Man-made global warming

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My statement is correct, you just have blind faith like a religion.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the link:

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan gla get the results they are determined to find and call it proof because that was the goal.

I first politely state that your assertion is erroneous.
I then politely prove that by explaining in detail and as clearly as I can why it is erroneous.
Then you respond rudely with "My statement is correct, you just have blind faith like a religion" and then, for the rest of that post, say absolutely nothing to counter-argue my explanation.
Clearly you don't know how to be a gentleman and admit when you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My statement is correct, you just have blind faith like a religion.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the link:

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan gla ...[text shortened]... get the results they are determined to find and call it proof because that was the goal.

You are neglecting the fact that the sun is in a slowdown mode right now with slightly less output so the Earth will feel a bit cooler but that is only for the moment. In ten years or so the sun will be back on track and the output will go back to where it was 10 years ago and then we will be in even worse trouble because of people like you telling us everything is ok, the scientists are wrong and the multinationals can go on as if nothing is wrong and keep spewing coal dust and CO2 in the air and everything will be just fine.

It will NOT be just fine and it is people like you who are the problem not the solution.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are neglecting the fact that the sun is in a slowdown mode right now with slightly less output so the Earth will feel a bit cooler but that is only for the moment. In ten years or so the sun will be back on track and the output will go back to where it was 10 years ago and then we will be in even worse trouble because of people like you telling us every ...[text shortened]... ine.

It will NOT be just fine and it is people like you who are the problem not the solution.

Great! Now that you have admitted that the sun is an important factor we can have a more honest discussion about climate change.

I neglected nothing. I was merely waiting for you to admit other factors caused the warming slowdown. I knew you had to sooner or later.

I remember reading posts on facebook from democrats who claimed that an unusually warm summer one year was proof of global warming getting out of control. Then the next year we had an unusually cold year. So many leftist/environmental zealots do that and it is really dumb. One summer does not show proof of anything and it is silly to do that, but over a decade is worth looking into and many scientists are starting to admit that greenhouse gases may not be as important a factor as the used to believe. This alone should keep chicken littles like you from sounding the alarm bell and calling for carbon taxes, because that is what all of this is really about. They want to tax people and use the money for something and it will not be for what you think.

There are too many factors to jump to conclusions so soon. I say wait at least 20 years to get more information about the sun and other factors before allowing greedy people who run government to steal our money. Meanwhile we should send more satellites and spacecraft to examine changes in the sun.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly you don't want to actually admit what your own stance on global warm is or why.
1. Do you accept that the earth is warming? (I believe you have already answered yes).
2. Do you accept that this is largely caused by CO2? If not, why not. And no, the link you gave did not contradict this, so you'll have to find some other links.
3. Do you accept ...[text shortened]... is you think your tactics from the debates forum are going to work here in the science forum.

1. Sure the earth is warming. Why shouldn't I say that? It is not unusual. The earth has warmed much more than it is now and that happened before man even existed. You don't have a point here.

2. No, I do not accept that CO2 is the primary factor. If it was we would have had warming throughout the 20th century without a decline.

3. No, I do not accept that global warming will result in all the ice melting. Only an idiot would think that is inevitable.

4. No, it is too early to do something we are not sure will make any difference.

Originally posted by humy
I first politely state that your assertion is erroneous.
I then politely prove that by explaining in detail and as clearly as I can why it is erroneous.
Then you respond rudely with "My statement is correct, you just have blind faith like a religion" and then, for the rest of that post, say absolutely nothing to counter-argue my explanation.
Clearly you don't know how to be a gentleman and admit when you are wrong.

Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade. Just because you don't want to accept that doesn't make it untrue. There is also the cooling period between 1942 and 1975. Look it up.

Twhitehead accepted that it is caused by changes in the sun. Why can't you accept it? If you have another theory as to why global warming has slowed down please tell us what it is, but you need to stop this silly denial of yours.

Do you not accept what the Reuters news article says? What is your problem?

Edit: Ooops, I meant sonhouse, not twhitehead.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade. Just because you don't want to accept that doesn't make it untrue. There is also the cooling period between 1942 and 1975. Look it up.

