Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species?

[DMC]

@doorhinge

The IPCC and agw camp seem to have a credibility problem convincing the public that global warming is currently occuring. The most recent 15 years seem to indicate that the global temp has plateaued. The IPCC and agw camp are busy trying to explain why the Earth’s actual temperature so cruelly betrayed the IPCC guesstimations.

Actually, they don’t really need to as it’s still increasing. You said:

[QUOTE=doorhinge]
According to hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl, the most recent 15 years show there is a plateau (my description) or pause (the agw believers choice because that implies that global warming has only paused in it’s upward trend). Since I was discussing the most recent 15 year plateau/pause, in this specific instance, a 25, 60, or 1000 year chart would be valid because the most recent 15 year readings of hadcrut4gl or the most recent 15 year readings of hadsst3gl would show the same temperature readings regardless of the overall timeframe of the chart. Unless you believe that hadsst3gl uses different readings based on the charts timeframe?
[/QUOTE]
when in fact, we have set several records in that timeframe as shown in the data that you thought was making your point for you. In the last 15 years, we have set 3 records for highest recorded global temperature of all time. How exactly does this make the IPCC lose credibility?

[Chief_Pedant]

@wolfpup

Mercifully, a relative economy of words will suffice here as the answer to that covers many other points.

The answer is “no”, and that question is a misinterpretation of the nature and purpose of the document I linked, which is not a “paper” but a policy statement and an urgent call to action with respect to specific actions that are needed to mitigate AGW. It specifically references the assessments of the IPCC, which itself is just a reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge, and those who are interested in the details about the impacts of climate change can find them in abundance in the IPCC Working Group II assessments (of which a new report will be issued next month as part of the Fifth Assessment series) and of course throughout the literature.

Let’s remember that this statement represents the consensus of the world’s major national science bodies, and is far from the only such policy statement. Similar statements have been issued before by the US National Academy of Sciences and such organizations as the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the American Physical Society, the National Intelligence Council, and literally countless others. It is astounding to me that anyone could believe that there is any credible basis for contradicting this kind of scientific consensus based on such denialist canards as “science can be wrong” or, with all respect, an entirely specious armchair analysis of the psychology of human belief systems.

I have read much of that IPCC report. Here’s a typical sample, which I picked at random (really):

*"*1.3.3.4 Summary of coastal processes and zones **
In many coastal regions, particularly in subsiding regions, local sea-level rise exceeds the 20th century global trend of 1.7 to 1.8 mm/yr. Sea-level rise, enhanced wave heights, and increased intensity of storms are affecting some coastal regions distant from human modification, e.g., polar areas and barrier beaches, mainly through coastal erosion. Coastal erosion and losses of wetlands are widespread problems today, under current rates of sea-level rise, although these are largely caused by anthropogenic modification of the shoreline.
1.3.4 Marine and freshwater biological systems
The marine pelagic realm occupies 70% of the planetary surface and plays a fundamental role in modulating the global environment via climate regulation and biogeochemical cycling (Legendre and Rivkin, 2002). Perhaps equally important to global climate change, in terms of modifying the biology of the oceans, is the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the pH of the oceans, which will affect the process of calcification for some marine organisms (Feely et al., 2004), but effects of this are as yet undocumented. Other driving forces of change that are operative in marine and freshwater biological systems are over-fishing and pollution from terrestrial runoff (from deforestation, agriculture and urban development) and atmospheric deposition, and human introduction of non-native species.
Observational changes in marine and freshwater environments associated with climate change should be considered against the background of natural variation on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. While many of the biological responses have been associated with rising temperatures, distinguishing the effects of climate change embedded in natural modes of variability such as ENSO and the NAO is challenging."

Now I don’t read that and say, OMG, the problem is CO2. Do you?

