Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Agree, but also on the contrary as the water warms it increases evaporation and will release more CO2 not to mention as water temp increases CO2 become less soluble in water, which it turn would increase the level of CO2 in the air. Kind of a no win situation.
What you say here is fact, but it is not contrary. The oceans are currently absorbing more heat than they are releasing, making them warmer. They're also absorbing more CO2 than they're releasing, making them more acidic. In agreement with what you said, the oceans will eventually release this heat and CO2 and it is a "no win situation."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Your mistake was focusing on the graph, which was only ONE small portion of a paper that spans SIXTY years of data and another that spans 30 years. The graph was not intended as the complete answer.
This is comical.
It wasn't a mistake at all. The graph has absolutely nothing to do with the cited paper. The graph was fabricated by a climate denier. You should stick to actual scientific sources and not political bloggers who add their own fabricated graphs. You citing politically motivated climate denier's who demonstrably fabricate their clandestine argument is becoming a routine thing.
But that's not the comical part. This is just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. You berate me for focusing on your fabricated graph (granted that probably wasn't your understanding of it) however just 1 page ago you dedicated several posts to spreading disinformation by attacking one single out of context sentence from the draft IPCC report. The chapter with the sentence in question has 62 pages of text and 42 pages of references to support the text. One sentence was not "intended as the complete answer."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Only if you make the following assumptions (ALL must be true):
There's a reason why you can't cite any scientific studies to backup any of your unsubstantiated claims. You have absolutely zero scientific ground to stand on. Source.
These are the feedbacks you are looking for: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This pic sort of makes the point.
The only point you make here is that you still don't have a clue what you're talking about. We're still waiting to hear where those "hundreds of expanding glaciers" are.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Look how the land temp is so dramatically less impacted than the water temps. Yet we on the land are supposed to be causing Global Warming?
No shocker you put your complete lack of knowledge of basic physics on display for everyone.
Here's an experiment for you. Take clean two mason jars and fill one with water and put lids on both. Place both of them on your stove and turn the burners on. Which one takes longer to heat up? The one filled with water. There's more mass in a liquid vs a gas therefore it fundamentally requires more energy to increase the temperature any amount. Remember temperature is simply a description of how fast the atoms are jiggling. To jiggle more atoms you need more energy. Very simple stuff.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And we are talking about people generating .06% of the green house gases in total.
We are talking about human activity generating a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas, CO2.
Climate Denier's: "The planet is warming, I just can't find any causes, BUT ITS NOT THE 40% INCREASE IN CO2!"
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-26-2012).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: This is comical.
LOL. Indeed it is.
quote
It wasn't a mistake at all. The graph has absolutely nothing to do with the cited paper. The graph was fabricated by a climate denier. You should stick to actual scientific sources and not political bloggers who add their own fabricated graphs. You citing politically motivated climate denier's who demonstrably fabricate their clandestine argument is becoming a routine thing.
LOL. You are so disfunctional that you'd question my sources by way of a political agenda, then you link to desmogblog in the SAME POST. WOW.
quote
There's a reason why you can't cite any scientific studies to backup any of your unsubstantiated claims. You have absolutely zero scientific ground to stand on.
I have posted SEVERAL peer reviewed and published papers to support my side of the argument. Your claim that I have "zero scientific ground to stand on" is as laughable as it is simply false.
Your posts don't even agree with themselves. You say that "There's a reason why you can't cite any scientific studies to backup any of your unsubstantiated claims. You have absolutely zero scientific ground to stand on.", then the graph you post says there are 24 published papers that reject global warming. Perhaps you should go back to a remedial math course, because:
24 > 0 (zero)
Now, that bullshit article from the leftist site "desmogblog" makes the same mistake that Naomi Oreskes made (and even references her!), in using the science equivalent of a "Google search" to claim
quote
"scientific consensus"
(the origin of that meme, by the way), so your graph is laughable. But even with its own flawed conclusion, your own link disproves your point!
quote
These are the feedbacks you are looking for:
You have the gall to call out and/or Arns85GT or Mickey_Moose for our lack of knowledge or understanding, yet you obviously don't even know a climate feedback from an alleged effect of global warming. Why don't you get back to us when you are better informed?
Originally posted by fierobear: LOL. You are so disfunctional that you'd question my sources by way of a political agenda, then you link to desmogblog in the SAME POST. WOW.
I didn't just simply "question your sources" I debunked your content then questioned your sources for spreading such disinformation. There is a major difference.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I have posted SEVERAL peer reviewed and published papers to support my side of the argument.
Where? When? You keep repeating this but since my participation in this thread you have posted nothing of merit. What you have posted I have debunked completely with scientific evidence. I have actually read the scientific studies you post and discovered the sources you find them at are completely misrepresenting the study with fabricated graphs and arguments. This tells me one big thing, you do not look at the depth of your argument at all, you only read the title. At face value your posts prior to my participation were mostly about Al Gore and Al Gore related topics. So where are all these scientific papers and sources that substantiate all the crazy thing you believe?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Your posts don't even agree with themselves. You say that "There's a reason why you can't cite any scientific studies to backup any of your unsubstantiated claims. You have absolutely zero scientific ground to stand on.", then the graph you post says there are 24 published papers that reject global warming. Perhaps you should go back to a remedial math course, because: 24 > 0 (zero)
Your interpretation skills are very close to zero. But we've known that for awhile.
I didn't say there were zero scientific studies that reject global warming. I said you have zero scientific ground to stand on. I also said several times you cannot cite any scientific studies to backup the crazy thing you believe. You have yet to cite anything of merit or that doesn't fall completely apart with a tiny bit of scrutinty. The graph was to illustrate the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change that does exist. You have no ground to stand on. The fact you brag about 24 studies is pitiful when compared to the nearly 14,000 scientific studies that point the other direction with hard evidence. Let's see, 24 studies clung to by conspiracy theorists or nearly 14,000 studies backed up with hard evidence?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Now, that bullshit article from the leftist site "desmogblog" makes the same mistake that Naomi Oreskes made (and even references her!), in using the science equivalent of a "Google search" to claim "scientific consensus" (the origin of that meme, by the way), so your graph is laughable. But even with its own flawed conclusion, your own link disproves your point!
It's not an article from the "leftist" site "demogblog" - it's a 'guest post'. Jim Powell has been on the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and again by President George H. W. Bush - hardly "leftist".
