Slashdot Mirror

The greatest contributor to CO2 is carbon monoxide. Here's how we are doing on that front according to the EPA:

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends...

Between 1980 and 2016 we've had an 85% decrease. 85%! These numbers are from the EPA.

Here's a nice collection of quotes from experts:

http://www.c3headlines.com/glo...

This is why some people are skeptical.

Continues to push bad science. Along with Michael Mann. Their data is shown to be highly manipulated, not what was claimed, and the models built don't follow realit - but they insist they are correct and must be used for setting political policies. Real science wouldn't hide data, wouldn't support models that continue to be in error, and wouldn't constantly "readjust" past, good data to make the models work. Not to mention using his children as foils to sue the Government over his beliefs.

It is, of course, well understood that water vapor is a greenhouse gas-- this accounted for in all the models. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. This is a feedback cycle. One of several feedback cycles.

Well it seems the the humidity:

Relative humidity has substantially declined in recent decades, defying global warming computer models predicting higher amounts of atmospheric water vapor that will exacerbate global warming. The decline in relative humidity indicates global warming will be much more moderate than claimed by global warming activists. Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models

The IPCC's CAGW hypothesis necessitates that troposphere humidity increases as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase. Simply stated (this is not rocket science):

          *First CO2 levels increase, thus
              *Atmospheric warming increases, thus
              *Earth's surface warms, thus
              *Earth surface water evaporates, thus
              *Atmosphere humidity increases, thus
              *Atmosphere water vapor increases (i.e. greenhouse gas), thus
              *Atmosphere warms further, thus
              *Earth's surface warms even more, thus
              *More Earth's water evaporates into atmosphere, thus
              *A positive feedback loop established, and continues

For the above climate "tipping point" to initiate, the atmosphere humidity has to absolutely increase, which the above chart of empirical evidence reveals it has not.

In fact, as seen, the atmospheric (relative) humidity is decreasing over time while CO2 levels increase - the exact opposite of all climate model and "consensus" expert predictions. http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-c... Atmosphere Humidity: NOAA Scientists Determine Reality Is Opposite Of Climate Models' Prediction

just isn't cooperating with the GCM's; of course we all know when reality diverges from the model predictions, reality will be adjusted as necessary.

The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem.

It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.

The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.

If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.

you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says

I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:

• "Maslowski's colleagues didn't agree with him", you said,
• "Al Gore is an asshole" (dave420 implied — without any objections from you),
• "Viner was talking to a popular publication, rather than a peer-reviewed magazine" (as if it makes any difference)

— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...

When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.

You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".

You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.

I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/01/us-temps-nasa-1988-global-warming-predictions-noaa-failure-those-stubborn-facts.html

Sorry but it's been warmer than it is today with less CO2 content and i am talking about the complete debunking of the notion that CO2 drives climate changes. It does not. http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-studies/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFd4icZki4I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDm9b_69pDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5foE

U.S. Remains In Cooling Trend Per The New June NOAA Data: -3.5ÂF/Century

Much to the galactic chagrin of global warming alarmists and their collaborators at the NY Times and Washington Post, a major peer reviewed study by an avowed alarmist found no global warming since 1998. This finding confirms what the skeptics have been stating over the last 5 years.

"Q: Was 2010 (or 1998 or 2005) the warmest year on record?

A: The short answer is, maybe. It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe. However, it is possible to quantify the accuracy with which we can measure the global temperature and that forms an important part of the creation of the HadCRUT4 data set. The accuracy with which we can measure the global average temperature of 2010 is around one tenth of a degree Celsius. The difference between the median estimates for 1998 and 2010 is around one hundredth of a degree, which is much less than the accuracy with which either value can be calculated. This means that we can't know for certain - based on this information alone - which was warmer. However, the difference between 2010 and 1989 is around four tenths of a degree, so we can say with a good deal of confidence that 2010 was warmer than 1989, or indeed any year prior to 1996."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/faq.html

NO "WARMING" - anthropogenic, or otherwise.

