I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[YogSothoth]

@FXMastermind

“the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change”

Is there a theory that explains how this has happened?

What is the theory, and where is it defined, explained, whatever you want to call it.

What predictions does the theory (or whatever name you use) say about changes, so that evidence can be presented to confirm.

Does the AGW theory (or whatever you use to name it) predict feedback from water vapor? How will the scientific world know if this is occurring?

What is the science behind the prediction?

Those are the questions being asked, which obviously are being ignored by the cocksure alarmists insisting it is happening.

What is “it”? Obviously skepticalscience.com has no page explaining this. Or we would see it spammed over and over by Gigobuster.

If you use a term, and make claims, you are required to explain what you mean.

You’re asking some pointless questions, that’s why nobody’s engaging you. Global warming is real and man is causing it. You can either float there in your couch with your fingers in your ears or help to stop it. As for me, the relevant portions of your post have already been answered in this thread. And no, I’m not going to point that out to you :rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

“the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change”

Is there a theory that explains how this has happened?

Already mentioned, it is just your doubling down idiocy to think your refusal to deal with it will magically convince others of your failure.

@FXMastermind

What is the theory, and where is it defined, explained, whatever you want to call it.

What predictions does the theory (or whatever name you use) say about changes, so that evidence can be presented to confirm.

Does the AGW theory (or whatever you use to name it) predict feedback from water vapor? How will the scientific world know if this is occurring?

Redirect Notice

(PDF)

Despite these advances, observational evidence
is crucial to determine whether models
really capture the important aspects of the
water vapor feedback. Such evidence is now
available from satellite observations of the
response of atmospheric humidity (and its
impacts on planetary radiation) to a number of
climate variations. Observations during the
seasonal cycle, the El Niño cycle, the sudden
cooling after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo,
and the gradual warming over recent
decades all show atmospheric humidity changing
in ways consistent with those predicted by
global climate models, implying a strong and
positive water vapor feedback (9–13). A strong
and positive water vapor feedback is also necessary
for models to explain the magnitude of
past natural climate variations (14).
Both observations and models suggest that
the magnitude of the water vapor feedback is
similar to that obtained if the atmosphere held
relative humidity constant everywhere. This
should not be taken to mean that relative
humidity will remain exactly the same everywhere.
Regional variations of relative humidity
are seen in all observed climate variations
and in model simulations of future climate,
but have a negligible net impact on the global
feedback (12).

Thus, although there continues to be some
uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the
water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be
strongly positive, with most evidence supporting
a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient
to roughly double the warming that
would otherwise occur. To date, observational
records are too short to pin down the exact size
of the water vapor feedback in response to
long-term warming from anthropogenic
greenhouse gases. However, it seems unlikely
that the water vapor feedback in response to
long-term warming would behave differently
from that observed in response to shorter-time
scale climate variations. There remain many
uncertainties in our simulations of the climate,
but evidence for the water vapor feedback—
and the large future climate warming it
implies—is now strong.

@FXMastermind

What is the science behind the prediction?

Those are the questions being asked, which obviously are being ignored by the cocksure alarmists insisting it is happening.

The only cocksure thing is that you are a stinky liar that in reality only gets information from denier sources.

@FXMastermind

What is “it”? Obviously skepticalscience.com has no page explaining this. Or we would see it spammed over and over by Gigobuster.

Case in point, more lies from you.

@FXMastermind

If you use a term, and make claims, you are required to explain what you mean.

You first…

Actually you never started, you only have accusations with no support whatsoever, not only on the accusations launched against me, but your coward reaction to what the science says.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Once you reach the point of calling names, you are pretty much done. If anyone takes you seriously after watching you act like a spoiled child, with a potty mouth, well, that makes them losers as well.

Hell, just because I responded to such nonsense make me a loser as well.

Suit yourself, as I reported before I post not for dunces like you but to help other (and myself) learn about the issue, the fact that you do not learn anything from what was reported before is just further evidence of ***why ***you are a loser.

[FXMastermind]

I’m pretty sure Gigobusters will never ever explain the basic theory of global warming. Much less understand the science.