What Powell is not similar to what Oreskes did. What Powell did is more similar to what I did when I researched the "Al Gore mention." His scope was narrow and limited to produce a finite result. He used the "scientific equivalent" of a Google search by searching only a scientific paper database. Even if you expanded his scope, you'll find that upon closer inspection the data furthers his results.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You have the gall to call out and/or Arns85GT or Mickey_Moose for our lack of knowledge or understanding, yet you obviously don't even know a climate feedback from an alleged effect of global warming.
Perhaps you shouldn't take me out of context so quickly. The "effects of global warming" are entirely dependent upon the feedbacks occurring.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Why don't you get back to us when you are better informed?
Sorry, I'll be sure to read plenty of climate change articles on www.infowars.com tonight so I'm better prepared for what arguments to expect from you.
I haven't posted on this thread in a long time because the op has his opinion and will never deviate from it. Thanks flying Fiero for taking up the banner. I understand why large corporations who are only concerned with their profit margins and those who don't want to change their behavior will deny global warming/climate change. Time will tell,, but there's a good chance that by the time that the evidence is 100% conclusive it might be too late. There are several things that can occur that are tipping points (points of no return).
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I debunked your content
No you didn't. You seem to think you can just declare victory. Good luck with that.
quote
Where? When? You keep repeating this but since my participation in this thread you have posted nothing of merit.
In this thread.
quote
I didn't say there were zero scientific studies that reject global warming. I said you have zero scientific ground to stand on.
Then what "scientific ground" would I need? What, other then published papers?
quote
The graph was to illustrate the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change that does exist.
You, and many others, LOVE to repeat this fallacy. What you simply do not get is that consensus is NOT SCIENCE. It isn't put up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. It only matters if the theory is right or wrong. ONE contrary paper could undo the entire theory, but good luck getting such a paper published. We already know that the peer review process is rigged, which is one major reason why there are so few contrary papers. It serves the warmists that gullible people like you will then parrot the lack of published papers that go against the so called "consensus".
quote
The fact you brag about 24 studies is pitiful when compared to the nearly 14,000 scientific studies that point the other direction with hard evidence. Let's see, 24 studies clung to by conspiracy theorists or nearly 14,000 studies backed up with hard evidence?
No, I wasn't bragging. There goes your psychological projection again, accusing me of that which you are guilty, in this case reading comprehension issues. You said there is "zero scientific ground to stand on", and I pointed out that in your own choice of links, there are 24 studies that run contrary to your position. So when you are caught with your pants down, you simply try to redirect the focus elsewhere. Chaging the subject...that is the sign of someone who has no real argument. It also shows that you don't know how science is done. My argument isn't about comparing the number of studies, it is in showing the mistake you made saying there is "zero scientific ground". You are simply wrong.
quote
Perhaps you shouldn't take me out of context so quickly. The "effects of global warming" are entirely dependent upon the feedbacks occurring.
Yes, they are. But your posting a list of graphs showing the effects, rather than the actual subject which is "feedbacks" suggests that you are astonishingly ignorant both the nature of what "feedbacks" are and of their importance to the entirety of the CAGW theory. If you do not know AND understand this, then you cannot afford your arrogance and condescension. In other words, you haven't learned that one cannot be arrogant AND wrong at the same time. But if you want to appear that way, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by fierobear: No you didn't. You seem to think you can just declare victory. Good luck with that.
I absolutely debunked your content. The graph you posted is a complete fabrication by a climate denier, he even signed the graph in the bottom corner. It has absolutely nothing to do with the cited paper you were associating it with. The graph plays on a common denier tactic that only works on limited minds: show a short time span to spread disinformation. Has ocean heat content risen? Absolutely. Is your graph completely debunked or at very least exposed for being a misleading fabrication? Absolutely. Therefore your content is debunked as disinformation and your sources are questionable for spreading it.
If you actually read the study YOU cited you'll find it disagrees with your argument completely, especially PDO: One important result presented here is that each major ocean basin has warmed at nearly all latitudes. A net warming has occurred despite interannual to decadal ariability of the ocean associated with phenomenon such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation as well as other such phenomenon. The fact that relative extremes of OHC are a function of latitude and in some cases are at different latitudes in each major ocean basin indicates different ocean, or ocean-atmosphere, responses to the common forcing of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere occurred.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: In this thread.
If you had anything of merit or anything you weren't afraid of being scrutinized, you would post it. You're hardly the type of person to let something like that go. It's obvious you have no ground to stand on.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Then what "scientific ground" would I need? What, other then published papers?
A meaningful number of them. Hence the term "consensus." It's illogical and impossible to explain your argument in depth with citations in 24 papers. I could definitely explain my argument on the climate with nearly 14,000 papers to work with. For every 1 of yours that reject global warming there's 580 of papers that support global warming. For statistical comparison, if you asked every member of the United Nations if the holocaust occurred, at minimum Iran would step up and deny it occurred. That's a 1 out of 193. That's still better than your 1 out of 581. By your logic Iran has grounds to say the holocaust never occurred.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You, and many others, LOVE to repeat this fallacy. What you simply do not get is that consensus is NOT SCIENCE. It isn't put up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. It only matters if the theory is right or wrong. ONE contrary paper could undo the entire theory
Science is based on facts, evidence and truth. There have been many revolutions in science when it comes to knowledge about the universe. These revolutions follow an incomplete understanding of physics. While we are certain our current scientific understanding of physics is still incomplete, we don't even know if there's a "complete" picture or simply "no picture" for a mind who must perceive something as "complete".
Science has a solid understanding of standard model physics. In 2009, prior to the confirmation of the Higgs this July, a study predicted the discovery by calculating where the particle known as the Higgs would have to fall in order for no new particles to be discovered in the standard model. They were spot on.
You reject the scientific consensus as if you're waiting on some big discovery to overturn the consensus, a massive body of supportive evidence, and the standard model. Talk about wishful thinking. We have a major body of evidence that supports the conclusion of that human activity is the cause of recent warming. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago where we are still waiting for a complete picture of the standard model.
However you do not just simply "reject the consensus" because "it's not a vote" - you reject the scientific consensus because you believe there's a worldwide scientific conspiracy to further global warming through fraud, lies, and fake experts. You also believe these things because you seemingly oppose all solutions to cut back on CO2. You believe these crazy things without any supporting evidence and with a selfish mindset.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: , but good luck getting such a paper published. We already know that the peer review process is rigged, which is one major reason why there are so few contrary papers. It serves the warmists that gullible people like you will then parrot the lack of published papers that go against the so called "consensus".
It really shows that your arguments are derived from a conspiracy theory rather than actual evidence or reality.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: No, I wasn't bragging. There goes your psychological projection again, accusing me of that which you are guilty, in this case reading comprehension issues. You said there is "zero scientific ground to stand on", and I pointed out that in your own choice of links, there are 24 studies that run contrary to your position.