I read that a major cause of coastal erosion and loss of wetlands (which is profound) under current rates of sea-level rise is anthropogenic modification of the shoreline. In other areas, particularly where land is subsiding (duh!), there are erosion issues. It is claimed that “increased intensity of storms” is one cause, with minimal evidence (for example, see a hurricane ACE chart for the last 100 years as a proxy gauge). Ocean acidification has an undetermined outcome. Over-fishing, pollution, and various other anthropogenic detriments are significant and make distinguishing climate change variables difficult. (In point of fact, the last couple sentences are a reminder that CO2 is pretty far down the list of items trashing shoreline ecology.)

I’m good with all that, and I’d say that’s fairly representative language of thoughtful people saying: “We think there’s a problem with excess CO2. We’re not sure how bad it’s gonna be. We find it very difficult, when push comes to shove, to tell you what’s going to happen and how it would rank against the other things that are wrecking the earth currently.”

But when an Alarmist (and God protect us from the Deniers; I’m not defending them, but that’s a different thread) gets hold of this kind of document, their takeaway is Oh My God Let’s Focus on Carbon Dioxide.

And we are just lousy at predicting the future. WRT CO2 in particular, all by its lonesome it has become this Great Cause somehow overwhelming all the other ways we are trashing the earth. We’re going to overfish and deplete our oceans to the point where no one will give a rat’s ass if they are acidified. In the name of CO2 panic, we (well Germany, at least) are going to drive out nuclear, spend a gazillion on solar, burn up forest wood, and feel like we’ve Done Something. Meantime shorelines will continue to be trashed by the non-CO2 issues mentioned in the IPCC report.

If you look through the language of all of these documents–scientific or lay–what you see is that almost everyone who gets sucked into the AGW maw begins to see the world through a very narrow lens. I assure you that human psychology is a substantial player in approaching, analyzing, reporting and ranking of the way we approach the world every day. It becomes very easy to move from “There is scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is moving the climate to a warmer average,” to “There is scientific evidence that a warmer climate creates a net disastrous outcome such that mitigating it should be ranked at the top of our concerns.” The first statement is reasonable. The second is incredibly speculative and promulgated in large part because of our psychological addiction to prophecies of Doom.

When all you have is an ACC lens, every prediction is for disaster, and everything looks like it was (and will be) precipitated by excess CO2.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

That is nice, but I was and continue to talk about the current consensus, the point stands, you tried to make it sound like if the consensus was doom, that consensus will not do for the bias you have. So it has to be minimized by contrarians like you.

And you do it with a non-scientific article that does minimize the conclusions of Emmanuel himself. One mayor point I do make is that popular media is just about the last place to get information from, or I should say, the spin. As Science writer Peter Hadfield explained many times before, you need to check the source, more often you will find that the spin omits important information, and popular media gets a lot of the science wrong.

I have such problems figuring out what you are saying, and I apologize deeply for that.

There is no evidence whatsoever that hurricanes are worsening by any measure. I gave you a number of links in support of that.

I’m delighted the “consensus” is not Doom, but I beg to differ with you if you want to suggest that there is no putative link to ACC intimated whenever a big storm shows up.

You will recall that I not only cited the link to Emanuel’s paper from last summer; I quoted from the abstract. Here’s the salient line:
“In contrast to storms that appear explicitly in most global models, the frequency of downscaled tropical cyclones increases during the 21st century in most locations.”
(Referring to his modeling of future hurricanes based on CMIP5 models.)

I am apologetically utterly clueless how the MJ article “minimized the conclusions of Emanuel himself.” It would appear to me they maximized them: HURRICANES WILL NOT ONLY GET WORSE THEY WILL ALSO BE MORE FREQUENT! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Emanuel himself may have minimized his conclusion in the body of his paper, but that’s how all papers are written. Put the good stuff in the abstract and throw in some disclaimers just to remind everyone it’s a tentative conclusion subject to the usual yada yada yada.

I may be offline for a bit, btw. Actual work (sob) may distract me over the next 10 days. But I’ll be back when I can opening up a debate on whether or not the core Change Now at Any Cost message of AGW is kaput. I argue that we’ll see the masses lose their enthusiasm for doing much of anything unless we get some really really good ACC-promoting weather, and soon, in the areas where the key target audiences live. We public have a very short memory and a very proximate horizon.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I have such problems figuring out what you are saying, and I apologize deeply for that.

