Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Rifleman]

 

[BartW]

Science started becoming used as a political tool in the last few decades. When I went to college the progressives were just starting to kick into overdrive on the campuses and academia. Now, they are fully entrenched. There is nothing really great going on in science right now. Technology and medicine-yes. Pure science no. And, especially since Obama has pulled the rug out from under NASA. Look at NASA now. They're a joke. So, science started moving into the political arena to get its funding especially in areas of physical science like climate change and evolution research and also the social sciences. Look at all the great scientists wasting their lives being complicit with the UN's political agenda. Ridiculous. Do you actually think the UN has peoples' best interests at heart? Hell no.

Wow…

There’s nothing going on in science? All the money is being funneled to evolution and climate science? Scientists and the UN agenda? What… I don’t even… Man you have some crazy warped worldview. And a severe persecution complex. It’s not even funny anymore, I just feel bad for you. Especially after watching that thrashing in the God thread :ermm: I’ll stop piling on.

NASA’s funding may be down but hello, we did just land on a ****ing comet. Space science is as exciting as ever.

Also, on your notion the world is moving forward on the climate issue-you mean China? That is a joke.

The joke is on you. And it’s not just China. Chile just adopted a carbon tax. Denmark just committed to being 100% fossil fuel free (even transportation) by 2050. Most of the world has already or is currently moving forward on the climate issue.

 

[BartW]

Good call deleting that lulzy attack on Tetra Tech. I was smdh...

Did you know over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans?

Did you see where we broke all time ocean heat records six months in a row? Or that we've set several monthly records this year, and are on track for the yearly record in 2014 and likely 2015?

Did you see where your Nature article stated CFCs have contributed about 0.1 of the 1C global surface temperature rise? Do you want to answer any of my previous questions and actually dive into the details?

Have you ever heard that correlation =/= causation?

Are you here to stay or was that a drive-by? Eagerly awaiting your thoughts...

 

[Grand Vol]

NASA’s funding may be down but hello, we did just land on a ****ing comet. Space science is as exciting as ever.

That was actually the ESA that landed the probe on the comet...

Philae (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosetta (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sandvol]

Wow…

There’s nothing going on in science? All the money is being funneled to evolution and climate science? Scientists and the UN agenda? What… I don’t even… Man you have some crazy warped worldview. And a severe persecution complex. It’s not even funny anymore, I just feel bad for you. Especially after watching that thrashing in the God thread :ermm: I’ll stop piling on.

NASA’s funding may be down but hello, we did just land on a ****ing comet. Space science is as exciting as ever.

The joke is on you. And it’s not just China. Chile just adopted a carbon tax. Denmark just committed to being 100% fossil fuel free (even transportation) by 2050. Most of the world has already or is currently moving forward on the climate issue.

Wow, Chile and Denmark and all three of their industrial plants. What leaders.

 

[Sandvol]

Good call deleting that lulzy attack on Tetra Tech. I was smdh...

Did you know over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans?

Are you kidding? Wow.

Did you see where we broke all time ocean heat records six months in a row? Or that we've set several monthly records this year, and are on track for the yearly record in 2014 and likely 2015?

Wow, the oceans are going to boil. That's your schtick now since atmospheric temperature isn't tracking CO2. The oceans are going to boil.

Did you see where your Nature article stated CFCs have contributed about 0.1 of the 1C global surface temperature rise? Do you want to answer any of my previous questions and actually dive into the details?

Oh, you mean the same journal that publishes those articles about dinosaurs with feathers? Answer your questions? Even Tyndall said the effects from CO2 are negligible. Read his work.

Have you ever heard that correlation =/= causation?

I wish you'd learn that lesson.

Are you here to stay or was that a drive-by? Eagerly awaiting your thoughts...[/QUOTE]

 

[Sandvol]

Good call deleting that lulzy attack on Tetra Tech. I was smdh...

Did you know over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans?

Did you see where we broke all time ocean heat records six months in a row? Or that we've set several monthly records this year, and are on track for the yearly record in 2014 and likely 2015?

Did you see where your Nature article stated CFCs have contributed about 0.1 of the 1C global surface temperature rise? Do you want to answer any of my previous questions and actually dive into the details?

Have you ever heard that correlation =/= causation?

