Global Earth Denial - Discuss

[nwdiver]

Coward

So what's causing the warming? Cosmic Rays that we somehow cannot detect but are also heating the atmosphere?

 

[nwdiver]

There is warming, no doubt.

So.... why are you casting doubt that there's warming??????

So by that graph the sea ice extent is the same as it was on this date in 2012? Kudos to you sir

So arctic sea ice extent is unchanged over the past 7 years, even while CO2 has gone up from 400 to 415? Oh wait.............

Wait, how did this happen last summer?
Arctic fox astounds scientists by trekking 2,176 miles in 76 days — from Norway to Canada

What's causing it? I'll let you attempt to get your story straight.....

 

[nwdiver]

Couple of points to unpack.

#1. The amount of CO2 humans add each year to the atmosphere is real but small compared to natural emissions. CAGW theory makes the (incorrect) assumption that natural emissions and adsorption are always in balance. So then any increase is by default caused by humans.
#2 I do accept that CO2 has a small warming effect. The effect is more pronounced when going from lower levels like 300ppm to 400ppm. The effect gets smaller as the concentration increases. In other words going from 400ppm to 500ppm will cause less warming than 300-400ppm.. This is well understood. But observed ECS has been calculated to be much smaller than that predicted by IPCC and the climate models. Why is that?
#3 Probably because: Forcings do not equal warming. The earths climate is dynamic, chaotic, and has multiple feedbacks all tending towards equilibrium. Just one example: increased CO2 causes greening of earth, and therefor higher carbon sequestration.
#4 Another assumption CAGW adherents makes is that any warming above some magical number they pick is defacto harmful. It may very well be that the CO2 humans pump into the air has warmed us 1C or so, but that that warming is net beneficial vs harmful. And since the Earth is due for another cold period/ice age, that 1-2 C may actually help mitigate some of that cold. Cold is much more difficult for terrestrial creatures to deal with than warmth.

When I was in school a lot of the stuff they taught me turned out to be proven wrong years later. That led to a lot of critical thinking on my part.

I appreciate your debating on the merits of the arguments instead of attacking the messenger. That sharpens both sides of a debate is is really the only way to gain understanding of complex issues.

*sigh*

#1 NO.... Anthropogenic emissions are ~100% of the rise. The fact that they're a small fraction of the natural exchange is irrelevant. The best analogy I've seen to explain this is the train station analogy. You have a train platform in which 100 people arrive and 100 people depart every 10 minutes (because the train can only accept ~100 people). Now 103 people are arriving. The train platform is going to get crowded... those 3 extra people are not 3% of the cause of crowding. They're 100% of the cause.

#2 You're ignoring other feedbacks that begin to kick in like albedo and H2O. The tiny increase in warming from Earth orbital shifts is also limited but it causes an increase in CO2 which further amplifies warming. There are tipping points at each level which accelerate warming. CO2 from 400 => 450 may have a smaller effect that 350 => 400 but the decreased ice cover BECAUSE CO2 is now 450 means that the OVERALL effect is greater.

#3 Forcings DO equal warming overall. It's buried in chaos but 1w/m^2 more is 1w/m^2. It's physics. CO2 levels are still rising.... obviously any increased sequestration is being overwhelmed.

#4 CO2 drives glacial periods. If CO2 is >300ppm a glacial period is physically impossible absent a large injection of SO2.

What percentage of the observed warming is caused by CO2? If it's not ~100%... what's causing it? Like you stated we should be in a cooling trend.....

 

[Swampgator]

*sigh*

#1 NO.... Anthropogenic emissions are ~100% of the rise. The fact that they're a small fraction of the natural exchange is irrelevant. The best analogy I've seen to explain this is the train station analogy. You have a train platform in which 100 people arrive and 100 people depart every 10 minutes (because the train can only accept ~100 people). Now 103 people are arriving. The train platform is going to get crowded... those 3 extra people are not 3% of the cause of crowding. They're 100% of the cause.

Even IPCC does not agree with you on that. Pretty extreme position, but OK.

