While he dodges and weaved, even Tamino couldn’t just ignore it.
This isn’t the only peer reviewed science of course, and it’s certainly not more than a hypothetical mechanism, but it makes sense and is based on observation and data, not an untested theory.
I’m not surprised that the warmists have avoided the issue, as it skewers one of their sacred cows pretty bad.
On the positive, the paper mentioned includes one of the key things used to distinguish CO2 forced warming from natural changes.
If we interpret “anthropogenic” simply to mean “created by mankind,” then anthropogenic global warming would include warming caused by changes in land use, for example changes from forest to farmland; paving of previously undeveloped areas; and so on.
I doubt anyone disputes that these sorts of land use changes can cause measurable increases in surface temperatures.
And yet the warmists seem to have something else in mind when they talk about “AGW”
Similarly, even “deniers” like Richard Lindzen agree that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming. I myself agree that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming. So why is Richard Lindzen referred to as a “denier”?
So it’s critical for warmists to lay out their position in detail (which I doubt they will ever do). And it’s disingenuous to assert that FXMastermind should simply use the dictionary definition of “anthropogenic” in interpreting peoples’ statements.
I clicked on your link, and read the quoted excerpt in context.
I’d like you, Mr. Mastermind, to paraphrase the point that the blog-writer is making, and what your reaction to it is. This will be a test of your reading comprehension, so Dopers can guess whether to take you seriously. AFAICT, you have no clue at all.
I agree that’s probably part of it. I doubt that septimus thought it through very carefully before making his ridiculous comment about “anthropogenic.”
That is a fallacy. Like thinking heat waves are directly due to GW, or that a heat wave proves global warming is happening. Whatever GW actually means of course.
If you can “blame” specific weather patterns on AGW, then certainly you can “blame” AGW for cold events as well. (the links I provided show exactly that is already happening). In essence, the current state of “blame” for AGW is actually at the point where heat and cold are blamed on AGW. Once can see why a skeptic would ask for some specific predictions, since blaming everything on AGW starts to look real sketchy at some point.
Obviously the water vapor feedback issue is avoided, because anyone who knows even a little about the controversy knows good and damn well it’s the biggest controversy.
While that seems like sarcasm, or taking it too far, it actually IS the belief of some people. They actually believe all the science is settled, AGW is happening, it already will be very bad, and nothing can be done at this point to stop it.
In short, humanity is doomed. And they blame their fellow man, while they still consume fossil fuels daily. You can see this attempted hypocritical guilt trip in this very topic.
If you want to counter ignorance, you have to actually know what you are talking about. Gigogalloper left the topic, nobody knows why. I suspect it was because he ran into things there was no canned response for.
This is because the pseudo-scientific blogs never actually take on the real controversies, and waste time on straw men arguments they create.
Honestly, climate forecasting is actually a real unknown still. Hell, if you read the topic aso far, you know that even defining the terms is a real bitch.
Hopefully the IPCC report due out soon will be enough to spur some politicians to action, and ignore the stupid ones who are literally drowning in their own ignorance and water. I wonder how much it costs to buy a person like FX? He’s stupid, so maybe a California Quarter and a half bag of M&Ms?
I read the link and FXMastermind’s post and it all seems consistent.
FX has consistently been pro-facts and anti-“vagueness”.
The quote, context and intent of the linked article are in line with FX’s previous posts.
Do you see an inconsistency? And if so what is it, I’m curious if my analysis is incorrect.
Why anyone promoting fear and concern over AGW/GW/Climate Change/Disruptive climate change/whatever-you-use would be incapable of simply explaining what they mean, it’s a prime example of pseudo-science.
Trying to say, “asking for the theory is a denier tactic” is the opposite of science.
Those statements are quite enough to justify an inquiry into what is being stated. In fact, it’s a crucial point. And, it’s actually quite interesting to learn about the physics behind the theoretical, and why many scientist arre sure warming will happen, will continue, and why there are serious concerns about future changes to our planet.
I’ve seen FX post about satellite data showing global warming during a time period (don’t remember which years), which doesn’t sound like “denies global warming”.
How about this, let’s ask FX for his stance on “global warming” - just provide a clear definition of “global warming” and I suspect you will get a clear answer in response.
Here is a sub section that explains (in a scientific manner) two of the important effects from CO2 forced warming. climate4you Polar temperatures then click Polar regions as key regions for global climate change
Just reading that section will enable somebody of average intelligence to grasp why the polar regions are so important in climate change, as well as why a cooling trend for boreal winters is a big deal. And it also contains more information about CO2 and the mechansim of warming than this entire thread so far, as well as the entire pseudo-scientific blog skepticalscience.
(yeah, I gave up on any of the alarmist ever simply linking to anything that would explain this)
I don’t consider my “views” as that important. The science is complex, ongoing and certainly there is no settled much of anything, except that mankind will probably keep polluting the planet.
It really should include changes in land use (mostly deforestation) as well as particulates, ozone destruction, and urban heat island effects, agriculture and water sequestering, irrigation and aircraft pollution.
Oh well. Still, it just makes me sick sometimes.
There are a lot of claims made about the current "global climate", and controversies over past climates, changes and what not and so forth. I used to simply believe most of them. Becoming a skeptic and looking at evidence, actually educating myself about the many facets, I could no longer just buy into the official story, the warmists doom, the alarmists nonsense.
One of the worst lies is about the past climate conditions, in comparison with the "now", where we are told it's warmer now than it has ever been in the Holocene. I call it a lie because of the evidence uncovered by melting glaciers. Evidence that means the "NH reconstructions" are simply bullshit.
Retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier reveals the remains of trees which grew more than 2,000 years ago
Posted: September 13, 2013 - 12:02am
This story is repeated over and over. The small tidewater glaciers that retreat the fastest respond to changes quickly, compared to the large glaciers. So the warming now shows up there "fast". It's why they reveal the past climate.
No kidding. And the evidence is clear, despite how much the alarmists hates it. It was much warmer in the "recent" past. Not this insane hocky stick nonsense, and certainly the present isn't worth going into a panic over.
If it was just one glacier, it could be handwaved away. It should be interesting as more time goes by, to see how the staunch warmists denies the evidence.
Most likely it will just be ignored. Like all other evidence that doesn't support the "official" story.