There is no evidence whatsoever that hurricanes are worsening by any measure. I gave you a number of links in support of that.

I also gave support for what I said, and clearly you are looking only at few variables like the speed and call in a day, clearly misleading as other effects include the increase in precipitation caused by more moisture in the air (more flooding). And the increase in sea level (causing bigger storm surges and flooding).

@Chief_Pedant

I’m delighted the “consensus” is not Doom, but I beg to differ with you if you want to suggest that there is no putative link to ACC intimated whenever a big storm shows up.

And once again, the point stands, one should not rely on the popular press for information, one should look at the peer reviewed evidence. There is evidence that hurricanes are becoming more intense on the whole and that is bad, the good part about few hurricanes coming remains a bet, but the thing is that uncertainty is not your friend.

The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming

[wolfpup]

@Chief_Pedant

I have read much of that IPCC report. Here’s a typical sample, which I picked at random (really): …

Now I don’t read that and say, OMG, the problem is CO2. Do you?

[snip]
When all you have is an ACC lens, every prediction is for disaster, and everything looks like it was (and will be) precipitated by excess CO2.

First, just to get the obvious out of the way, if you look at any of the IPCC charts of comparative net forcings like this one, anthropogenic CO2 is overwhelmingly dominant. Natural variabilities and other post-industrial anthropogenic positive and negative net forcing changes are relatively insignificant.

The part of IPCC WG II that you quoted sounds somewhat innocuous, alright. May I suggest that if you found it at random, confirming by amazing coincidence your thesis that AGW is harmless, you might consider doing a more systematic reading, perhaps reading the entire Summary for Policymakers, say, or at least Chapter 19 of the full report, from which I provide this extract from the Executive Summary … you might want to read it keeping this figure in mind; I’ve bolded a few key parts for reading convenience:

General conclusions include the following [19.3].
• Some observed key impacts have been at least partly attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Among these are increases in human mortality, loss of glaciers, and** increases in the frequency and/or intensity of extreme events**.

• Global mean temperature changes of up to 2°C above 1990- 2000 levels (see Box 19.2) would exacerbate current key impacts, such as those listed above (high confidence), and trigger others, such as reduced food security in many low latitude nations (medium confidence). At the same time, some systems, such as global agricultural productivity, could benefit (low/medium confidence). [For a limited time, as clarified in later texts, and the point following.]

• Global mean temperature changes of 2 to 4°C above 1990- 2000 levels would result in an increasing number of key impacts at all scales (high confidence), such as widespread loss of biodiversity, decreasing global agricultural productivity and commitment to widespread deglaciation of Greenland (high confidence) and West Antarctic (medium confidence) ice sheets.

• Global mean temperature changes greater than 4°C above 1990-2000 levels would lead to major increases in vulnerability (very high confidence), exceeding the adaptive capacity of many systems (very high confidence).

• Regions that are already at high risk from observed climate variability and climate change are more likely to be adversely affected in the near future by projected changes in climate and increases in the magnitude and/or frequency of already damaging extreme events.

The ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) remain a viable framework in which to consider key vulnerabilities. Recent research has updated some of the findings from the TAR [19.3.7].

• There is new and stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change on unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high-mountain communities and ecosystems), with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase (very high confidence).

• There is new evidence that observed climate change is likely to have already increased the risk of certain extreme events such as heatwaves, and it is more likely than not that warming has contributed to the intensification of some tropical cyclones, with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase (very high confidence).

• The distribution of impacts and vulnerabilities is still considered to be uneven, and low-latitude, less-developed areas are generally at greatest risk due to both higher sensitivity and lower adaptive capacity; but there is new evidence that vulnerability to climate change is also highly variable within countries, including developed countries.

• There is some evidence that initial net market benefits from climate change will peak at a lower magnitude and sooner than was assumed for the TAR, and it is likely that there will be higher damages for larger magnitudes of global mean temperature increases than was estimated in the TAR.

