global warming may take a decade off

[Loudmouth]

Projection, noting the belief in a pseudoscience that predicts future climate based on, well, nothing unless you count speculation

You were already shown the evidence that the models accurately reconstructed past climates. That is something. In fact, that is a lot. Ignore it all you want. The evidence is on our side.

 

[USincognito]

You know, none of the last few pages have anything to do with scientists predicting the pause in the broader warming trend before the meme got started.

If you see someone trying to go off in the weeds here, you don't HAVE to follow.

Hear hear!

 

[AirPo]

The religion of denial always requires fake conspiracies.

Projection, noting the belief in a pseudoscience that predicts future climate based on, well, nothing unless you count speculation

QED!

 

[MachZer0]

You were already shown the evidence that the models accurately reconstructed past climates. That is something. In fact, that is a lot. Ignore it all you want. The evidence is on our side.

You merely showed evidence that would convince believers, like preaching to the choir

 

[Loudmouth]

You merely showed evidence that would convince believers, like preaching to the choir

Yeah, those spectrophotometers are all believers that are fooled into thinking that carbon dioxide absorbs IR photons.

 

[MachZer0]

Yeah, those spectrophotometers are all believers that are fooled into thinking that carbon dioxide absorbs IR photons.

You forgot about actual climate change, which remains speculative

 

[Loudmouth]

You forgot about actual climate change, which remains speculative

Yes, the climate that has no choice but to warm due to an increase in gases that absorb IR. The only speculation going in this thread is when you will address the evidence that we have presented you.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, the climate that has no choice but to warm due to an increase in gases that absorb IR. The only speculation going in this thread is when you will address the evidence that we have presented you.

When that evidence actually demonstrates climate change/global warming that is man caused

 

[Loudmouth]

When that evidence actually demonstrates climate change/global warming that is man caused

That is the evidence we presented you. Can you at least address it?

 

[MachZer0]

That is the evidence we presented you. Can you at least address it?

I did. It doesn't support the case for global warming. It's just so much fear mongering looking to control people's behavior

 

[brewmama]

Add carbon dioxide to a sample atmosphere and watch the temperature go up. Simple experiment demonstrating the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide.

Yet you ignore all kinds of things, such as the fact that CO2 has a logarithmic effect and it does not correlate with actual temperatures.

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/7Temp2001-2008_lg.jpg

Also all the recent papers that show that CO2 has much less effect than previously thought

 

[Poptech]

Please quote where he claimed that he claimed there was "no such thing as science." Of course by the standard you've set we are expecting to see "that exact phrase."

I already quoted it, go look it up. I also suggest following the conversation which you were not a part of.

 

[Poptech]

Then they qualify. The problem for you is that they are in the extreme minority. As shown in the survey in a previous post, 90% of climatologists with 10 or more peer reviewed publications agree that AGW is real. That is the consensus.

No such valid survey exists nor has any such consensus been shown.

 

[Poptech]

We are beginning to think that your head has an impenetrable dome around it, given your inability to address the evidence.

I am responding to nonsensical statements made by others here. The Earth's atmosphere is not like a "greenhouse" as no such glass dome exists. So please do not use flawed analogies.

 

[Poptech]

Also all the recent papers that show that CO2 has much less effect than previously thought

All of those papers can be found here,

Climate Sensitivity

 

[USincognito]

It does? Please provide that definition from a dictionary using that exact phrase.

Yay! Metadebate over semantics and appeals to the dictionary. I forget, did tactics like these impress the folks on JREF forum or not?

 

[Poptech]

Yay! Metadebate over semantics and appeals to the dictionary. I forget, did tactics like these impress the folks on JREF forum or not?

Oh, I am sorry are you now attempting to fabricate the definitions of words on your own? Last I checked dictionaries existed so we could communicate properly with each other. If you are free to redefine words how you feel like, how is that communication supposed to happen?

 

[USincognito]

Oh, I am sorry are you now attempting to fabricate the definitions of words on your own?

Oh give us all a break The "show me exactly and verbatim in X source where it defines this phrase as Y" gambit is tired, transparent and frankly pathetic.

Science denier is does not have a long etymological history. It primarily is used to describe those who deny AGW or evolution. A simple Google search could have spared you all the high dudgeon.

Last I checked dictionaries existed so we could communicate properly with each other. If you are free to redefine words how you feel like, how is that communication supposed to happen?

You might want to check on how dictionaries work. They record the usage of words (much less so than phrases like "science denier") at the time the dictionary is being compiled.
Merriam-Webster Online

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

The answer is simple: usage.​

 

[MikeCarra]

Also all the recent papers that show that CO2 has much less effect than previously thought

So you are saying, to be technically correct here, that the climate sensitivity (that is the term you are looking for) is lower than 2-4.5degC/doubling?

But really, "ALL" of the recent papers? Or just a couple?

I'm fond of this graphic which shows multiple methods of estimation as well as the error bands for the estimation of climate sensitivity of CO2

(SOURCE Knutti and Hegerl, 2008, HERE)

Some papers from 2012, like Fasullo and Trenberth (HERE) indicate that with equilibrium climate sensitivities <3degC models tend to fit the observations worse.

What I was able to find about your claim of ever lowering climate sensitivity was mostly limited to the Lewis and Curry paper (HERE) from this month.

It is interesting that you would gladly throw out all the OTHER data in preference to one article (maybe two if you include Otto et al, 2013) and then call that one article "All the recent papers".

Interestingly enough Curry and Lewis actually falls within the IPCC range of climate sensitivity for CO2!

Lewis and Curry's range solidly overlaps IPCC. Not sure if this is worth all the excitement in the denialosphere, but OK.

Here's a bit of critique of the Lewis and Curry (HERE)

 

[MikeCarra]

You merely showed evidence that would convince believers, like preaching to the choir

Actually it's evidence that convinces people who understand what is being said.

A bit of a difference there.