...thourougly debunked talking points

Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve?
Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.

UN's 5th model - yup, it is. More depending on how you count. How can you debunk fact? Each time it was revised down. Here's a rundown from the first one - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?&grcc=99999&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion . How the crazy MMGW crowd has been wrong time and time again - http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html (not for faint of heart. If you want the truth, it's there.)

CO2 is clearly behind the curve? Just look at the graph. How can you debunk what you can see with the naked eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . That's the plot they don't like to show you. Ok, say you don't understand that, it's related. Then look at this real life plot with temperatures and CO2 - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi . Tough to be a true believer in mmgw if you know the facts.

Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.

Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

1) How accurate can we judge the entire planet's average temperature in the year 1800? The graph shows swings from year to year in the 0.2 C range. Can we really judge the average surface temperature of the planet with 0.2 degrees Celsius?

Take a look at the grey band - it's more obvious in the second graph, the 10 year moving average. The grey band is the 95% uncertainty interval for Berkeley's calculation of the average temperature - statistically on each data point there is a 5% chance that the real average temperature lies outside the grey band. You will see that in the year 1800, the grey band is massive: +/- 0.5 degrees. But over time, as there are more measurements around the world, and those measurements have less randomness in them (i.e. get more accurate), the uncertainty shrinks pretty slowly.

2) Also, the chart shows 200 years. This is a blip on the scale of climate science. If you look at the climate history on a much, much larger scale, you'll find that 200 years means nothing. For example, the chart on this page shows that we are much cooler than the average. An sharp increase in average temps would help put us "right".

This is true - no matter how much we heat up the earth, life will survive. But if the climate changes too much from our current conditions, then there will be massive changes. Lots of creatures will become extinct (eventually new ones will evolve, taking advantage of the abundance of food/lack of predators but that happens very slowly) and we will probably have to totally rethink our farming practices. We should move our cities too given that many would no longer be well-situated, but what would probably happen is that we turn up our air-conditioners and burn even more coal. I concede that the effects of climate change are less well understood (at least by me!) than that it is happening.

Or this chart which goes back 4500 years, shows that we just came out of an ice age, so a temperature increase would be expected, and also negates your Berkely graph.

Seriously? I give you the Berkeley graphs, which appear to have used a pretty rigourous method, where you can download their temperature data and source code, and is being peer-reviewed, and you rebut this with a graph that does not have a labelled y-axis and appears to have been drawn with a bezier tool? If you want to convince me that there is no scientific consensus, i.e. that researchers who know what they're doing and are doing it properly, disagree that global warming is happening/is a problem, then please stop using graphs like that. Especially when they disagree with the graph I provided, which gives its sources (IIRC, every temperature measurement they could get their hands on), and includes three other groups' sets of numbers on the same axes - none of which agree with the graph you provided.

Or, finally, this page which shows a whole slew of charts, most of which show that we are in a cold period of climate history, and an increase in average temperature would get the earth back to the "normal" range.

Again, the really-long-range graphs don't have much to do with the current debate, because I'd like life to survive in its current form as much as possible. When large-scale, seemingly-irreversible (on the scale of centuries) changes are made to the only planet we live on, I get nervous about the potential for things to go wrong.

There are too many graphs on that page to go through them individually, but it doesn't give that site any credibility to include graphs like this one, which show very suspicious behaviour - local temperature swings around wildly and then the music st

Speaking of graphs, I find this one really scary, and would want to see it flatten out or drop for a good few years before I stop caring about my energy usage.

Just taking a quick gander at that particular graph, I notice that it covers 200 years of surface temperature. This brings a couple of points to my mind:

1) How accurate can we judge the entire planet's average temperature in the year 1800? The graph shows swings from year to year in the 0.2 C range. Can we really judge the average surface temperature of the planet with 0.2 degrees Celsius?

