What Do We Think About Climate Change

to funny
yerp thats me Mr Distraction eh

Hey Jim
nice to see you up and kicking
was kinda wondering if you were doing ok over there
good to see you were just maybe pleasantly distracted hacking your way back into the Realclimate site again

looks its 3:51 am and Im just in from a long day and then a nice dinner party so maybe Ill see what I can do with denial views once I get some sleep
If my bleary eyes are reading this correctly Jim says its the intensity and not the number of sun spots? that makes the big difference, which doesn't seem to make much sense cause the CR is measured in intensity, so Im not sure, if our conversation is about CR what the problem is with the data presented ( although Im sure there is always a problem )

G
If Im reading this correctly
has issue with where I left off my cut and paste

I also have a question

if there is voluminous data to form a coherent theory and that theory is presented as it has ( climate change )
and if you disagree with it
yet have have insufficient data to form a complete and comprehensive theory of your own
then I suppose a reasonable question might be

where's your theory that you might be asked to defend it
or is it just easier to ignore that little flaw in the denialist camps tactics and simply forget that no competing theory exists

gotta get but best of luck
and good to have you back Jim

B

 

There is no point in reasoning with a religious person. THis is a matter of faith.

We have those who "believe" and those who do not believe.

Try to tell a 7 day adventist he is wrong in wanting to keep the sabbath.

Try to debate with a JW that transfusions are not forbidden by the scritpures.

Tell an exclusive brethren that women have the right to speak in church.

All of the above people "believe" to be right. And all take the information from the same book.

Global warmist have got religion and there is no point in any debate with them. The only debate worth having is with those who dont believe anything may they see the light.

 

This is an add:

Cave for sale. Guaranteed no CO2 emissions, no power, no warming, no cooling. Completely self sufficient.

Lobotomy included in the package deal.

GW deniers abstain from applying.

 

I'll call you on that one. Your stance is dismissed by the vast majority of mainstream scientists--not just by some group of ignorant, brainwashed fanatics. For you to accuse scientists, and those who agree with them, of having "gotten religion" makes little sense. You seem to be the one standing on faith instead of facts and reason, winnowing through piles of data and evidence for whatever might support your preconceived notions.

You do your side of the debate no good at all when you go off on rants like this, basically calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot.

 

Once again you got it wrong Troy. An overwhelming majority of scientists do not subscribe to the AGW dogma. A majority of self proclaimed climatologists do. In the U.S. alone over 31,400 scientists have signed the Petition Project. The signers disagree with the AGW hypothesis and are willing to put their names and reputations forward unlike the anonymous polls conducted among the grant whores of the AGW movement.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

And before you try to trash the signers you should know that the names were all verified in 2007 and the phoney names placed there by AGW sphycophants were removed.

Of course the idea of consensus deciding science is silly anyhow. It only takes one person to disprove a theory pronounced as dogma by thousands. The truth is the truth, regardless of the thousands who may find it uncomfortable.

You then take issue with anyone who disagrees with the AGW dogma and brand them ignorant brainwashed fanatics while you take umbrage with any bricks tossed at the high priests of Carbon Catechism.

The reference to religion is placed there because of the unreasonable faith that is placed in the pronouncement of the IPCC regardless of the instances of corruption, fraud, deciet, bad science and just plain screw ups that are the legacy of the IPCC since its founding. There is not a single disaster scenario that has not been debunked. There is not a single paper published that uses empirical evidence to tie Global Warming to human activity. Such faith is usually reserved for the belief in a diety, not to further scientific debate.

 

Some thoughts from our friends in Austrailia..........

http://listentous.org.au/media/11-f...xplain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

 

fasteddy,
Just a precision on my side to this your phrase "tie Global Warming to human activity"

I'm convinced climate change (or global warming if we put it that way) is not related to antropogenic CO2. But there can be other human forcings acting on global climate (understood as a sume of regional impacts), such as land change, poor agricultural practices, soots and sulfurs emmissions, etc, etc, as well as perhaps even some with global level impact such as the CFC's in troposphere and stratosphere. In my case I'm only debating here the effect of ACO2.

Cheers.

 

interesting G so how is it you justify believing that the lesser quantities of gasses being emitted like sulfur ( but without the physical characteristics necessary to be as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 ) are having the greater impact on climate change

granted I wrote extensively concerning dimming a few thousand posts ago

the conclusion being that the advent of controls on visible pollutants without controls on the invisible pollutants is a key factor in the rising temps we have been seeing

soots and sulfurs simply dont have the physical characteristics to be the strong greenhouse gass that methane or co2 is

sooooooooo

once again
do you have a comprehensive alternative theory you would like to present to the scientific community that might justify your beliefs

or is this all just hyperbole to delay any meaningful change that might cut into corporate profits in the short term

 

They still have not climbed the first hurdle, which is to show that something anomalous is happening with the earth's climate. The ~8 papers published by the very scientists of the climategate fiasco are the only peer-reviewed support of this assertion, and all these works were deeply, irrevocably discredited years before climategate. In fact the last nails in the coffin were driven home only one month before climategate, with the long-awaited revelation of the Yamal data.

