Whoops, didn’t finish up there. Doesn’t matter; if you cared you could do some research of your own. There’s a massive amount understood about the subject.
It was just a matter of time before somebody pointed out what I’ve been saying for years now.
Maybe you could explain your allusion a bit better, I really don’t see the connection. We know exactly the death rate in Hiroshima due to nuclear fission before we dropped the atom bomb on them. Any and all deaths due to radiation poisoning after is 100% attributable to the atom bomb.
Today we have an ongoing natural process of climate change, and clearly climate changing is the norm since long before Homo sapiens evolved. I believe we are in agreement that man-kind’s activities is altering this natural cycle. So, it makes sense to know what the climate should be in order to determine exactly how much man-kind is altering it.
As an added bonus, we might learn how CO[sub]2[/sub] is sequestered by nature … perhaps giving us an economical solution.
A localized cooling trend does not disprove global warming. Also, that data just shows winters getting colder, which says nothing about the average temperature.
Sorry, I don’t know the answers to these. I know enough to show that FXMastermind is wrong, but not enough to answer your questions.
“The other driver was going over 90 mph.”
“What was the exact make and model of his car, and what was the volume of his engine’s compression?”
“I don’t know.”
Then you probably don’t know enough to make the claims you are making.
A better analogy:
And please answer my question from before:
Nope . . . is that all that is being claimed?
i.e. the Earth is getting warmer, without any claim as to the cause of the warming (natural or man-made), the amount of the warming, or the likely effects of such warming?
Obviously an understanding of how climate actually works is crucial to science, to predictions and knowing what changes we might be causing. If you don’t know how climate works, you can’t know if it is changing, or know what effects we can have. This is basic knowledge, even when it seems on the internet it’s mysterious or arcane.
Let’s rehash what has already been stated many times ITT (in this thread)
CO2 theory (global warming) makes predictions about what added GhGs (green house gases) should cause in the atmosphere. Two key predictions are the most warming will show up at high latitudes and during winter. This is based on assumptions, the physics of an enhanced greenhouse effect (AGW theory) and how the system responds to increased forcing (heat from solar energy leaves the system slower), causing the energy balance to tip towards a warmer world. Feedbacks are predicted, which cause even more warming. (GhGs alone cause a very small amount of warming)
Key feedback mechanisms (this is basic CO2 theory) are less snow and ice, as well as an increase in atmospheric water vapor, both of which lead to more warming, once again, mostly in winter, in high latitudes. Less snow and ice means more solar energy is absorbed. More GhGs means more greenhouse effect when water vapor is low, once again, high latitudes and in winter, the times water vapor is lowest. The NH high latitudes will warm the most, in winter. This is basic CO2 theory knowledge. It’s common knowledge among climate science. (sourced here, full paper here)
So a cooling trend for NH winters is exactly opposite of theory. Especially with no huge volcanoes or other factors to cause it. It is a scientific and evidence based refutation of the CO2 theory, of global warming (AGW), of the enhanced greenhouse effect as driver of climate. It’s so irrefutable, especially when you realize that it is also directly responsible for the annual average not showing a warming trend. (explained and sourced here)
Note that we are talking about the entire globe, not just the US in this case. The US winters actually match the boreal trends, colder, with more snow.
All that being matter of fact, it does not mean our actions are not changing anything. In fact, after if became impossible to deny the cooling winter trend (with more snow), the concept that global warming (which should scientifically be called the CO2 theory, or climate change) is actually CAUSING the cooling trend was published. (sourced above)
This, once again, has been explained multiple times ITT, that instead of the expected feedback from more open oceans in the high latitudes leading to warmer winters, instead heavy and early snowfall is leading to colder winters. Add in changes to the stratospheric circulation from solar changes, and it just might be the climate change means colder winters. Global cooling. For now.
It’s when you have an open mind and look at the data that learning happens. The people that know everything can’t learn a thing.
Could you point to where these were “stated”, as I have not followed this 64-page thread.
Also, if the earth is warming up, but not exactly in the pattern that was predicted, does that somehow mean the earth isn’t warming up after all?
I linked to sources, so you (or I) don’t have to look through a thousand posts for where it was posted here. The info is in the links.
No, that isn’t what it means at all. Nor is that what is being talked about. It is the obvious (and extreme in some cases) cooling trend for NH winters that is the unexpected thing. The most uncomfortable fact that at first was denied denied denied (the claims were -winters are warming more than any other season, snowfall is reducing, winter wheat will suffer, organisms will move north, pine beetles will thrive, etc etc)
Now the story is “global warming is causing colder winters”.
Ain’t that something?
It is the kind of warming that is predicted by the CO2 theory that directly supports the theory. If the warming isn’t the kind that CO2 theory prtedicts, then the theory is wrong. Or we don’t know enough about the system. Or something else is causing the changes. Or more likely, something nobody even knows about running the show.
Let’s try again.
We know that people have died for various reasons throughout history. Do we require exact knowledge of what has caused people to die in the past to know that JFK died of a gunshot wound? No, of course not, because we can examine the direct, present physical evidence.