Are you here to stay or was that a drive-by? Eagerly awaiting your thoughts...

Let's see Bart, global ocean temperatures are rising, global CO2 is rising, global sea ice is rising, and global atmospheric temperatures have leveled. Something's not quite adding up.

 

[Rifleman]

Did you know over 90% of the heat from global warming goes into the oceans?

So the reason CO2 models don't match observed temperatures is because climate scientists did not incorporate the basic science of how the ocean absorbs CO2-induced heating in their models?

That is an astonishing charge. If true it would be far more damaging to your case and those scientists than anything the so-called deniers have ever posted here . . .

 

[KentheOrange]

I did not imply that CO2 killed off anything. Animals are not the only thing going extinct. Plant species are going extinct at a much higher rate from various factors, including deforestation and pollution. Eventually that will lead to even more animal extinction, and who really knows how many unidentified species have gone extinct.

The bold is a ridiculous statement.

You need to read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years is a book about climate change, written by Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, which asserts that natural changes, and not CO2 emissions, are the cause of Global Warming.

The response of climate scientists about the book - "Why are you messing with my funding?"

Why are you complaining about deforestation and pollution in a country that plants a tree for every one it cuts down and has reduced pollution possibly more than any other country during the past 25 years? You need to go preach in Brazil and China.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

@RyanMaue: Globally, November 2014 temperature was about 0.1°C less than November 2013.

.

 

[Rifleman]

Did you see where your Nature article stated CFCs have contributed about 0.1 of the 1C global surface temperature rise?

This Nature paper? Which states . . .

The warming of the climate system is unequivocal as evidenced by an increase in global temperatures by 0.8 °C over the past century. However, the attribution of the observed warming to human activities remains less clear, particularly because of the apparent slow-down in warming since the late 1990s.

(not sure where you get the 1C :lolabove: but it is wholly in character for you to inflate everything instead of honestly making your case, so it is to be expected)

. . . which also states . . .

The causes of the reduced growth rate of RFGHG are twofold: the reduction of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions and the pause in the growth rate of atmospheric methane.

and goes on to conclude . . .

The largest change occurred for CFC11, with a break in 1993 and 116% decrease in slope, reverting to a sustained decrease. The second in magnitude occurred for CFC12 with a break in 1995 and a 92.85% reduction in slope. These results provide clear evidence that the Montreal Protocol was successful in achieving global reductions in CFC emissions. Although not its objective, the reductions were large enough to have an impact on RFGHG, which slowed the increase in warming31. The third largest decrease occurred for CH4, with a break in 1992 and the slope decreasing 73.35%. The last component with a break in the 1990s is CO2 but it actually exhibits a 19.78% increase in slope in 1996. Hence, the evidence shows that the decrease in CFC11 and the reduced increase rate of CFC12 and CH4 are the main contributors to the decrease in the growth rate of TRF, despite the more rapid increase in CO2.

OK, what about it exactly, son? Because, it seems that you have not read the paper, yet.

Why don't you do that, or come up with some other nonsense reply. I'll come back in a few weeks and expose you for the fraud you are again . . . if I have time and it still amuses me.

 

[BartW]

Wow, Chile and Denmark and all three of their industrial plants. What leaders.

…and China, the United States, and the EU (the world’s three largest emitters), among many. You have to be blind not to see the momentum.

Oh, you mean the same journal that publishes those articles about dinosaurs with feathers? Answer your questions? Even Tyndall said the effects from CO2 are negligible. Read his work.

Citation please? I’m not engaging your nutty evolution talk here. If you have a problem with the Nature article take it up with Rifleman.

Let's see Bart, global ocean temperatures are rising [true], global CO2 is rising [true], global sea ice is rising [false], and global atmospheric temperatures have leveled [false]. Something's not quite adding up.

Maths is hard

 

[BartW]

So the reason CO2 models don't match observed temperatures is because climate scientists did not incorporate the basic science of how the ocean absorbs CO2 into these models?

That is an astonishing charge. If true it would be far more damaging to your case and those scientists than anything the so-called deniers have ever posted here . . .

Whooosh, that went over your head. One of the several reasons Lu’s argument is faulty is that he’s correlating CFCs with the surface temperature “pause” over the past decade. But short-term surface temperature fluctuations don’t reflect the global energy imbalance, which one can observe directly via spectroscopy (and is better reflected by ocean heat content).

