So OP, is this an accurate summary or your reasoning.
You accept man-made global warming as a theory, but you believe the results of it will will be a net benefit.
Some group of people somewhere insist this combination of beliefs still makes you a climate change denier.
You yourself accept this definition of “climate change denier”, and so you claim that you ARE a climate change denier.
Er, something something women. (I am completely mystified by your frequent reference to women. How are women as a group related in any way at all to your discussion?)
I do not think that peculiar use of magnitude is the one being used here, many researchers are not using magnitude as you are assuming; so I was correct, you are going for extremes to get people like **wolfpup ** to say things that he is not talking about, a strawman indeed. Many researchers refer to a more general use when talking about past IPCC reports.
That would be the same paper that you were fixated on before, where you misunderstood the total energy budget calculations as being the anthropogenic components, which they certainly are not. You are once again misunderstanding it, or more precisely, misunderstanding the relationship to my point, which has nothing to do with the energy budget at any point in time, but with the rate of change thereof, which is defined by this first-order approximation of CO2 forcing (I refer to the section on “Forcing due to atmospheric gas”.
As you can see, the equation for radiative forcing due to CO2 – delta-F – depends on the ratio of a given atmospheric concentration of CO2 – the factor “C” – to a reference concentration C(0). My point is that the extent to which the rate of change of this ratio – and hence the increase in climate forcing and the growing divergence between present global temperature and equilibrium – is increasing over time greatly exceeds the rate normally seen in nature.
How much does it exceed typical natural forcings by? To take a simple example in round numbers. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by around 100 ppm in the last 100 years. Ice core records clearly show that even in the most rapid glacial terminations, it takes natural cycles at least 2000 years to accomplish this level of carbon elevation. 100 years vs. 2000 years. There’s your order of magnitude.
I’m sorry to have to keep contradicting you, but that’s not correct, either. An order of magnitude is defined by the exponent, so one order of magnitude is 10 (10^1, if you like). 100 would be two orders of magnitude.
Thank you, Ají de Gallina, this is a great read. … WOW … talk about hot off the press, [pokes elucidator in the ribs] Short enough in tooth for you?
Umm … I’m not the OP … I just latched onto the phrasing and it’s use of ‘denialism’
Yes, I am a climate change denier by the standards some people have set. Oh, I pay extra every month to guaranty power from wind farms to heat my home. But I’m still outcast simply because I have a positive outlook on our future, ridiculed and mocked to the nth degree.
Women - yeah … that’s blatant pandering for their vote. It is factually correct to say men caused this problem, not women. Maybe half the electorate want … men … reminded of that fact on a regular basis.
Yes, I will bring up energy budgets every time you use the word “forcing” or “flux” incorrectly. You’re certainly capable of understanding, and I’d be happy to explain.
Alternately …
Stick to the 400 ppm datum, hard numbers work better than the above. Just trying to be helpful.
Not that cherry picking exist also on what articles to pick ass “the final one” in reality nothing much has changed when researchers point out that all that a good portion of all that heat going to the oceans is bound to come out when the cycle returns.
Nice, so now even articles in respected places are not enough, they’re cherry picked? Precious
Yeah, the old weather-is-not-climate thingy. Interestingly it only works when it’s a cold spell. Every time there’s a record high, however, it confirms AGW/CC and there’s no weather-is-not-climate.
They are, when most of the researchers, in the same article are telling you the opposite of what you are concluding.
Not accurate either, in reality it was not until 2013 that IIUC we would see in the USA parity with how many record lows we get in a year with how many record highs we get.
My dear fellow wolf, I will put aside your recurring persistent misinterpretations of that excellent paper on the earth’s energy budget and even the misconception of what “order of magnitude” means, and merely point out that my use of the term “forcing” was consistent with the equation used to calculate it, which I gave, and the agreement with which is a pretty good definition of “correct”. And I never used the term “flux” at all.
I made what I thought was a pretty cogent effort to explain a second time what I meant, but alas, apparently to no avail. I would point out that the 400 ppm level of CO2 – and the timeframe in which we got there – is in fact precisely the quantification of what I’m referring to. Perhaps a picture would help. I direct your attention to this graph about halfway down the page – the one showing various greenhouse gas concentrations where everything suddenly turns into a vertical line going straight up in the post-industrial era. Yeah, that one. Note in particular the graph at the bottom right, the one labeled “rate of change”. My point exactly.