24 studies is not scientific grounds when compared to 14,000. But continue to desperately cling to your eroding conspiracy theory argument while I continue the torrential downpour of reality.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: So when you are caught with your pants down, you simply try to redirect the focus elsewhere. Chaging the subject...that is the sign of someone who has no real argument. It also shows that you don't know how science is done. My argument isn't about comparing the number of studies, it is in showing the mistake you made saying there is "zero scientific ground". You are simply wrong.
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm more than happy to answer anyone who has a difference of thought in this thread. Not so much the case for you. You constantly avoid admitting you're wrong when you demonstrably are. You tend to give us a sob story or copy and paste a bunch of articles in hopes people just don't notice your failures amongst your posts. For instance you still haven't commented on how the "R Squared Correlation" makes sense. You've never acknowledge how PDO has been debunked completely, even by your own cited paper, but you keep repeating that nonsense. No comments on rising severe weather clouds evident again in your own cited paper. And you have yet to acknowledge how badly you rushed to judgement with the "IPCC leak". I really liked Alien Warming, mostly for the fitting 'conspiracy theory' related name, perhaps you could explain that too if you're serious about what you posted on the IPCC 'leak.'
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Yes, they are.
If the effects of global warming are entirely depending upon the climate feedbacks occurring - and we know beyond any reasonable doubt the planet is warming as a result of human activity - why should I get dragged into a rhetorical discussion of climate feedbacks? There's no chance the discussion will even support your side of the argument.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But your posting a list of graphs showing the effects, rather than the actual subject which is "feedbacks" suggests that you are astonishingly ignorant both the nature of what "feedbacks" are and of their importance to the entirety of the CAGW theory. If you do not know AND understand this, then you cannot afford your arrogance and condescension. In other words, you haven't learned that one cannot be arrogant AND wrong at the same time. But if you want to appear that way, knock yourself out.
I have already explained how you are taking me out of context. It's a play on words to reduce your argument to what really matters.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-27-2012).]
More evidence of nothing happening. oh wait which one is it again? Nothing is happening or it is happening but it has nothing to do with humans, or better yet something is happening but we don't know what because the scientists are colluding to get rich by doing research.
New records set for snow extent, sea ice extent and ice sheet surface melting, despite air temperatures - a key cause of melting - being unremarkable relative to the last decade.
Multiple observations provide strong evidence of widespread, sustained change driving Arctic environmental system into new state
Highlights Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.
Growing season length is increasing along with tundra greenness and above-ground biomass. Below the tundra, record high permafrost temperatures occurred in northernmost Alaska. Duration of melting was the longest observed yet on the Greenland ice sheet, and a rare, nearly ice sheet-wide melt event occurred in July.
Massive phytoplankton blooms below summer sea ice suggest previous estimates of ocean primary productivity might be ten times too low. Arctic fox is close to extinction in Fennoscandia and vulnerable to further changes in the lemming cycle and the encroaching Red fox.
Severe weather events included extreme cold and snowfall in Eurasia, and two major storms with deep central pressure and strong winds offshore of western and northern Alaska.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-27-2012).]
The only point you make here is that you still don't have a clue what you're talking about. We're still waiting to hear where those "hundreds of expanding glaciers" are.
quote
British press acknowledges Antarctic ice at record high levels
“Now there’s more ice at South Pole than ever,” headlines the Daily Mail. “(So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!)”
Yes, that last part about global warming is also part of the headline.
“Ice around the South Pole has expanded to cover a record area, scientists revealed yesterday – a month after saying that the North Pole had lost an unprecedented amount of its ice.”
Himalayan glaciers growing despite global warming Glaciers in parts of the greater Himalayas are growing despite the worldwide trend of ice melting due to warmer temperatures, a study has found.
Glaciers around the world are slowly melting, and scientists are quick to point their fingers at manmade climate change. But new research suggests that a few glaciers aren't shrinking at all, and may even be growing. Here, a brief guide to this counterintuitive phenomenon:
Which glaciers are growing? A few glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range along the India-China-Pakistan border are gaining mass, according to a report published in the April issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. "The rest of the glaciers in the Himalayas are mostly melting," lead researcher Julie Gardelle tells LiveScience. "This is an anomalous behavior."
How are scientists so sure? Researchers used satellite imaging to "analyze the extent of the ice in about a quarter of the range — about 2,167 square miles," says Jennifer Welsh at LiveScience. Photos taken in 2008 were compared to images taken in 1999, and scientists discovered that glaciers grew an estimated 0.36 to 0.72 feet each year.
Photos taken by a French satellite show glaciers in a mountain range west of the Himalayas have grown during the last decade.
The growing glaciers were found in the Karakoram range, which spans the borders between Pakistan, India and China and is home to the world's second highest peak, K2.
The startling find has baffled scientists and comes at a time when glaciers in other parts of the region, and across the world, are shrinking.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: There's a reason why you can't cite any scientific studies to backup any of your unsubstantiated claims. You have absolutely zero scientific ground to stand on. Source.
But - but, the purpose of this thread is not if the earth is warming or not - it is about that man is not to blame.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: These are the feedbacks you are looking for: Source.
You will also notice that in these graphs you posted that humidty has increased - which brings back one of my original arguements that water vapour could be a cause for the temperature increase, yet it is being overlooked despite that it has been identified as a "green house gas" and has a higher index of retaining heat than CO2
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-28-2012).]
Robert W. Felix, author of Not by Fire but by Ice and Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, attended the University of Minnesota School of Architecture in the mid-1960s.
Seems like he'd have the most expertise in the field of climate.
You will also notice that in these graphs you posted that humidty has increased - which brings back one of my original arguements that water vapour could be a cause for the temperature increase, yet it is being overlooked despite that it has been identified as a "green house gas" and has a higher index of retaining heat than CO2
That's the point I was trying to see if he got, but he didn't. Instead, we got yet another pedantic, rambling and insulting post with plenty of repeated falsehoods and almost every fallacious argument there is (including the infamous "context" argument).
At the risk of repeating myself, which I notice is getting all to common on this thread.
The chart shows that the oceans were producing less net heat in 1970 than the land. Since then the ocean temperatures have far outstripped the land temperatures. Seeing as how the oceans make up 75% of the earth's surface, their rather larger heat growth must be attributable to something other than what is occurring on land, because the land growth rate is so much lower.
If one assumes that mankind is responsible for heat increase on the land in its entirety, how could it possibly drive the oceans' temperatures to such levels which are far and above the land levels?