With nothing unusual going on, why are we looking for the 'cause' and 'solution in the first place:?:

Jimbo

 

You see, Boston? There you are again with your distracting maneouvres, avoiding to answer the simple question I made.

Once again : can you please post a long term temperatures graph to let us know what are you talking about when you talk rapid climate change?

 

an ambiguous question as usual G
care to define "long term"

In the case of climate change research the term in question is the last stable series of cycles over ~600,000 years. The cycles show a distinct pattern mirroring co2. The pattern is unlikely a coincidence and given the extreme deviation in co2 and the recent warming mirroring that increase in co2 its kinda hard difficult for the deniers to do much but wither and fall by the way side. Its no wonder the consensus on climate change is so huge (97%) or that no mater how much money industry pores into the PR campaign designed to preserve there profits they have yet to come up with a coherent and comprehensive counter theory; instead agnotologyst focus on anomalous data and disinformation.

the amount of data available in support of Rapid Global Climate Change is overwhelming










so having established what the last stable cycle looks like you might want to consider the deviation from it in terms of both the hesitation and then recent rise in temp corresponding to the dramatic increase in the prime green house gas CO2








your grasping at straws again G
how about if you answer one of my questions for a change

do you have a comprehensive counter theory that incorporates the majority of the known data

 

Where do you see the "rapid" temperature increase there, my darling? Please take just one graph of real data (not Al Gore projections) for the last, let's say, 10,000 years, 100,000, 600,000 or 600 million years, whichever you want, and point it out please (And please quote the peer reviewed paper from where you took the graph from)

And I see you still insist on confounding correlation with causation: CO2 in the paleoclimatic records follow temperature, not the contrary, as has been thoroughly proved. Please search this thread for "temperature lag" to find out the wealthy of information on the subject (please read it carefully and think a little bit, something difficult for you, I know). Those graphs act against yourself, my warmnotologist one! Why do you insist on putting yourself in a ridiculous position?

 

while I appreciate the easy questions G I would have thought you were trying to lead up to something a little more difficult



lets ignore the projection that temp will follow co2 and stick to the actual data of the most recent times as compared to the past say 10,000

notice where the graph says "today" and notice that its a spike from a previous high
temp according to the pattern of the last 600,000 years or so should be falling at this point in the cycle, but its not is it. Its headed upward again again and fast.
definitely a deviation from the norm and one that follows the pattern of CO2 perfectly and exactly as predicted

looks like your grasping at straws again there G



a clearer view of the dramatic rise in global temps can be seen more clearly in this compilation of data sets

 

Don't you have eyes to see, ears to listen and a brain to think?

Once again and more slowly for you:

PE-ER-RE-VIEW-ED-PA-PERS-BOS-TON-I-AS-KED-FOR-LONG-TERM-GRAPHS-FROM-PE-ER-RE-VIEW-ED-PA-PERS

LAST-TEN-THOU-SAND-YE-ARS-OR-MO-RE

Capici now?

P.S.
DON'T-BE-SI-LLY-AND-DON'T-IN-SIST-ON-THE-JO-KEY-STICK-GAR-BAGE-YOU-A-RE-ON-LY-DIS-CRE-DI-TING-YOUR-SELF-ONCE-A-GAIN

 

While you dig for the info with that your slow brain and your quick entrails , let me post here something interesting and recent for the sake of the other members here.

A review of North Atlantic modes of natural variability and their driving mechanisms
Iris Grossmann and Philip J. Klotzbach
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D24107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012728, 2009
Received 24 June 2009; revised 5 August 2009; accepted 31 August 2009; published 31 December 2009.

This paper reviews three modes of natural variability that have been identified in the North Atlantic Ocean, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic Meridional Mode (AMM). This manuscript focuses on the multidecadal fluctuations of these three modes. A range of different mechanisms to initiate phase reversals in these modes on multidecadal timescales has been suggested previously. We propose a systematic grouping of these mechanisms into three types that involve, respectively, (1) the dependency of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) on salinity, (2) the sensitivity of the THC to changes in ocean heat transport and (3) the dependency of the NAO to changes in the Atlantic meridional temperature gradient. Some new density data is also provided, demonstrating physical links between the THC and the AMO.

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grossmannklotzbach2009.pdf

I had posted before something from Prof. Gray head of the Dept of Atmospheric Science team at the Colorado Universty (Klotzbach works with him)
I bring it back here for those of you not wanting to go back for it:

Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2009.pdf
Read it carefully.

Cheers.