I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[sylmar]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Note: Bolding added by me.

This must be the science you said you bring to discussions here. It’s funny, it is not quite what I expected. I kind’ve expected there to be more, you know, science.

FX, meet Happy Fun Ball.

Happy, meet the King of Hyperbole… the racket in raconteur… the one, the onnnnnnnnnlllllly ( Thank Og!) … F. X. Maaaaaaaaasterbatooooooooooooooooooooooooor.

[FXMastermind]

There’s all kinds of physics and science and theory and data and complicated shit, especially when you are talkin bout the entire global very dynamic weather system. It’s a real important and really well studied thing, the weather. And physics of gases is real well known as well. At least in the last couple of decades. So whether you are a denier or skeptic or believer changes depending on what is on the table. Like greenhouse gases, people get all funny about them.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now suggests that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the researcher argues.

Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Climate Change: That's The Claim

See? Real scientists with real physics and data are saying the huge amount of very long lasting CFCs is the cause of what we have been observing.

“Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

Now if your response was right away to dismiss, to say that’s wrong, then you mighht be skeptic. Or a denier, depends on who is labeling you.

As I say, the researchers insist that the numbers do add up.

There it is, some experts with real science and physics saying something. But for sure that ain’t the end of it. You know in your heart this is true. Oh no, such a finding, based on physics and math and such, that will not matter. Not in this case.

But the basic problem with the statement is that we know very well that carbon dioxide emissions do indeed have a warming effect. We’re as certain about this as we are about anything in this area of science. The first effect of greater CO2 in hte atmosphere is a warming of said atmosphere and thus the temperature of the planet. We also know that this is only the first step: we then get into the effects of all of the various different feedbacks and it is the arguing over those that leads us to the wide range of estimates about climate sensitivity. Currently, we’re really not sure whether a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1 oC rise or a 6 oC one. We’re getting better at our estimates (some are pointing to about 2 oC as most likely). But we still really don’t know about the final effect: even as we are certain that the first step is that increasing CO2 leads to at first higher temperatures.

Except we don’t actually know that. Which is exactly what he is going to say next about CFCs

That CFCs also have an effect is known. But the claim that it is only CFCs that have the effect is not: not unless we’re willing to take something of a leap of faith here.

And there it is. The “science is settled” crowd, the “only deniers would question CO2 as cause” group, the cocksure consensus is suddenly, if they are actually scientific, faced with something.

But you know good and damn well they aren’t going to look very hard, as they tied their fortune and reputation to CO2 as THE ONLY MAJOR CAUSE of all the drastic warming and doom that awaits us.

Science. It’s a bitch.

[FXMastermind]

@watchwolf49

Chemistry and Physics allows the hypothesis that it is an increase in solar energy that warms the atmosphere, which in turn allows it to hold more CO2. If this is true, then indeed CO2 does not play a role in climate change.

Well, then there is the really big question. What caused the drastic cooling that led to the little ice age? And what brought the planet out of the very cold period?

Why have there been much warmer periods in the last 7,000 years BP? Why does climate change? And what did those climate changes look like?

We know for absolutly sure climate has changed. A lot.

The cause is still unknown.

It’s fascinating.

[BrainGlutton]

@watchwolf49

Chemistry and Physics allows the hypothesis that it is an increase in solar energy that warms the atmosphere . . .

Yes, the hypothesis is allowable, but apparently false.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, the hypothesis is allowable, but apparently false.

See also here.

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Climate Change: That's The Claim

Regarding that, see SkepticalScience. And Climate Science Watch.

[watchwolf49]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, the hypothesis is allowable, but apparently false.

In my post #1117, I called upon Orbital Forcing. But thanx for the extra 10%. CFC’s is just another rabbit hole, once inside you’re blind to everything else until you get to the mushrooms.

If controlling CO2 emissions also controls pollution in general, then I’m all for it.

[FXMastermind]

@BrainGlutton

Regarding that, see SkepticalScience. And Climate Science Watch.

Nope. Septicalscience is not a trustworthy source, and if you can’t spend a minute typing out something, but only post a link, you suck balls. And nothing you say is worth wasting time with. So, nope.

Sorry. Bitch.

[FXMastermind]

Now of course the CO2 believer will reject any and all evidence, theory or even discussion that could even hint there might be something other than CO2 controlling climate.

And while armchair experts and dubious skeptics abound, a peer reviewed paper that both proposes evidence and a mechanism to explain the theory, is hand waved away. By non climate scientists.

Climate Science Policy Watch - Government Accountability Project

I’m not saying what is what, cause unlike the CO2 faithful, I don’t fucking know everything. Unlike the godlike experts and self proclaimed experts, I think we don’t know everything yet.

I just know CO2 isn’t acting like they predicted, arctic amplification isn’t happening like they said, and for damn sure the boreal winters haven’t done anything close to what the models predicted.

[Deeg]

This:

@FXMastermind

Nope. Septicalscience is not a trustworthy source, and if you can’t spend a minute typing out something, but only post a link, you suck balls. And nothing you say is worth wasting time with. So, nope.

and this:

@FXMastermind

Now of course the CO2 believer will reject any and all evidence, theory or even discussion that could even hint there might be something other than CO2 controlling climate.

…are pure comedy gold. What’s that theory about some views that are so skewed you can’t tell if it’s real or parody?

[FXMastermind]

You hush your mouth

[FXMastermind]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

I kind’ve expected there to be more, you know, science.

Like all the previous posts that you never read? You know, the mind numbing long ones full of data and pictures and everything?

Pearls before swine

[brazil84]

@septimus

this positive feedback is why minor changes in temperature or greenhouse gases get amplified.