If you reference the open letter in the Financial Post to the UN, this month, by 134 scientists, telling Ki-Moon that there has been no measurable Global Warming in 16 years, and that he is flat out wrong, you will see, also in the article that CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
Something that is less than 1% of the atmosphere cannot cause the change that the chart represents. Clearly the chart is false.
Yes FlyinFieros, (or what is your real name anyway, and when were you last banned from the forum?) your argument is badly flawed and can be argued against itself For all your machinations, you are being the fool. Further, the basis of your argument is just plain wrong headed.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: At the risk of repeating myself, which I notice is getting all to common on this thread.
. . .
The chart shows that the oceans were producing less net heat in 1970 than the land. Since then the ocean temperatures have far outstripped the land temperatures. Seeing as how the oceans make up 75% of the earth's surface, their rather larger heat growth must be attributable to something other than what is occurring on land, because the land growth rate is so much lower.
If one assumes that mankind is responsible for heat increase on the land in its entirety, how could it possibly drive the oceans' temperatures to such levels which are far and above the land levels?
If you reference the open letter in the Financial Post to the UN, this month, by 134 scientists, telling Ki-Moon that there has been no measurable Global Warming in 16 years, and that he is flat out wrong, you will see, also in the article that CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
Something that is less than 1% of the atmosphere cannot cause the change that the chart represents. Clearly the chart is false.
Yes FlyinFieros, (or what is your real name anyway, and when were you last banned from the forum?) your argument is badly flawed and can be argued against itself For all your machinations, you are being the fool. Further, the basis of your argument is just plain wrong headed.
Sorry, more words and big pics don't mean you are right
Two unsupported assertions.
If I had just come upon this post, without ever having read a previous word about carbon dioxide and climate, I would say that maybe these two specific assertions are right or maybe they are wrong---but you present nothing in the way of cause or reason to back up either of those two assertions about the data on that chart.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-29-2012).]
The chart shows that the oceans were producing less net heat in 1970 than the land. Since then the ocean temperatures have far outstripped the land temperatures. Seeing as how the oceans make up 75% of the earth's surface, their rather larger heat growth must be attributable to something other than what is occurring on land, because the land growth rate is so much lower.
That graph is not temperature, it's heat content.
Since water has a very high specific heat it will absorb a lot of it, and its temperature will only rise slowly.
What the graph is telling you is that most of the warming is being moderated by the ocean, and that only a small portion of "global warming" is being experienced by humans on land.
This article is irrelevant. There's a difference between sea ice and glacier ice. Antarctic sea ice is expanding while Antarctic glacier is shrinking. I have already discussed this here.
This is misleading information. Most Alaskan glaciers are shrinking not growing, look here, there are lakes where glaciers used to be. More retreating Alaskan glaciers here.
This is also misleading information. The 90% of glaciers world wide are shrinking with very isolated cases of growth. Source.
The Telegraph is known to publish climate rubbish. For instance the Telegraph picked up on fierobear's debunked before take off "IPCC leak" and re-published it as fact without any fact checking.
To quote your own article: "A *few* glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range… are gaining mass… The rest of the glaciers in the Himalayas are mostly melting. This is an anomalous behavior."
The DailyMail can hardly publish something on the climate without adding their obvious bias. Still, reality stands, the vast majority of glaciers are melting not growing.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But - but, the purpose of this thread is not if the earth is warming or not - it is about that man is not to blame.
Moose, you should have taken the time to research this a little bit. From the link I quoted, first sentence, third paragraph: "I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: You will also notice that in these graphs you posted that humidty has increased - which brings back one of my original arguements that water vapour could be a cause for the temperature increase, yet it is being overlooked despite that it has been identified as a "green house gas" and has a higher index of retaining heat than CO2
Moose you really need to pay attention to the technical reason for water vapor not being responsible. Water vapor is not being over looked at all. I have explained how water vapor has been debunked over and over and over again. But I will take the time to lower the technical level of my explanation with a real world example.
You cannot increase humidity without increasing the temperature of the air, period. Therefore humidity cannot be the initial cause of the temperature increase. Water vapor reaches an equilibrium that directly corresponds to the temperature of the air. If the temperature of the air is increased due to something like more greenhouse gases, humidity climbs to reach the equilibrium.
Here's an experiment for you. Take a mason jar, put an inch of water in the bottom, put the lid on and stick it in your fridge. After 24 hours, without removing the jar or messing with the fridge thermostat: make the humidity in the jar go up. You can't do it without increasing the temperature first.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: That's the point I was trying to see if he got, but he didn't. Instead, we got yet another pedantic, rambling and insulting post with plenty of repeated falsehoods and almost every fallacious argument there is (including the infamous "context" argument).
Who would have guessed you'd avoid addressing all the crazy contradictory things you believe and report in this thread to be fact. Good thing I showed up, you're too crazy to have a personal megaphone in public.
You know in your very first reply to me you said the BEST study had been debunked. We've yet to see how. Perhaps you could elaborate or admit you just fabricate most of your argument?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: At the risk of repeating myself, which I notice is getting all to common on this thread.
Arn, the next time you have an unsubstantiated theory about man made global warming you think disproves it, just stop and go do something else. You're doing the skeptical argument a complete disservice by showing up in this thread with half thought out ideas that are flat out embarrassing when explored with any thought at all. It's obvious you lack very basic understanding of basic physics that govern the universe. Anyone who thinks plants emit CO2 cannot possibly be educated enough to have a worthwhile opinion on climate change.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Since then the ocean temperatures have far outstripped the land temperatures.
You know what's getting to be all too common in this thread? Me showing grown men how to read a graph.
The graph shows total ENERGY, not temperature. Ocean temperatures have NOT outstripped land temperatures. In the last 50 years ocean temperatures have gone up only 0.06*C while land temperatures have gone up 0.9*C. The reason 90% of the warming is occurring in the ocean instead of on land, despite land temperatures increasing 15 times as much, is because it takes more ENERGY to heat the ocean than it does to heat the air because there's more mass. I gave you an experiment to illustrate this already.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Seeing as how the oceans make up 75% of the earth's surface, their rather larger heat growth must be attributable to something other than what is occurring on land, because the land growth rate is so much lower.
Further proof you cannot understand a simple graph. This statement is based on nothing but total ignorance.
