“Dude”, you seem to have me confused with somebody who gives a shit about your opinion.
I would guess it varies from person to person. Gigo is too stupid to understand the theory and answer questions about it in his own words.
At the other end of the warmist intelligence spectrum we have people like chronos who is probably smart enough to understand; however I think in his case the part of his brain which craves social acceptance is overriding the part which is capable of reasoning forward.
The history and the science of both climate history, the discovery of the ice ages, the various theories to explain them, the discovery of “greenhouse” gases, the early attempts to model climate, it’s actually a very interesting story. That it all is mixed together with political bullshit and conspiracy theory, and hyped and twisted in so many ways, it sort of sucks ass.
Instead of interesting and enlightening conversation, it devolves quickly into the sort of mudslinging usually reserved for fights over morality and personal freedoms. Or worse. Who can blame most people for choosing the easy road and going with “the consensus”, vilifying all who question the official story, and feeling all smug and superior, with out knowing jackshit about either climate or the science involved.
The system is getting more energy added. Things you would predict:
More variability.
Over the long run, somewhat higher temperatures.
Changes in the slope of the warming curve depending on other heat absorbing parts of the surface of the earth.
Threshold based changes where weird things happen like ice melting.
Changes in air and water currents and the zones they affect.
Increase of the volume of water from both expansion and ice melting.
Migration of micro and macroscopic life into zones previously less optimal.
Oh, now you’ve done it. Yer gonna get spittle and semen all over you.
And how would these observations differ from any period since the last glacial maximum?
Asked and answered.
Unless the sun is increasing it’s output, the earth isn’t “getting more energy”.
Greenhouse (GhG) gas theory theory says water vapor and CO2 and methane and NO2 and O3 act “like” a greenhouse, slowing the rate at which heat radiates from “the system”. This isn’t accurate, but it’s become so ingrained we talk about it as the greenhouse effect. The more gases, the more slowing of heat leaving the system. It does not increase the amount of energy.
Water Vapor (WV) absorbs and re-radiates most of the heat, and in moist areas it pretty much dominates all other gases. CO2 just doesn’t make any difference in the atmosphere where there is water vapor. So it is where it is very dry that CO2 is a factor. Which is exactly why the dry upper atmosphere in the tropics would be effected by an increase in CO2, and the polar regions, and winter. Possibly dry air over arid deserts. This the theory, based on the physics.
That is why warmer winters, a warmer arctic, and a troposphere “hotspot” in the tropics are signs of heating from GhG increases. Note that it used to also be “a warming Antarctica” was predicted, but that has been quietly taken off the table. The kind of warming tells us the cause of the warming. Warming (and cooling) of the planet happen for other reasons.
The most important “predictions” made by GhG warming theory are
- The slight warming from extra CO2 will cause a feedback, by increasing water vapor (WV). Even a slight increase in WV causes much more heat to be “retained”, since it is the main GhG. This is a critical prediction, as global warming depends on this.
2)Polar warming (now just the arctic) will increase much more rapidly due to melting sea ice, ice sheets glaciers and permafrost. Open water, bare earth and rock, dark vegetation growing farther north, all these change the albedo (how much solar energy is reflected or absorbed by materials). This in turn causes more heating, causing more melting, causing more heating, a feedback loop which will lead to drastic rates of warming.
This is PHYSICS bitches. It’s also a very simple explanation of the theory of Greenhouse gas global warming. If humans are the source of the increased GhGs, it’s the theory of AGW.
Lets look at each one, in a science way.
Meaningless. Weather is already chaotic, you have to define what would become “more variable”.
Be more specific. “Somewhat” is meaningless. And “the long run” is even worse.
I don’t even know what that means.
OK you are just making things up now.
Yes, that is a prediction, and is scientific.
Yes, plants are a very good indicator of climate, and climate change. Animals not as much since they move, and quickly. And follow the plants. Except for the oceans. Fish will migrate to warmer waters, or cooler waters, or away from too cold waters in a matter of days. Observations from the 1920s showed fish schools moved into warmer arctic waters in one season, when the ice melts, the fish move. Not a climate indicator by any means.
Plants, especially trees, are a sure climate indicator. The tree line, how high trees will grow on mountains, as well as the arctic tree line, how far north trees can survive, 100% climate indicator. It takes time for a tree to grow, so they tell us what the climate of an area will support.