#2 You're ignoring other feedbacks that begin to kick in like albedo and H2O. The tiny increase in warming from Earth orbital shifts is also limited but it causes an increase in CO2 which further amplifies warming. There are tipping points at each level which accelerate warming. CO2 from 400 => 450 may have a smaller effect that 350 => 400 but the decreased ice cover BECAUSE CO2 is now 450 means that the OVERALL effect is greater.

I was not ingroning it. Albedo is a tricky subject. Water vapor as you know is am much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. But clouds can both warm and cool the surface, and we have no good models that can even explain water vapor cycles. IPCC just ignores them.

#3 Forcings DO equal warming overall. It's buried in chaos but 1w/m^2 more is 1w/m^2. It's physics. CO2 levels are still rising.... obviously any increased sequestration is being overwhelmed.

That physics your side like to use does not describe a complex system. Only one aspect of it.

#4 CO2 drives glacial periods. If CO2 is >300ppm a glacial period is physically impossible absent a large injection of SO2.

This statement is just completly wrong. The earth experienced major Ice ages in the past (carboniferous and late ordovinian) when CO2 levels were well about 2000ppm

What percentage of the observed warming is caused by CO2? If it's not ~100%... what's causing it? Like you stated we should be in a cooling trend.....

Well, IPCC is pretty confident that we have caused at least half of it. I don't believe that myself, but OK, let say that is true. Since 1880 the GMT has gone up by 0.8 C, that means that natural variation caused a little less than 0.4 C, and we caused a little more than 0.4 C. Another way to state this: Without any contributions from man (CO2) the GMT went up ~0.4 C. What is your explanation for that rise?

 

[nwdiver]

Even IPCC does not agree with you on that. Pretty extreme position, but OK.

Source? We're emitting >35B tons per year. By mass that's ~2x the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. I'd love to see the context of what you're claiming....

I was not ingroning it. Albedo is a tricky subject. Water vapor as you know is am much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. But clouds can both warm and cool the surface, and we have no good models that can even explain water vapor cycles. IPCC just ignores them.

No... there have been several studies concerning clouds. The net effect is warming.

That physics your side like to use does not describe a complex system. Only one aspect of it.
This statement is just completly wrong. The earth experienced major Ice ages in the past (carboniferous and late ordovinian) when CO2 levels were well about 2000ppm

The sun was also ~15% dimmer ~500M years ago. LOL; I love how you reject Ice Core evidence that only has resolution of centuries because it doesn't support your narrative but cling to climate data that at best has ~1M year resolution.... turns out that a dip in CO2 levels is also suspected as a cause of those Ice Ages but the evidence is not as strong because.... it was ~500M years ago.

Well, IPCC is pretty confident that we have caused at least half of it. I don't believe that myself, but OK, let say that is true. Since 1880 the GMT has gone up by 0.8 C, that means that natural variation caused a little less than 0.4 C, and we caused a little more than 0.4 C. Another way to state this: Without any contributions from man (CO2) the GMT went up ~0.4 C. What is your explanation for that rise?

..... those are the error bars. The IPCC is very conservative in their pronouncements. They've claimed that they have 95% confidence that we are responsible for AT LEAST half of observed warming. And yes.... what could possibly be responsible for the other half? Like you said... we should be in a cooling trend. The most plausible explanation is that we're responsible for ~100% of the observed warming. There are no other credible hypothesis.....

 

[S'toon]

Man Threatened With Crossbow After Bet That The Earth Is Flat Gets Out Of Hand

 

[mspohr]

Man Threatened With Crossbow After Bet That The Earth Is Flat Gets Out Of Hand

Hard for some to accept reality.

 

[nwdiver]

There is no climate change

It was 108F in Seattle, Europe was just hit by a statically impossible rainfall event, a Tropical Cyclone became a near CAT 5 in ~2 days and the oceans have been measured to be absorbing ~exactly as much energy as radiative forcing models predict. Seriously..... what evidence is left????? I mean.... denial now is just pathetic levels of willful ignorance and/or stupidity.

What evidence would convince you?