Land surface temperatures have gone up 0.9*C. Ocean temperatures have gone up 0.06*C due to human activity. The oceans act as a climate buffer for Earth. When surface and atmosphere temperatures become warmer than the oceans, oceans absorb the heat. When surface and atmosphere temperatures because cooler than the oceans, the oceans release heat.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If one assumes that mankind is responsible for heat increase on the land in its entirety, how could it possibly drive the oceans' temperatures to such levels which are far and above the land levels?
Even further proof you cannot understand a simple graph.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If you reference the open letter in the Financial Post to the UN, this month, by 134 scientists, telling Ki-Moon that there has been no measurable Global Warming in 16 years, and that he is flat out wrong, you will see, also in the article that CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere.
Did you not notice the article was posted in the OPINION section?
I'd give you a graph that debunks "no warming in 16 years" nonsense but you probably wont be able to read it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Something that is less than 1% of the atmosphere cannot cause the change that the chart represents. Clearly the chart is false.
Clearly the chart is not false. Clearly you just didn't read it correctly.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: (or what is your real name anyway, and when were you last banned from the forum?)
This is comical.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Yes FlyinFieros, your argument is badly flawed and can be argued against itself For all your machinations, you are being the fool. Further, the basis of your argument is just plain wrong headed.
Arn what keeps me coming back to this thread is the hilarious fashion in which Denier's keep sticking their foot in their mouth. Every time you open your mouth you show how little you actually know. Please keep posting, the world needs to see the caliber of intellectual who denies human caused global warming.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Sorry, more words and big pics don't mean you are right
You're absolutely right. Scientific evidence, an education in physics to properly understand said evidence, and a bit of common sense goes a long way for me.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-30-2012).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You cannot increase humidity without increasing the temperature of the air, period. Therefore humidity cannot be the initial cause of the temperature increase. Water vapor reaches an equilibrium that directly corresponds to the temperature of the air. If the temperature of the air is increased due to something like more greenhouse gases, humidity climbs to reach the equilibrium.
Here's an experiment for you. Take a mason jar, put an inch of water in the bottom, put the lid on and stick it in your fridge. After 24 hours, without removing the jar or messing with the fridge thermostat: make the humidity in the jar go up. You can't do it without increasing the temperature first.
Maybe you need to read one of your own sources on the subject?
From the misnamed "skeptical science" sight you like to quote:
When skeptics use the argument 'Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas', they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.
The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.
So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
=========================================
Actually we DO mention it, but that so far, the theory is proving FALSE. And THIS, by the way, is what I tried to get you to see. You missed it. You won't admit you screwed the pooch on the basic definition of and the importance of feedbacks.
So far, the water vapor feedbacks, which are necessary for "catastrophic warming" (due to runaway warming) are proving NEGATIVE, rather than the positive that is necessary to support AGW being a problem.
Sun, D.-Z., Y. Yu, and T. Zhang, 2009: Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations.J. Climate, 22, 1287-1304
Who would have guessed you'd avoid addressing all the crazy contradictory things you believe and report in this thread to be fact. Good thing I showed up, you're too crazy to have a personal megaphone in public.
I have addressed your points. I simply won't repeat them, over and over, in the same pedantic, obsessive way that you do.
As for this crap about "you're too crazy to have a personal megaphone in public.", you'd better get one thing straight - you will NOT stop me from debunking the biggest scam in world history. At the worst, I will fight the addition of trillions in taxes and redistribution until this bogus theory is better proven. So prattle on, if you must. Your insults are not working. But they do make you look like a troll and a jerk.
quote
You know in your very first reply to me you said the BEST study had been debunked. We've yet to see how.
The answer was already given. Your repeating the LIE that I haven't offered proof does not negate my previous answer.
You cannot increase humidity without increasing the temperature of the air, period. Therefore humidity cannot be the initial cause of the temperature increase. Water vapor reaches an equilibrium that directly corresponds to the temperature of the air. If the temperature of the air is increased due to something like more greenhouse gases, humidity climbs to reach the equilibrium.
You may want to consider rewording that.
1st, while there is a relation to humidity and temperature, it is not so black and white as you point out as there are other factors that affect humidity. If what you said was absolutely true:
1) why is the desert so dry when compared to other parts of the world that have a higher humidity vs temp?
2) let's take a look at this screen grab I did a bit back. From the Environment Canada website. You will notice that it shows a bunch of information including daytime high, and historic high (30 years to be specific) of which we are well below and have been for 95% of the year, but that is another topic, and humidity. Based on your definition, why is it that we have a humidity reading of 71% with the current temp of -11°F?
Humidity relies on other factors (air pressure for one) as well and is NOT strictly tied to temperature.
Now back to the chart in question, we all know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, we also see from the chart you posted that water vapour (humidity) is increasing. Now I know you say that that it has been proven that humidity is not responsible for the increase in temperature, YET, it is a factor that needs to be considered since water vapour consists of 85% of the content of the surrounding air. Simple logic dictates that if it is increasing is must be affecting temperature as well. Temperature increase, humidity increases, which in turn adds to the temperature increase (again the no win situation - unless you are Kirk. ) - the which came first argument is like the chicken and the egg question. I am not saying that it is the complete cause but it is a factor that must be taken into account as it is happening, yet so many people are blaming man made CO2 is 90-100% responsible. In which CO2 should also be considered as part of the equation as well, but I seriously doubt that it is even close to the 90-100% the problem but a much smaller fraction.
The FACT is, the earth's environment/weather is very complex and there are MANY factors that have to be considered as all are responsible for the overall temperature increasing and just focusing efforts on ONE cause is poor science.
For the record, here is a screen grab from the same website today (finally we are above "normal" and I and going out to burn a bunch of tires and styrofoam to make sure we stay there ) - but you will notice that the while the temperature has increased, the humidity has decreased (even with the 'large' temperature increase) - seems kind of odd based on your quote, no.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-01-2013).]
Mickey - I see your point - but humidity is shown as a %, not an absolute amount.
Thus air at 67% humidity at 32 F has greater water vapor content than air at 71% humidity at -11 F.
I believe what FlyinFieros should have said is that maximum water vapor content of air depends entirely on temperature, given that atmospheric pressure does not change.
Correct! Heat is not Temperature! (Heat = Absolute Temperature x Mass x Specific Heat)
quote
Thus air at 67% humidity at 32 F has greater water vapor content than air at 71% humidity at -11 F.
Correct again! It never ceases to amaze me how some people will argue passionately for a conclusion when they don't even understand the basics of the underlying data they cite. I will also add (again!) that weather is not climate!
The "humidity" normally reported by the National Weather Service (U.S.) or Atmospheric Environment Service (Canada) is the relative humidity ... i.e. the amount of water vapor in the air expressed as a percent of the maximum amount it is capable of holding at the existing ambient temperature and pressure. The water vapor capacity of air (at ~ sea level pressure) vs. temperature is non-linear, but it roughly doubles for every ~23 F (13 C) increase in temperature.
