Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[eclipsenow]

And you obviously have zero understanding of just how serious 2 degrees will be, when we hit it, and what all that extra trapped energy will do. But, unfortunately, given the worlds' recalcitrance in dealing with this crisis, 2 degrees looks unlikely. It's more likely going to be 4 to 6 degrees by 2100, and you have no idea what that means, do you?

Thats BS your models will be proven wrong, we are not going up or down currently.

I'd love to mark your words and remind you of them in a few years time as the data becomes ever clearer, but you won't stick around to hear the truth, will you? Or admit you were wrong? Denialist's never stick around, they just run or drop out of conversations when the real world smacks down their 'beliefs' in a pile of data

I started this thread and yes I will stick around all my life till 2050 if needed to prove you and your models wrong.

Based on what, exactly? A feeling in your little toe?

The Sunspot cycle.

Do you deny the basic physics of what Co2 does?

 

[Greatcloud]

Are you a catastrophist or rather an alarmist ? I am a truther concerning climate change. I got straight A in science and keep up with all the general theories of climate change and the facts concerning weather or not it is going on at all.

 

[eclipsenow]

Are you a catastrophist or rather an alarmist ? I am a truther concerning climate change.

You didn't answer my question. You've said the sunspot cycle is responsible for global warming, which is false because our best peer-reviewed scientific studies on the sun show it has been calm for the last few decades and yet temperatures continue to rise. The 'sun did it' is a false meme that Denialists pick up and run with, oh-so-convinced because they heard it on Fox news or WUWT or some equally warped source.

So if the sun didn't do it, I was wondering what you actually new about Co2 (and other greenhouse gases)?

I was wondering if you've seen the candle demonstration which shows, to your naked eye, what Co2 actually does with heat? The demonstration starts at 90 seconds in but the whole video itself is well worth watching.

This Year's Model - YouTube

 

[Greatcloud]

You've said the sunspot cycle is responsible for global warming.

I never said that you misunderstand me. What I meant by that comment was that the Sunspot cycle is indicative of worldwide temperature change. Indicative not the cause and CO2 is a harmless gas that gets picked on far too much.

 

[RickG]

I got straight A in science and keep up with all the general theories of climate change and the facts concerning weather or not it is going on at all.

If you really kept up with "all the general theories of climate change", you would see that between 97% and 98% of all working climate scientists and published literature agrees that the planet is warming and it is due to anthropogenic causes (Anderegg 2010).

Every single National Academy of Science in the world has published statements recognizing that AGW is real and a serious problem. Have you ever tried to check up on the credibility of your sources? The Heartland Institute is not a credible scientific source, Anthony Watts is not a credible scientific source source, Fox News is not a credible scientific source, nor is the Discovery Institute.

 

[RickG]

You've said the sunspot cycle is responsible for global warming.

What I meant by that comment was that the Sunspot cycle is indicative of worldwide temperature change.

Really? Then why has the sunspot cycle decreased over the past 40 years while global average temperatures have risen sharply?

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

 

[Greatcloud]

My sources are Richard Lindzen and Solanki among other scientist they are the 3% to 5% of scientist who differ on the issue.

About your graph it is 2013 please show something from now not the past warming that we all know about.

 

[RickG]

My sources are Richard Lindzen and Solanki among other scientist they are the 3% to 5% of scientist who differ on the issue.

About your graph it is 2013 please show something from now not the past warming that we all know about.

1. Richard Lindzen does not deny GW. He differs on the value of "climate sensitivity". He has been shown where is wrong many times over. His calculations, as are Christy's and Spencer's, based on low latitudes which is far from representative of the entire planet.

2. Sami Solanki? Not a GW denier either. He's director of the Max Plank Institute

Are you getting your information directly from their published science or "quote mined" material, although Lindzen is a well known contrarian somewhat.

As for your last comment, just so you will know, 2012 was the warmest year in the contiguous United States on record. NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S. | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

NASA data (just out) shows that 2012 was Globally warmer than 2011 by 2 deg. C, and the 9th warmest temperature since 1880. That was in spite of a La Nina year.

NASA Press release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/
NASA Data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



But I know, you and your contrarian sources like to cherry pick data. Here's a graph that shows exactly how they do it, ignoring the over all trend.

 

[eclipsenow]

You've said the sunspot cycle is responsible for global warming.

I never said that you misunderstand me. What I meant by that comment was that the Sunspot cycle is indicative of worldwide temperature change. Indicative not the cause and CO2 is a harmless gas that gets picked on far too much.

Can you please learn to use the quote system when answering?

CO2 is a harmless gas that gets picked on far too much.

Says who? Did you watch the video I linked to which demonstrates the basic physics of what Co2 actually does?