• The literature offers more specific guidance on possible thresholds for initiating partial or near-complete deglaciation of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

Credit: Page 781 from Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin, 2007: Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 779-810.

[Chief_Pedant]

@wolfpup

First, just to get the obvious out of the way, if you look at any of the IPCC charts of comparative net forcings like this one, anthropogenic CO2 is overwhelmingly dominant. Natural variabilities and other post-industrial anthropogenic positive and negative net forcing changes are relatively insignificant.

The part of IPCC WG II that you quoted sounds somewhat innocuous, alright. May I suggest that if you found it at random, confirming by amazing coincidence your thesis that AGW is harmless, you might consider doing a more systematic reading, perhaps reading the entire Summary for Policymakers, say, or at least Chapter 19 of the full report, from which I provide this extract from the Executive Summary … you might want to read it keeping this figure in mind; I’ve bolded a few key parts for reading convenience:

Oh boy…it’s just so hard for an Alarmist not to box someone into the Denier category, isn’t it? Stay tuned for when I have time to create a debate on why that sort of bullshit is ruining the Change Now message Alarmists want to promote.

For the (third?) time, what I hold is that we are lousy at predicting, and not that AGW is harmless. I do hold that even the currently predicted outcomes are nowhere near top of the list for bad things happening to the earth.

I’ll leave it to the rest of the masses to interpret the kind of gibberish you find so persuasive. To wit:
“increases in the frequency and/or intensity of extreme events”
"reduced food security in many low latitude nations "
“increases in human mortality, loss of glaciers”
“increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase (very high confidence)”
“intensification of some tropical cyclones”
“already increased the risk of certain extreme events such as heatwaves”

etc, etc…above.

Doom marketing at its finest, with all the right modifiers for when you need to back off a prediction, and a complete absence of specific, quantifiable net outcome. Not because we are weasling, but because (fourth time; listen for it) we are lousy at predicting what will actually happen. Increased human mortality? As opposed to, say, a terrorist nuke or a tsunami from collapse of Cumbre Vieja? Reduced food security in some latitudes? As opposed to destruction of Zimbabwe farms from incompetent management (not to mention that global agricultural productivity “could benefit”)?

(Hey; I just said certain hurricanes; not the 2013 ones. If it’s a new extreme hurricane, I get to say I told you so, unless it was an extreme hurricane 100 years ago…THAT one was just Mother Nature. Yes; that drought was AGW just like I said, but this flood over here is also AGW. ) Before you know it, Alarmists will be embracing the next big volcano to pop off as being related to AGW. :rolleyes:

OK; if you think those are valuable and useful predictions, enjoy them. I find them an unpersuasive list of catastrophes when I look at the impact we are having on our earth right now, and the list of unheralded, unknown catastrophes. I’d make a bet we have picked the wrong windmill at which to focus out entire tilt, but of course it can be collected only retrospectively (another great advantage of both Alarmist and Denialist positions), and I probably only have one or two functional years left before senility sets in and I forgot what I bet on.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

Oh boy…it’s just so hard for an Alarmist not to box someone into the Denier category, isn’t it? Stay tuned for when I have time to create a debate on why that sort of bullshit is ruining the Change Now message Alarmists want to promote.

For the (third?) time, what I hold is that we are lousy at predicting, and not that AGW is harmless. I do hold that even the currently predicted outcomes are nowhere near top of the list for bad things happening to the earth.

What I see is just once again insisting that climate scientists deal with weather, they deal with climate.

Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.

…

Climate prediction is a difficult and ever refining art. There’s the problem that future behaviour of the sun is very difficult to predict. Similarly, short term perturbations like El Nino or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, climate scientists have a handle on the major drivers of climate.

…

Other results successfully predicted and reconstructed by models

Cooling of the stratosphere
Warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere
Warming of ocean surface waters (Cane 1997)
Trends in ocean heat content (Hansen 2005)
An energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation (Hansen 2005)
Amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region (NASA observations)

As for the denier item, your problem is to rely on information spinned from denier sources or the popular press. Climate is not really much a part of your “lousy predicting”.

Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

Looking at three of the leading climate indices we recognize the same problem that Lorenz faced. Actually proving that these indices are chaotic is exceedingly difficult, but Tziperman et al. (1994) showed in a simple model how El Niño is likely a seasonally induced chaotic resonance between the ocean and the atmosphere. Therefore, the climate system as a whole does exhibit some inherent minor unpredictability (Hansen et al. 2007). However, even though the El Niño of 1998 was a whopping 10% of the total heat content anomaly since 1950, it passed quickly. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, works throughout the period.

Returning to the temperature record (normalized to the period 1950-1980) we can now put names on things. Chaotic influences from oceans and volcanoes etc. makes both weather more unpredictable and creates the unpredictable part of the ‘wiggles’ around the average trend in climate. The climate is definitely non-linear, but also not chaotic in this plot.

GHCN & HADISST1 global temperature record + moving average performed with lowess filter
Figure 5: GHCN & HADISST1 global temperature record. The moving average is performed with a lowess filter.

On the timescale of decades, every planetary object has a mean temperature mainly given by the power of its star according to Stefan- Boltzmann’s law combined with the greenhouse effect. If the sources and sinks of CO2 were chaotic and could quickly release and sequester large fractions of gas perhaps the climate could be chaotic. If the Earth’s orbit was affected by a moon of comparable mass to the planet itself, then the orbit and thus the Solar forcing could cause some amount of chaos in the climate. As it turns out the Moon is relatively small and actually stabilizes the rotation axis, which is considered a favorable condition for life on Earth.

To sum up, the weather is chaotic because it can run free, climate is on a leash. Pull the leash hard enough and the climate responds.

[GIGObuster]

Again, regarding hurricanes more research is needed.

The bet the ones that attempt to minimize the issue, for whatever reason, like not caring how people around the world will be affected :dubious: , includes the item about the probability that hurricanes can get worse or to increase in number, this is currently in the cutting edge of research. But for many other items, and specially the ones clearly influenced by climate, the probabilities of them happening are higher than seeing your house burn during your lifetime, and yet almost all get insurance for that.

Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

This video was screened before a live audience by Climate One of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Dec 6, 2011 as the introduction to an event honoring Stephen Schneider and presenting an award in his name to Richard Alley, Professor of Geosciences and Associate of the EMS Environment Institute.

“How many people in this place, in this fire prone California have had a house fire? (show of hands) A few of you Typically it’s one to two percent. How many of you have fire insurance? We already are very risk adverse, when we have consequences that matter. We do not need 95% certainty. Here is where again (6:30) people frame this problem by looking for exceptions to the conventional wisdom and claim until the exceptions are resolved it isn’t proved and it’s premature to act, yet we’re acting on our 1% risk and paying insurance. And here were talking about 50% risk to the planetary life support system and they’re telling us that’s not certain enough.”

"It’s not lost on some of you that that’s special interest blabber. We heard that from the American Tobacco Institute for years. Remember, “three studies are equivocal about whether smoking causes cancer.”

[ cut to - Tobacco Institute Ad, questioning the evidence ]

“And, and they correctly said and still to this day we do not know biophysically the precise links between smoking and cancer.

"So they give you a “therefore”, when there’s no therefore there, therefore it’s premature to act. That’s personal value judgement of risk management. Of course they want to protect market share. Whereas the data are so overwhelming epidemiologically, you know the statistics, that you’d have to crazy not to control this even though you don’t understand every detail of the mechanisms.
“So this is again where we have to do risk management. Which is how do you want to deal with a preponderance of evidence not an absolute certainty in every detail.”