That he denies there even is such a thing is very strange. You can usually expect a spamming of some skepticalscience page when anything comes up. But when the very basis of the conversation arises, he find nothing solid to link to.

Not that the term “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming” doesn’t show up on skepticalscience.com, it appears endlessly in the comments, it just doesn’t actually have a page explaining it, or what is assumed to happen due to the AGW theory.

It’s why a direct question is avoided. When somebody claims “97% of scientists believe in global warming”, you really need to define what that means.

@YogSosoth

Global warming is real and man is causing it.

Once more, what is the scientific theory, hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, what IS “it”? If you claim “man is causing it”, you need to explain what “it” is.

[FXMastermind]

The astute reader will note Gigobuster never actually uses the term “AGW theory”, or “theory of global warming”, which is pretty fucking strange.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

I’m pretty sure Gigobusters will never ever explain the basic theory of global warming. Much less understand the science.

That he denies there even is such a thing is very strange. You can usually expect a spamming of some skepticalscience page when anything comes up. But when the very basis of the conversation arises, he find nothing solid to link to.

The big lie just continues

@FXMastermind

Not that the term “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming” doesn’t show up on skepticalscience.com, it appears endlessly in the comments, it just doesn’t actually have a page explaining it, or what is assumed to happen due to the AGW theory.

It’s why a direct question is avoided. When somebody claims “97% of scientists believe in global warming”, you really need to define what that means.

I answered “yes” 3 times, you stinky liar.

@FXMastermind

Once more, what is the scientific theory, hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, what IS “it”? If you claim “man is causing it”, you need to explain what “it” is.

Already explained, you just do not like the answer and you are not fooling anyone but the certified guys that only want to be cowards and “ban” the ones that they can not really answer or deal with the science and history:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The Theory Restored (1950-1958)
The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security. Among the first products of these research efforts were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23)

The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn’t just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate.

Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation.(25)

But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer down through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current (1950s) rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.”(26)

The computation, like Callendar’s, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. “It is almost certain,” one authority scolded, “that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions.”(27) Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be “a serious problem to future generations” — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. “If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise,” he wrote, then it would be “firmly established” that CO2 could cause climate change.(28)

None of this work met the argument that the oceans would promptly absorb nearly all the CO2 humanity might emit. Plass had estimated that gas added to the atmosphere would stay there for a thousand years. Equally plausible estimates suggested that the surface waters of the oceans would absorb it in a matter of days.(29) Fortunately, scientists could now track the movements of carbon with a new tool: the radioactive isotope carbon-14.

This radioactive isotope was produced abundantly in the fallout from nuclear weapon tests during the 1950s. Sensitive instruments could detect even a tiny amount carried thousands of miles on the world’s winds, and the data provided the first comprehensive mapping of the global circulation of air. The results confirmed what had only been guessed: within a few years any addition of CO2 was well mixed throughout the atmosphere, from pole to pole and from the surface into the highest stratosphere.(29a)

Carbon-14 is also created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and then decays over millennia. The carbon in ancient coal and oil is so old that it entirely lacks the radioactive isotope. Therefore emissions from burning fossil fuels would add only plain carbon to the atmosphere. In 1955, the chemist Hans Suess reported an analysis of wood from trees grown over the past century, finding that the newer the wood, the higher its ratio of plain carbon to carbon-14. He had detected an increase of fossil carbon in the atmosphere.

The amount of fossil carbon that Suess saw added to the atmosphere was barely one percent, a fraction so low that he concluded that the oceans were indeed taking up most of the carbon that came from burning fossil fuels. A decade would pass before he reported more accurate studies, which showed a far higher fraction of fossil carbon. Yet already in 1955 it was evident that Suess’s data were preliminary and insecure. The important thing he had demonstrated was that fossil carbon really was showing up in the atmosphere. More work on carbon-14 should tell just how carbon was circulating in the planetary system.(30)

Suess took up the problem in collaboration with Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. (Some other carbon-14 experts attacked the topic independently, all reaching much the same conclusions.) From measurements of how much of the isotope was found in the air and how much in sea water, they calculated the movements of CO2 (link from below). It turned out that the ocean surface waters took up a typical molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere within a decade or so. Measurements of the travels of radioactive carbon from bomb tests meanwhile showed that the oceans turned over completely in several hundred years (an estimate soon confirmed by evidence from other studies).(31) At first sight that seemed fast enough to sweep any extra CO2 into the depths.

