I do not engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty.
I can see why. A copy/ paste and he thinks he explained the climate model. Obviously he doesn’t understand the first principle, which is starting to seem a bit more than a little odd.
Have the morons run off anyone with an actual science background form here>
Well, you certainly were right about the avoidance and change of focus. It’s like arguing with a pseudo-scientist. As soon as you point out one fallacy, they change the tune.
I think that for the most part, people on the warmist side of the debate have little or no actual understanding of the issues involved.
If they had such understanding, they would be able to (1) explain their position in their own words; (2) answer simple questions to clarify their position; (3) summarize the evidence which supports their position; and (4) describe what evidence would make them change their mind.
You mean, like I do?
A good example of the stupid that seems to dominate the green mindset, or the true believer in carbon as death, with the maniacal moral preaching about reducing fuel use, is there ignorance of solutions. If you really want to reduce CO2, there are things that could be fixed now, that would more than meet the panic have-to-act-now clamoring.
First off, put out the coal fires.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/coal-seam-qr
China it seems is the only country actually planning on doing this. Currently coal seam fires are calculated to be 2 or 3% of the global carbon pollution. (no actual numbers available)
40 years ago they were 10% of the carbon.
Because they also pollute with real pollution, they should be a priority. Putting them out RIGHT NOW would reduce carbon right now, and it won’t destroy the economy.
One percent of the war budget might be enough to put them all out. Nobody knows.
Nobody is even proposing this. Except China.
Insanity.
It’s one of those things that when the will to do it is there, the technology would be created, and it won’t cost the fortune it would in the past.
Before you preach to the masses, get your shit together. And stop assuming anyone who disagrees with your batshit crazy talk is ignorant. That isn’t helping your cause.
Man oh man, the humor of that statement is one of those things most people will never get. (because you have to already know a lot more than what is said to get the joke)
From the Discussion section of the “respected journal” Radware Bot Manager Captcha
" the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."
This is the same John Cook (the SS blog author) that never defines what “the fundamental science of AGW” actually means. It’s why Gigogalloper couldn’t use SS as a source when confronted with questions about the science.
Everything Cook and company says (“publishes”) is about AGW, which seems to be “a belief that recent warming is all due to CO2 and CO2 only”.
It’s one of those marvelous and hugely ironic things, where the phrase the fundamental science of AGW is something Cook made up, and appears nowhere else in real scientific literature. When he adds that “(it)is no longer controversial” the comedy sketch explodes.
And I bet he actually believes this, with out realizing that it is the core tenant of what he is trying to “prove” with the very “letter” he said this in.
In short, he claims the conclusion of his “study” is true, within the definition of what he claims is just commom knowledge. Of course the title gave that away, but still.
I mean, this joke of a letter actually does what skeptics keep pointing out, it assumes a fact, then goes on to study the issue, with out realizing the letter is being used to claim they have proven the contentious issue isn’t even an issue.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
And again, no definition of what is meant by anthropogenic global warming
But wait, there’s more.
It gets so much worse.
I really don’t know if Galloper even knows the following. If not, it’s Priceless.
“Hacked” no doubt means somebody with a clue copied and released the secret forum thread.
if you still think this was a scientific study, it’s not. It’s propaganda, and it’s bad propaganda at best.
And there you go kids, that’s how “science” is done on the blogosphere. Conspire to create something to promote an agenda, create a fake letter, get it “published” online, promote it in advance, and have a plan in place to defend it, and even after your conspiracy is revealed, still go ahead with it.
And they truly can’t understand why people are skeptical.
Where do you get that idea? I didn’t say the description I quoted explained the standard climate model, just that it was a reasonably accessible description of one typical model to give you an idea of what it’s about.
If you want the standard climate model fully explained, you’ll have to go to a source of detailed research or education on climate modeling, like the sites that I linked to in the same post.
Again, your biggest problem here is that you can’t tell the difference between two ends of a spectrum. You apparently think that there’s no difference between a hypothesized ill-informed environmental extremist (and yes, there are certainly a lot of them out there, although perhaps not as many as ill-informed climate-change-denial ideologues) and an actual climate scientist.
The fact that some nutty doomsayers are almost certainly wrong about their more extreme pronouncements doesn’t in any way invalidate the actual science that GIGObuster and others are talking about here.
Nope. This claim has been exposed already as a dishonest denialist talking point, as noted in this recent article by one of the correspondents involved:
Emphasis added. (You have to go to the linked article site to reach the link for the public ratings system.)
Of course not, and nobody has said that. Also, the “actual science” is still being asked for. So far, nobody seems capable of even a simple description of “the consensus on the science of AGW”, except for that most people believe in it.
Well, if that’s the level of climate science concept that you’re struggling with, we can certainly help you out without requiring you to wade through full-scale technical specifications of climate models that are definitely going to be over your head. (As they are for most of the rest of us too, mind you, at least in a lot of their technical details; no shame in even a well-informed layperson not understanding every issue.)
But a basic working definition of “anthropogenic global warming” itself is reasonably accessible. From the IPCC AR4 Attribution of Climate Change section:
So to break down the technical terms for you:
-
“Global warming” refers to the observed continuing increasing trend in global average temperatures over the past several decades.