"Harmless gas"... not so harmless if you end up in a room full of it hey? Watch the video. Scientists can demonstrate in repeatable tests just how much heat Co2 traps. Joseph Fourier discovered this something like 30 years before Karl Marx wrote his manifesto, so this isn't some 'lefty' conspiracy it's just basic physics.

 

[Greatcloud]

Can you please learn to use the quote system when answering?


Says who? Did you watch the video I linked to which demonstrates the basic physics of what Co2 actually does?

"Harmless gas"... not so harmless if you end up in a room full of it hey? Watch the video. Scientists can demonstrate in repeatable tests just how much heat Co2 traps. Joseph Fourier discovered this something like 30 years before Karl Marx wrote his manifesto, so this isn't some 'lefty' conspiracy it's just basic physics.

Yes I am using the quote system and I watched the video but any gas will do that. I know that it is not harmless in high concentrations.

Do you also know how very small a % percentage of the atmosphere co2 is. And the green house gas idea is not basic it is complicated. Physics is not my strong suit but I know about the Troposphere being unaffected by the co2 along the equator. I also know that there is no alarm needed for any catastrophy that is going to happen.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes I am using the quote system and I watched the video but any gas will do that.

Really? Who said any gas will do that?

I know that it is not harmless in high concentrations.

Really? Who said?

Do you also know how very small a % percentage of the atmosphere co2 is.

Yes, but there's this thing called the Radiative Forcing Equation that tells us how much extra heat will be trapped per TINY volume of Co2. Just because something is tiny doesn't mean it is lame. Think about how small computer chips are, or the ebola virus.

And the green house gas idea is not basic it is complicated.

Yes, but the basic driver behind it IS simple; we know what Co2 does, we've measured it in a lab, and we can calculate how much extra energy is stored in the atmosphere quite quickly and mathematically.

Physics is not my strong suit

neither is it mine.

but I know about the Troposphere being unaffected by the co2 along the equator.

You *know* this do you, or you choose to read Denialist blogs that just repeat whatever mantra and meme happens to be doing the rounds without referring to peer-reviewed literature?

I also know that there is no alarm needed for any catastrophy that is going to happen.

You 'know' this too do you? Without substituting one actual argument or real piece of data against the raw physics of Co2 you're going to assert something that ridiculous?

Nothing to see from GreatCloud, move along.

 

[RickG]

Yes I am using the quote system and I watched the video but any gas will do that. I know that it is not harmless in high concentrations.

I'll address toxicity later, but just so you know, in global warming we are not talking about toxicity. We are talking about the ability for a gas to absorb and hold heat. This is basic thermodynamics.

Do you also know how very small a % percentage of the atmosphere co2 is.

Yes I do, it is currently just over 390 ppmv. To express CO2 as a percentage is meaningless. Lets look at something to which you may be able to relate, medications. When we takes doses of prescription medications they are in units of milligrams. This is the same relative metric unit as parts per million (ppm). When a person takes that medication that milligram figure in relation to a persons body weight (atmosphere if you will) waters down to parts per billion (ppb) or even parts per trillion (ppt). To try to use a different unit of measure and pretend because it is small is deceptive and bordering on dishonesty. However, in your case, I truly believe you are just uneducated in chemistry, physics and thermodynamics and are therefore easily mislead yourself.

And the green house gas idea is not basic it is complicated.

Then I must wonder why you realize that but make light of it.

Physics is not my strong suit but I know about the Troposphere being unaffected by the co2 along the equator.

That is not true. Please provide a source to where you get that information. Also, again, you understand that physics take a part in understanding greenhouse gases, but you then go on to make a completely unsupported and incorrect statement concerning that physics.

I also know that there is no alarm needed for any catastrophy that is going to happen.

Do you not think that if over 97 percent of all published research world-wide says that there is a problem and that every single one of the National Academy's of Science world-wide express that concern that they just might know something? I just hope you are young enough to see how wrong you really are, but that is not what I wish to discuss here. Let's discuss the science.

 

[RickG]

About your graph it is 2013 please show something from now not the past warming that we all know about.

How about this, just posted by NOAA. (Bold emphasis mine)

The year 2012 was the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2012.

La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affect weather patterns around the globe, was present during the first three months of 2012. The weak-to-moderate La Niña dissipated in the spring and was replaced by ENSO-neutral conditions for the remainder of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2012 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year; 2011 was the previous warmest La Niña year on record.

(source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13)

 

[Greatcloud]

RickG , I don't think the global temperature will ever go up to 2 degrees F like the models say we should be up to now. The model are not right and we will see more static temperatures IMO.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you really kept up with "all the general theories of climate change", you would see that between 97% and 98% of all working climate scientists and published literature agrees that the planet is warming and it is due to anthropogenic causes.