Twhitehead accepted that it is caused by changes in the sun. Why can't you accept it? If you have another theory as to why global warming has slowed down please t ...[text shortened]... s news article says? What is your problem?

Edit: Ooops, I meant sonhouse, not twhitehead.

No it's untrue because its not true.

Global warming has not been slowing down by any measure.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/24/global_warming_news_items_about_climate_change.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html

EDIT: These two are specially good intro's to the topic.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Great! Now that you have admitted that the sun is an important factor we can have a more honest discussion about climate change.

I neglected nothing. I was merely waiting for you to admit other factors caused the warming slowdown. I knew you had to sooner or later.

I remember reading posts on facebook from democrats who claimed that an unusually w ...[text shortened]... ur money. Meanwhile we should send more satellites and spacecraft to examine changes in the sun.

Of course the sun is an important factor. More than that, it is the ONLY factor. We can modulate the climate on Earth and are with the man made increases in CO2 levels but if we encounter another Maunder minimum, we will be in for 400 years of cold weather. The rising CO2 levels may help keep another Maunder minimum at bay but the CO2 levels have to be controlled or we go the other way into melted ice caps and such with the resultant rise in sea levels. This is not up for debate, it is happening and we had better recognize it right now, not 10 years from now when it will be that much closer to a tipping point.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
1. Sure the earth is warming. Why shouldn't I say that? It is not unusual. The earth has warmed much more than it is now and that happened before man even existed. You don't have a point here.

It was a question, not a point.
My point, with regards to warming vs in the past before man existed, is that changes in the weather are very costly. I am not claiming we cannot survive, I am claiming that it is cheaper to stop the warming than to live with it.

2. No, I do not accept that CO2 is the primary factor. If it was we would have had warming throughout the 20th century without a decline.
Without a decline in warming, or without a decline in the rate of warming?
This chart shows no decline, just a pause in the warming:
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

3. No, I do not accept that global warming will result in all the ice melting. Only an idiot would think that is inevitable.
So do you think the warming will stop, or that ice doesn't melt when temperatures rise?

4. No, it is too early to do something we are not sure will make any difference.
So even if it cost nothing, to do something, you would do nothing?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Twhitehead accepted that it is caused by changes in the sun.

You are confusing me with someone else.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade. Just because you don't want to accept that doesn't make it untrue. There is also the cooling period between 1942 and 1975. Look it up.

Twhitehead accepted that it is caused by changes in the sun. Why can't you accept it? If you have another theory as to why global warming has slowed down please t ...[text shortened]... s news article says? What is your problem?

Edit: Ooops, I meant sonhouse, not twhitehead.

Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade. Just because you don't want to accept that doesn't make it untrue.

NO, that was NOT what I said at all. I did NOT say nor imply in any way that global warming was NOT slowing down over the last few decades. If science says that “Global warming has been slowing down for over a decade”, then, obviously, I accept that as fact. But that is completely irreverent to my explanation of why your original assertion was erroneous.
Reminder:

First your said this erroneous statement:

Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming.

then I said about this statement (please read it carefully):

This statement is erroneous. I try to explain why as clearly as I can:

The climate models scientist give of how fast the climate would warm due to CO2 predict that the rate would be extremely unlikely (or even impossible?) to be a constant perfectly steady rise in global average temperature with that rate going up perfectly steady but rather, because climate is a chaotic system that, as implied by chaos theory, will, within certain probable limits, fluctuate in a totally unpredictable manner, rise erratically with sometimes the rate of temperature rise going up then down then later up again then later down again …. I think you must surely get the picture.

With or without global warming, we can expect the temperature to occasionally and unpredictably rise for a few years and occasionally and unpredictably fall for a few years.
And the same obviously applies to the average rate of temperature rise over each decade and over, say, each 30 year period and over, say, each 60 year period etc and only in the very long run may smooth out to be a lot more predictable.

Therefore, if there has been a recent slowing down of warming over the last few years, it is NOT true what you said that
“...scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming...” because those scientist have nothing TOO explain! Because, with CO2-driven global warming, we would rationally EXPECT that the rate of warming to sometimes go up and sometimes go down.

