Press: The party of climate change denial

No. That is incorrect. If it was taught in first year courses more than a decade ago, you can be pretty sure that scientistscwere looking at it befire then.

your problem is you think of everything in terms of black/white, either/or.

that is why you don't understand complex issues.

 

Evidently you have not been keeping up with what is going on in the science community. There are now over 50 explanations for the pause. Natural variability has just entered into the fray because of the hiatus. The IPCC has lowered it's CO2 sensitivity this last report. The climate-gate emails showed that it was becoming a problem for the alarmists.

The problem that the warmists have is particularly trying to simplify a wicked system. Read my sig. This is what you are doing.

 

Yet the science is settled... Just ask the Climatologists!

Yet the science is settled...

We sure would understand more if the climate community stopped doing everything in their power to shut down studies and authors who disagree with them.

If they can negate CO2, then CO2 must be 50% or less of the warming, and we have a perfect set of cancelling variables for almost 2 decades now...

Do you seriously believe that?

It is well believed to be understood by climastrologists. If they state with factual intent, it is known, then they are full of horse pucky.

And the more they find ways to disregard the natural cycles.

Correlation may imply causation, but it does not mean it is fact.

Ever see the pirates and global warming graph?

 

Of course I do. Take one planet, add 120 ppm of CO2, and see what happens to temperature. Here are the results:

 

And since we has 278 ppm in the atmosphere, the sun has increased in TSI by an excess of 0.15%, probably around 0.25%.

 

And you should learn how to use Web of Science, or Google Scholar. Those references are not hard to find.

You were. I said that Milankovitch cycles were triggering events, but that the main driver for glaciations and deglaciations were albedo feedback and CO2 feedback. You disputed that, so you were arguing about albedo feedback.

If you're no longer arguing about albedo feedback, then I consider the point made and fairly won.

No, you've misunderstood my point. Milankovitch cycles are triggering events that have a rather small effect in an of themselves. But that effect is magnified by positive feedbacks in the climate system. Two of those feedbacks are albedo feedback and CO2 feedback, which have very large climatological effects. Like all positive feedbacks, they need a nudge to get them going, but once they've started, they feed back on themselves to make greater and greater warming (or cooling). Milankovitch cycles are the triggering events that start those feedback loops, but they are not the biggest forcing agents. They are the pebble that starts the landslide, but they are not the boulder that crushes the house below.

So yes, Milankovitch cycles are cooling the planet right now. And that small cooling effect is being totally overwhelmed by the vastly greater warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Which is why things are getting warmer.

You posted a graph on which the dramatic shift of the Younger Dryas was clearly marked, and you said of that graph, that you posted, "There have been many times where dramatic shifts happened over just a few decades, and we don't exactly know what caused it."

I drew a logical conclusion that the Younger Dryas was in fact what you were talking about.

If you consider that to be a really good argument, then perhaps you would care to inject 1 ppm of botulinun toxin into your body, and tell us all what a tiny effect it has. Or perhaps you can get your widow to tell us for you.

In the real world, sometimes tiny things can have very large effects. CO[sub]2[/sub] is one of those.

 

the science community HAS NOT screwed itself wrt CO2 alarmism. There may be some individuals who have overstated some things, although more often than not is the media reporting of what these individuals have said that is the real overstating of the issue.

 

natural variability has JUST entered the fray? Really?

So why was natural variability taught to first year students as having significant impacts on climate more than ten years ago?

 

yes, the science IS settled. Only in black and white world does that mean there is nothing more to learn.

the rest of your post smacks of conspiracy theory ... in fact ... denialism these days is primarily informed by conspiacy theories ... there isn't anything else you can rely on!

 

CO2 reached 280 ppmv in 1771, according to the DML ice core record. At that time, smoothed TSI (from SATIRE) was 1360.886 W/m². Current smoothed TSI from SATIRE is 1360.822, which is not only almost exactly the same value, it's actually lower than it was in 1771.

Using the older SORCE dataset, smoothed TSI in 1771 was 1360.771, compared to the current smoothed value of 1360.856, a scant difference of .085 W/m². After applying corrections for albedo (x .7) and sphericity of the Earth (x .25), the climatological effect of that is less than .015 W/m². Meanwhile CO2 during the same period rose 120 ppmv, giving a climatological forcing of 1.86 W/m², some 125 times greater than the solar effect.

Got any other ideas?

 

The only denial is the denial that the science is settled while the alarmists crow it is. So if that is the case, then I am certainly a 'denialist'.

The real denial are those claiming the science is settled when that is so far from the truth you can't see it from your porch.

If you keep up with the science, the more they learn, the more questions are raised. When observational science keeps falsifying the modeled science that all the alarmism is based on, you should get a clue.

 

I should learn how to Google stuff because you don't know how to post a link?

I never discussed feedbacks at all, that is your argument that you have not proved. If you want to declare a victory, go ahead. I'm the King of Siam.

Only an idiot would not be able to make complete sense out of that oxymoronic doublespeak. [/sarc]

A very logical conclusion on your part if in fact the word "many" means "one event". Also, the pro-AGW professor on the video, if you had taken the time to watch it, spoke directly about that graph, explaining as I had that there had been many such dramatic shifts, that they didn't know why, and they weren't caused by CO2. Then he said, "Or maybe they were". I got that graph from the video.