This Nature paper? Which states . . .

(not sure where you get the 1C :lolabove: but it is wholly in character for you to inflate everything instead of honestly making your case, so it is to be expected)

. . . which also states . . .and goes on to conclude . . .

OK, what about it exactly, son? Because, it seems that you have not read the paper, yet.

Why don't you do that, or come up with some other nonsense reply. I'll come back in a few weeks and expose you for the fraud you are again . . . if I have time and it still amuses me.

From the Nature press release,
"Temperatures today might have been 0.1 °C warmer had CFC emissions continued unabated… CO2 remains still the main cause of global warming, says Estrada. But the effects of the Montreal Protocol on climate show that a similar international agreement could be effective against some of the other secondary greenhouse gases, he says."

So yes I misstated it: CFCs have not contributed 0.1C, they would have contributed an additional 0.1C if it were not for the Montreal Protocol. Lmao at your victory dance over the difference between 10% vs. 12.5%. Small victories, eh?

I don’t suppose you took a look at that list of papers on downward longwave radiation? Or the IPCC chapter? Direct observation confirms that CFC’s only contribute ~1/5 of the radiative forcing of CO2 and ~1/7 of the total positive anthropogenic forcings.

Farewell til the next drive-by

 

[BartW]

You need to read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years is a book about climate change, written by Siegfried Fred Singer

Case in point. Fred Singer is a proven science denier for hire. He started out shilling for big tobacco and has fought for corporate interests on everything from ETS to ozone to acid rain to global warming. Not an effective reference

He and Avery work together at the Heartland Institute, an ultra-conservative "thinktank" which also shilled for big tobacco and does fabulous advertising like this:

My suggestion to you is Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes

 

[BartW]

That was actually the ESA that landed the probe on the comet...

Philae (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosetta (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah yeah I didn't mean to imply it was NASA. I meant 'we' as in 'people' or 'the scientific community'. But since I'm a dual EU citizen I suppose your 'we' is technically also correct

 

[Sandvol]

case in point. Fred singer is a proven scientist. He started being concerned about the politicization of climate research that was absconded by the left in order to increase taxes.

He and avery work together at the heartland institute, an ultra-conservative "thinktank" which also defended big tobacco a legal product by the way and does fabulous advertising like this and if you don't believe me just ask wiki.

An Excellent Example of Truth in Advertising

my suggestion to you is merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists clarified issues from tobacco smoke to global warming but twisted by harvard science historian naomi oreskes

fyp

 

[Sandvol]

…and China, the United States, and the EU (the world’s three largest emitters), among many. You have to be blind not to see the momentum.

Citation please? I’m not engaging your nutty evolution talk here. If you have a problem with the Nature article take it up with Rifleman.

Maths is hard

Looks like it's rising to me.

 

[Sandvol]

…and China, the United States, and the EU (the world’s three largest emitters), among many. You have to be blind not to see the momentum.

Citation please? I’m not engaging your nutty evolution talk here. If you have a problem with the Nature article take it up with Rifleman.

Maths is hard

Yeah it is.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: 'Hiatus' in rise of Earth's surface air temperature likely temporary

 

[BartW]

fyp

I laughed.

Looks like it's rising to me.

You're not even trying anymore. NSIDC goes back to 1979.

 

[Rifleman]

Whooosh, that went over your head. One of the several reasons Lu’s argument is faulty is that he’s correlating CFCs with the surface temperature “pause” over the past decade. But short-term surface temperature fluctuations don’t reflect the global energy imbalance, which one can observe directly via spectroscopy (and is better reflected by ocean heat content).
From the Nature press release,
"Temperatures today might have been 0.1 °C warmer had CFC emissions continued unabated… CO2 remains still the main cause of global warming, says Estrada. But the effects of the Montreal Protocol on climate show that a similar international agreement could be effective against some of the other secondary greenhouse gases, he says."

So yes I misstated it: CFCs have not contributed 0.1C, they would have contributed an additional 0.1C if it were not for the Montreal Protocol. Lmao at your victory dance over the difference between 10% vs. 12.5%. Small victories, eh?

