Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
You’re making the wrong argument here. You’re accepting the claim that the AGW theory is true and therefore niceatheist’s observation is valid.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think that the basic theory is true,
that CO2 is a GHG and doubling the amount will cause some warming?
 
Theo520 said:
Don’t you think that the basic theory is true,
that CO2 is a GHG and doubling the amount will cause some warming?
Click to expand...
This seems to me a bait-and-switch question in that it relies on a muddling of terms. Global warming is different than anthropogenic global warming, and AGW can be either serious or trivial, so asking if I believe the “basic theory” is true is really an unanswerable question. I could answer yes or no depending on what I perceive that theory to be.

If the basic theory is that man, by producing CO2, is responsible for a significant amount of warming - and that warming is a threat to life on earth - then no, I do not accept it. If the theory, however, is nothing more than does the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere lead to some amount of warming then, yes, I accept it.

My original response was to ATraveller who appeared to be accepting the apocalyptic assertion that not mitigating CO2 now would be mortgaging the future and passing on an unhealthy climate to coming generations. That theory I absolutely reject.
 
Last edited:
The debate is very muddled, and the media has exacerbated the issue by polarizing the view points rather than just clarifying the real differences.

Skeptic scientists agree in the theory of AGW, just not model projected impacts.

The theory doesn’t require all warming to be man made, it supports natural variation.
 
Ender said:
If the basic theory is that man, by producing CO2, is responsible for a significant amount of warming - and that warming is a threat to life on earth - then no, I do not accept it. If the theory, however, is nothing more than does the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere lead to some amount of warming then, yes, I accept it.

My original response was to ATraveller who appeared to be accepting the apocalyptic assertion that not mitigating CO2 now would be mortgaging the future and passing on an unhealthy climate to coming generations. That theory I absolutely reject.
Click to expand...
To reconcile these two statements I would like to know something. Of the various estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, which ones do you believe have merit? That is, you say you accept that CO2 causes “some” warming, but that is not much of a theory unless you can say something quantitative about how much is “some.” That is, given a specific amount of CO2 increase, what is the best estimate of the increase in global average temperature?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
To reconcile these two statements I would like to know something. Of the various estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, which ones do you believe have merit? That is, you say you accept that CO2 causes “some” warming, but that is not much of a theory unless you can say something quantitative about how much is “some.” That is, given a specific amount of CO2 increase, what is the best estimate of the increase in global average temperature?
Click to expand...
That estimate has merit that most closely aligns with observation. Given that almost no model projections are particularly close to what has actually occurred, most of them are worthless.


This one, however, seems reasonable. It is the one identifying a climate sensitivity of 1.17.
 
That’s the graph … 73 fake model results … I was searching for; glad you were able to find it!

Thanks for posting it!!
 
Last edited:
How was the “Observed” line determined? Satellite measurements, surface thermometers, what? And why is the Observed line a perfectly straight line? That doesn’t make sense. Unless this graph is a deception meant to imply more precision that it actually represents.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How was the “Observed” line determined? Satellite measurements, surface thermometers, what? And why is the Observed line a perfectly straight line? That doesn’t make sense. Unless this graph is a deception meant to imply more precision that it actually represents.
Click to expand...
Well I guess the “Observed” line was smoothed just like the lines for the model predictions. It makes things more readable. But if you don’t like that one do you consider this one an improvement?
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
How was the “Observed” line determined? Satellite measurements, surface thermometers, what? And why is the Observed line a perfectly straight line? That doesn’t make sense. Unless this graph is a deception meant to imply more precision that it actually represents.
Click to expand...
Well I guess the “Observed” line was smoothed just like the lines for the model predictions. It makes things more readable. But if you don’t like that one do you consider this one an improvement?
Click to expand...
It would be nice if the observed data did not end 7 years ago. And it conveniently omits the surface measurements, I guess because you don’t trust the calibration methods. Actually, both balloon and satellite measurements have their calibration and “adjustment after the fact” problems too.

Also, none of these observations answers the question I asked you. What is the climate sensitivity to CO2? You agreed there is “some,” but you have not specified how much.
 
Nice try, Leaf.

Or, as another poster eloquently and succinctly stated:

The models are all junk, being based on a fundamental flaw – that increased C02 is somehow “forcing” temperatures up. They then try to disguise those flaws, using conveniently uncertain variables, such as volcanoes and aeorosols, which can be used to tweak the models accordingly. But now, after over 17 years of temperatures flatlining, even the yeoman tweaksters can’t do enough tweaking of their playstation climate models to make them coincide with reality. So, they have resorted to fantasies, such as the “missing” heat hiding in the deep oceans. Even they must know that the jig is up.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What is the climate sensitivity to CO2? You agreed there is “some,” but you have not specified how much.
Click to expand...
Climate sensitivity is to doubled CO2. I posted earlier that the calculated number closest to the actual increase is 1.17.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
What is the climate sensitivity to CO2? You agreed there is “some,” but you have not specified how much.
Click to expand...
Climate sensitivity is to doubled CO2. I posted earlier that the calculated number closest to the actual increase is 1.17.
Click to expand...
1.17 what? degrees C? Where is the source where this number is reported?
 
Ender said:
This seems to me a bait-and-switch question in that it relies on a muddling of terms. Global warming is different than anthropogenic global warming, and AGW can be either serious or trivial, so asking if I believe the “basic theory” is true is really an unanswerable question. I could answer yes or no depending on what I perceive that theory to be.

If the basic theory is that man, by producing CO2, is responsible for a significant amount of warming - and that warming is a threat to life on earth - then no, I do not accept it. If the theory, however, is nothing more than does the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere lead to some amount of warming then, yes, I accept it.
Click to expand...
Not clearly acknowledging that AGW is real and valid is how the opposition is able to portray skeptics as science deniers, and leads to such as the below. The media portrays skeptics as “not getting it” when in fact we get it perfectly well.

 
The “laughable misnomer” phrase in the CNN story more aptly applies when CNN is described as a “news source”.
 
Author Filipovic used fake photos; cherry picked the headline.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Not clearly acknowledging that AGW is real and valid is how the opposition is able to portray skeptics as science deniers, and leads to such as the below. The media portrays skeptics as “not getting it” when in fact we get it perfectly well.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/opin...nt-deserve-public-office-filipovic/index.html
Click to expand...
When you say “we”, you are not speaking for all skeptics. There is a considerable portion of them that do not “get it”.
MonteRCMS said:
Author Filipovic used fake photos; cherry picked the headline.
Click to expand...
What do you find fake about the photos? And the headline was “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office.” Like all headlines, it was composed by the author. The piece is an opinion piece. It is clearly marked as such at the top of the page. It is normal for authors of opinion pieces to “pick” their headline to make the point they want to make. No cherries were involved. Not sure what your complaint is here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top