We know that climate has changed for various reasons throughout history. Do we require exact knowledge of what has caused climate to change in the past to know that increasing the current CO2 concentration will cause a change (warming, to be precise)? No, of course not, because we can examine the direct, present physical evidence. You know, the physical evidence that’s been around since the late 1800s. To deny this because we don’t know everything about the past is asinine. It’s, as implied, denial. Not rational skepticism.
But we need little to no knowledge of the past for this. Indeed, all we need is to determine the human output. Every single denialist - every single one I have encountered - severely underestimates the value of basic analytic science here. It’s not some all-powerful tool, and I doubt you could get the full picture with that alone, but that the basic effect would be warming is trivial, and how much of the CO2 is anthropogenic is, again, a matter of chemical and physical analysis. The actual effects of this warming is not so simple, but careful examination of the peer-reviewed literature shows that these effects have been mapped-out to an almost absurd degree. We’ve got a vast depth of research detailing these effects. Research you apparently have never seen. For some reason.
As usual, you’re a fair bit behind the times.
Why bother if you’re just going to say the same thing. “You ask for every little detail, so I won’t answer at all.” You go on to apparently claim that every molecule of this 400 ppm is caused by man-kind’s activities, when clearly 280 ppm is of natural origin.
Show me the math, 2.6 x 10[sup]8[/sup] ft[sup]3[/sup] of natural gas is burnt in the USA per year … how many ppm does this add to the atmosphere? But I agree, alarmism is best served without knowledge.
You are very confused about my form of denialism, I don’t deny the Earth is warming nor do I deny man-kind contributes. I deny that this is a bad thing in of itself. Droughts, major hurricanes and rising sea-levels have been occurring for over ten thousands years. So what bad thing is going to happen that hasn’t been happening?
They both mean change in temperature, ∆T and dT. ∆T is the change over some finite period of time whereas dT is the change in an infinitely short period of time. If you don’t understand math, try not to make definitive statements about it.
And yet you can’t link to a single source explaining the basic stuff. For some reason.
Like why the warming winters at high latitudes are a basic prediction of greenhouse theory. Or why warming should be greatest in dry areas, in winter, and at night.
Um… No?
It’s not just math, you know. There’s also chemistry:
"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."
Well, then this entire line of inquiry is still ridiculous. Why should we care about the historical data? What issue do you have with the methodologies at play in the many, many, many papers examining things such as drought intensity and frequency, hurricane strength, sea level rise, etc.?
Huh … I actually read the OP … why didn’t we have a birthday party for this thread?
Well what exactly is being claimed? That the Earth is warming up? That mankind’s CO2 emissions, if unchecked, will lead to diaster? Something else?
Although it’s not entirely clear, warmists seem to claim (at least some of the time), that mankind’s CO2 emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming. This claim is based on computer models. So if the computer models are wrong, it’s a big problem for the warmists.
On the other hand, if all that is being claimed is that the Earth is getting warmer, then the models’ failure is less important. But then there’s no basis to demand limitations on CO2 emissions.
The upshot of all this is that warmists are on the horns of a dilemma. Do they take the more limited position which is actually not that meaningful or controversial? Or do they stake out a more aggressive position which won’t stand up to scrutiny?
One way to solve the problem is by leaving their position ambiguous. And indeed, it’s common among warmists to shy away from spelling out their position.
Hey brazil84, how do you define “warmist?”
I view “warmist” (warmer, warminista, warmonger, alarmists, whatever) as a counter to “denier”, where people use loaded language instead of using science and logic and reason to argue. It’s super ironic, like the example from “rational” wiki.
Is that not hilarious? The definition of warmist uses global warming deniers in the actual definition! And I suspect it isn’t intentional irony.
But I learned something new there.
Loaded language - RationalWiki
It’s funny, but denier isn’t on the list of snarl words.
Priceless.
I told you, I’m not interested in engaging with someone by proxy. Let’s do this:
Represent to me that (1) this is your question and nobody else’s; (2) from now on you will answer questions seriously about your own position; and (3) provide serious answers to the questions I asked of you previously, and I will attempt to answer it.
I was going demand a cite for this, but you’ve already provided it:
So, by your own citation the answer is “yes” … you should actually read the links you post.
Nice try, your math sucks then?. [giggle] That’s a bit a low blow, I was aiming at your kidneys, not your balls. Sorry …
I am glad your chemistry is good, the dendrochronology data confirms the ice core data. That always bothered me that no one questioned the latter dataset, so I’m glad to see it’s been confirmed through means mostly different than what they yard up out of the ice sheets.
Show me just one scientific paper, please. Any one that directly proves that AGW caused any drought, any hurricane, any sea-level rise.
I agree your line of inquiry is ridiculous, I just asked a simple question “What causes natural climate change”. YOU’RE the one who freaked out vomiting your anti-denialist rhetoric. That’s the problem with trying to defend an indefensible position, you can only attack.
Please, if you theory cannot be demonstrated, then it’s likely total crap.
So, you agree then, weather and climate is all the same thing except climate uses ∆T and weather uses dT.