the exponential population growth over the past 200 years? Look at world population growth over the past 100,000 years...talk about a "hockey stick" chart! It turns AGW into a secondary concern...but even so, we should all work to reduce GHG just because it's good to have cleaner air. It sounds cliche...but I wish people would care about something "just because", and not wait until their backs are against the wall and/or until they can find 1,000 reasons why to take action. Sometimes, a certain way forward is just the right thing to do. Sorry, just rambling here...but it's annoying. And UHI too...it's disgusting that on a clear, beautiful, moonlit snow-covered night, the city of Chicago can't drop below 20F for the life of it. Rural areas 30 miles away fall to near 0F, but good ole UHI-infested downtown Chicago stays at 20F into perpetuity. It's sad that people aren't mad as h*** about this. Every clear, calm night in the winter, all you hear on the news is "low of x degrees inland, but x + (10 or 15 or 20) degrees downtown."

[beneficii]

I refuse to debate you until we first agree to a logical fallacy.

What are you actually trying to argue here? I posted a few pages back a basic rebuttal, and you took out a few statements........and when you rebutted them, the argument you gave contradicted my original statements that you did NOT include in your post. Therefore this will go on in circles unless we find a BASE on what to debate.

What I was talking about was your total misunderstanding of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and its impact as a driver for climate. You said, for example, that CO2 made up 3% of the earth's atmosphere; at one point I told you, we would all be dead were that true. It is actually 390 ppm (parts per million). It seems that you have been consistently off by a couple orders of magnitude.

Just because CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere doesn't mean it has only 0.039% of the driving effect, neither does it mean it can't drive climate. You really should school yourself. Here's a good start:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

As for "what it would take for me to believe in AGW"... If We continue warming through 2045 wiith decreasing solar, then I'm definitely in the AGW camp.

Wow, tough critic.

PS.....P

please don't post Hansen Data in our upcoming debate, or play the "conensus" card, ok?

What is Hansen Data?

The scientific consensus is not necessarily perfect, but it does represent an agreement between many different competing scientists in the field who have all seen the same evidence. Usually, if there is a scientific consensus, there is a good reason. My personal policy is to defer to the scientific consensus unless I have a really good reason not to.

[LakeEffectKing]

To the point about what it "would take to believe in the AGW hypothesis" as stated, it always intrigues me that everyone has gravitated to the year 2100....like this is some magical time. If this is truly the "hypotheisis" (ie +3-5 degrees C of global warming by 2100) then the "falsifiable test" for such a hypothesis is to see what verifies as the arbitrarily determined "long term" average when we get to 2100.

Isn't it just odd that such predictions fall out of the timeframe that all of such doom and gloom prognosticators will be well into their rotting stages??? Can we back extrapolate and assume that by 2050 we should be averaging around +1.5 to +2.5 global warming? Or is that a seperate hypothesis?? Or is that still too close to being alive for the doomsdayers?

For me (and over at eastern, Skier came up with some scenarios that people could vote on as to what would change one's mind, irregardless of their current leanings) it is going to need to warm at least another .3 degrees by 2020 to even entertain such a change in my skeptism. If we are averaging +.9 or higher, then serious consideration of the hypothesis would be warrented (running 10 year average.) For most, it was that AGW hypothesis would be in serious jeopardy, if the temps remain flat or only increase by a tenth or two, by 2020. Solar factors had been "ruled out" as "insignificant" by the warmers, so if they try and claim such as we head close to a Dalton type min. it will be moving goalposts, for CO2 is to "overwhelm" all other factors. PDO included.

The claims that AGW is causing cold winters (with well articulated BS about how the jet stream corrections make such "cooling" an expected result of AGW) are falsified by their own previous prognostications just a few years back....more evidence of moving goalposts.

The entire AGW movement is falling....and falling fast. Scientists whom are heavily vested in their careers making such proclaimations are reacting in the exact same way a kid gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar. And unless the temperatures (parents) offer a bit of warming hope (second chance) the repercussions (punishement) is not far off. (Unless Hansen can pull a rabbit out of the cookie jar....ie keep reconstructing the historical and recent temperature data....and make people believe).

[cpickett79]

To the point about what it "would take to believe in the AGW hypothesis" as stated, it always intrigues me that everyone has gravitated to the year 2100....like this is some magical time. If this is truly the "hypotheisis" (ie +3-5 degrees C of global warming by 2100) then the "falsifiable test" for such a hypothesis is to see what verifies as the arbitrarily determined "long term" average when we get to 2100.

Isn't it just odd that such predictions fall out of the timeframe that all of such doom and gloom prognosticators will be well into their rotting stages??? Can we back extrapolate and assume that by 2050 we should be averaging around +1.5 to +2.5 global warming? Or is that a seperate hypothesis?? Or is that still too close to being alive for the doomsdayers?

For me (and over at eastern, Skier came up with some scenarios that people could vote on as to what would change one's mind, irregardless of their current leanings) it is going to need to warm at least another .3 degrees by 2020 to even entertain such a change in my skeptism. If we are averaging +.9 or higher, then serious consideration of the hypothesis would be warrented (running 10 year average.) For most, it was that AGW hypothesis would be in serious jeopardy, if the temps remain flat or only increase by a tenth or two, by 2020. Solar factors had been "ruled out" as "insignificant" by the warmers, so if they try and claim such as we head close to a Dalton type min. it will be moving goalposts, for CO2 is to "overwhelm" all other factors. PDO included.

