Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The question is: if CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary driver for temperature and/or a positive feedback mechanism, then how can increasing CO2 permit temperatures to fall?

I've zero time to engage this but wanted to point out that CO2 does not "permit" anything, it simply forces warming. There are periods where other forces predominate but CO2 continues it's upward concentration...tick tock. It may be five years or so, but commercial passage through the Arctic is expected to be established by 2015, the US Navy reported on this eight years ago. They need funding to patrol the navigable Arctic.

I'm voting, Navy 1, Deniers 0.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I've zero time to engage this but wanted to point out that CO2 does not "permit" anything, it simply forces warming. There are periods where other forces predominate but CO2 continues it's upward concentration...tick tock. It may be five years or so, but commercial passage through the Arctic is expected to be established by 2015, the US Navy reported on this eight years ago. They need funding to patrol the navigable Arctic.

I'm voting, Navy 1, Deniers 0.

Unfortunately reality still trumps your wishful thinking.

CO2 forcing is anything but proven; experimental demonstration hasn't even happened.

Your example of Arctic ice lows also equals Antarctic ice highs.

Plus I've already posted numerous historical examples in the recent past (50+ years ago) where navigation was possible by sailing ship in the Arctic.

CO2 keeps going up, yet clearly temperatures are not.

The latest compendium of the many holes in the AGW crusader dogma:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Phoen...esentation.ppt

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Unfortunately reality still trumps your wishful thinking.

Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

It is amusing how the same line keeps getting used:

"you are smart therefore you should agree with me"

I, on the other hand, like to actually examine the evidence.

The evidence thus far is still far from 'settled', and furthermore a long chain of evidence exists showing a bias on the part of the IPCC continues to rise to the surface like turds in a bowl.

From NGO-sourced documents to student dissertations, from reversed conclusions from peer reviewed papers to gaming of inclusion of publications, the entire 'climate science' situation on the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe side would be a comedy of errors were it not for the real societal costs already being imposed due to this situation.

After thousands of lines - the basic questions are still unanswered:

If CO2 is the primary driving factor, why have global temperatures been stable for a decade or more despite an increase in CO2 levels?

Where is the evidence for CO2 having a multiplication effect on global temperatures? (Radiative forcing/positive feedback)

Why are all the IPCC and other alarmist models wrong every single time - until back-adjusted for 'real' data?

If the dystopian Keystone Kops of climate keep it up, the next question added to the list will be: Why should anyone believe you?

A video which is much more nuanced on this subject:

[media][IMG]http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyNjg1ODMwNjE2ODcmcHQ9MTI2ODU4MzA4MzMyOC ZwPTI2Njc1MSZkPXR2b1ZpZGVvUGFnZSZnPTMmbz*yNzAxNjZm/MWU4YmY*MGJkYjQ1MGE5MmE4NjYwOGExMyZzPXNxdWFyZXNwYW NlLmNvbSZvZj*w.gif[/IMG]http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/I...NvbSZvZj*w.gif" />http://www.tvo.org/video/tvoMain.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="486" height="412" name="flashObj" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" FlashVars="videoRefID=71356252001&videoPlay=manual&gig_lt=1268583061687&gig_pt=1268583083328&gig_g=3&gig_s=squarespace.com" >[/media]

http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/I...NvbSZvZj*w.gif" />http://www.tvo.org/video/tvoMain.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="486" height="412" name="flashObj" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" FlashVars="videoRefID=71356252001&videoPlay=manual&gig_lt=1268583061687&gig_pt=1268583083328&gig_g=3&gig_s=squarespace.com" >

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

Again you never ever answer any question. Is there any chance that the business you are in gives you a bias that you can't face up to:confused:

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

If CO2 is the primary driving factor, why have global temperatures been stable for a decade or more despite an increase in CO2 levels?

Where is the evidence for CO2 having a multiplication effect on global temperatures? (Radiative forcing/positive feedback)

Why are all the IPCC and other alarmist models wrong every single time - until back-adjusted for 'real' data?

Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

Once again you never answer any question. And in this case you do not properly read. C1ue did not say CO2 is not a force in Global Warming. As C1ue answered in another thread.

My argument has been quite clear all along.

CO2 - even should its entire GHG properties be exercised (and not negated by some systemic effect) would raise global temperature by at most 1 or 2 degrees.

The 5 or 7 degrees postulated by the IPCC is due to the second factor, the radiative forcing/positive feedback.

This positive feedback has not been evident in the past.

It is not evident now.

It exists only in a few GCM computer models.

The real climate scientists note that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past without either runaway. Other scientists note that CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases, not the other way around. Even more scientists note that CO2 is not some perpetual heat engine - there is only so much light of the appropriate bandwidth. And yet again other scientists wonder how CO2 levels which keep increasing still have yet to increase the global temperatures in the past decade plus.

So please, try again with your simplistic alarmist crap.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Once again you never answer any question. And in this case you do not properly read. C1ue did not say CO2 is not a force in Global Warming.

+1.

There is absolutely no chance santafe2 uses words for a living (lawyer/teacher); I sit on the outside of this debate and want to scream every time the AGW side doesn't carefully read (and understand and respond to the meat of) c1ue's posts.