That’s not necessarily true since there are other potential feedbacks at work in the system. Nobody knows which feedbacks are the most important.

In pretty much any complex system one can hypothesize lots of different feedbacks, some positive and some negative. With global warming, it’s more exciting to hypothesize positive feedback but there is extremely little evidence to support such a hypothesis. Besides which, it’s more reasonable to hypothesize negative feedback with a complex system which has been around for a long time. Negative feedback should be the default assumption.

(*) - I don’t know if there are any climate experts still reading this thread, but if there are, please check my understanding of the temperature ⇒ CO2 link. With cooling, warm ocean water turns cold and can absorb more CO2. But eventually cold surface water is replaced with ice which absorbs less CO2. This leads to CO2 increase, limiting the positive feedback and thus, eventually the ice itself is its own doom! Is this at all correct?

Well I believe the party line on feedback is that CO2-induced warming will be amplified by water vapor feedback.

[watchwolf49]

It appears The Party line (nice phrasing, consider it stolen) can’t even explain what a positive feedback is. Condensing water in a vortex cause more water to be condensed, putting a sound into a microphone next to a speaker causes MORE sound, next time you spat with your wife, tell her she’s getting angry … I dare you. The more natural state of these types of systems is that it is in equilibrium, no feedback of either kind is needed.

I think what my good friend and trusted colleague, septimus, is driving at is that CO2 will chemically react with water, forming carboxylic acid. This is indeed a “special” property of CO2 that neither O2 nor N2 have. The bait I’ve been using for my phisching is CO2’s absorption spectrum, this also MAY be unique among these three. I haven’t actually looked it up … pfffft … the yo-yos here probably wouldn’t know an absorption spectrum even if it bit them in the ass.

Just explain to me how the mere presence of CO2 in the atmosphere raises average temperature … of the entire atmosphere. I give you 10,000 ppm (or 1%). If you can’t, then you don’t have a scientific theory, you have a philosophy.

According to my math, the energy required to move the Earth one millimeter, if applied to our atmosphere would raise temperatures a hundred million degrees … at which time Nitrogen would fuse into Silicone, Oxygen would fuse into Sulfur and CO2 would fuse into Ruthefordium.

[FXMastermind]

It’s even more complicated than that. The theory is about altering the heat balance of the entire planet, CO2 is expected to slow the rate of heat returning to space, so that each second of every hour of every day or every year the heat is building up. So the idea, or the fear, is that like a greenhouse it just gets hotter and hotter and hotter until fireballs rain from the sky and people catch fire and die.

All ice is gone, no more snow or cold in winters, an ice free warm arctic, tropical plants in Antarctica. Hot seas with no corals or fish left, mass extinctions and vast deserts growing, except where huge superstorms destroy what is left of civilization, with flooding and rising seas as well.

Billions die from starvation, wars break out for the small bits of habitable land in the polar regions, and as the feedbacks increase, runaway warming fries the world.

And the people who believe this wring their hands and moan, all the while comfortably typing away on computers fueld by fossil fuels, driving cars and eating food provided by fossil fuels, and insisting everyone else do something about it.

Meanwhile more energy than we can ever use pours down on us each day. For free.

[FXMastermind]

@DMC

While I’m requesting cites for your claims, can you point out which models rule out having colder winters at various points in the future?

All of the ones that assume CO2 is the main forcing for global warming predict the same thing.

Increases in temperature are predicted to be larger on land, particularly on the northern continents in winter.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

This doesn’t “rule out having colder winters”, but nobody ever said that. It’s a strawman argument that comes up when the true believer in AGW finds themselves on the losing end of the climate data. Which is happening so often the alarmists sound like deniers most of the time.

Reality is really not going along with the dire predictions. In fact, the nonsense of the eighties is starting to look like the lunatic fringe.

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

Nope. Septicalscience is not a trustworthy source . . .

How is Skeptical Science not a trustworthy source?

[FXMastermind]

@BrainGlutton

How is Skeptical Science not a trustworthy source?

Haha I didn’t catch my typo until you quoted it. Which put me in a happy mood. So instead of saying something bitchy and smarmy and stupid, like “Go read the last 1000 posts motherfucker”, just try here for a start.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16646423&postcount=297

Gigogalloper was pulling his usual stupid copy and paste a link to the SS blog, so I shut him down by showing him, in painstaking detail, why his favorite blog is actually sort of stupid.

Even Watts, who lists about every last blog that promotes global warming (or AGW) finds SS to be dishonest, and deeply flawed. You could blame the creator, a bible thumping shit case, but it’s deeper than that.

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

Haha I didn’t catch my typo until you quoted it. Which put me in a happy mood. So instead of saying something bitchy and smarmy and stupid, like “Go read the last 1000 posts motherfucker”, just try here for a start.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16646423&postcount=297

I think you meant to link a different post; there’s nothing about Skeptical Science in that one.

[FXMastermind]

@BrainGlutton

I think you meant to link a different post; there’s nothing about Skeptical Science in that one.

@FXMastermind

That’s simple enough. Why wouldn’t skepticalscience know this? Or any of the genius idiots here who quite simply never shut up? Unless they are asked a simple question? Oh right, because skepticalscience/realclimate doesn’t know it, how could they?

Broecker’s term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So “inadvertent climate modification,” while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
There’s a term you won’t find on skepticalscience

inadvertent climate modification

Of course you also won’t find “global warming theory” or “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming” either, so it’s all good.

Maybe it was buried too far down, I mean, you have to read like paragraphs to find it.

This link might be better.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16642992#post16642992

It should start you at post 264