But Revelle had been studying the chemistry of the oceans through his entire career, and he knew that the seas are not just salt water but a complex stew of chemicals. These chemicals create a peculiar buffering mechanism that stabilizes the acidity of sea water. The mechanism had been known for decades, but Revelle now realized that it would prevent the water from retaining all the extra CO2 it took up. A careful look showed that the surface layer could not really absorb much additional gas — barely one-tenth the amount a naïve calculation would have predicted.

A supplementary essay on Revelle’s Discovery tells this crucial story in full, as a detailed example of the complex interactions often found in geophysical research.
Revelle did not at first recognize the full significance of his work. He made a calculation in which he assumed that industry would emit CO2 at a constant rate (like most people at the time, he scarcely grasped how explosively population and industry were rising). This gave a prediction that the concentration in the air would level off after a few centuries, with an increase of no more than 40%. Revelle did note that greenhouse effect warming “may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially.” He also wrote that “Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”(32)

As sometimes happens with landmark scientific papers, written in haste while understanding just begins to dawn, Revelle’s explanation was hard to grasp. Other scientists failed to see the point that was obscurely buried in the calculations, and continued to deny there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, when Callendar published a paper to insist once again that CO2 observations showed a steady rise from the 19th century, he noted Revelle’s paper but still confessed that he did not understand why “the oceans have not been accepting additional CO2 on anything like the accepted scale.”(33) Finally in 1959 two meteorologists in Sweden, Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson, caught on. They explained the sea water buffering clearly — so clearly that during the next few years, some scientists cited Bolin and Eriksson’s paper for this decisive insight rather than Revelle and Suess’s (only in later years was Revelle always cited for the discovery).(34) The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2, most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss. To be sure, the chemistry of air and sea water would eventually reach an equilibrium — but that could take thousands of years. Arrhenius had not concerned himself with timescales shorter than that, but geoscientists in the 1950s did.

[FXMastermind]

Are you saying, “Yes, there is a theory of global warming. It is called the greenhouse theory of global warming.”

Is that your answer? I know it seems silly, but you avoid a direct answer. No doubt, you will avoid answering this simple question as well.

[FXMastermind]

The reason I ask, is in the link you used, the only time the “theory of global warming” appears is here:

During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that at the end of the last glacial period, the initial rise of temperature in Antarctica had preceded CO2 changes by several centuries. Some scientists doubted that dates could be measured so precisely, but as as better cores were extracted the data increasingly pointed to a time lag.(53a*) This surprised and confused many people. If changes in CO2 began after changes in temperature, didn’t that contradict the greenhouse theory of global warming? But in fact the lag was not good news.

So, is that what you mean when you say “AGW”, or “global warming”?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Are you saying, “Yes, there is a theory of global warming. It is called the greenhouse theory of global warming.”

Is that your answer? I know it seems silly, but you avoid a direct answer. No doubt, you will avoid answering this simple question as well.

That is my answer, yes. I expect however that you will miss the larger context so I will leave it at that for the time being, but one has to simplify the discussion for simpler posters.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

That is my answer, yes.

I just knew we would finally get you to answer a simple question.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

The reason I ask, is in the link you used, the only time the “theory of global warming” appears is here:

So, is that what you mean when you say “AGW”, or “global warming”?

Once again to simplify, yes, now do the honest thing and deal with the cites. Show us that you understand the history and why most of what you have posted does not fit with it.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

I just knew we would finally get you to answer a simple question.

Yes, but this is your 3rd stall, deal with the information, and do not forget the explanation and evidence (that exists, remember that you guys claimed that it did not) regarding the water vapor feedback.

