Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

You just keep spouting BS. You wanted an answer and you got it. So..you explain it to me. You fit the old saying " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance... baffle them with bull#@%t.

 

I had no idea that a student of global warming would have so much trouble with this. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is the fundamental basis of one's attitude toward the issue of global warming. To not have a belief based on some set of facts indicates an inability to formulate a fact based opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not an answer. Do your homework - I'm not going to do it for you.

 

So you still got nothing. You can't even answer your own question.

 

You don't like "may".

So, what word would you accept?

I seriously want to know, as this has a direct bearing on how science works.

 

One thing to note on the plot that is in the link that PC provided is that the CO2 concentration follows the temperature plots. As the temperature goes up the CO2 follows later in time and vice versa. That's a real buzz kill for the global warming alarmists.

- - - Updated - - -

No initiative or curiosity ??

 

Still got nothing I see.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

 

Let's go with it.

You're not getting into the spirit of the thing. Of course bad weather was caused by factors other than human CO2 emissions before the advent of industrial-scale emissions. My unfalsifiable statement was that bad weather is caused by human CO2 emissions. I.e., any bad weather that is observed now is caused by human CO2 emissions. And if you don't think anyone is saying that, you aren't paying attention to all the news coverage of bad weather.

Which example?

I don't know that that's a better example. Too many loosely defined terms.

Now you're catching on.

 

Unfortunately the 3 deg C cooling took place before the CO2 concentration decline (from the graph in your other link).

 

The "nothing" from your link is that the relationship of CO2 and temperature is reversed as Hoosier has been pointing out - you provided more evidence.

 

There are many things that affect climate. The main driver of warming now is increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

How do you explain the periods of cooling and stage temperatures with increasing CO2 concentration ?? What are the other drivers and what are their climate sensitivities ??

 

Here's the problem with that:

We have tens of thousands of scientists the world over working on this problem. They've come to a consensus on anthropogenic warming, even after years of trying to disprove it - disproving hypotheses being a primary job of scientists.

Now, we come along on this social board and try to stump each other with fun facts about the topic!

What possible sense does that make?

Why should I care if someone on this board can even understands the question (let alone answer it)???

Either way, it should be considered TOTALLY irrelevant.


What we need to be doing is improving our ability to use the scientific expertise of those who are specialists with far more experience and education. That doesn't mean we accept everything, but in this case in particular there is huge agreement and discounting the results just can't be justified - and certainly not on the basis of whether some social board poster knows "the answer" to some bit of trivia.

 

Trouble? .. what are you talking about? I answered your question very directly and very accurately.

 

My conclusions are based on the work of scientists. And that work indicates that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C. That work further indicates that global warming is net beneficial to the human race for increases of ~ 3 deg C which will not occur until more than 200 years from now. And that the energy policies imposed on the US economy by the Obama EPA will have zero effect on this warming but negative effects on the growth of the US economy. Also the negative effects of global warming will be felt regressively on third world countries. The best way for the developed countries to help these third world countries would be to provide foreign aid in the form of fossil fuel fired electric generation plants. Inexpensive and available (24/7/365) electrical energy is the primary driver of increases in economic growth, wealth creation, and increases in the standard of living. Again my conclusions are based on the work of scientists and engineers.

 

Well, it seems there are a few ways to read the above sentence. I admit I may not have understood your intended meaning. In the case of your clarification "any bad weather that is observed now is caused by human CO2 emissions", I would agree that that is unfalsifiable. It would be a horrible assertion to make. Alarmists and the media do make these types of claims regularly (you see any change in the weather linked to global warming by them). My point was that there are no climate scientists saying such things.

I'm not sure what you think is a loosely defined term here. Maybe you could clarify. The point of the example is that any and all possible dissention is pre-defined as being wrong.

I'm not totally sure why you put this comment. I have been pretty consistent in my view, starting back in post #2 of this thread. Maybe you meant this in a friendly agreement kinda way ... hard to tell sometimes.

But I'm not afraid to be very clear on my views. There are basically 4 different categories of people involved in the AGW discussions. The first two are the scientific people. They are the 'Proponents' and 'Skeptics". There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these two groups. Both groups fully base their stances on scientific evidence and can back up their claims when made. There is no 'agenda' to either side, other than of course the normal advancement of science and the 'make your fellow scientists look bad by proving them wrong'. Skeptics are a VERY important part of the scientific method.

The other two groups are the 'deniers' and the 'alarmists'. These two groups should be mocked and shunned. These are the politicians and bad news media, people with an agenda or purely following identity politics. I posted my thoughts on telling a 'denier' from a 'skeptic' up-thread. Those guidelines also follow for 'alarmists' and 'proponents'. Hopefully that is clear and direct enough .. and hopefully you would agree.

 

Again we see the inability of global warming alarmists to articulate why they are alarmed by defining the climate sensitivity of CO2 which is the basis for their alarm.

 

Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

 

The evidence is available - go find it. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

 

Alarmed? I answered your question very directly and very accurately. It is definitely not 1 deg C ... it is 3.271 deg C. You asked a question. I answered it.

 

It is apparent that you have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. <shrug>. Sorry again about that bar thing

 

So you are a believer in the consensus of climate models which cannot predict the past then. Why would anyone believe in the output of general circulation models ?? In the IPCC AR5 they have lowered the lower limit of the range of the climate sensitivity of CO2 down to 1.5 based on real world data analysis. This number is actually rounded up.

 

I've done my homework and developed fact based conclusions. And I use those to point out errors in alarmist global warming proclamations. Facts are useless and of no interest to faith based conclusions.

 

LOL ... who could have predicted this ... I answer your question and how many questions do you answer? ... rounding up, it's zero. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad none of that gets you over that darn bar thing that the real scientists use. Asserted without evidence = dismissed <shrug>