[WDCRob]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

That's because c1ue's posts fly in the face of fifty years of research and thousands of published studies, and aren't worth discussing anymore than having a debate with the tobacco industry about whether smoking causes cancer would have been c. 1975.

To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

Anyone else?

btw what are the 24+ 'fields'?

This debate is at its core a search for a scientific rationale for massive, costly action, that would most likely crowd out other action potentially beneficial to humanity. Thinking people have a duty to shout 'Sez who?!'.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

Um ok, so the many scientists out there who do NOT agree with the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe arguments are all dumb too. As mentioned previously, anyone who doesn't toe your line must be dumb.

The IPCC has been significantly discredited; 1/3 or more of its citations are NGO, magazine, or some other non-peer reviewed work.

A number of IPCC's claims have also been shown to be false - not just based on the non-peer reviewed work, but also due to IPCC taking/assuming positions OPPOSITE to the scientists who wrote the papers: Pielke Jr., Tol, Muir-Wood to name just 3.

You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Yes, it is buffoonery that the supposed settled science can neither predict near future nor reconcile with recorded past events - only unprovable far future events.

It is buffoonery that the settled science monkeys with the raw data, or loses it, or denies access to it to anyone not toeing the party line.

Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

I understand basic physics just fine - you clearly cannot read English.

I've said it before and will say it again: even if all of the supposed CO2 HG effects are not mitigated by the system, the rise in temperatures would at best be 1 or 2 degrees.

This is more than the present 100+ year trend, much less the decade+ nonwarming/cooling trend.

Thus the evidence is not very strong empirically for this allegation.

Secondly the IPCC 'projections' which have been and continue to be wrong - in the same vein as the Hansen scenarios - also assume positive feedback.

This feedback has yet to be demonstrated in any way.

For something which is obvious from a physics standpoint - this seems highly inconsistent.

Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

Yep, IPCC does great science.

That's why 1/3 of its citations are non peer reviewed and come from such scientific sources as Greenpeace, Oxfam, the WWF, student dissertations, carbon traders, climbing magazines, boot cleaning guides, and what not.

IPCC also does a great job with actual scientists: when scientists point out that their work as cited by the IPCC is opposite to what the IPCC claims, this is just ignored.

So yes, the evidence is quite significant that IPCC has an agenda beyond science.

That's because c1ue's posts fly in the face of fifty years of research and thousands of published studies, and aren't worth discussing anymore than having a debate with the tobacco industry about whether smoking causes cancer would have been c. 1975.

To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

Yes, there is so much science in dozens of fields that even simple and straightforward questions cannot be answered.

That the 50 years of research STILL has yet to produce a smoking gun, or a useable climate model.

How much more money and time do these scientists in this 'settled' field need?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I sit on the outside of this debate and want to scream every time ...

Ditto on the scream.

santafe2 -- as best as I can tell, you keep accusing c1ue of saying that CO2 has no green house affect, while c1ue keeps saying that whatever such affect it has is modest and the focus of our efforts to reduce it are sorely misguided.

Please tell me, santafe2, that I am misreading your posts.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ditto on the scream.

santafe2 -- as best as I can tell, you keep accusing c1ue of saying that CO2 has no green house affect, while c1ue keeps saying that whatever such affect it has is modest and the focus of our efforts to reduce it are sorely misguided.

Please tell me, santafe2, that I am misreading your posts.

Possibly you are correct and I'm incorrect, and c1ue is saying that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'. That is, c1ue is saying that CO2 is a force for warming and additional CO2 will cause additional warming. I don't think he's ever said that. I don't think he understands basic physical science or he's so politically motivated he won't admit this basic understanding...but as I said, I could be wrong.

This is a simple yes or no question. C1ue can say:
Yes. This means he agrees that CO2 is a force for global warming...or
No. This means he doesn't admit to any understanding of basic physical science.

You say he's been saying yes but I bet he doesn't even answer the question. While I can't wait for the answer, I'll be busy the rest of the week so I'll check in over the weekend.

BTW, the red was a very nice touch. It screams without garish human big type or underline and bold. Only a cow would be so subtle.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes. This means he agrees that CO2 is a force for global warming...or
No. This means he doesn't admit to any understanding of basic physical science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - YES

CO2 is the primary driver for climate - NO

human generated CO2 is a reason why temperatures have increased in the past 100 years - POSSIBLE, but so are any of a dozen other reasons including land use changes, etc etc.

human generated CO2 is the PRIMARY and ONLY reason why temperatures have increased in the past 100 years - NO - no proof whatsoever that this is the case other than "we can't think of another reason" (IPCC).

IPCC 5 to 7 degree warming scenarios backed by science - NO

IPCC a primarily scientific institution - NO

Positive feedback - NOT PROVEN

Himalayan glaciers disappearing - NO

Arctic Ice disappearing - NO

Sea Levels to rise several meters or more - NO

Hurricane intensities and energy increasing - NO

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

BTW, the red was a very nice touch. It screams without garish human big type or underline and bold. Only a cow would be so subtle.

Thanks for the compliment, but being an engineer at heart, not an ingénue, I can't resist asking for what red I am being complimented .

The only special font I used in my post to which you were responding was underline and italic.