-
“External forcing” means an influence on climate trends that is not part of the regular climate cycle (seasonal changes, ocean circulation, etc.) External forcings can be natural extraterrestrial effects like long-term orbital variations, changes in solar output, etc., or anthropogenic effects, q.v.:
-
“Anthropogenic” just means “generated by humans”, and refers in this context to the increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that are unambiguously due to human activity.
Hope this helps.
I don’t mean to brag, folks, but I do get a little thrill of pride when this is posted. How many of the rest of you have achieved the Straight Dope Accolade of making brazil84’s ignore list?
You obviously haven’t read the thread, or you would realize you didn’t even reach the level we already have discussed.
I have, actually. If you felt that “anthropogenic global warning” was sufficiently defined in the thread already, then why were you complaining just a few posts ago about the lack of a definition for it?
Or were you perhaps complaining that the article you linked to in that recent post—a technical article in Environmental Research Letters, no less—didn’t contain an explicit definition of “anthropogenic global warming”?
I hope not, because I have to say that would be a seriously stupid complaint. I think you can safely assume that typical readers of Environmental Research Letters already have a grasp of the basic definition of “anthropogenic global warming” that’s at least as good as yours.
So again, why exactly were you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”?
Now I know you haven’t been reading.
See? Nobody said anything about feelings, it started when claims were made, and the people making them refused (or are unable) to simply explain what they mean. I blame gigogalloper, as he was by far the most prolific poster who simply can’t compose a paragraph explaining himself.
While that is an obvious strawman, still, what does he mean by "all the theory and science"? Then he started the other line of bullshit.
Once more, what does he mean by “the overall current theory”? That’s the hilarious and yet fucked up part.
Here we go again. It’s like the Wikipedia nonsense. if you search for “anthropogenic global warming” you get redirected to “Global Warming”, but that article does not contain the phrase “anthropogenic global warming”. Not even once.
Like I said, you clearly have not read the thread. Dishonest indeed.
What the Wikipedia article on Global Warming does say:
I think the Wikipedia reader of average intelligence would be easily able to deduce from this information what “anthropogenic global warming” means. I’m sorry if you found it confusing, though.
So, are you going to answer my question? Why exactly are you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”? Where and in what context do you claim that the term is being inadequately defined?
There is little confusion over what some people mean when they use that phrase. That was never the issue.
it is about what the “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” means. No matter what the name (and there seem to be many), that was the issue, and specific questions were asked about this.
So far, there isn’t any clarity, much less a link to the theory, and all kinds of tap dancing around this has occurred.
It’s quite entertaining in a sick sort of way.
You can of course, end it all and simply spill the beans.
When the phrase/term “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” is used, what is the definition that you mean?
And what is your source?
If you don’t know, just say so.
Or, to paraphrase brazil84: what predictions does it currently make, and what hypothetical future evidence would prove them wrong?
So, never mind that, then?
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
When the phrase/term “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” is used, what is the definition that you mean?
[/quote]
AFAICT, that exact particular phrase is mostly just a dogwhistle for anti-science climate-change-denier types. I don’t think it has a standard scientific definition.
There are several closely related terms, such as “Theory of Global Warming” which one climate scientist interprets thus:
That seems like a reasonable statement of climate science consensus views on global warming.
Are you asking for information about scientific evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis? Or about the theoretical climate models that are used to study the hypothesis? Or are you asking, as Waldo is, for examples of specific falsifiable predictions made by the AGW hypothesis?
That last is fairly straightforward; as the above-linked article notes,
Quite. However, that linked page makes a tremendously interesting point about specifics: “The last part of the statement of the theory is, of course, the hard part, and the most uncertain. I have deliberately left the matter of the severity of the impacts of such a climate change out of the hypothesis. Theories regarding the impact are nascent and in many regards still rather ill-formed, in comparison to the theory dealing with the physical dimensions of climate change.”
That’s . . .y’know, kind of the whole point, there. It’s one thing to say it indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out; it’s another to then specify what hypothetical evidence would, at the end of said experiment, prove the theory false. How soon could it be disproven? What, at a minimum, would need to show up, by when?
Like the man said: that’s “the hard part”.
While I think these are important questions, there are even more fundamental questions which need to be answered – most importantly, what exactly is the Theory of Global Warming (or whatever you want to call it).
Is it the claim that global surface temperatures have increased over the last 100 years, regardless of the cause?
Is it the claim that man’s activities have caused global surface temperatures to increase over the last 50 years, regardless of the mechanism?
Is it the claim that man’s CO2 emissions, significantly amplified by water vapor feedback, are likely to cause significant harm if unchecked?
Once the exact theory (or hypothesis or claim) is spelled out, one can then discuss what evidence supports the theory; what predictions it makes; and what evidence would undermine the theory.
But generally speaking, warmists refuse to even spell out exactly what their position is and is not.
Why is that? At bottom, I think it’s because they want to simultaneously claim that (1) lots of people, including lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of solid evidence supporting their position; (3) their is little or no evidence undermining their position; and (4) if their policy prescriptions are not followed, really bad things will happen.
There is no one Theory of Global Warming which satisfies all 4 of these conditions so warmists need to be vague, ambiguous, and evasive about what their actual position is and is not.