Are you saying there are people claiming the sun is getting hotter, and that is the reason for the current global warming?
That makes no sense at all. I’m sure people are claiming all kinds of things. Go start a topic about it if it’s that important.
Meanwhile, as I suggested, it seems impossible to agree on one simple thing.
The temperature trend for an 11 year period of the planet earth. If that is controversial, impossible to simply know, then good luck with all the complicated and political issues.
[ul]
[li]global cooling since 2002 refutes or is another way to cast doubt on AGW[/li]li the global scientific community is wrong in saying that AGW is happening and is actionable (supporting proof–just on the first page, you wrote, “Scientists who have spent a lifetime in study and research of these matters are some of the biggest skeptics of the “climate” experts, as they can see how the “science” is agenda driven, not evidence based.”; you can’t possibly conscionably deny you’re saying this(!))[/li][/ul]
In your reply to my post, aside from using a few obscenities (bad form), you've done nothing to contradict (as a matter of fact you just reiterated) your main point all along: that you believe the global scientific consensus on global warming / climate change is wrong.
The problem is that view takes a fundamental aspect of society (division of labor, in this case permitting specialization in the sciences, including climate study) and its output (climate analysis) and throws the whole apparatus into question. There IS a tremendous burden of proof on your shoulders, both
[ul]
[li] at the level of why such a social structure and institution (a field of science) has failed and[/li][li] to give the needed overwhelming evidence to support your highly improbable premises[/li][/ul]
And to use that type of reasoning you're using against itself:
[ul]
[li] you mistrust the science in general, then why not the science that went into any other of its output, such as IC’s, automobiles, aircraft, etc.[/li] [li] the same probability manipulation you exhibit in foisting this assumption on everyone (that the global scientific community is wrong, and that they should humor you by “debating” the details of how and why the scientists are wrong), applied to the “other side” could very easily be used to justify immediate, even extreme action against the threat of global warming[/li][/ul]
I won't debate specifics such as temperature data, because I question the whole premise. As soon as I begin "debating" those specifics, I fall down the rabbit hole (right where you want me).
And we see what might be termed "concision's curse" in forums like this; all that I needed to say was said in my post a few slots back, but someone, by saying, really, anything, no matter how indirect or demurely, can drown it out with sheer quantity of output (to the cynical, noise).
Like I said, it’s a battle, and there is little hope of any getting through, but still, I’m going to try.
You are doing what I observe many “alarmists” or “warmist” do in a discussion, which is dishonest in the extreme. Trying to re-frame, restate, or twist my words, rather than respond to them. (and I use the terms “alarmists” or “warmist” as rhetoric, exactly like the term “denier” is used)
What I wrote is clear, it’s direct, and if it’s a matter of scientific measurement, I always provide a source so you can both understand why I said it, and check to see if it is true. In this case, knowing full well the methods used to ignore or dismiss any possibility that “global warming is happening right now and it is bad”, I used GISS data to make my point.
It’s also the easiest source to directly link to, meaning you, or anyone else, can simply look and see if it says what it says.
So far, nobody has been able to say a single thing in the OP is wrong. To do so would be to go against science itself, against the data, against the integrity and very foundation of our understanding of climate. You would have to claim GISS is wrong in their measurements.
All the other ways we calculate the global temperature also show EXACTLY the same thing happening, with variations far below the known uncertainty in measurements.
The bottom line is I did not make anything up, in regards to the data. The counter to this is, of course, to use a longer tije period, to say over all warming has happened, which is true, In the hundred year mean most places on the planet are warmer. Certainly climate change has happened, and I say it is still happening.
It’s that the data shows, at the current time, something is going on other than what the models predict.
To sum up, you stated two points which I did not make. It’s why you wrote them out, rather than dirctly quoting what I claimed.
“global cooling since 2002 refutes or is another way to cast doubt on AGW” = Uqbar
If I was saying those words, you would find them in my post! If you are going to spend the time arguing, do us the favor and argue against what I actyually said. Especially when using a non-scientific term like AGW.
“(implied) the global scientific community is wrong in saying that AGW is happening and is actionable” = Uqbar
The first part is close, the second is quite wrong. I have said multiple times that the political/environmental issues need to be dealt with, even if CO2 isn’t going to cause dangerous warming, it is unbalancing the ocean, as well as the terrible damage fossil fuels do to the air and water. Think BP Gulf disaster, Exxon Valdez, cancer rates and mercury from coal, all kinds of pollution issues. I despise fossil fuels.
“(implied) the global scientific community is wrong” = Uqbar
You committed a fallacy, and that is assuming there is a “scientific community” that all believe the exact same thing, and they all speak as one. The paper cited in the OP, like most papers on this, still assumes that climate change is happening, it’s just that it isn’t happening like it was predicted. (it isn’t at the moment)
Cohen et al 2012 is the same sort of paper. They don’t cast doubt on the CO2 causes climate change, but rather they actually blame global warming for the cooling, for the colder winters.
As do many other papers.
tl;dr
So, lets debate what I said, not what you think I say. It works better that way.
In essence he is claiming I can drown out his view. With volume and noise.
HERE IS HIS VIEW EVERYBODY! READ IT!