The claims that AGW is causing cold winters (with well articulated BS about how the jet stream corrections make such "cooling" an expected result of AGW) are falsified by their own previous prognostications just a few years back....more evidence of moving goalposts.

The entire AGW movement is falling....and falling fast. Scientists whom are heavily vested in their careers making such proclaimations are reacting in the exact same way a kid gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar. And unless the temperatures (parents) offer a bit of warming hope (second chance) the repercussions (punishement) is not far off. (Unless Hansen can pull a rabbit out of the cookie jar....ie keep reconstructing the historical and recent temperature data....and make people believe).

agree

you can fool all the people some of the time......some of the people all the time but you can't fool all the people all the time.

such politcal movements should be treated with heavy heavy skeptism.......and as far as "all experts" agreeing. lies damn lies and statistics ring a bell.

I think some 10,000 meteoroligists and scientists signed a petition showing they disagree with the main proponents of the MMGW "consensus". many of which get $$$ Grants for pro MMWG findings! that 's what happens when polticians read (B.S artists) get some influence of scientific findings.

[BethesdaWX]

What I was talking about was your total misunderstanding of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and its impact as a driver for climate. You said, for example, that CO2 made up 3% of the earth's atmosphere; at one point I told you, we would all be dead were that true. It is actually 390 ppm (parts per million). It seems that you have been consistently off by a couple orders of magnitude.

Just because CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere doesn't mean it has only 0.039% of the driving effect, neither does it mean it can't drive climate. You really should school yourself. Here's a good start:

http://www.skeptical...enhouse-gas.htm

Wow, tough critic.

What is Hansen Data?

The scientific consensus is not necessarily perfect, but it does represent an agreement between many different competing scientists in the field who have all seen the same evidence. Usually, if there is a scientific consensus, there is a good reason. My personal policy is to defer to the scientific consensus unless I have a really good reason not to.

Haha.........consensus, what consensus?

You have vindicated me again.....taking snippets out of my post, and turning the whole thing in to an irrelivant crapshoot.......as I said you would in my previous post.

Once again, if you want to debate me, you need to state your fallacy

[beneficii]

You have vindicated me again.....taking snippets out of my post, and turning the whole thing in to an irrelivant crapshoot.......as I said you would in my previous post.

???

You said CO2 made up 3% of the atmosphere. CO2 really makes up about 0.039% of the atmosphere. You were wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

???

You said CO2 made up 3% of the atmosphere. CO2 really makes up about 0.039% of the atmosphere. You were wrong.

Snippet!

Have you heard of a Typo? My thoughts are rushing like a bunch of hungry whores with your yippidy yap

[beneficii]

Uhhh, what??? WP (warming potential), given that CO2 is about 3% of the atmosphere.... and only 3% of that is human enhanced, CO2 is not a driver, but driven.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

On its own, whatever CO2 is released by humans, compared to other gases, is very insignificant. Water vapor is not only a Driver, but the KING of the GHE.

CO2 "levels" is a relaitve term. No matter how you put it, Human enhanced WP is, in the end, 0.28%, or.....in other words...... not major.

Yes we've been over it before, and you fail to understand the proper science. CO2 DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE 40% OF OUR GHE!!! Holy sh*t man...why do you make things up like this? Did you read my link? Do you read anything?

Where are your sources?

CO2 is 3% of Earths atmosphere.....Humans are responsible for 3% of earths TOTAL CO2 __WP__ in relation to WV & other gases.

No matter how much we put out, WV, Solar GCR & the reating GCC, SRI, & Ocean cycles will determine our global temp. 3% CO2 vs Massive WV, The Sun, The Oceans.......Hmmmmm.....what will win out? Not CO2 my friend.

WV makes up 95% of our GHE, and is overly dominant over CO2. Human enhanced WP is 0.28% when accounting for the GHE total forcings as a whole.

Snippet!

Have you heard of a Typo? My thoughts are rushing like a bunch of hungry whores with your yippidy yap

Well, you made the same typo twice on this thread. Nevertheless, reading your first post I do see you did not make that error, so I understand that you do understand the correct concentration.

[LakeEffectKing]

If the atmosphere contained 30,000 ppm of CO2, but we retained the same percentage of O2 as we have today, I'm not sure that bene's claim "we'd all be dead" has any scientific basis. Unless he knows of some other rampant feedback that would kick in, the CO2 radative saturation point would have been well reached, and the difference from about 1000ppm and up would be minimal.

[beneficii]

If the atmosphere contained 30,000 ppm of CO2, but we retained the same percentage of O2 as we have today, I'm not sure that bene's claim "we'd all be dead" has any scientific basis. Unless she knows of some other rampant feedback that would kick in, the CO2 radative saturation point would have been well reached, and the difference from about 1000ppm and up would be minimal.

http://en.wikipedia....oxide_poisoning