I don’t suppose you took a look at that list of papers on downward longwave radiation? Or the IPCC chapter? Direct observation confirms that CFC’s only contribute ~1/5 of the radiative forcing of CO2 and ~1/7 of the total positive anthropogenic forcings.

Farewell til the next drive-by

So I think the word you are looking for is "lied".

I know you are not very comfortable with the English language, or ethics apparently, but that is what we like to call it here when someone deliberately switches out numbers to make their case look better.

Obviously any victory over an intellect as limited and undisciplined as yours would be a small one.

 

[Rifleman]

Whooosh, that went over your head. One of the several reasons Lu’s argument is faulty is that he’s correlating CFCs with the surface temperature “pause” over the past decade. But short-term surface temperature fluctuations don’t reflect the global energy imbalance, which one can observe directly via spectroscopy (and is better reflected by ocean heat content).
From the Nature press release,
"Temperatures today might have been 0.1 °C warmer had CFC emissions continued unabated… CO2 remains still the main cause of global warming, says Estrada. But the effects of the Montreal Protocol on climate show that a similar international agreement could be effective against some of the other secondary greenhouse gases, he says."

So yes I misstated it: CFCs have not contributed 0.1C, they would have contributed an additional 0.1C if it were not for the Montreal Protocol. Lmao at your victory dance over the difference between 10% vs. 12.5%. Small victories, eh?

I don’t suppose you took a look at that list of papers on downward longwave radiation? Or the IPCC chapter? Direct observation confirms that CFC’s only contribute ~1/5 of the radiative forcing of CO2 and ~1/7 of the total positive anthropogenic forcings.

Farewell til the next drive-by

You are at least admitting now that the current predictive atmospheric temperature models are insufficiently complex, and that is all I am arguing. The IPCC and NOAA seem to agree with me on that, so I do not know why that is so threatening or offensive to your political agenda.

The weight of your orthodoxy is sadly constraining to your intellectual growth. To me, you are little different from those who reject Evolutionary Biology because of their misreading of Genesis. Of course, you are not the only American to suffer this constraint, and that is likely why very little interesting climate science is being produced in the United States.

It is also fun to see you now refer to a period of greater than a decade as "short-term surface temperature fluctuations".

In January, when you gleefully point out that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally for surface temperatures (it will be), I'm sure you will characterize that fact similarly.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes. Bart is this an Ah Oh moment?

Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice

I laughed.

You're not even trying anymore. NSIDC goes back to 1979.

maybe you missed this article and the one i posted a while back, that says we have factored in wrong amounts of sea ice. so your charts are probably off.

post #3901 or so for reference.

 

[Rifleman]

Direct observation confirms that CFC’s only contribute ~1/5 of the radiative forcing of CO2 and ~1/7 of the total positive anthropogenic forcings.

Farewell til the next drive-by

"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

CFCs have been regulated because their destructive effects in the upper atmosphere go way beyond radiative forcing.

I guess you are too young to remember this, but any school kid who took a science class or had a TV prior to 1990 could give you at least one additional way CFCs could increase warming.

Tearing holes in the Earth's protective shielding in the upper atmosphere over the most climatologically-sensitive areas of our planet causes myriad problems with myriad feedbacks.

This should be obvious. Further, I would think that you would be excited to see regulation of a greenhouse house leading to short-term cooling.

 

[Rifleman]

Direct observation confirms that CFC’s only contribute ~1/5 of the radiative forcing of CO2 and ~1/7 of the total positive anthropogenic forcings.

Farewell til the next drive-by

I have given you a paper from one of Earth's most respected journals which could not be more convincing on this subject, but your response was:

1) neglect to read the paper before commenting on it
2) lie about the contents of said paper
3) to say that the paper's conclusions are irrelevant because, because . . . the ocean wasn't considered in prior surface-temperature models
4) and to then refer to a lengthy period of deviation from your preferred model as "short-term surface temperature fluctuations"

If you do not understand at this juncture that your political blinders are causing you to lie not only to me but to yourself, there is no way I can help you into the light. Enjoy your political debate.

 

[Weezy]

If anyone really cared for carbon reductions, wouldn't the new EPA rule just say (Carbon emissions in future)/(Carbon emissions now)-1 must equal -XX%, as opposed to some 100 page rule that credits some things, but not others? A rule that I believe will work the opposite of it's stated purpose.