I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

In brief, the SS blog is dishonest, lacking in key terms, offers no theory of global warming, much less any scientific understanding of climate change, climate history or any of the current problems with the theory of global warming.

It uses strawman arguments, and thanks to some sheer idiocy, the secret forums there revealed the mindset of the main players to be ratshit crazy.

[ralph124c]

One of the consequences of a warming earth would be an increase in evaporation from the oceans, leading to increased cloud cover.
This ought to be reflected in an increase in cloudy days, as time passes.
No such increase has been observed-indeed, formerly cloudy areas (like England) are now experiencing many clear days in summer-so much so that you can ripen wine grapes in England (hasn’t been done since Roman times).

[Fear_Itself]

@ralph124c

One of the consequences of a warming earth would be an increase in evaporation from the oceans, leading to increased cloud cover.

Cite?

[watchwolf49]

@ralph124c

One of the consequences of a warming earth would be an increase in evaporation from the oceans, leading to increased cloud cover.

That’s one of the first things taught in meteorology class. Here’s a fair primer (Water Vapor Myths: A Brief Tutorial)

However, I would like a citation on this fact that cloud cover is EXACTLY the same as it has been for 2500 years.

[FXMastermind]

@watchwolf49

That’s one of the first things taught in meteorology class. Here’s a fair primer (Water Vapor Myths: A Brief Tutorial)

The people screaming about how dire it all is, don’t seem to know even the first thing about meteorology.

@watchwolf49

However, I would like a citation on this fact that cloud cover is EXACTLY the same as it has been for 2500 years.

Who the hell said that?

[FXMastermind]

@ralph124c

No such increase has been observed-indeed, formerly cloudy areas (like England) are now experiencing many clear days in summer-so much so that you can ripen wine grapes in England (hasn’t been done since Roman times).

If there was a significant change in global cloud cover, it would mean climate change. This has happened multiple times since the Romans.

You seem to be saying that England’s climate has changed, becoming less cloudy in summer. That also would be something of importance. It would not mean you could grow grapes there again. That requires milder winters.

[watchwolf49]

@ralph124c

No such increase has been observed-indeed, formerly cloudy areas (like England) are now experiencing many clear days in summer-so much so that you can ripen wine grapes in England (hasn’t been done since Roman times).

The English wine industry believes otherwise, what idiots
(The History of English Wine)

[FXMastermind]

There is some confusion about the grapes. There are cold climate grapes, and they have always been grown in England, Germany, even goddamn Minnesota has grapes, they can survive to -30F

And you can make wine from them. Not great wine, but it’s still wine.

But the Roman grapes, the warm climate Italian and south of France shit, that still won’t grow in England. Too fucking cold.

It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently. Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an uncertain enterprise even more problematic.

The History of English Wine

What the fuck? Seriously? This goddamn climate mythology just invades everywhere it seems.

IT GOT REAL FUCKING COLD AFTER THE MWP.

Goddamn climate alarmists with their pernicious bullshit. They want to write history over, but it just doesn’t work for weather. You can’t fucking change the weather that already happened.

You fucking morons.

[watchwolf49]

Yes, they are serious when they say it’s not exactly clear why.

[Cheshire_Human]

@BrainGlutton

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

There is never in any of his posts, any link that ever has anything to do with the point he claims to be making. It’s his thing… Massive Irrelevance. It proves… uhhh… some shit.

[FXMastermind]

Oh fucking hell, yet another “GW is real and the evil people are trying to kill us all with denial” thread. And of course it has

@Deeg

I am fully on board with AGW (or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it)

Once again, we see the vague and unscientific “belief” brought up. Most people just sort of “know” what it means, and how it’s all bad news, and how the evil people of the world are stopping the good people from saving the world from “it”. And “it”, the undefined scary story pimped with out mercy, all the goddamn time, has all the markings of a myth to some, a scam to others, and a religion to those who truly believe.

The science is the last fucking thing you will see discussed, though any thought of personal changes to lifestyle and consumption are also scarce.

@elucidator

If we got really excited about global warming, whole fucking world pouring brainpower, money and effort into solving the problem.

