Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by humy
That's one of the things I have been trying to tell him. There is this thing called 'basic physics'.

I know, but maybe if it comes from a republican climate scientist he'll pay attention. Or not. We'll see. 🙂

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
All you have to do is show me something other than climate models that is evidence of for future catastrophes. If you can do that you will be the first and gain my respect for it.....if you can do that. Don't just say it...talk is cheap. Show me the proof.

That's what the link I gave is for. If you don't have time to watch it, I'll have to write a summary later, when I have more time.

Joined: 07 Dec 05
Moves: 22048

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by C Hess
I know, but maybe if it comes from a republican climate scientist he'll pay attention. Or not. We'll see. 🙂

I'm not a republican. Anyone who frequents the debate forum will tell you that. Kazetnaggora knows I am not a republican. You are not the first to make that mistake though. Perhaps this false allegation comes from democrats and other leftists. Maybe that is why you think so partisan.

Joined: 07 Dec 05
Moves: 22048

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by C Hess
That's what the link I gave is for. If you don't have time to watch it, I'll have to write a summary later, when I have more time.

They all say that. You will not write any summary unless it all talk and no proof. I've heard that before. Nobody ever delivers as promised. I think you are just talk and nothing more.

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm not a republican.

My apologies then.

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

13 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They all say that. You will not write any summary unless it all talk and no proof. I've heard that before. Nobody ever delivers as promised. I think you are just talk and nothing more.

Now who's assuming things? 😛

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

14 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"most evidence for man made global warming predicted in the future doesn't in fact rely on climate models, as you've claimed several times.

Here is an excerpt from the link below:
_________________________________________________________
"But it is increasingly clear that the models are the linchpin of the theory of catastrophic man-made global warm ...[text shortened]... my respect for it.....if you can do that. Don't just say it...talk is cheap. Show me the proof.

Having read the article you link to, I may have misunderstood your position slightly. From that article:

...note that I was careful when I focused my assertion around “the catastrophe.”

Plenty of the issues that swirl around the climate debate can be proven without resorting to computer modelling, often from direct observation. We know the climate is changing all the time through history, and we know temperatures rise and fall (and have mostly risen over the last century). We also know that human emitted CO2, all things being equal, can warm the Earth as its atmospheric concentrations rise.

But what we know from direct observation does not get us to the threatened catastrophe.

So, reading some (not all) of your back and forth with humy and sonhouse, I got the idea that you don't think carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere, but if you argue using Meyer's article, you have to accept that increased CO2 concentrations does indeed warm up the atmosphere. It's the catastrophe scenario you're having a problem with.

Emanuel begins his talk by stating what he'll be talking about:

* Earth's climate is not terribly stable (in geological time scale)
* Climate science has a long and illustrious history
* Human activities can and do have a strong effect on climate
* The idea that we're affecting the climate is based on much more than complex global models (computer models)
* Anthropogenic climate change is not controversial among climate scientists

I take it you don't have any problem with any of these statements? Your only problem is with the idea that further warming of the planet can have catastrophic effects?

joe beyser

Joined: 29 Mar 09
Moves: 816

14 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
More junk science based on climate models? How many times must climate models fail miserably before you finally disregard any assertions based on them?

"+ there is the big thorny issue of sea level rise. So we still have got a big problem."

14 cm per century is a big problem? How much did sea level rise last year?

Based on climate models fed with known erroneous data. Of course the likes of Al Gore says it is proven but what can he possibly know if he is too busy hunching on a hotel ladies leg.

Joined: 07 Dec 05
Moves: 22048

14 Apr 15

Originally posted by C Hess
Having read the article you link to, I may have misunderstood your position slightly. From that article:

[quote]
...note that I was careful when I focused my assertion around “the catastrophe.”

Plenty of the issues that swirl around the climate debate can be proven without resorting to computer modelling, often from direct observation. We know the cli ...[text shortened]... only problem is with the idea that further warming of the planet can have catastrophic effects?

"I got the idea that you don't think carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere"

That is not accurate. I have always accepted that carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere. I just think many people are overestimating how much it heats up the atmosphere and underestimates other natural factors. CO2 lags behind temperatures according to ice core data, so blaming only CO2 is not realistic. I also pointed out that CO2 levels right now are close to that of the Pliocene when it was much warmer than today. That debunks many of the CO2 myths being pushed on us. If CO2 was the primary driver of temperature it would be nearly as warm as the Pliocene right now and it is not. Not even close.

sonhouse

Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined: 28 Dec 04
Moves: 53226

15 Apr 15

2 edits

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I got the idea that you don't think carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere"

That is not accurate. I have always accepted that carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere. I just think many people are overestimating how much it heats up the atmosphere and underestimates other natural factors. CO2 lags behind temperatures according to ice core data, s ...[text shortened]... Pliocene right now and it is not. Not even close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGt3OzTXBs

Some of the answer to lower temperatures in the Pliocene may be volcano activity which intensified in the Pliocene.

Here is a long link to a work on the history of volcanism and a bit about the Pliocene:

https://books.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

Rats, it says 'word too long'

Can't even cut and paste the sections about that time period. But there were explosive volcanos in the Andes and other places in South America and around the ring of fire. Krakatoa caused a 20 to 30% drop in sunlight in Britain, thousands of miles away. It doesn't take too much of a leap to see the same thing happening because of volano's in the Pliocene.
Sunlight was reduced for 3 years after Krakatoa. That would explain why it wasn't so hot then.