If we consider the OP, then I think it’s fair to say we’ve found another “scientific” publication devoted and committed to denying climate change. Can you imagine the gall of these people, parading around pretending to be “hard” science when in fact they’re bought and paid for by Big Oil shrills. I’m sure glad Gigo pointed out to me that my “cherry-picking” of data from that article is an obvious attempt to obfusticate the truth. Why, only a moron would believe that was published January 15th, 2014, and to say it was is a complete and total denial of anything remotely associated with science.
I’ve considered my beliefs very deeply and for a very long time … and believing in the inherent goodness of human-kind stands. If true, then everything that human-kind does collectively will always result in what is right, and just, and profoundly good. I’ve found this as a working definition of who is a denialist: “Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change”. So I fit into the second part, I think it’s trivial compared to some of the other environmental problems Big Oil causes (yeah, I didn’t say fossil fuels, I said Big Oil).
Perhaps you should direct me to your own “statement of position” and give me permission to provide rebuttals.
I’ve never said there won’t be pain, suffering and human misery directly caused by global warming. Indeed, I’ve found a map that show exactly where this pain, suffering and human misery will be occurring (note: the bigger the dot, the more pain, suffering and human misery):
So, the first thing that strikes me with this forecast is … whew … looks like a whole bunch of not my problem. The second thing is the very people who will be suffering the most are the very people who are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I certainly feel sorry for these poor people, and I wish there was something I could do to help lift them up from the depths of anguish. Alas there is nothing I can do to stop people from destroying themselves … so I might as well get rich while their at it.
From where I sit, I see nothing but good as far as my eye can see.
As usual, the normal solution of contrarians will be to throw that publication under the bus or continue to cherry pick for articles that sound supportive when in reality they are explaining the issues that are on the fringes of research, issues that are not likely to change the recommendation that we need to control our emissions.
Strawman … I’ve only asked you to look at fig 7, I’ve never given interpretation. Don’t forget to wildly celebrate your ‘victory’ here [wolfish grin].
Let me be blunt, I’m challenging your calculations as I think you have made an error of omission. You’ve claimed man-made carbon dioxide has added a W/m^2, but you have failed to state where this W/m^2 came from. W/m^2’s can neither be created nor destroyed in the classic universe.
Interesting side note here, the difference between sun-spot maximum and minimum averages out to about 1.3 W/m^2 … clearly this is a significant value.
Not likely as it is clear that very old myths from denier sources are accepted by you or not acknowledged to be wrong after many citations made already. As I said before, the unfortunate thing is that the planets are not aligned for you.
The famous map of nigh lights in the sky, I detect a possible attempt at humor, but it fails too.
Kinda like riffing on the idea that suffering will come from the switch to clean energy, as our modern civilization will be affected. But efforts to change our way are still more beneficial that waiting, and civilization does not need to stop.
Oh well, I guess you are of the idea of continuing to fund the military at the expense of limiting the opportunities many others should continue and at higher levels if not much is done; as even the military reports, this issue will not lead to us to be less affected as we will have to pay as “human-kind does collectively will always result in what is right” foreign interventions will get for sure an humanitarian factor.
Of curse the cavalier attitude at tossing all the poor people of other places under the bus contradicts that idea that we humans will do what is right. Oh well, at least most of us will.
Strawman - I never used the phrase “peer-review”, nor did I say “peer-reveiw scientific publication” … but don’t let me interfere with the wild celebration of your ‘victory’ …
Don’t mind if I do, because you are still wrong, I never said you told us that, I only said that it shows that you are not aware.
Just saying the obvious, too bad that it makes declarations like “we’ve found another “scientific” publication devoted and committed to denying climate change.” to be wrong regarding the denying part.
And this is because the overwhelming number of other articles still (and from the same day even) are telling you that that “peer-review scientific publication” is telling us that from a policy perspective, little has changed. The range of potential impacts projected by climate models warrants much more aggressive action than has been initiated so far.
It comes from the fact that CO2 is transparent to short-wave radiation arriving from the sun, but relatively more opaque to the resulting long-wave radiation emanating from the earth’s surface, which it radiates back, causing the land and oceans to warm more than they otherwise would. Which in turn creates feedbacks that accelerate the warming, such as melting polar ice exposing darker land and ocean areas.
Why is that significant when a line drawn through the average of the regular +0.6 and -0.6 oscillations shows that the **NET **contribution of these regular variations is basically zero?