By contrast, the "absolute specific humidity" is the simply mass of water vapor contained in a unit mass of air at a specific temperature and pressure. The "specific humidity" stated in the table below is the saturation value ... the maximum mass of water per unit mass of air that air can hold under the specified conditions.
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Correct again! It never ceases to amaze me how some people will argue passionately for a conclusion when they don't even understand the basics of the underlying data they cite.
The POINT is, humidity is increasing as I was referring to the graph that was posted earlier , water vapor IS a green house gas and as such it should be considered to be part of the equation - PLEASE read my post I never said it was completely responsible.
My example (perhaps a poor one) was to bring forth the notion that humidity is NOT just tied temperature (as posted) and that pressure is a factor as well (also mentioned in my post).
Absolute humidity is an amount of water vapor, usually discussed per unit volume. The absolute humidity changes as air temperature or pressure changes.
Relative humidity is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor in the air-water mixture to the saturated vapor pressure of water at those conditions. The relative humidity of air depends not only on temperature but also on pressure of the system of interest.
Specific humidity is the mass of water vapor per unit mass of air, including the water vapor (usually expressed as grams of water vapor per kilogram of air).
Of note: it was argued to me earlier in this thread that it was impossible for humidity to increase, yet what the above posted (not by me either) graph shows would indicate that the 'air' has not been saturated with water vapor (yet), blah, blah, blah...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-02-2013).]
Absolute humidity is an amount of water vapor, usually discussed per unit volume. The absolute humidity changes as air temperature or pressure changes.
To avoid confusion I should have said "Specific Humidity," a.k.a. "mass mixing ratio." From the same Wikipedia article you quoted (but didn't cite):
"... absolute humidity is generally defined in chemical engineering as mass of water vapor per unit mass of dry air, also known as the mass mixing ratio (see below), which is much more rigorous for heat and mass balance calculations."
My main point is that it is meaningless to just say "humidity" rather than using a more specific term. It's also important that the "relative humidity" value commonly reported, while important with respect to short-term weather phenomena, is pretty much irrelevant in the context of any discussion of climate change.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-02-2013).]
To avoid confusion I should have said "Specific Humidity," a.k.a. "mass mixing ratio." From the same Wikipedia article you quoted (but didn't cite):
"... absolute humidity is generally defined in chemical engineering as mass of water vapor per unit mass of dry air, also known as the mass mixing ratio (see below), which is much more rigorous for heat and mass balance calculations."
My main point is that it is meaningless to just say "humidity" rather than using a more specific term. It's also important that the "relative humidity" value commonly reported, while important with respect to short-term weather phenomena, is pretty much irrelevant in the context of any discussion of climate change.
I didn't cite Wikipedia due to the fact it was not a direct quote (and as such could have come from any other place). Also to point out, the graph in question is referring to specific humidity. Like I said, I used a poor example.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-02-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: Actually we DO mention it, but that so far, the theory is proving FALSE.
There is zero evidence to substantiate this claim. Water vapor feedback is net positive at minimum.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: And THIS, by the way, is what I tried to get you to see.
I saw it. We've warmed nearly 1*C in the last 50 years. If water vapor is only negative feedback we shouldn't be warming at all.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You missed it.
Not at all. As I've already stated, climate feedbacks are rhetorical at this stage in the game. You wish to engage in these discussions giving the illusion you actually have some merit to your position. You do not. You're standing in the middle of the street, about to be run over by an 18 wheeler, but you refuse to jump out of the way because you're not sure what brand of tires are on the wheels. Kind of silly, but that's the equivalent of your global warming position. You have already admitted the effects of global warming are entirely dependent upon the feedbacks occurring. There's zero chance knowing everything about feedbacks can support your side of the argument. The best you can do is spread doubt and overhype irrelevant unknowns.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You won't admit you screwed the pooch on the basic definition of and the importance of feedbacks.
Here's what this looks like from the outside: Step 1: You perceive something wrong Step 2: Call me out for a mistake you made Step 3: When I clarify your understanding, you stay committed to your wrong assumptions.
Really showing your conspiracy colors.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: So far, the water vapor feedbacks, which are necessary for "catastrophic warming" (due to runaway warming) are proving NEGATIVE, rather than the positive that is necessary to support AGW being a problem.
We've warmed nearly 1*C in the last 50 years. The most rapid warming in the last 65,000,000 years was 6*C over 20,000 years. If water vapor was negative, and only negative, we wouldn't have warmed at all. Nearly 1*C in 50 years is historically HUGE. That's why global warming is a problem.
The three pieces of "evidence" you cite to substantiate your claims of negative water vapor feedback are quite poor.
"Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback MIGHT NOT be positive" - implying that it is positive, but there are ways it might not be. There are legitimate reasons listed, however it's still net positive.
"New paper shows IPCC models exaggerate warming from water vapor" - implying there is warming from water vapor, but imperfect computer models aren't properly accounting for it. But this is just the scientific process at work. Build model, make predictions, identify divergence from observation, build model…
"So much for the theory that AGW increases water vapor and positive feedback" - that's quiet a stretch for the college drop out Anthony Watts. Water vapor has increased with temperatures so he fails before he even makes it out of the gate. His jump from "expanding dry zones" to "climate change is proven false" is highly questionable when you consider the study didn't even consider the role of greenhouse gases: "According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I have addressed your points. I simply won't repeat them, over and over, in the same pedantic, obsessive way that you do.
You have presented someone else's points by copying and pasting, but that's it. You offer no further explanation when legitimate questions are presented. "R Squared Correlation" for instance.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: As for this crap about "you're too crazy to have a personal megaphone in public.", you'd better get one thing straight - you will NOT stop me from debunking the biggest scam in world history.
You're right, I will not stop you. Reality has already stopped you. It's interesting to note you actually believe "you" are debunking a scientific consensus by copying and pasting stuff you find on the internet.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: At the worst, I will fight the addition of trillions in taxes and redistribution until this bogus theory is better proven.
"Better proven" is the moving goalpost Denier's use to appear skeptical. While in reality you will protest doing anything, regardless of solid evidence submitted, until it's "too late" to do anything. Then you will continue protest doing anything because it's "too late."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: So prattle on, if you must. Your insults are not working. But they do make you look like a troll and a jerk.
