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

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

What you wrote I mean. Try breaking it down instead of the dreaded wall of text, maybe some highlights, some key points, a goal, a tldr summary.

Otherwise, TEGO

Of course this means that in reality you do not read the science papers (even more wordy of what you refused to read there), there is really no excuse, if I can read what **wolfpup **wrote, so can you.

[FXMastermind]

So tell me what it says. Key points.

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

So tell me what it says. Key points.

You can’t read a dozen straightforward sentences? Please stop trying to derail the thread a second time. If you have something factual to say, say it. If you don’t, go away.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

IFX made the pronouncement that climate models are basically useless, and provided a series of reasons that I debunked in the above post.

False. It’s why I skipped the rest. If I said something as you claim then quote it and respond. Don’t put words in my mouth and then attack your straw dog. If you debunked something I claimed, show us, don’t just claim it.

Otherwise you are a waste of time.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

So tell me what it says. Key points.

To begin with, that you ignore the rebuttals (what **wolfpup **pointed out first), but I’m repeating myself, and you are just given us more evidence **here **that that is indeed the truth.

One can go in stages and deal with the first relevant to this thread:

“FX chose to ignore the climate model rebuttal, and focus on denying that he has a consistent pattern of getting major scientific facts wrong. When I linked to a list of examples, suddenly, out of the blue, that tack was abandoned as well, and we got a completely new digression about solar UV variations.”

I provided here a bit of scientific background on solar UV, at which point FX throws in a paper which, as pointed out, confirms exactly what I had just finished saying."

After what I saw, it is clear that **wolfpup **was correct, it’s consistent with everything what he has been saying.

You are still missing the context of what words like “changes” and “climate effects” mean on those research papers.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

You can’t read a dozen straightforward sentences?

You just did it again. Rather than state your premise, your key points, you wasted words and time.

Hint. It’s about facts and logic, not personality and winning.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

You just did it again. Rather than state your premise, your key points, you wasted words and time.

Hint. It’s about facts and logic, not personality and winning.

He did state it, in post #678, deal with it, or you are indeed just stalling.

[Melchior]

There is not the slightest scientific support for anthropogenic climate change.

[GIGObuster]

@Melchior

There is not the slightest scientific support for anthropogenic climate change.

As usual that say so implies that the scientists are into a conspiracy, that remains an unsupported point to make.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html

Earth’s surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to “Whodunnit?” — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth’s atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the “human fingerprints” associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth’s climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm

The world’s oceans have absorbed about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate variation.

Fingerprint 2: The Atmosphere Shifts

Recent research shows that human activities have lifted the boundary of Earth’s lower atmosphere. Known as the troposphere (from the Greek tropos, which means “turning”), this lowest layer of the atmosphere contains Earth’s weather. The stable layer above is called the stratosphere. The boundary that separates the two layers, the tropopause, is as high as nine miles above the equator and as low as five miles above the poles. In an astounding development, a 2003 study showed that this tropopause has shifted upward over the last two decades by more than 900 feet. [10] The rising tropopause marks another human fingerprint on Earth’s climate.

In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic aerosols) and three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated models. Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heat-trapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is trapping more of Earth’s outgoing heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat up the stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 1979-1999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heat-trapping emissions and ozone account for more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate.

Fingerprint 3: The Surface Heats Up

Measurements show that global average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades. [1,2] By comparing Earth’s temperature over that last century with models comparing climate drivers, a study showed that, from 1950 to the present, most of the warming was caused by heat-trapping emissions from human activities [3]. In fact, heat-trapping emissions are driving the climate about three times more strongly now than they were in 1950. The spatial pattern of where this warming is occurring around the globe indicates human-induced causes. Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from volcanic events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor fluctuations in the sun’s output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any other current climate driver. Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human activities as the main driver of our warming climate.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

FX made the pronouncement that climate models are basically useless, and provided a series of reasons that I debunked in the above post.

If you can’t actually quote where I said what you are claiming I said, you are putting words in my mouth. I got to tell you, that is against the rules and the spirit of debate. It’s dishonest.

Either quote where I did what you say, or retract.

[Melchior]

@GIGObuster

As usual that say so implies that the scientists are into a conspiracy, that remains an unsupported point to make.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html

There is not the slightest *scientific *support for anthropogenic climate change.

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

If you can’t actually quote where I said what you are claiming I said, you are putting words in my mouth. I got to tell you, that is against the rules and the spirit of debate. It’s dishonest.

Either quote where I did what you say, or retract.

What you said:

There isn’t even one model that works, especially for the past events. There are obvious reasons, the biggest being you can’t predict natural variations, volcanoes, the solar cycle, or the effects of clouds, snow or even water vapor. Or pollution, albedo feedback, ocean circulation patterns, wind or what happened with the ozone. This is exactly why none of the models are even close right now. They were, and they are, not able to duplicate what happens.

My apologies if “not even one model that works” and “not even close” and “not able to duplicate what happens” isn’t the same as “basically useless”. I think most reasonable people would understand it that way, as indeed they were meant to understand it by your posted words.

All of whichI briefly refuted here.

I think it’s your intention to get this thread thrown into the Pit. I believe there’s a great deal of useful and intelligent discussion here so I would rather it didn’t.

[FXMastermind]

Rather waste another moment, lets cut to the chase. Here is what I said, plainly and clearly, no confusion about it.

@FXMastermind

There isn’t even one model that works, especially for the past events.