This too would be a very valid argument as well if CO2 was A - a living organism and not a naturally occurring atmospheric gas; and B could reproduce itself. Otherwise, it's a completely ignorant comparison.

 

observational science does not falsify the model. If your observational science is the view from Your back porch however, I can understand your confusion. You could read scientific american to find out why.

 

LOL, so the fact that the observed temperature now falls outside of all of the models doesn't falsify them? Go figure.

Sorry, but I will pay attention to what is going on in the science instead of relying on a magazine that has had some problems with bias.

 

Models.

Which ones are you referring to?

bias.

Ok. Give me an biased source that explians warming is not occurring, and has not occurred for the last couple of decades.

 

The models all this alarmism is based on. The observational temperature record is all you need to know it is not warming. If you have paid any attention to what is going on in the science you would know that it is widely understood that the 'hiatus' has caused a lot of consternation in the AGW community (except for a few forum members).

 

Ok. Give me a good, reliable source that discussesvthis continuing hiatus.

If you do not have a source .... never mind. I understand that there are lots of reasons people cling to myths, so I won't hold it against you.

 

Wow...

I think you need to look up the definition of conspiracy...

You want to imply conspiracy? What do you call it when it is explicitly pointed out when energy companies fund unliked studies?

 

If you use the average of all studies, the TSI between 1750 to 2005 was around 0.2%. Now if you take them farther back to 1700, the increase is even higher yet. Since most reasonable papers take around a two cycle average, the numbers used in the AR5 don't matter for a few years yet. As for cherry picking one study, among the lowest... Not good. It isn't necessarily right.

As for sensitivity, a recent study that actually reevaluated CO2 instead of using past 40 year old studies and put CO2 at a 0.43 degree sensitivity for doubling. If I recall, a it gave a 0.2 degree increase for solar increasing by 0.1%.

You shouldn't take any particular study as gospel. The truth is anywhere within the several studies done.

 

sweetie, I thought by now you denialists would be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledging that AGW is real.

guess I was wrong about that ...the rest of the world has moved on but you guys still cling to cherrypicked data, inflating the importance of anything that demonstrates other causes of warming ... and using "information" that could once have been admired for its creativity, but now sounds like a broken record.

why is that?

The answer may be quite simple. One of the main causes of irrational behaviour is how much time and effort we invest in believing something that is erroneous. You guys have put a lot of effort into this stuff for years. You are committed to it. It has become such a part of you that to let go would be like some form of intellectual death.

alternatively, you may get paid to post for all I know! ?.. that would maybe be the only rational reason to keep pushing this rubbish up a very steep, and increasingly steeper, incline.

 

1. Citations please.
2. Even 0.2% of 1360 is 2.72 Watts per square meter, which after correction for albedo and sphericity becomes a climatological 0.476 Watts per square meter: still far, far below CO2 forcing. You're beating a dead horse.

No doubt that if you go back beyond the era of fossil fuel burning, climate forcing was predominantly solar. But that's not really the question, is it? The question is, what's causing the current warming trend.

Not really understanding what you're saying here. When did AR5 come into it? It is entirely possible to smooth data to the end of the series, if you use appropriate smoothing techniques. That's why I suggested earlier that you use Loess.

You will note that I did not "cherry pick" a single study, I used two different sources, one of which was specifically endorsed by you in an earlier post. And it's not necessarily right to use old and obsolete studies either.

That's so far off base it must be wrong. The basic physics of water implies a feedbackless sensitivity of 1.1 C per doubling, and feedbacks are predominantly positive, which will raise that considerably. The solar sensitivity you cite is also way too high, by about a factor of 2. Do you have a citation?

And neither should you. That's why we have an IPCC report, to synthesize numerous studies. So why don't you believe that either?

By the way, I want to offer you my general approval of this post. You're thinking quantitatively and scientifically, and you've raised your game. Keep up the good work.

 

Project much? The politics haven't changed and that is what you are immersed in. The AGW science is evolving and has been dragged kicking and screaming to realize some of what skeptics have been saying all along.

- - - Updated - - -

The IPCC is a politically organized report writing organization funded by government. It has a defined outcome if the funding is to continue.

 

There is a reason why you would get a failing grade at university if you submitted a video instead of an assignment (unless of course you were studying drama)

Science is built on showing evidence and matching existing evidence to support a conclusion. That also means there has to be transparency and the evidence has to come from some valid source - hence referencing. There are bloody few well referenced videos - especially on you tube which is open for any twonk with a webcam to post an opinion

 

This too would be a logical argument if PoliticalForum were a university class. Which is not to say you can't get an education here, if you are interested enough to click on links, watch in-bedded videos, or actually read posts to understand a point of view. The video I posted was of a twonk university professor who was conducting a university course.

I am not building science here and neither are you. What scientific discoveries were ever made on an internet forum or searching Google? Honestly, the pretentiousness, self-importance and lack of self awareness of some posters is stupifying. Most posts get maybe 100 views.

I think I deserve an "A" for pointing this out to you.

 

Sweetie, how about you look at the AAAS website. They have an excellent resource there called 'what we know' They acknowledge that many lay people still think the science isn't decided ... so they will help clear that up.

of course if you think the AAAS and every other major scientific body around the world are all in on a conspiracy to make you ride pushbikes ... carry on with your sad little illusions.