I know, too much science, not enough ranting.
tl;dr Explanation of greenhouse effect, theory, predictions and climate indicators
But what, precisely, do you mean by “the long run”? Could we prove that prediction wrong if there are no higher temperatures next year – or are we talking five years or ten, or fifteen or twenty?
You mean something by “the long run,” but (a) I don’t know what you have in mind, and (b) as phrased, you could handwave away a plateau – or decline – for any number of decades with a “no, that’s still just the short run; it’d have to be longer.”
And not in the good way.
I’m not going to do the point by point.
We know the climate system is dealing with more energy and will probably continue to do so. We know that there will be inflection points in the warming curve as, for example, the ocean soaks up some of the energy. Similarly we might get odd changes in the rate of change if say, a warm current hits the frozen methane slush at the bottom of the ocean, or we hit the point where the land covered with ice goes from reflecting energy to absorbing it as the ice gives way to ground.
What is a sure thing is stuff will happen that we didn’t expect. I think tracking “movements” of animal life in the form of disease is probably pretty important.
I think it will warm faster than we can get the bulk of humanity “out of the way”. (Warming including consequences like water encroachment on population clumps.)
The fact that some of this happened in the past is irrelevant. What is relevant is that modern civilization is far more sensitive to some of these changes. Not having as much rainfall in rice growing areas. That kind of thing.
IMO the weak form of the global warming argument is sufficient cause for action.
Lol, a brilliant prediction.
Let’s see now:
-
You won’t define your hypothesis;
-
You won’t explain how its predictions would be measured.
-
And if its unspecified predictions turn out to be wrong, then it means unexpected things happened, which supports the (undefined) hypothesis.
Looks like you have all your bases covered.
Screech screech!
Your jaw’s sounding kinda squeaky there Brazzers. I’m thinking semen isn’t the lubricant you should be using…
- It’s gonna get warmer
- Thermometer.
- Unlikely to turn out wrong.
This isn’t as hard as you make it out to be.
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Mark Twain
“FXMastermind’s ideas stink like moose-cunt.” — Abraham Lincoln
Why exactly do you believe “It’s gonna get warmer”? I too am predicting a (mild) increase in global surface temperatures over the next 100 years but I would like to understand what is the basis for your hypothesis.
Also, I take it you are abandoning your predictions of “volatility” and “suffering” and that “unexpected” things will happen?
Last, would it surprise you to learn that you are now in agreement with Richard Lindzen who has also predicted warming?
Lol, it’s not hard if you weasel as soon as your position comes under scrutiny.
So if next year is cooler than this one…?
No, of course that wouldn’t prove you wrong. Eight years without warming? Eighteen? Eighty? I don’t know. You tell me.
That’s exactly what’s fascinating about science. If you had all the facts, it wouldn’t be science, it would just be description.
Why I believe what I believe isn’t relevant. I’m asserting a trend.
I do not abandon anything I’ve said in this thread. BTW, it’d be totally awesome if you’re going to use quotes to actually quote what I said. Or at least show where I said anything close to “suffering”.
I don’t care whose position I agree with. I’m not joining a team.
How can my position be scrutinized if my hypothesis is undefined? At best you could claim lack of position. Except those pesky predictions I made.
You’re right, one year doesn’t prove anything. Nor does eight. Eighty probably means the model is seriously effed. 25 would make me want to dig a lot deeper into the process. See if there’s not a heat sink in there somewhere or some other place the energy might be going, i.e. heat to wind.
It’s absolutely relevant. For example, consider a person who knows nothing about CO2 emissions; changes in land use; etc. He might observe that the Earth is coming out of the Little Ice Age and that global surface temperatures are increasing. He might (and probably would) reasonably predict that the same trend will continue.
Or consider a person who believes that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause minor warming but not enough warming to cause any serious problems for the Earth’s population.
Last, consider a person who believes that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to result in amplified warming which will cause serious problems for mankind if unchecked.
All three people can be said to subscribe to the hypothesis that “It’s gonna get warmer.” And yet all 3 have very different beliefs.
You refuse to say which of these categories you belong to (or if you have some other set of beliefs). Your position is too vague to scrutinize, which is most likely your subconscious aim.
Right here (in post 764):
(my bolding)
That’s exactly the point – your position is sufficiently vague as to be essentially meaningless.
Lol, your predictions have the same problem. Basically meaningless.