Yes, but the red line is still moving upward, and that given a natural cycle that’s supposed to move towards cooling. According to the NAS, the reason for this is that CO2 has both a forcing and a feedback effect, and the latter is dominating. More details are given in the final report shared earlier.
Actually, it’s not sacred, and it’s defined.
Global warming does not refer to water vapor but to an increase in ave. global temperature anomaly.
“How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?”
Some men you just caint reach
That was my conclusion about 50 pages ago.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Where did you get that idea? There are lots of empirical data that would disprove global warming;
[/quote]
Please give me three specific examples.
Also, please let me know what you mean by “global warming” – is it simply the claim that global surface temperatures have been increasing? Or something more?
You know that won’t happen. At least not from the alarmists crowd.
Three key predictions of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory of global warming are arctic warming, evidenced by less sea ice, and melting glaciers and ice sheets.
The most warming in winter, in the NH high latitudes.
An increase in water vapor, evident by a higher tropical tropopause.
And of course the average mean global temperature going up, not down.
Since that isn’t going to happen either, global warming refers to climate change caused by increased greenhouse gases, leading to a warmer planet. To differentiate this sort of warming from warming that is happened in the past, from natural causes, the three things above are expected to be observed.
Colder NH winters is directly against the EGE theory of global warming. A decrease in troposphere water vapor is directly against the theory. And of course an increase in ice and a decrease in arctic temperatures is against the theory.
Because in the past the global climate has been warmer and wetter, there are things that are expected to happen, from greenhouse gas warming, that are not the same as a natural warming trend.
None of this is actually secret information, it’s just not spelled out on idiot blogs like realclimate or skepticalscience or watsupwithdat, it’s not made clear by the IPCC, and it certainly isn’t talked about by morons who are busy telling you how bad everything is and how YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW, and that sort of idiot spew.
“Global warming” (AGW) currently ONLY means warming from human greenhouse emissions. If the earth was warming with out human causes, like it has done many times, that is not called global warming.
There is no doubt that AGW predicts more warming over land than the oceans (thermal inertia of the oceans)
That AGW predicts more warming in winter than other seasons. This warming will be the most at high latitudes, not the tropics.
AGW predicts an increase in water vapor from the CO2 forced increase in temperature, which is supposed to cause more warming.
AGW predicts warming of the polar regions first.
AGW predicts rising sea levels, from melting ice.
All that being facts, if the cooling trend, and especially the winter cooling trend, continue on for much longer, there will be zero doubts the models based on these assumptions, from the theory, will be shown to be completely wrong.
Just the cooling trend in winter alone is enough to show the theory is flawed. But, and this is just science, that does not mean CO2 increase does not trap more solar energy, it does not mean human emissions are not happening, it doesn’t even mean climate change isn’t happening.
It just means a key part of the theoretical assumptions about CO2 forced climate change was wrong. Is wrong.
The hypothetical mechanism of an increase in snow from a warming arctic actually fits quite well, but it faces some serious obstacles. Time will certainly tell.
What I dislike is how the claims of CO2 forced warming was causing warmer winters, then it is causing colder winters, and certainly if the winters start trending up again, that will also be blamed on CO2 levels. That isn’t scientific.
You are losing the argument:
EPA Power-Plant Proposal Will Seek 30% Carbon Dioxide Emissions Cut by 2030
I suppose so. I’m not actually a climate scientist, I just happen to be acquainted with one and follow these issues. When I discuss it with them, the talk revolves around the properties of CO2 (or carbon generally) and not so much water vapor.
I don’t know. The question is whether there is more energy in the system now, and whether the increase is attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 levels (at least in part). I wonder if you and FX accept the recent history of CO2 levels. I’d like to pointedly ask if you two accept the scientific consensus on the properties of CO2 wrt infrared radiation, namely that CO2 tends to absorb, then re-emit, infrared radiation.
Yes or no?
That’s the definition. Anything else refers to results of the same.
Only the last point refers to global warming.
Average global temperature anomaly has been going up.
NH winters do not counter global warming unless it can be shown that they lead to ave. global temperature anomaly dropping in the long term.
Realclimate, Skeptical Science, and others use data from the IPCC. The IPCC data has been reviewed by the NAS. Skeptics wanted an independent study of the matter and funded BEST, which has come up with similar conclusions.
Global warming refers to an increase in ave. global temperature, and any cooling trends in winters in certain areas has not shown that to be false.
What is theorized is that CO2 emissions are leading to higher ave. global temperatures. That’s been discussed in detail in the NAS reports.
Finally, from what I remember, the reports refer to incidences of extreme weather conditions. Of course, there will be events that might not involve global warming.
The critical issue in the actual dispute is water vapor feedback. If you are not aware of this, that’s a problem. It means you don’t even understand what the dispute is about.