It must be surely obvious from my above clear explanation that it implies that, even if the rate of temperature increase is observed to slow down, just as you claimed it has here, this would NOT mean “scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. “ because, just as I already explained, they would have nothing TOO explain because this kind of erratic rate of temperature increase would be EXACTLY what we would expect from CO2 warming because the global weather is a chaotic system as explained by chaos theory.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course the sun is an important factor. More than that, it is the ONLY factor. We can modulate the climate on Earth and are with the man made increases in CO2 levels but if we encounter another Maunder minimum, we will be in for 400 years of cold weather. The rising CO2 levels may help keep another Maunder minimum at bay but the CO2 levels have to be cont ...[text shortened]... cognize it right now, not 10 years from now when it will be that much closer to a tipping point.

I think you are getting confused between solar wind strength and actual energy output.

The sun doesn't get significantly dimmer in a solar minimum as opposed to a maximum.

The effect of the solar wind strength is not yet fully know but the evidence thus far indicates that it can have regional effects on the weather/climate.

Specifically it looks like solar wind strength is a factor in the strength of the jet stream, which can have significant influence over the weather in northern Europe/USA.

This is suspected to be the cause of the so called "little ice age" during the maunder minimum during which there were often (but not always) winters cold enough to freeze the Thames in London. (thick enough to light bonfires on it)

However this period doesn't look to have been significantly colder world wide.

Our view has been biased by most temperature records going back that far coming from northern European countries.


If we are indeed due for a new grand minimum then that may well cause more cold weather in northern Europe/USA... it will do sweet fa to halting global warming.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was a question, not a point.
My point, with regards to warming vs in the past before man existed, is that changes in the weather are very costly. I am not claiming we cannot survive, I am claiming that it is cheaper to stop the warming than to live with it.

[b]2. No, I do not accept that CO2 is the primary factor. If it was we would have had warmin ...[text shortened]... ll make any difference.
So even if it cost nothing, to do something, you would do nothing?[/b]

Also we must be clear that there is a difference between ATMOSPHERIC warming and warming of the planet in general.

90% (ish) of the worlds warming is of the oceans.
And ocean warming has not stopped or even slowed down.

The atmosphere is heavily influenced by the ocean surface temperature.
And that varies due to well known cycles (the el-ninio / la nina for example)
varying the amount of warm vs cold surface water.

This is the biggest driver of atmospheric temp at any given time.

When we have cold surface waters the average world temp goes down...
Except it hasn't, it's stayed flat to rising, indicating that we are getting extra warming of the atmosphere large enough to prevent the temperatures dropping due to heat being sucked out of the atmosphere by the cold ocean surface waters.


And worse. Cold things absorb heat better than hot things.

basic thermodynamics.

Cold surface waters absorb heat better than warm ones.

This is reflected in the catastrophic ice loss we have seen over the past decade as the oceans soak up heat even faster.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course the sun is an important factor. More than that, it is the ONLY factor. We can modulate the climate on Earth and are with the man made increases in CO2 levels but if we encounter another Maunder minimum, we will be in for 400 years of cold weather. The rising CO2 levels may help keep another Maunder minimum at bay but the CO2 levels have to be cont ...[text shortened]... cognize it right now, not 10 years from now when it will be that much closer to a tipping point.

"Of course the sun is an important factor. More than that, it is the ONLY factor."

This statement is an error. If the sun is the only factor how can CO2 be a factor? Since you clearly believe CO2 is a factor you goofed when you wrote that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was a question, not a point.
My point, with regards to warming vs in the past before man existed, is that changes in the weather are very costly. I am not claiming we cannot survive, I am claiming that it is cheaper to stop the warming than to live with it.

[b]2. No, I do not accept that CO2 is the primary factor. If it was we would have had warmin ...[text shortened]... ll make any difference.
So even if it cost nothing, to do something, you would do nothing?[/b]

Your link only shows temperature and not CO2 levels. Where is the correlation?

Provide a better chart.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing me with someone else.

You saw my edit. Why are you pretending that I didn't correct my mistake before you read it?