Uqbar HAS CLAIMED the following -
“I won’t debate specifics such as temperature data, because I question the whole premise. As soon as I begin “debating” those specifics, I fall down the rabbit hole (right where you want me).” = Uqbar
The following bold parts are direct quotes from Uqbar
“I won’t debate specifics such as temperature data, because I question the whole premise. As soon as I begin “debating” those specifics, I fall down the rabbit hole (right where you want me).” = Uqbar
Here are the main points, that he claims I will drown out.
I won’t debate specifics
He won’t deal with specifics, like temperature, trends or global means
such as temperature data
Which is pretty much the main part of the debate
because I question the whole premise
He questions that the planet might have cooled of late, so he won’t debate this
As soon as I begin “debating” those specifics
The very act of debating the temperature records will cause
** I fall down the rabbit hole**
him to have a bad fall, into a hole that a rabbit dug for it’s burrow
Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference between average distribution of electric charge and temporary dipole moment changes?
Here’s a free tip - any gas molecule of more than 2 atoms is going to be capable of acting as a greenhouse gas to some extent.
Not that it matters, because we’ve actually physically measured CH[sub]4[/sub]'s absorption and emission spectra in, like, labs and shit. It’s definitely a greenhouse gas, mole for mole 34 times more potent than CO[sub]2[/sub]. To claim otherwise just displays such an ignorance of the science involved that you really should just recuse yourself from any further AGW debates. Or educate yourself
Once more, you are arguing with yourself. My conclusions and views are based on science, on actual real data, hard evidence. If there was no evidence, I certainly wouldn’t even be discussing this issue.
And you commit yet another fallacy, by claiming “you mistrust the science in general”, which is horseshit. I might mistrust you, or a scientists, but not science. The two are not the same.
Describing a clear and concise presentation of trends, as “the same probability manipulation” is also horseshit. I posted many times the longer trends, and for a good reason. You have to understand the long term trends to even realize why a 17 year change has meaning. To be able to grasp the reason the colder winters is important, you have to understand the greenhouse theory, and why the models predict the warming they do. It’s physics, mostly. But also theory and assumptions at work. It’s very very complicated.
You may have missed a lot of the discussions leading up to this topic, and who can blame you.
Just so there is no confusion, I do consider anyone who states that we are still seeing the same warming in the last decade, that we saw in the eighties, or the nineties, to be seriously deluded.
And as we have seen his use of colorful (in more ways than one ) language does continue, as he is pointing to his thread in the pit (that was sent there by the moderators as FX was not really making a debate) the right thread to go now is over here once again:
That was my first question … is this a robotic response or is this a real human I’m talking to. I can’t express here in the Great Debates how offensive it is to have to endure a systematic spam attack by some damn robot “someone” installed. I think you suspect I was just baiting that above mentioned robot.
Methane has a very small effect on average global temperatures at this time. Obviously with these fracking operations losing up to 10% into the atmosphere, this small percentage will quickly increase. However, methane doesn’t last very long in the presence of oxygen. The chemical reaction produces carbon dioxide and water vapor, indeed the very same combustion equation: CH[sub]4[/sub] + 2 O[sub]2[/sub] ==> CO[sub]2[/sub] + 2 H[sub]2[/sub]O + energy. Whatever methane’s radiative capacity, burning it in the atmosphere will raise temperatures.
Are you aware that your citation states that water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect than all other gases combined (Table 1)?
Once again, **watchwolf49 ** you only show that you are not willing to face that denier sources used a researcher that was shown by many others (even a team of scientists) that he was wrong, and it is clear that you are still harping with the mistake that I used Skeptical Science for that, I did not.
BTW I did make a mistake, when FX talked about an app I though he was referring to the web site when I said I looked at their app, in reality I have never used their app. You have to blame my previous experience in the subject and the fact that there is a mountain of evidence out there and I have shown many times before that I can go for pages with no reference to Skeptical Science, deniers like FX have no good pickings left on the science front, so they cherry pick.
However, I can and do, express how offensive is your continued attempt to hijack this thread by bringing up the irrelevant app.
Regardless whether GIGObuster is or is not a competent debater, unless one has evidence that he is relying on an “app” to provide his responses, you and EVERYONE else will not attack him on the basis that he is using one and you and EVERYONE else will stop making personal attacks on him based on an invented claim about him.
Do you have another cite for that? The above citation doesn’t support your assertion. BTW, how are we defining “forcing” here?
Please enlighten me. And what’s with the hostility?
Again, what do you mean by “forcing”. I have from Wikipedia “In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.” In which case, water vapor is the dominate gas radiating energy out into space. Obviously, this isn’t what you mean, so please elaborate.
It’s incredibly basic science that has been explained to you and others multiple times within this and other threads. I’d probably start getting frustrated as well. If the extent of your knowledge on global warming does not extend this far, then you need to stop acting as if you know what you’re talking about, sit back, listen, and ask well-meant questions. Not continue to pretend to be some sort of expert.
He appears to have admitted it (by way of stating something along the lines of “it’s ok to do that”), I haven’t seen him deny it except regarding a recent one about Shaviv.
Read post 532, I have never used the app that they offer; I only used the website, but more importantly I also cited the science they point at.
Really, how hard it is to accept that you should not had followed what FX said? Even his attempt at looking for things I put on quotes is laughable, I was only riffing to a grammar mistake I made and FX using quotes to make fun of that, so when I did put “luminaries” in quotes it was to make a joke of his failure to understand how quotes can be used for irony.
) language does continue, as he is pointing to his thread in the pit (that was sent there by the moderators as FX was not really making a debate) the right thread to go now is over here once again: