What Do We Think About Climate Change

Your first mistake is to lump anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with absolutely everything you say into some ignorant and/or evil group you call "warmers." That's the kind of stupid "Us vs Them" mentality that's poisoning cultural and political issues in this country, and it's even more inappropriate when dragged into scientific matters.

You're pitching another misleading, bogus argument. Far from proving global warming to be a hoax or mistake, stratospheric cooling is predicted and explained by models of the greenhouse effect and global warming -- thereby confirming the accuracy of those models.

Next?

 

Alright, I'm jumping in.

I don't disagree with the enormous problems caused by pollution, which comes in many forms, including CO2. Pollution is very quickly starting to reach a tipping point. If you spend time at sea, you know what I'm talking about. There have been changes in the animals. You can't eat many species of fish anymore thanks to mercury and PCBs.

However, I don't buy "global warming" for even a second. Why?

"Who is to say what the correct temperature for Earth is?"

That's my argument in a nutshell.

The Earth has been much warmer in the past as well as much colder. The planet obviously has had ice ages. Who is to say today's temperature is the correct one? Mabye it's supposed to be hotter. Maybe it's supposed to be colder. You can't pretend to know this.

My point is, humans are arrogant SOBs to think they know the "correct" temperature of the planet and that their actions have much of an effect on its temperature. Again, I ask:

"Who is to say what the correct temperature for Earth is?"

You can't know the answer to that because we, as a species, haven't been keeping records long enough to understand this phenomenon. The planet's temperature cycles are ancient.

 

So Gentleman, after this quite exhaustive exchange the question is:

WHO IS RIGTH

WHO IS WRONG

Someone as to let go, because it is impossible to play tennis like that until hell freeze.
The first who let go receive a ticket to go to see the Artic:
1-melting
2-freezing
The ticket is available for the two shows.

 

the simple answer Jimbo is "wrong on all counts"

the graphs clearly shows precisely what you are suggesting they do not
a precise measurement in direct opposition to another one of your wild claims

I did like your latest wild claim though

once again presented with absolutely no supporting data and in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary

classic Jimbo

best of luck defending this last outrageous claim Jim

any chance of you admitting you were wrong on that last one
before you get roasted on this next

cheers
B

 

Why don't you and Rahm get real?

 

What a bunch of goofball statements!

Stratospheric cooling as the 'ghost' of the missing 'hot spot' is yet another 'rescue' explanation, Troy, certainly NOT something that was predicted AT ALL!

Your assertion that the warm camp predicted stratospheric cooling is laughably false! They were caught COMPLETELY OFF GUARD by that particular observation, and concocted the rescue explanation that you (partially, incompletely) regurgitated! How do you not know that? Oh yeah, I remember now; your depth in this argument stretches back to your first involvement with this thread, whereas mine stretches back to my physics classes in 1982. That would explain it.


Ok, for now, let it be so; let statospheric cooling be the 'ghost' of the 'hot spot' that warmers swore up and down we'd find in the tropical troposphere, but which went famously missing. The problem with that explanation Troy, is that it negates the 'patch' for the spectral saturation argument. Don't you see that? The patch is a tacit admission that CO2 is indeed at spectral saturation in the troposphere, which scientifically speaking is a solid argument. So they came up with a barely plausible (never confirmed in any way) explanation of why we should still be worried about additional CO2. That explanation was that it would cause the stratosphere, nearly devoid of water vapor as it is, to warm, NOT cool!

So if we had observed the stratosphere warming (as they actually predicted), that would be attributed to AGW.

But, (this is the funny part)

If we instead observe the stratosphere to be cooling, that's global warming, too! So I guess they have all bases covered

So what would the stratosphere do if we had global cooling? **** giant icebergs? Rain Italian ice? Turn blue like a mondo Coors Light bottle?

And yet you continue to believe



Jimbo

 

Let your eyes fall upon the graphs Wonder Master! The data is right in front of you! Anthropogenic CO2 emissions 1/100 present, CO2 levels rising. Emission levels 1/1000 of present, CO2 level still rising. Look at YOU OWN graph, Wonder Master! Then look at the Neftel, et al graph I posted straight from CDIAC. Find 1950 on the graph, since that's the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions. Look at the slope of the line in 1950. Is it flat? No. Is it falling? No. Is it rising? Why yes, by golly it is! It's already rising, and had been rising for 150 years at that point, if you can believe the Neftel, et al graph.

That memory problem is popping up again, eh Wonder B?

Jimbo

 

Well no, Jimbo. That isn't a bunch of 'goofball statements.' That's a brief overview of what genuine scientists have concluded, based on genuine research and genuine data.

If it seems to conflict with what you think you learned in your freshman physics class back in 1982, perhaps it's time to update your education.

 

Troy,

I know that's what they say now with straight faces. But what they used to say (up to about 2003-2004) was "Look for the tropical hot spot!" and also "Additional CO2 will wind up in the stratosphere, causing dangerous warming!" Now we can see that both of those predictions were wrong. They were wrong because the narrative does not describe to world we actually observe, therefore the narrative is wrong.

Please try to remember that inherent in the definition of a hypothesis is the principle falsification; if the observed facts contradict predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.

No amount of falsification seems capable of disproving the AGW narrative, ergo it is not a hypothesis.

Jimbo

 

Please provide documentation for these claims.

 

It's quite certain that no amount of falsification on the part of skeptics is going to disprove it....

And by the way, you've been reading or listening to David Evans more than what's good for you. There isn't any 'missing tropical hot spot.'

 

This makes no sense at all (no surprise, there!) since the proponents of the narrative will *NEVER* admit it is wrong. We have seen that they will go to ANY and ALL lengths to protect the narrative including destroying publicly owned data.

The only people that can falsify it are the skeptics.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, you need to do better than call every scientist and layman in the world who disagrees with you a liar, an idiot or a fraud. Really you do.

You're acting like the whole science of climatology is just an arena of people yelling at each other, "is so!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "No it isn't!" "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" "I know you are but what am I?"

That isn't how science works; honest it isn't. You really can't outshout the scientists, call them names and make them go away by outlasting them, much as you'd like to.

 

I think Surrealclimate still posts the "A Saturated, Gassy Argument" page, wherein you can read about the 'patch' for spectral saturation, which inconveniently conflicts with the rescue of the 'hot spot'.

The 'Hot Spot' was widely predicted in a number of papers and ALL, every one of the IPCC's GCM's predicted it. The gist is that the 'hotspot' would be at mid altitudes above the tropics and exhibit 2-2.5X the warming that the whole atmosphere exhibits, IFF the warming were due to a change in the (non water vapor) greenhouse gases. So if the earth warmed 1* on average, the hotspot would warm 2-2.5 degrees.

Rather than make you chase down all the different papers, here's a good synopsis.
This paper has links and excerpts from several of the major papers involved, including the IPCC reports.

The IPCC AR4WG1 covers the subject extensively, including predictions of warming patterns for various sources of warming. Most 'warmers' don't realize that since the mid 2000's, we have had more than enough data to determine the cause of recent warming via the signature. They don't know about it because the signature that has emerged is NOT the 'expected' one; the one that indicates greenhouse warming. Before we had enough data to make that determination, that was all we heard from the warm camp: The Tropical Hotspot. That was when they were so sure the latest data was going to prove the narrative could skillfully predict something major and important, namely the tropical hotspot.


Here's the Climatescience.gov paper on the warming signature which neatly proves that recent warming is not due to an increase in the greenhouse effect.

Jimbo

 

Troy,

'The Team' was caught both destroying and conspiring to destroy publicly owned data which was the subject of a FOI request and court order, rather than release it to skeptics. Do you really think they would do that if said data corroborated their assertions?

Wake the F___ Up! What more do you need?

Imagine if 'W' had done something similar!

Jimbo