This is self evident from the facts, no theory required. If there was a model that worked, that predicted what has happened since it was built, as well as what it produces for the past changes, you would know all about this model. It would be the brilliant star of climate science, we would even have a topic about it.

This does not mean models are worthless. Every model that does not work allows us to eliminate one more thing that isn’t right, it’s how you develop with models. You keep changing the model, working on it, trying to make it work. A model that does not work IS NOT THE SAME AS WORTHLESS, which is why I objected to your stating I said something, that I would not say.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

My apologies if “not even one model that works” and “not even close” and “not able to duplicate what happens” isn’t the same as “basically useless”. I think most reasonable people would understand it that way, as indeed they were meant to understand it by your posted words.

All of whichI briefly refuted here.

I will accept your apology, since I think you just don’t understand what you are saying, rather than any ill intent.

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

I will accept your apology

I think you need to improve your sarcasm-detection skills.

[GIGObuster]

@Melchior

There is not the slightest *scientific *support for anthropogenic climate change.

Like if the organization I quoted was not made out of scientists. Again, there is plenty of scientific support.

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

[ol]
[li]Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.[/li][li] When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).[/li][li] This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).[/li][li] Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).[/li][li] So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).[/li][li] If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).[/li][li] If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).[/li][/ol]

[GIGObuster]

@wolfpup

I think you need to improve your sarcasm-detection skills.

Well, he only has straws to grasp.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

An interestingly ironic statement coming from someone who has so frequently made claims that were shown to be wrong, and now refuses to discuss them.

I don’t mind at all if you can show why something is an error, wrong, or a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody will be, at some point, wrong. For example

@wolfpup

what happened with the ozone
What happened with it? The most significant component by far is tropospheric ozone, and its formation is directly related to the emissions of precursor compounds – CH4, CO, nitrogen oxides, and other anthropogenic emissions that can be measured and predicted. The uncertainties around tropospheric ozone are no more than those around CO2, and the forcing magnitude is much smaller.

Incorrect. Stratospheric heating from ozone is a main factor in circulation patterns, and no model predicted the impact from changes, which is just now being studied, now that we know the possible range of values due to changing UV levels from the sun.

The UV changes also are connected to glaciers and river flow, as well as rainfall and cloudiness. All kinds of cycles that have been known about for the solar influence are now starting to be modeled and explained, since the mechanism seems to be better understood.

The damage from CfCs, potent greenhouse gases themselves, are still being discovered, in regards to ozone destruction over the poles, with the effect of reduced ozone being suspected of increasing the circumpolar winds, which has completely different effects on the south pole, than it does on the arctic. No model currently can predict all of this.

Ozone depletion at the south pole increases the winds, which decrease temperatures, and increases precipitation and sea ice formation.

At the north they may be the cause of much of the rapid ice loss, which no model predicted correctly, nor can they model what is causing it. Yet.

It’s not that models are worthless, as you said, but that none of them work, in regards to being able to compute the actual future.

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

I will accept your apology, since I think you just don’t understand what you are saying, rather than any ill intent.

@wolfpup

I think you need to improve your sarcasm-detection skills.

Oh the irony. You think I wasn’t being sarcastic in my response?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

It’s not that models are worthless, as you said, but that none of them work, in regards to being able to compute the actual future.

And that was just FUD, as Stephen Schneider reported, models have done a very good job, what logic tells us is what the papers you cited also mention, since the models did a good job even with the UV influence you are trying to make as very important, it follows that that influence is not as important as you try to make it up.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm

So the fact that the Pinatubo results showed up about as predicted doesn’t, by itself, give a lot of confidence, although as a circumstantial bit of evidence is quite useful. However, another volcanic eruption in 1983, El Chich¢n, was also followed by several tenths of a degree cooling, as was the effect after Mt. Agung in 1963 or Mt. Krakatoa in the Victorian period.

In other words, by looking at the results of several volcanic eruptions and compositing, a number of scientists (including Mass and Schneider, 1977) used this technique and discovered that indeed there was a clear and obvious correlation which suggests that when a few watts of energy over every square meter of the earth is removed by volcanic dust veils in the stratosphere, the lower atmosphere will indeed cool by a few tenths of degrees – the very magnitude predicted by the same computer models that we use to forecast the effects of a few watts per square meter of sustained heating from global warming.

**What other natural experiments might we have to test climate sensitivity? My favorite is one that happens every year – the seasons. Winter predictably follows summer, being some fifteen degrees colder in the Northern Hemisphere and five degrees colder than summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The reason the Southern Hemisphere has a smaller seasonal cycle is because it has much more ocean than land, and water has a higher heat retaining capacity than land or air. Since a season is not long enough for the planet to reach an equilibrium temperature change, therefore, the more land dominated Northern Hemisphere has lower heat capacity and thus a larger seasonal cycle of surface temperature. How well do the climate models do in reproducing this change? The answer is “extraordinarily well.” **Although what the absolute temperatures models may simulate can be off by as much as five or six degrees in some regions of the world for some seasons, the models’ capacity to reproduce the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of surface air temperatures, by and large, is quite good. (It is less good for other variables, however, particularly hydrological systems.) Now, if we were making a factor of ten error by either overestimating or underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcing, it would be difficult for the models to reproduce the different seasonal cycle surface temperature amplitudes over land and oceans as well as they do. This is another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that current estimate of climate sensitivity is not off by a factor of ten, as some “contrarians” assert.

Testimony of Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
July 10, 1997
CLIMATE CHANGE: CAUSES, IMPACTS AND UNCERTAINTIES