[watchwolf49]

The physical components of the climate system includes the atmosphere, the oceans, sea ice, the land and it’s features (including the vegetation, albedo, biomass and ecosystems), snow cover, land ice (including the semi-permanent ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and glaciers), and components of the hydrological cycle (including clouds, rivers, lakes, surface and subsurface water). These components all interact on a wide range of space and time scales. They also interact with components which are generally regarded as external to the system, for instance the sun and its output, the earth’s rotation and the geometry of its orbit, the geographical features of the earth’s surface and the mass and basic composition of the atmosphere and ocean. Detailed study of the climate involves all these components and the interactions between them.

– Houghton, John; The Physics of the Atmosphere; Cambridge University Press; 2002; p. 242

Hardly a “denialist” position.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

– Houghton, John; The Physics of the Atmosphere; Cambridge University Press; 2002; p. 242

Hardly a “denialist” position.

The implied red herring here is that climate scientists do not take those items into account, the point remains, those items are not ignored by the climate scientists, the denial comes from assuming that armchair scientists know more than the scientists that are currently working on the issue and that we should ignore their conclusions. Besides all those natural forcings we have to deal now with the human ones.

What contrarians come with is misinterpretations of what the scientists report, and then on top of that they deny the conclusions the experts tell us about what the data is telling us.

26 -- Science vs. the Feelies

In the absence of facts and figures, a feelie argument is usually vague and ambiguous, often hinting at some elusive point that’s never explained. When I read a scientific paper, on the other hand, I understand exactly what it’s saying. The hypothesis is laid out, the methodology explained, the observations and calculations clearly shown, and the conclusion spelled out. That’s the difference.

…

The ‘feeling’ is that because CO2 is a trace gas then it follows that it has no effect on climate. If this is correct, please cite a study that has some facts and figures to support it, otherwise it remains just a ‘feeling.’

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

The implied red herring here is that climate scientists do not take those items into account

Come again, how does the quote imply climatologists do not take all these components into consideration? This is the opening paragraph of the chapter in John Houghton’s textbook on climate change. I offer it here as a position that we can all agree on, thus debate the “basic composition of the atmosphere” and how man-kind is changing that and how it effects all the other components.

Sorry for disrupting your explanation of what “the conclusions the experts tell us about what the data is telling us.” You should know by now I’m a little slow on blind faith.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Come again, how does the quote imply climatologists do not take all these components into consideration? This is the opening paragraph of the chapter in John Houghton’s textbook on climate change. I offer it here as a position that we can all agree on, thus debate the “basic composition of the atmosphere” and how man-kind is changing that and how it effects all the other components.

Sorry for disrupting your explanation of what “the conclusions the experts tell us about what the data is telling us.” You should know by now I’m a little slow on blind faith.

Once again what you have is feelies, I do not have blind faith, I defer to what the scientists report, having the feeling that we should follow sources that ignore the conclusions of the experts is like demanding that we follow the lead of the ones that are blind.

[watchwolf49]

My quote above is from a scientist, one given high esteem in the IPCC. Are you suggesting that John Houghton is blind? Yeah, Catholics defer to the Pope, why would you defer to a scientist when he’s trying to teach. That’s from a textbook, it’s stated for students to learn … you should try sometime maybe.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

My quote above is from a scientist, one given high esteem in the IPCC. Are you suggesting that John Houghton is blind?

Thank you for showing that I was correct, indeed you only quoted that to imply that other researchers do not have those items into account, please read again, I’m not saying he is wrong I’m saying that you are not pointing at the rest of the picture that includes the human factor.

@watchwolf49

Yeah, Catholics defer to the Pope, why would you defer to a scientist when he’s trying to teach. That’s from a textbook, it’s stated for students to learn … you should try sometime maybe.

And there is also the “you follow religion” accusations, as pointed before that is like a Godwin, it only shows that contrarians just ran out of ideas.

And **wolfpup **and others here or in other threads already linked to the textbooks that do mention that human component in the form of global warming gases, so yeah, it is you that needs to read a lot.

[watchwolf49]

Come again, how do you arrive at such an implication? There’s nothing in the quote specifying any differences between natural and man-made effects. Houghton is being inclusive, there’s natural components and man-made components. It’s a strawman argument, dear sir, saying I’m implying something that I’m not.