Once again, before you can solve “the problem”, you have to be able to describe it, understand it, know what it “is” that is so life threatening, so dire, so important that you want to change the entire world, and quickly. (except of course, changing your own eating habits, your penchant for eating, being warm and protected from the elements, small things like that)

Which is exactly the point many smart scientists and climate researchers (and politicians and leaders) made during the seventies global cooling scare. You might accidentally, while trying to “fix the problem”, make things worse. Or you might be simply wrong about what is causing “the problem”, in which case you could actually do some major damage to the world by taking steps. You can actually listen and watch this being explained. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DsdWTBNyvX0#t=0

Of course the dickheaded self proclaimed experts, who in fact come across as deluded fools, will jump up and down and scream that there was no global cooling scare. (Yes, they are actually that stupid)

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Of course our favorite blog of total shit science will blindly proclaim “the truth”, and fuckheads like GIGOgalloper will swallow it, with out a shred of skepticism. It’s pages like that, actually really stupid shit pages, that confirm the diagnosis that the SS blog isn’t science based. Hell, it’s not even consistently logical with it’s own propaganda. Which is one main reason why GIGOgalloper had to leave the topic. Faced with science, and rational discussion, there is no page to link to on the SS blog. Since he doesn’t actually think, he was lost. Even his loyal followers slunk off, because once you have to go outside your bible of climate, you are faced with having to think. Bitch.

@Cheshire_Human

There is never in any of his posts, any link that ever has anything to do with the point he claims to be making.

A heaping serving of stupid swill has zero effect on the intelligent. But, you don’t understand what that means. You never will, hence it’s not worth wasting a moments time with you. Despite the kindness of linking you to a post or two, you just don’t get it.

@FXMastermind

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?

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.

That was about skepticalscience.com
The site actually does not contain “global warming theory” or “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming”, or AGW, or any “theory of climate”, or “theory of climate change”. Once GIGGO realized this …

@FXMastermind

Plus, I think he was Googling like crazy trying to find an answer. I already knew there wasn’t one at skepticalscience, and it’s obvious he doesn’t actually know much.

He was doomed.

Not that it stopped him from posting 58 times in 48 hours in the latest “AGW is real” topic. One out of every three posts is a GIGO post, and almpost all of it useless spam, dreck, rationalizations or his usual stench.

@Deeg

but threads like this one make it easier for skeptics to remain skeptical. BG made the post because it confirmed his biases and didn’t spend an ounce of rationality when reading it. GIGO, I appreciate your zeal on the subject but defending the OP in any form decimates your credibility.

It’s impossible for him to have any less cred. It’s technically impossible.
As for “it”, of course the stupid rolls on.

@BrainGlutton

It means “anthropogenic global warming.”

And some of these people actually think other people take them seriously.

Priceless.

[Deeg]

@FXMastermind

The science is the last fucking thing you will see discussed…

Only when you are involved.

[FXMastermind]

Returning to Global Warming, or AGW theory, or Climate Change, or Inadvertent climate modification, or Disruptive climate change or global climate change or what ever somebody uses, there is a very good reason to define terms before spewing forth fro the dubious fount of wisdom.

I didn’t think anyone would actually look at the Ngram data, which is sort of a shame, as it was vital to the later points. Certainly Marley missed it. Why does climate change so dominate global warming, up until 1989, when the two terms start sharing the world stage?

global warming or climate change ?

The mundane self proclaimed internet expert will spew ignorance like a firehose, but when you see them avoiding a simple question, while at the same time spending endless hours on long incomprehensible screeds, it’s an obvious bluff.

What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change Of course a braying pack of stupid will try to drown out anything and everything it fears, or worse, disagrees with.

@brazil84

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

Ah, there is one of those subjects that the alarmists fool avoids. especially in a topic so directly about exactly that. feedback.

Feedback effects are one of the main tenants of the AGW theory, in fact, with out the assumed feedbacks, warming won’t look anything like what the models have predicted. In fact, because feedbacks are so complicated, and so unknown, AGW could be completely different than assumed. The poor deluded fool who thinks they know everything fears even** the slightest hint** that their “consensus” could be wrong. And that is a damn shame. Because if you don’t find yourself wrong now and then, you ain’t doing science.

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

Which is exactly the point many smart scientists and climate researchers (and politicians and leaders) made during the seventies global cooling scare.

Ah, yes . . .

Hey, remember global cooling? Science was wrong back then, so obviously it’s wrong now! Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the '70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications (i.e. Science News rather than Science). The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years. Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s (when the “cooling” phenomenon was hyped) were actually predicting warming.[16][17]

@FXMastermind

And some of these people actually think other people take them seriously.

Priceless.

Well, yes, the “other people” being almost all the world’s climatologists.

[FXMastermind]

@BrainGlutton

Ah, yes . . .

Another “source” that fails a basic test. Is it a scientific source? Or does it suffer the same huge fail that Wikipedia does? Does it define what it talks about?