Joined: 31 Aug 06
Moves: 40565

15 Apr 15

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is not accurate. I have always accepted that carbon dioxide can heat up the atmosphere. I just think many people are overestimating how much it heats up the atmosphere and underestimates other natural factors.

If you include the Al Gores of the world, I think you're absolutely right about that. Of course, if you also include the "lord" Moncktons of the world, you'll be able to say the opposite: "I just think many people are underestimating how much CO2 heats up the atmosphere and overestimates other natural factors".

Ask yourself from where you got the idea that CO2 heats up the atmosphere, and more importantly why it heats up the atmosphere. If you do that, you'll be forced to choose your sources carefully if you want accurate information. Before long, you'll tune out all the loud and obnoxious al gores and lord moncktons of the world, and listen exclusively to people like Kerry Emanuel (a professor of meteorology whose talk I linked to earlier). What you get then is a more nuanced picture. A picture where you get the impression that "catastrophe" isn't imminent, but certainly not one where "catastrophe" can be safely ruled out.

Now, I put quotation marks around the word catastrophe, because I think that's one of the most useless and overloaded words you can use in this context. What the hell does it mean anyway? Is the world going to explode or something?

I prefer to talk about the economic and political consequences of climate change. For some, these will no doubt be "catastrophic", but for most people it will be an inconvenient and unnecessary cost if we don't hit the breaks on CO2 emissions. This is a far cry from "catastrophe", but hardly one to ignore completely. Like Emanuel points out in the video, the probability for the worst case scenario is quite low, but not non-existing, so we can't pretend as though all will be just fine, no worries. There's a lot we still don't understand about the climate, but however you choose to look at it, if you admit that co2 heats up the atmosphere, at the very least we'll find ourselves having to deal with costly and inconvenient consequences if we keep releasing more of it into the atmosphere, as deserts grow, sea levels rise and so on. It's not a question of if all that happens, but a matter of to which degree.

As for your claim that co2 can't be the driving force behind the recent warming trend, I'll explain why you're absolutely wrong about that in my next post. I will draw from Emanuel's talk in the earlier link.

humy

Joined: 06 Mar 12
Moves: 642

15 Apr 15

4 edits

I believe it is clearer than ever that there is not much point in talking to Metal Brain other than to put the record straight.
It is perfectly clear from all his many condescending posts that, despite his none-existent science credentials and clear ignorance of even the very basic methodology of science, he has already made up his mind a very long time ago that he must necessarily be absolutely right about everything about science i.e. it is an absurdity that he could be wrong about anything and he knows all about science and, anyone here, including all the scientists and experts that know and understands vastly more about it than he could ever do and thus inevitably disagree with him, are all wrong, and that is simply that -period!
Thus the fact that absolutely everyone here that knows more about it than he does are clearly telling him he is wrong doesn't bother him nor indicate to his brain that he just might be wrong.

Joined: 07 Dec 05
Moves: 22048

15 Apr 15

Originally posted by C Hess
If you include the Al Gores of the world, I think you're absolutely right about that. Of course, if you also include the "lord" Moncktons of the world, you'll be able to say the opposite: "I just think many people are underestimating how much CO2 heats up the atmosphere and overestimates other natural factors".

Ask yourself from where you got ...[text shortened]... bsolutely wrong about that in my next post. I will draw from Emanuel's talk in the earlier link.

"As for your claim that co2 can't be the driving force behind the recent warming trend"

Although I didn't exclude the recent warming trend I was including the Pliocene and that was my main focus. Your claim that it was volcanoes that warmed the Pliocene climate has flaws. Volcanoes are usually used as a reason for global cooling and humy has used it himself in past posts to explain the warming between 1900-1940 before man burned much fossil fuels. Even if I were to accept volcanoes are responsible for some warming in the Pliocene it is a temporary change in the climate. Volcanoes are not claimed to be a long term driver of climate as far as I know. Volcanoes emit CO2 but that has already been accounted for since it was far warmer in the Pliocene than today.
Humy has stated that natural causes other than CO2 are responsible for Pliocene warming but he was not specific and that is typical of him since he often is evasive in his explanations. He was probably fearful that I would point out flaws in that just like I have just now with you. He could say he is unsure of those natural causes, but that would make it apparent to others how ignorant he is about climate change and that would contradict his claim that he knows more than I do on this subject. Even though he is not a climate scientist he wears his physics degree like a badge and falsely asserts that it gives him a superior knowledge of some sort. His lack of explanations and evasiveness show he knows very little. I think he is still fooling himself into thinking the science agrees with his alarmist assertions. Science clearly is not on his side at all, but he has his mind made up and doesn't want to be confused with facts. He accuses me of the same thing to take attention away from the reality he denies in a display of "psychological projection". The more he fools himself into thinking it is me the less he has to face the fact it is really him that is fooling himself and ignoring the facts. He is probably struggling with "cognitive dissonance" and cannot bring himself into accepting everything he thought he knew for so long is wrong. 97% of climate scientists do NOT subscribe to his alarmist views at all. He bought into a common myth that a lot of others did as well, but his resentment of me (because I retaliated after he started insulting me) has clouded his judgment. In other words, he wants me to be wrong so badly he ignores any fact that gets in the way of that and makes himself look foolish to all on this forum.

If you want to know more facts about this issue I suggest you study Fred Singer. He is a well respected climate scientist that humy (the king of edits) has failed to prove wrong after several attempts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Joined: 07 Dec 05
Moves: 22048

15 Apr 15