2) Also, the chart shows 200 years. This is a blip on the scale of climate science. If you look at the climate history on a much, much larger scale, you'll find that 200 years means nothing. For example, the chart on this page shows that we are much cooler than the average. An sharp increase in average temps would help put us "right". Or this chart which goes back 4500 years, shows that we just came out of an ice age, so a temperature increase would be expected, and also negates your Berkely graph. Or, finally, this page which shows a whole slew of charts, most of which show that we are in a cold period of climate history, and an increase in average temperature would get the earth back to the "normal" range.

You have to take into account how much CO2 we emit, and it is in fact a shitload. It's probably over 150 times as much as volcanism.

Still, not impressed. You've essentially got an ocean that can buffer more CO2 than you can possibly imagine, as well as hold orders of magnitude more heat than the entirety of the atmosphere.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that we produce a great deal of it, what more do you need to know?

1) where is the missing CO2 - http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/the-ipccs-missing-co2-remains-a-major-embarassment-of-its-consensus-science-its-still-awol-maybe.html

2) will an increase in the average global temperature statistic be a bad or a good thing

3) what other negative feedbacks are in play - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/declining-global-average-cloud-height-a-significant-measure-of-negative-feedback-to-global-warming/

I know that cities create local weather effects through UHI, and we've built a lot of cities - what more do you need to know before we decide that we've got catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to city building? :)

Again, simply stringing together two things we might agree on, in order to claim a third thing we don't agree on, isn't the way the science game is played. Start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement (and "AGW could be falsified by showing that humans don't exist" is just as silly as "AGW could be falsified by showing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" - the existence of physical constants or emitters of CO2 isn't sufficient to lead to catastrophe or causality.)

Just precisely how you can continue to live your selfish, self-centered existence at the cost of all others?

The same way you do :) I'm breathing out CO2, enjoying the trappings of 1st world living with my huge ass carbon footprint, only I'm not being a snoot about it :)

Look, how has the past 0.8C of temperature rise over the past 100 years negatively effected you? Why should we assume that another 0.8C of temperature over the next 100 years will be bad if the last 0.8C wasn't bad?

Hope you're ready to apologize to your grand children when they're living through a Maunder minimum that lasts until 2050 :)

In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/08/more-evidence-that-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/06/new-paper-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/03/04/climate-model-predictions-and-what-happened/

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

We can determine the sum of the natural forcings without knowing each individual one. If you have 85 cents, you don't need to know how many dimes you have to know if you can buy a candy bar.

You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.

You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.

A model without an ocean does seem rather over-simplified to me.

My rejoinder is that a model without clouds does seem rather over-simplified to me as well, but you never see that kind of critique against models that promise extreme warming trends.

As for the hard coded parameters for cloud modeling, I'll argue that they've never shown any sort of accuracy for predicting cloud cover distribution.

In either case, we are presented with a system that is disturbingly simple no matter how complex we make it - natural climate systems are well beyond the complexity we could simulate (especially when you consider extra-terrestrial influences, such as the sun, cosmic rays, etc).

The authorities were named at the top of the article I linked to; Drs. Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

Pardon my misunderstanding - I kept your two paragraphs disjointed rather than considering them together.

Trenberth has made some interesting waves recently, and shows consistency in his critique of models:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/major-ipcc-climate-scientist-publishes-paper-listing-significant-failures-of-climate-models.html

Do you have a definition handy?

Unfortunately, I don't know of any standard definition of "Catastrophic", but it is implied by those AGW believers who insist that we *must act now*, and that without CO2 emissions restrictions, we face some sort of unnamed doom (or named doom, like more hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, 10m sea level rises, earthquakes, mental illness, etc, etc).

I was assuming that the person holding the hypothesis would have a specific criteria.

By the way, since you appended the "Catastrophic", I take it that you regard the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (sans "Catastrophic") to be adequately proven?

That begs the question of magnitude - I would take it as adequately proven that humans have a vanishingly small impact on global temperature, primarily through the UHI effect, but even with say, contrails from airplanes. Since we haven't paved the entire earth (yet), our impact is significantly lower than natural climate change drivers. To put another way, the hypothesis of "Any Anthropogenic Global Warming" is as true as "Any Land Animal Global Warming" or even "Any Sea Animal Global Warming" - of course biological organisms have an impact, and arguably the impact is always at least a bit positive, but I would imagine that the effect is beyond our current capacity to detect.

I would further posit a hypothesis of "Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming" - if it can possibly become significant compared to natural climate drivers, it would be a good thing for us to pursue as a goal. Cold kills more than heat.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/nasa-climate-scientist-global-warming-does-not-cause-extreme-weather-events.html

"That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:

"There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general.""

Show me the data that proves there is an increasing trend in extreme weather events due to increasing average global temperature.

http://www.c3headlines.com/are-droughts-floods-more-frequent/

"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/nasa-climate-scientist-global-warming-does-not-cause-extreme-weather-events.html

"That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:

"There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general.""

Show me the data that proves there is an increasing trend in extreme weather events due to increasing average global temperature.

http://www.c3headlines.com/are-droughts-floods-more-frequent/

"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]

and even if you did, no one has come up with a believable price on CO2. i'll fully admit it would be no easy task, since your dealing with so many unknowns.

Wattsupwiththat similarly support the need of its readers to believe in the denialsist plaint, "It's not our faaaaault."

Look, whether or not you're pointing fingers at whattsupwiththat, or realclimate, you've got partisanship and ad hominem enough to go around. The warmist plaint of "the sky is warming! the sky is warming" is just as relevant as your jingoistic example. What you still haven't done is come to grips with your own personal confirmation bias.

there are multiple mechanisms that produce short-term variation around the long-term trend imposed by CO2 increase.

And there are multiple mechanisms that produce long-term variation as well, not to mention the problem of causality. You're hedging your bets again, asserting that you have no need of predictions because you can always point to one model out of several dozen which may have gotten it right (without apparently invalidating the models that got it wrong).

The next step in understanding is to realize that Venus is much warmer than would be expected from solar radiation based upon blackbody physics. To date, nobody has managed to come up with a model consistent with the climate of Venus that does not invoke the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Really? You're still holding onto Venus? It's clear that Venus's temperature is well within the range of temps expected by solar input and atmospheric pressure levels. Your magical "greenhouse effect" (poorly named, since greenhouses actually work by stopping convection) is a red herring.

Do this thought experiment -> turn earth's atmosphere into 100% CO2. According to your theory, temperatures start blazing through the roof (okay, maybe not 100% CO2, since you want to use water vapor as the feedback mechanism, and CO2 is only a "forcer"). Does atmospheric pressure increase at sea level? Does it increase throughout the troposphere and beyond? Does earth gain extra gravity to hold in the higher pressure gases of the atmosphere?

Do this thought experiment -> bring some big huge asteroid onto earth, and convert it all into gas, doubling the amount of gas molecules in the atmosphere while keeping earth's mass constant. Does the atmosphere increase to 2atm at sea level, or does the extra gas escape?

PV = nRT works, and although you may have dynamic equilibrium, it still puts an upper and lower limit on the ranges possible. If you wanted to quantify Venus's surface temp due to CO2, it would be completely dwarfed by the simple relationship of pressure and temperature for gases.

Yes, I can see how one could form that kind of misunderstanding, if you carefully avoid the intellectual discipline of doing the math to see what the models really predict.

Sigh. Look, let's get back to "a model cannot be its own proof". Good. Now, you pretty much said "any model". That's like betting on both red and black on the roulette wheel, without the 00. Tell me again how this is a scientific prediction.

In the ocean? In the satellite measures? (I know...you have different excuses for those, all coincidentally producing a bias in the direction of warming)

The satellite measures are calibrated based on the surface temp record, so UHI can poison the well there too (although, truth be told, sat temps have only been around for 30 or so years, so asserting a trend out of that is weak mojo). For the ocean, you've got an order of magnitude less observation than the surface record.

So, back to the temp record, yes, most if not all of it can be accounted for by UHI and siting issues.

A localized MWP is not in dispute. The question is whether it was global

And here's the answer again, RTFL: http://ww