Theory of Global Warming Of course not

No Global warming theory, no entry for AGW, and you can be sure no entry for anything actually scientific about climate change.

Yes, I checked, and it’s even worse than Wikipedia. The problem is that anyone can write anything online. That doesn’t make it true.

The term climate change used to be calearly defined, "any long-term significant change in the weather patterns of an area; also used figuratively’

But since the eighties, a lot of stupid people think it means global warming. They don’t actually just think this, they BELIEVE it with all their hearts. You say “climate change” and they think “global warming due to CO2 which will lead to a 90 foot rise in sea level and a world so hot most people and animals will die”.

They know in their heart it is true.

The problem is, that just isn’t what it means at all. Which is why the rationalwiki is such a dumb ass place to get your information about science. Oh look, look what the really smart people think
climate change means.

Dumbasses.

[watchwolf49]

“there’s broad agreement that anything above 2 °C will mean we’re fucked”

I’m not convinced, no matter how many broads agree.

[FXMastermind]

heh

[FXMastermind]

Oh it just never ends …

@GIGObuster

As noticed, (on the water vapor feedback alone) the breakdown of your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is even more damaged that the one

Now just stop right there. It doesn’t matter to me who says something. You say something intelligent, I will respond to that. If Barzil or anyone else says something stupid, I will respond to that. I have no friends or connections here, and do not pull my punches just because somebody agree with me. OK maybe a little, but not if they are spewing stupid shit.

@brazil84

Does “human caused global warming” include warming which results from changes in land use?

Does “human caused global warming” include modest warming resulting from CO2 emissions which is not necessarily amplified?

Those are valid questions, but not in that topic. Why does every goddamn topic about climate always end up the same?

Goddamn that gets tiresome.

[BrainGlutton]

@FXMastermind

Another “source” that fails a basic test. Is it a scientific source? Or does it suffer the same huge fail that Wikipedia does? Does it define what it talks about?

Yes, it does.

Global warming, also known as anthropogenic (or human-caused) global warming, is the rising average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth’s average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. As a result, anthropogenic global warming has recently become a major concern for humanity. Such concerns are supported worldwide by the wide majority of climatologists.

Global warming is an increase in temperature in addition to the natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect interacts with other planet-wide influences such as the Milankovitch cycles in order to produce long term climate movements. Many gases contribute to the greenhouse effect, some of the most important being water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide.

What’s so bad about global warming?

See the main article on this topic: Effects of global warming

Global warming is bad for a number of reasons.

• A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. Even this small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).
• More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms.
• Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others.
• Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 (carbonic acid), causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[2]
• Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming.
• Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas.
• Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude.
• Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go.
• Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer.

Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.

Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences.

What’s the limit?

While projections of the potential (maximum) temperature rise have ranged from 2 – 6 °C, there’s broad agreement that anything above 2 °C will mean we’re fucked. The International Energy Agency suggests that the window to prevent this from occurring will end by 2020,[3] a view shared by the OECD.[4] So let’s get cracking.

A reminder on comparing apples to apples

When comparing sources of greenhouse gases, be sure to note whether the figure lists the number of tons of carbon released, or the number of tons of carbon dioxide released. One ton of carbon dioxide contains only a little over a quarter ton of carbon.

[BrainGlutton]

See also this from the Global Warming Denialism page:

Anthropogenic climate change

The phrase “global warming” by itself is often used to refer to the rapid rise in temperatures the planet has experienced since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In its simplest form, the argument for anthropogenic climate change goes as follows.
1.The Earth’s atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.[2]
2.The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.[3] Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
3.The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.[4]
4.The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.[5]
5.The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.[6]
6.The temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.[7]
7.The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.[8][9]

Up to this point virtually all scientists are in agreement - including those few global warming “skeptics” who understand the science and the data.[10] Consequently the skeptics need to somehow attack the final leg of the argument:

8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases.[11][12]

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

Note that the statement that The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases is only true on a very broad timescale: GHGs have increased roughly exponentially but the temperature signal is far noisier, and displays almost no correlation with GHG changes on an annual basis, as expected. This is due to a variety of factors, from intrinsic noise in the climate system to the existence of other important forcing factors (most notably sulphate aerosols and global dimming, which are cooling factors).

Also note that while water vapour is correctly listed as a GHG, the human emissions of water vapor are not important in forcing climate change; water vapour is best thought of as a response to temperature change rather than a cause, because its atmospheric lifetime is very short (about 10 days), unlike other gases such as CO2.[13]