Do you disagree with the quote, as stated, without reading nonsense between the lines?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Come again, how do you arrive at such an implication? There’s nothing in the quote specifying any differences between natural and man-made effects. Houghton is being inclusive, there’s natural components and man-made components. It’s a strawman argument, dear sir, saying I’m implying something that I’m not.

Do you disagree with the quote, as stated, without reading nonsense between the lines?

Nope,** just saying**, the quote does not mention any human factors, but we knew that already. I’m not claiming that you said that, only that the choice quote did not mention it, and so it has to be mentioned the fact that many other text books now do mention the human released global warming gases and their effect, the context so far does show that (specially regarding your the text book jab), the reason for the specific quote is to minimize the human factor.

[watchwolf49]

@watchwolf49

I offer it here as a position that we can all agree on

@GIGObuster

the reason for the specific quote is to minimize the human factor.

It’s either a Strawman argument or you’re calling me a liar. I’m going to assume the first, since we both know we’re not allowed to call each other liars on this particular board. Please type in the introductory paragraph on climate change of some other co-chairman of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the IPCC where it explicitly mentions human contributions.

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

The physical components of the climate system includes the atmosphere, the oceans, sea ice, the land and it’s features (including the vegetation, albedo, biomass and ecosystems), snow cover, land ice (including the semi-permanent ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and glaciers), and components of the hydrological cycle (including clouds, rivers, lakes, surface and subsurface water). These components all interact on a wide range of space and time scales. They also interact with components which are generally regarded as external to the system, for instance the sun and its output, the earth’s rotation and the geometry of its orbit, the geographical features of the earth’s surface and the mass and basic composition of the atmosphere and ocean. Detailed study of the climate involves all these components and the interactions between them.

– Houghton, John; The Physics of the Atmosphere; Cambridge University Press; 2002; p. 242

Hardly a “denialist” position.

@watchwolf49

My quote above is from a scientist, one given high esteem in the IPCC. Are you suggesting that John Houghton is blind? Yeah, Catholics defer to the Pope, why would you defer to a scientist when he’s trying to teach. That’s from a textbook, it’s stated for students to learn … you should try sometime maybe.

The statement by John Houghton is quite accurate, but it boggles the mind what you think it adds to this discussion. What is there to “defer” to when I agree with all of it? Of course the atmosphere is a critical part of the climate system; that’s why changing its radiatively active composition has such a profound effect on climate. Climate models reflect every one of the listed factors and many more, and indeed changes in many of them are consequences of AGW and constitute positive feedbacks.

Here’s another statement from John Houghton that you may not like quite as much.

… our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism: human-induced climate change.

As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a “weapon of mass destruction”.

John Houghton: Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

It’s either a Strawman argument or you’re calling me a liar. I’m going to assume the first, since we both know we’re not allowed to call each other liars on this particular board. Please type in the introductory paragraph on climate change of some other co-chairman of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the IPCC where it explicitly mentions human contributions.

:sight:

I’m not calling you a liar, I’m only saying that we also have to include the big picture, it is like this:

Imagine a deli worker that we see putting his finger on the balance, making the price of the meat go higher than it should be.

What you did on your post was ok, it is like if the lead of the deli made a report about the incident and we only see on the report a note about the beautiful Toledo balance/weight technology and the goodness of the meat choice. What I and many people like the late Schenider talked about was the glaring omission of not reporting about the human fingers on the weight.

So, once again, just saying, and adding the stuff that is needed like **wolfpup **did in the previous post.

[GIGObuster]

And I meant to say:

:sigh:

not: “sight”

To add a comment to what **wolfpup **posted, I have to say that we already knew that, we all agree on the natural forcings that are out there.

This is were saying that “is hardly a “denialist” position” is really a meaningless say when dealing with the big picture. The denial is in refusing to acknowledge that the conclusions of almost all experts have on the issue, like the one coming from scientists like John Houghton, on the whole he is not supporting the idea that we should not complain about sources that even denying that human fingers were/are altering the Toledo balance.