It's quiet obvious you label everyone in this thread who differs from YOUR opinion a troll. You opened this thread with the sole intention of trolling those who believe the scientific evidence that shows man is impacting the climate. As I said before, you could use a dose of convergent behavior.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The answer was already given. Your repeating the LIE that I haven't offered proof does not negate my previous answer.
Oh yeah, I forgot your 'answer', scientists worldwide are colluding in a get rich quick climate change scheme.
In a thread discussing evidence it's laughable you rely upon conspiracy theories as heavily as you do.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: You may want to consider rewording that.
I considered rewording but I stand by what I said. My example was very limited in scope to get you to think about consequences of what I said being true in that very narrow instance in order for you to scale these consequences up and down. There are a infinite number of ways my experiment can be shown to be "incomplete" but only if you widen the scope of the experiment. My experiment was not intended to account for pressure changes, because I did not expect a mountain range to form under your fridge nor did I expect someone to build an aircraft around it or any other means that would change your elevation and therefore air pressure.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 1) why is the desert so dry when compared to other parts of the world that have a higher humidity vs temp?
This is an incomplete thought. Deserts are hot during the day and cold at night because they lack water vapor. They're very hot during the day because there are no clouds to block sunlight from the surface. They're very cold during the night because there's no water vapor to insulate the desert by trapping heat it received during the daytime.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 2) Based on your definition, why is it that we have a humidity reading of 71% with the current temp of -11°F?
Relative humidity is a calculation based on how much water is currently in the air related it how much the air can actually hold at that temperature. Air pressure is a factor but unless you are changing your elevation it is not the largest factor. Temperature dominates by far.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Humidity relies on other factors (air pressure for one) as well and is NOT strictly tied to temperature.
It is strongly tied to temperature. What is more likely to change where your fridge sits: temperature or elevation?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I am not saying that it is the complete cause but it is a factor that must be taken into account as it is happening, yet so many people are blaming man made CO2 is 90-100% responsible. In which CO2 should also be considered as part of the equation as well, but I seriously doubt that it is even close to the 90-100% the problem but a much smaller fraction.
You have a good point and climate models DO account for water vapor as best they can, for instance fierobear posted a link that protests the IPCC's model of water vapor.
But I have a question for you. If you setup a line of 100 dominos and knock the first one over. Each falling domino knocks over the one after it. When domino number 100 falls over, do you believe you are responsible for that domino falling over despite not even touching 99% of the dominos that fell?
CO2 is that first domino.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: The FACT is, the earth's environment/weather is very complex and there are MANY factors that have to be considered as all are responsible for the overall temperature increasing and just focusing efforts on ONE cause is poor science.
The system is very complex indeed, but it is a system of chain reactions.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: The POINT is, humidity is increasing as I was referring to the graph that was posted earlier , water vapor IS a green house gas and as such it should be considered to be part of the equation - PLEASE read my post I never said it was completely responsible.
It is being considered as part of the equation.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: My example (perhaps a poor one) was to bring forth the notion that humidity is NOT just tied temperature (as posted) and that pressure is a factor as well (also mentioned in my post).
Humidity is based on temperature and air pressure. Therefore you HAVE to change one of those two for humidity to change.
My point is, there HAS to be a reason for humidity to increase. If it's not temperature is it air pressure? AGAIN you stop short of explaining the cause for more water vapor.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Of note: it was argued to me earlier in this thread that it was impossible for humidity to increase,
I did not say it was impossible for humidity to increase. What I've tried to communicate to you is that it is a cause / effect relationship in physics. Nothing just happens for no reason at all. Something caused it to happen.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-03-2013).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: My point is, there HAS to be a reason for humidity to increase. If it's not temperature is it air pressure? AGAIN you stop short of explaining the cause for more water vapor.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: These are the feedbacks you are looking for: Source.
Your graph that you posted clearly shows water vapor (specific humidity) has increased...
As for what causes water to evaporate, temperature, air pressure, low humidity.
As for your "fridge experiment" pressure can (and does) change without moving the fridge to the top of a mountain. You know there is this little invention called a barometer.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-03-2013).]
M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz1, and N. Paldor2 1Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel 2Fredy and Nadine Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.
Discussion Paper (PDF, 638 KB) Interactive Discussion (Closed, 5 Comments) Final Revised Paper (ESD)
Experts cool on global warming: Weather office cuts temperature predictions by 20% in ‘return to humility’
Global warming has stalled and will not raise world temperatures over the next five years, according to a new prediction from the British national weather service.
The updated computer model of the planet’s climate lowers by about 20% an earlier prediction of how much hotter the coming few years will be than the long-term average since 1971.
The new prediction “does not necessarily tell us anything about long-term predictions of climate change,” the Met Office said in a statement, and it is “actively researching potential causes of the recent slowdown in global warming, including natural variability.”
“I suspect a lot of modelling groups are going to have to start revising their forecasts down, because most of them are running too hot,” said Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist who was instrumental in debunking the famous “hockey stick” graph of rising global temperatures. “There are so many models that are now so far off that it suggests a wider problem with the technique.”
Over the next five years, “global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 degrees celsius and 0.59 degrees celsius above the long-term (1971-2000) average … with values most likely to be about 0.43 degrees celsius higher than average,” reads the new Met Office report. A previous prediction said they would be 0.54 degrees higher.
Likewise, the Met Office’s earlier prediction that “about half” of the years 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than 1998 (which was the warmest year since records were kept, at 0.40 degrees above average) is now unlikely under the new model.
“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.”
The downgraded prediction recalls the 2006 report by the British government that pegged the economic cost of climate change at 20% of global GDP each year “now and forever,” but was criticized for relying too heavily on extreme and unlikely outcomes, and is now outdated after the global economic downturn.
“This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. “But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid ’70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation.”
He called the revised prediction “a return to the humility that we probably should have had right from the start,” and a reminder that the climate is harder to predict than scientists once “naively” thought.
“The short-term prediction has always been dodgy. It’s really hard to say what’s going to happen in five years. Global warming is about what’s going to happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years,” Mr. Lomborg said.
The public announcement of a minor adjustment to a massively complex computer model also highlights the dangers for scientists of making predictions on controversial matters of public policy.
Andrew Weaver, Canada Research Chair in climate modelling at the University of Victoria, and a B.C. Green Party candidate, called it a “highly uncertain” prediction from the fledgling science of short-term, “decadal” forecasting of the climate, which is an inherently chaotic and unpredictable system.
“Typically, science evolves so that you get better at what you do. But predictions can also change just as a matter of chance,” he said.