Would it surprise you to learn that the much-reviled Richard Lindzen believes in the theory of global warming as you have supposed it is defined?
Well how is it that you are so confident there was more “energy in the system” during the Carboniferous Era?
Yes (assuming for the sake of your question that the “scientific consensus” regarding the “properties of CO2 wrt infrared radiation” is that “CO2 tends to absrob, then re-emit, infrared radiation.”).
Nice subject change. So if the EPA Rule is not adopted, does it mean that you are losing the argument?
And by the way, how about providing 3 specific examples of “lots of empirical data that would disprove global warming”
I don’t think water vapor is the star of the show. The issue as I understand it is that human activity is causing higher CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) concentrations. This is what drives changes in the climate and causes things like melting arctic ice. This probably will have some effect on how water vapor behaves in the atmosphere, but predicting or not predicting that doesn’t change the fact that the issue starts with human greenhouse gas emissions.
I don’t know who that is, but this sounds like some kind of reverse argumentum ad populum. In the end it doesn’t matter who does and doesn’t accept the findings in this field, except for climate scientists. And they’re in agreement on the basics of the issue.
I’d be happy to discuss the carboniferous era with you a little later when I have some more time (or maybe someone else will jump in). In a nutshell, the carboniferous era is an example from Earth’s past of what high carbon levels do to the atmosphere. Massive amounts of carbon existed in the atmosphere then- gradually it got absorbed and stored underground in things like coal and oil (not all fossil fuels are from the carboniferous era though). Now we’re digging it up and putting that carbon back into the atmosphere, essentially re-creating those conditions.
Ok then, that is pretty much it. More carbon in the atmosphere is going to lead to more energy in ‘the system’ (land, oceans, atmosphere). Right now there is more carbon in the atmosphere than at any previous point in human history. It is predicted that this will cause mostly undesirable changes to conditions here on Earth.
I can give this a shot. Lesse… -if it were shown that giant volcanoes were emitting all the CO2, people wouldn’t treat this as an issue humans are causing.
-if it were shown that CO2 didn’t tend to trap infrared radiation, it wouldn’t be a ‘greenhouse gas’ after all. But good luck, this has been known for over 100 years and isn’t controversial AFAIK.
-If temperatures were dropping, ice caps growing, and sea levels falling, those would seem inconsistent at least. If, in the context of the rest of the globe the energy for those was not offset elsewhere, AGW theory could end up reviewed or scrapped. Obviously this doesn’t apply with cherry-picked data.
Water vapour’s a complete non-starter, as it’s explicitly excluded by the IPCC. Stratospheric WV is considered, but under aerosols. But we contribute little to the atmoshperic WV flux compared to the natural background amounts involved, so WV is considered part of the natural state of affairs.
People only bring up WV feedback if they have no clue about how the models (or science) works. Because including your controls or baselines in your variables is really, really poor science. Something we’ve covered in this discussion before.
once more into the breach
Like I said, the alarmist usually klnows almost nothing about the science of climate change, or the EGE theory, which is the basis of “global warming”.
First, that has already happened. second, it doesn’t actually counter the warming, since that has continued during the NH warm season, globally. Furthermore, that we can observe over a twenty year trend, land temperature falling,while ocean tempertures still rise, this directly counters the theory that CO2 is causing the climate change during that time period. Knowing what the theory says is vital, since with out human fingerprints on climate change, we can’t know if it’s human caused or not.
Your ignorance is appalling. Even for a fuckhead alarist you are ignorant.
Of course, and anyone who has spent any time at all, even doing the slightest research or educating themselves, knows this with no doubt. Which means of course, the fuckheads will say water vapor means nothing.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
I’m pretty sure that you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Since NOAA and NASA and pretty much the entire climate community talks about water vapor feedback. All the time.
Somebody who cares about reality and science can find this out with Google, and five minutes from now not be a fuckhead anymore. It almost never happens, but it could.
Just type into Google
site:nasa.gov
then
"global warming
then
“water vapor feedback”
Then you can see why it’s either dumber than hell or trolling at work.
So now even If temperatures were dropping, ice caps growing, and sea levels falling, it could still be global warming.
Priceless
The basis of arguments concerning extreme weather is the NAS.
Land temperature is not falling in the long term. Again, the problem is that you are cherry-picking. That is, you are only referring to the blue lines in the chart presented earlier. You need to look at the red line.
But you confirmed that definition in your previous message.
From the same source:
From the same site:
“Global Warming”
with a global mean surface temperature char showing that ave. global temperatures are not dropping. Also,
“Long-term global warming trend sustained in 2013”
“Arctic Melt Season Lengthens”
Sea Level Rise:
You just cherry-picked what I said. If all those things were happening yet the total energy of the system were still growing (for instance, if the oceans were somehow dramatically warmer in the temperate zones), then they could co-exist with AGW.
But it is kind of moot since none of those things are happening.