Not exactly. You are implying that each climate scientist came to the same conclusions independently. That is not the case. Your information is nothing more than saying that 97% of the senate voted for a bill, but in this case they had 100's of "signatures" to boost their pride and ego before they signed on.

More likely they agreed to be part of the mob of people they otherwise admired. Some of the superstars of science signed a paper and they said is was OK.

But,
are anthropogenic causes in addition to natural causes? Are there natural components? And here's one: could human factors be triggering a natural component? Is it possible that the trigger has already been pulled and the bullet cannot be recalled?

Plain and simple, only the last 1000 years have been mild. Human effects are just small jiggle. If your going to believe the scientists then it would be better to gather all the energy we can find to cope with the stormy weather. Global warming is not going to end humanity. Global cooling could make for big changes. Crops don't like snow much.

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/02/global-warming-or-cooling-depends-where-you-start-on-the-graph.html

 

[eclipsenow]

RickG , I don't think the global temperature will ever go up to 2 degrees F like the models say we should be up to now. The model are not right and we will see more static temperatures IMO.

You don't think.... well, that's it then. We'll pack up our bags and go home. You don't think it's going to happen, so that settles it, hey?

Dude, when are you going to learn that mere assertion doesn't really make an argument; facts and data and logic are all required.

For example: what if I countered your post above with:

Greatcloud, I do think the global temperature will go way above 2 degrees like the models say we will be up to soon. The models are all correct and we will see higher temperatures IMO.

 

[eclipsenow]

Not exactly. You are implying that each climate scientist came to the same conclusions independently. That is not the case. Your information is nothing more than saying that 97% of the senate voted for a bill, but in this case they had 100's of "signatures" to boost their pride and ego before they signed on.

More likely they agreed to be part of the mob of people they otherwise admired. Some of the superstars of science signed a paper and they said is was OK.

Evidence for this attack on the character of climate scientists is required. This is slander. You need to back up wild claims with data.

But,
are anthropogenic causes in addition to natural causes? Are there natural components? And here's one: could human factors be triggering a natural component? Is it possible that the trigger has already been pulled and the bullet cannot be recalled?

We've taken the trace gas of Co2 from 250ppm pre industrial revolution to 390ish soon. Which part of the raw physics of the Radiative Forcing Equation do you disagree with?

But yes, even at today's concentrations the climate is starting to accelerate the warming all on its own. Nature is starting to release more Co2!

Plain and simple, only the last 1000 years have been mild.

Add another zero and you might be correct. We're talking about long term climate stability, not tiny perturbations like the 'little ice age' or stuff like that.

Human effects are just small jiggle.

Scientific evidence, or is this just your opinion?

If your going to believe the scientists

Who else are you going to believe on questions of science? Astrologers? Magicians? Denialists who say what you want them to say?

then it would be better to gather all the energy we can find to cope with the stormy weather. Global warming is not going to end humanity. Global cooling could make for big changes. Crops don't like snow much.

So I take it you believe the Denialists when they say it is going to be cooling sometimes soon? False. According to the peer-reviewed climate science, we've already cancelled the next ice age with our climate altering efforts. Really, you need to make up your mind. Have mankind's efforts fired a 'global warming gun' or not? Have we triggered an even larger warming phase as natural feedbacks take over, or not? Or are you saying we haven't pulled the trigger yet, and the bullet has not escaped, and that all our efforts amount to nothing and we're heading into an ice age soon?

Your post is not only incorrect on a number of points of fact, but is self-contradictory. I think you need to slow down, take a deep breath, and read some more actual climate science.

 

[RickG]

RickG , I don't think the global temperature will ever go up to 2 degrees F like the models say we should be up to now. The model are not right and we will see more static temperatures IMO.

Actually, the models have under predicted almost everything. Try again.

 

[Greatcloud]

Actually, the models have under predicted almost everything. Try again.

When do the models predict we will be at 2 degrees F. Models I have seen had us at 2 degrees above average by this year, 2013.

 

[Greatcloud]

You don't think.... well, that's it then. We'll pack up our bags and go home. You don't think it's going to happen, so that settles it, hey?

Dude, when are you going to learn that mere assertion doesn't really make an argument; facts and data and logic are all required.

For example: what if I countered your post above with:

Greatcloud, I do think the global temperature will go way above 2 degrees like the models say we will be up to soon. The models are all correct and we will see higher temperatures IMO.

If you did counter with that then we could have a polite discussion which would be just fine.

You want me to rephrase it though using facts OK: We are currently at 1.2or3 degrees above normal (average) so just when do we go over two degrees ? Some models have us being up at two degrees or more by now ,2013. Those models are wrong.

I understand the Global temperature graph and climate change but until we reach even 1.5 don't consider it to be a radical climate change. As long as we continue to swing radically back and forth from normal to 1.3 it is not a warming or not much to speak of.