BTW that was the method to my madness, I do want to see first if an opponent has actually seen the history of the science and learned from it, some never learn and go for pages without looking at the evidence presented just because of a “missing” detail that they claim is a deal breaker, in reality that way of thinking is bananas.

[FXMastermind]

Now calm down there lad. we are still working out the kinks in the communication process.

Do you find the following terms other ways of talking about “the greenhouse theory of global warming”?

the CO2 theory
AGW
global warming theory
theory of global warming
AGW theory
Climate change
greenhouse effect warming
abrupt climate change

Would you agree they are all talking about the same thing? And if we use them we understand what is being said?

I ask this because various sources use all the above, there is no common term used.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Now calm down there lad. we are still working out the kinks in the communication process.

Do you find the following terms other ways of talking about “the greenhouse theory of global warming”?

the CO2 theory
AGW
global warming theory
theory of global warming
AGW theory
Climate change
greenhouse effect warming
abrupt climate change

Would you agree they are all talking about the same thing? And if we use them we understand what is being said?

I ask this because various sources use all the above, there is no common term used.

Dodge #4 Noted.

Lets concentrate on the basic line coming from the discoverer of the full effects of the downward longwave radiation (Plass) as seen from other sources Plass was not dismissed as you misleadingly hinted before,

In the 1940’s there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. It was also discovered that water vapor absorbed totally different types of radiation than carbon dioxide. Gilbert Plass summarized these results in 1955. He concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would intercept infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space, warming the earth.

• Maslin, M., Global Warming, a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004

As pointed before, the basic idea is still used and confirmed.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract

These results suggest that these two methods could be applied to most of the Earth’s land surfaces. Accordingly, we applied them to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in Ld. The decadal variations in global Ld under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.

The problem here is that there is no good explanation that should leads us to deny or ignore that evidence.

[YogSothoth]

@FXMastermind

Once more, what is the scientific theory, hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, what IS “it”? If you claim “man is causing it”, you need to explain what “it” is.

Already answered in this thread. Please reread, thanks.

And just FYI, outside of a Grammar Nazi’s convention, nobody is all that impressed by your parsing of obvious words. If this is a schtick, please get a new one

[Cheshire_Human]

@FXMastermind

Now calm down there lad…

What? You’re still going on in your latest ‘FX is a drooling moron’ blog thread?

[FXMastermind]

@YogSosoth

You’re asking some pointless questions, that’s why nobody’s engaging you. :

@GIGObuster

That is my answer, yes. )

@YogSosoth

Already answered in this thread. Please reread, thanks.\

Well, at least we got a name, as well as some pseudonyms for what is being discussed.

Next comes the hard part. Getting the definition, explanation and predictions that the theory makes.

It’s hilarious that pointless questions arouse so much hostility. Oh wait, they aren’t pointless at all.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Well, at least we got a name, as well as some pseudonyms for what is being discussed.

Next comes the hard part. Getting the definition, explanation and predictions that the theory makes.

It’s hilarious that pointless questions arouse so much hostility. Oh wait, they aren’t pointless at all.

Nope, your way to deal with the issue is a classic Just Asking Questions fallacy, as it turns out, what you posted here was your dodge #5.

Nowhere do you acknowledge that we also pointed at the papers that have the explanations and the predictions that were made and the confirmations that were made.

That last part is precisely the reason why you do not want to deal with the science and the data in the first place that come from applying the theory in the field, your ignorance is so strong that it will be deadly to it if you acknowledge also that the next steps you are talking about were already made, not to mention: explained in this thread also.

[FXMastermind]

Try to stay calm. When somebody is predicting all kinds of doom and danger, it’s normal for people to ask them questions. Refusing to answer, or calling names is silly and unproductive.

It also makes you look a bit loony.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Try to stay calm. When somebody is predicting all kinds of doom and danger, it’s normal for people to ask them questions. Refusing to answer, or calling names is silly and unproductive.

It also makes you look a bit loony.

Dodge #6

And no, based on the feedback from scientists I got in this message board, you are indeed showing all that it is you who is allowing his ignorance to drive you, so why should I be agitated? In reality I’m laughing at your ineptitude.