As I have said before, “Asking for a friend” was a joke. I’m sorry it did not appear that way. I cannot provide evidence that my cat is not really the one who wants to know.
Once again, I do not *have *a position. I read this thread not to punish myself, nor even to snark, but to learn. I ask your definition in order to understand what you mean.
As your previous questions pertain to my position on global warming, and as I have said that I have none, I’m not at all certain what questions you feel remain unanswered. But please, if you’d like me to answer your questions before you answer mine, feel free to repost them.
(To be perfectly frank, however, I’m not sure why you’d shy from defining your terms, regardless of who’s asking. You’ve made it clear that one of the shining failures of your opposition is an unwillingness to define their terms precisely and clearly. Why would you want to adhere to their tactics?)
.
I suppose I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I had thought you were trying to communicate on behalf of someone on my shit list.
In the global warming dispute, there are generally speaking two camps: Those who believe that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming which has major adverse impacts, and those who are skeptical of this claim. When I use the word “warmist,” I mean people who seem to belong to the first camp. I say “seem to” because people are not always forthcoming about their positions. People in the warmist group generally seem to adhere to most of the following beliefs:
The Earth has gotten significantly warmer since 1950 and that warming is primarily attributable to mankind’s activities;
Recent global surface temperatures and/or climate are in various respects unprecedented and this is due to mankind’s activities.
The IPCC predictions and analysis are generally speaking correct.
Mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to result in warming which has significant negative consequences.
The general view of research scientists is consistent with 1-4.
I actually answered your question because in fact I am eager to answer reasonable questions about my position. “How do you define ‘warmist’” is in fact a reasonable question. My reluctance is purely a result of your past behavior in this thread.
“concentrations have risen from 280 **to **nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned”
No, the CO2 in the atmosphere is not virtually entirely due to human activities, and nobody is claiming that, least of all the actual climatologists at RealClimate.
This wouldn’t even be funny if you weren’t on the wrong side of a massive scientific consensus.
Of course, this is like asking “Show me just one scientific paper that directly proves that a person would have gotten cancer if they had been exposed to asbestos”. I personally cannot believe you’ve never heard of James Hansen’s explanation of this (or any number of the countless other explanations of this). You know, “loaded dice” and whatnot. There’s a wealth of existing research which most scientists find fairly convincing (much of it documented by the IPCC, a lot of which you can find on sites like RealClimate and SkepticalScience). For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html
I’m honestly a little on the lazy side, but none of this is or should be hard to find. Spend a little while on SkS and you’ll find everything you’re looking for.
Or, you know, you won’t, because you’re asking for something which is both impossible and unreasonable. YMMV.
Hey, stupid, see the ice core data … do you just not know how to read graphs or something … see … it says 180 ppm.
Talk about lazy, neither of those Nature links says anything about AGW … try again. Eliza has made you look the fool again.
Let review:
Please provide a credible link to a scientific paper that substantiate your claim that AGW directly caused any hurricane, any drought or any sea-level rise. Skeptical Science is self-published, and of no scientific value.
A lot comes from water that has been stored underground for a very long time. Fossil fuels are not the only thing mankind has been removing from the ground and adding to the system.
The amount of water pumped from wells is far larger than the oil. And every pound of water has far more greenhouse effect than a pound of CO2. Aircraft don’t just add CO2 and NO2 to the stratosphere, they also add water vapor.
Is this a joke? Are you seriously saying fossil water changes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? I don’t know if you have noticed, but the earth is is three quarters covered in water. The vapor content of the atmosphere is determined by pressure and temperature, not human pumping of fossil water.
And aside from the rare stratovolcano blowing a shit ton of water vapor into the stratosphere, jet aircraft are the main source of adding water to the stratosphere. A very dry part of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and the constant addition of it to the dry atmosphere is indeed a forcing.
Since it doesn’t rain out, water vapor added to the stratosphere adds up in the energy equation. The clouds formed (contrails) also matter. Not that you will see much about this in the IPCC reports. After all, if science showed with little doubt that the huge addition of water vapor to the polar regions, from air traffic, was actually warming the arctic, then something might be done to restrict wealthy powerful people from flying all the time. Or worse.
Replacing jet fuel with hydrogen (can be done) would just make that particular anthropogenic forcing even worse. No wonder so many people deny anything we do can alter the atmospheric chemistry and change things.
If air traffic is damaging the world, well, you think the rich fucks (including the alarmists) are going to stop?
Right … the stratosphere has a very strong temperature inversion (temps go UP with increasing altitude). This arrests any vertical motion and we need rising air to create clouds. All that water vapor stays there in it’s vapor state doing it’s greenhouse thing. I don’t recall any circulation up there either, not like the various convection cells we see below the tropopause. The IPCC is written for the UN, now, you don’t expect them folks to quit flying over the polar regions, now do you?
On this map, 80% of the mass of the atmosphere is as thin as a sheet of paper.
Looks like they’re predicting major flooding rains in California this fall … I sure hope they can empty their reservoirs fast enough. Last thing California needs is water over-topping their dams.