“Decadal predictability today is kind of what seasonal predictability was 15 years ago. Now we routinely look at El Nino forecasts, we routinely look at seasonal forecasts, and they’re very good, but that’s because we’ve been doing them for about 15 or 20 years now. Decadal predictability is only just starting, so it’s a bit all over the place. The Met Office actually have changed their prediction … other groups might get still different predictions,” Prof. Weaver said.
Bruce Pardy, a professor of environmental law at Queen’s University, said such predictions are especially dangerous because the common understanding of climate change remains simplistic on all sides. He cited the impulse to blame Hurricane Sandy on global warming as an example of wrong-headed thinking.
“In an ideal world, the policy that’s put in place should not be designed to change what’s going to happen in the short term. But the game that everybody is playing is to emphasize short-term things so as to produce pressure in the direction they prefer,” he said.
“If the impetus required for a universal, binding, international commitment is to have the sky falling, this [new report] doesn’t say the sky is falling, at least not tomorrow. It doesn’t change the idea that the sky might fall, or be in the process of falling, further out. But if what is missing in these international negotiations is a crisis, this doesn’t help paint it as a crisis, or at least an immediate crisis,” Prof. Pardy said.
“It all depends upon your policy preference, and frankly a lot of policy preferences exist before the data.”
Proves my point earlier about "making the data read what you want" - from this article, the computer models have/are being updated since the models were made to show it being warmer than it turned out to be.
They even now admit that they are including natural variability in the research.
All this despite the rising levels of 'man made' CO2.
So...the SUN may actually have an affect on climate. Whoda thunk?
This is great. We have NASA, NCAR and others actually entertaining the idea that solar variation could be a driver of changes in climate (although some can be seen adding their spin to save face).
So...the SUN may actually have an affect on climate. Whoda thunk?
This is great. We have NASA, NCAR and others actually entertaining the idea that solar variation could be a driver of changes in climate (although some can be seen adding their spin to save face).
Instead of regurgitating the surmising of a denier blogger why not go directly to what the scientists and experts say?
quote
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
You skipped all the parts where they said the sun could be causing the warming, and went right to the parts where they tried to spin it to save their human caused warming theories.
You also made the very mistake I KNEW that you or flyinfieros would, trying to focus on wattsupwiththat rather than the actual source of the article, which was linked. That is why I seldom bother to respond to you or him... Useless posts like yours.
You skipped all the parts where they said the sun could be causing the warming, and went right to the parts where they tried to spin it to save their human caused warming theories.
You also made the very mistake I KNEW that you or flyinfieros would, trying to focus on wattsupwiththat rather than the actual source of the article, which was linked. That is why I seldom bother to respond to you or him... Useless posts like yours.
The SOURCE of the article is what I highlighted in my response.
Your denier blog cherrypicks and second guesses the science to try and confuse the sheep.
If you followed your own argument you would believe nothing from NASA as you already have stated many times their data is supposedly falsified.
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.
In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-10-2013).]
I sure did I cherry picked the relevant section as it pertains to man causing Climate Change and the scientists findings on it. You know? Supposedly what the topic is.
Originally posted by newf: The SOURCE of the article is what I highlighted in my response.
Your denier blog cherrypicks and second guesses the science to try and confuse the sheep.
And the source to the NCAR conference was clearly in MY article. I could have gone straight there, but I wanted to see who would fall into the trap of saying stupid crap like "denier blog cherrypick", and you took the bait.
quote
If you followed your own argument you would believe nothing from NASA as you already have stated many times their data is supposedly falsified.
No, I never said that ALL of NASA's data is falsified. Their surface temperature data has been so tortured into showing warming now, and cooling in the past, that it has been forced to confess human caused warming. I haven't seen any reasons to doubt their solar data.
quote
Spin spin spin, deflect, deny!
That is exacty what YOU did with the article that I posted, yet you accuse ME of doing the same? Do you really expect me to continue to respond to you when you do stupid crap like that? What is your problem?
OK, for the morons among us who can't be bothered to see the point of this article, here it is SPELLED OUT FOR THEM:
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
...
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
...
Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
...
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
I sure did I cherry picked the relevant section as it pertains to man causing Climate Change and the scientists findings on it. You know? Supposedly what the topic is.
...and overlooked the part in the article that says that they need to do more research into the whole mechanism "Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated"?
What you are saying is that there is no way that the sun could be causing the warming trend (which is not happening, see my post above) and that it is all man made despite people at NASA saying that they need to look into it more?
And the source to the NCAR conference was clearly in MY article. I could have gone straight there, but I wanted to see who would fall into the trap of saying stupid crap like "denier blog cherrypick", and you took the bait.
Swing and miss, yet again.
I went straight there, I always bypass that denier site. Your denier blog uses studies like this to try and prove their own point by surmising (like you do) things they don't understand. It's kind of sad really that you just regurgitate whatever it is they say.
As I have stated countless times I don't pretend to be an expert (like you do), I merely believe that the majority of scientists and experts are correct, still learning mind you but correct.
...and overlooked the part in the article that says that they need to do more research into the whole mechanism "Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated"?
What you are saying is that there is no way that the sun could be causing the warming trend (which is not happening, see my post above) and that it is all man made despite people at NASA saying that they need to look into it more?
Didn't overlook anything, good science is always trying to learn more (prove and disprove) and if you did some more research on what this report states you might notice what they are saying.
I went straight there, I always bypass that denier site. Your denier blog uses studies like this to try and prove their own point by surmising (like you do) things they don't understand. It's kind of sad really that you just regurgitate whatever it is they say.
As I have stated countless times I don't pretend to be an expert (like you do), I merely believe that the majority of scientists and experts are correct, still learning mind you but correct.
Not to argue, they are not correct - they have already had to modify their climate models as they didn't exactly work out as they said they would.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Didn't overlook anything, good science is always trying to learn more (prove and disprove) and if you did some more research on what this report states you might notice what they are saying.
quote
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.
They are saying they need to study the sun-climate link more as it could be causing an effect - don't know how much simplier I can say it.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-10-2013).]
oh wait which one is it again? Nothing is happening or it is happening but it has nothing to do with humans, or better yet something is happening but we don't know what because the scientists are colluding to get rich by doing research.
) - the which came first argument is like the chicken and the egg question. I am not saying that it is the complete cause but it is a factor that must be taken into account as it is happening, yet so many people are blaming man made CO2 is 90-100% responsible. In which CO2 should also be considered as part of the equation as well, but I seriously doubt that it is even close to the 90-100% the problem but a much smaller fraction.
) - but you will notice that the while the temperature has increased, the humidity has decreased (even with the 'large' temperature increase) - seems kind of odd based on your quote, no. 
