What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

I wouldn’t mind arguing the science if there was someone here to argue against who is also arguing the science instead of appealing to authority just like me, except to different authorities.

Let’s see about that: back about 40 posts (1909?) I put up a chart from the IPCC with a depiction of what their models calculated greenhouse warming would look like. The highlight was a hot spot over the tropics in the troposphere. That hot spot has not appeared. How do you explain that, and what does it mean that while warming has occurred it does not match the profile for greenhouse warming?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I wouldn’t mind arguing the science if there was someone here to argue against who is also arguing the science instead of appealing to authority just like me, except to different authorities.

Let’s see about that: back about 40 posts (1909?) I put up a chart from the IPCC with a depiction of what their models calculated greenhouse warming would look like. The highlight was a hot spot over the tropics in the troposphere. That hot spot has not appeared. How do you explain that, and what does it mean that while warming has occurred it does not match the profile for greenhouse warming?

Your question goes to the extent to which the model conforms to empirical observation. Of course the conformance is not going to be perfect. So if you want to use that observation of yours to discredit some more general claim about global warming, you will have to do it like a scientist. So what is the correct scientific method of evaluating the significance of a particular deviation? Remember the new rules: No appeal to authority, and certainly no appeal to “it is obvious” unless it really is obvious.

 

[godisgood77]

Pollution created by humans is having a negative impact on the environment. Carbon emission, plastics, pharmaceuticals in the water, chemicals in the water, rain forest/deforestation etc, etc, etc.

Can we all agree on that?

 

[BornInMarch]

My stance on Climate Change is that it’s real, caused by humans, and needs to be addressed.

 

[Ender]

Your question goes to the extent to which the model conforms to empirical observation. Of course the conformance is not going to be perfect. So if you want to use that observation of yours to discredit some more general claim about global warming, you will have to do it like a scientist. So what is the correct scientific method of evaluating the significance of a particular deviation? Remember the new rules: No appeal to authority, and certainly no appeal to “it is obvious” unless it really is obvious.

I gave you an opportunity to do what you said you wanted, to argue the science, and the first thing you do is tell me to answer the question I asked you. That’s a no win prospect for me; I’ve been down that road before. You don’t respond to arguments, you simply dismiss them. I gave you the chance you asked for. If you really want to get into the science then step up to the question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The explicit answer to your question is of course that the model does not conform exactly to observations. What I was doing was to jump ahead and address what you might subsequently do with that answer. But if you insist on smaller steps that is OK with me too.

 

[Metis1]

My stance on Climate Change is that it’s real, caused by humans, and needs to be addressed.

Which is what the overwhelming scientific evidence and even basic observations have confirmed, regardless of the naysayers.

 

[Ender]

The explicit answer to your question is of course that the model does not conform exactly to observations.

That wasn’t my question; that was a statement of fact. Nor does “not conform exactly to observations” reflect the real problem which is that the greenhouse warming signature predicted by the models has not been found. The question I asked was what it meant to the theory that the warming we have seen doesn’t appear, according to the IPCC’s predictions, to be attributable to greenhouse gases.

 

[gama232]

What do you suggest? What specific things need to be done? What about factory smokestacks around the world releasing tons of pollution into the air? Who owns those?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The question I asked was what it meant to the theory that the warming we have seen doesn’t appear, according to the IPCC’s predictions, to be attributable to greenhouse gases.

Then my answer is I disagree with your premise. And before you ask me to prove my objection I will remind you that the burden is on you to prove your premise, not my burden to disprove it.

 

[ralfyman]

The issue has to do with the same information used by deniers to show that we’re entering an ice age: ice core data. That shows that global warming is part of a natural cooling and warming cycle that takes place every 100,000 years or so, with surface temperature anomaly and CO2 ppm tracking each other.

The problem is that during this cycle CO2 ppm never exceeded 300, and it’s now 400. Can that have an effect on climate?

The NAS, which is considered the “gold standard” of science review in the US, studied dozens of reports, and concluded that CO2 acts as both a forcing and feedback factor, and the former might be now kicking in.

Deniers wanted and funded an independent study, BEST, and came up with the same conclusion. So did dozens of science organizations worldwide.

Also important is the idea of a forcing factor. That implies that CO2 is not the main cause of warming. Rather, it affects other causes of warming. Because, as deniers even admit, the science is complex, then there is a possibility that an increase in CO2 that’s above what happens in natural cycles may lead to positive feedback loops kicking in which increase warming. So far, over 50 of them have been detected the last two decades.

Finally, what’s also worrisome are negative feedback, or those that absorb warming. That may be good news unless one realizes the cost of such. In this case, we might be underestimating the problem because we’ve been looking at surface temperature. What is the cost of heat being absorbed by oceans?

 

[EndTimes]

global warning is real, which should be rather obvious to anyone who
studies and thinks objectively.

AGW is False - and I apply actual science data to my conclusions

 

[HarryStotle]

Ender:

Why? Your response to scientific objections is to fall back on the “consensus”, so why bother to educate yourself if it doesn’t enable you to argue the science involved?

I wouldn’t mind arguing the science if there was someone here to argue against who is also arguing the science instead of appealing to authority just like me, except to different authorities.

This is disingenuous of you at best.

Whenever someone who doesn’t see the issue through the same lens as you provides legitimate science to “argue the science,” you don’t even attempt to argue the science. What you do is dismiss it on the pretext that it doesn’t align with the “consensus” science that you subscribe to.

So you appeal to authority to dismiss the science and avoid arguing the science then pose as if you are willing to discuss the science, while not actually engaging with the science on the pretext that the science you are dismissing isn’t “authoritative” based on your authorities.

Heads you win, tails you win. Kind of stacks the deck (or dice) in your favour, no?

I am still waiting for you to address the problem of solar (name removed by moderator)uts in current climate models.

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

I mean that we need to understand how much it will cost us to cope with climate change, who will be most affected , what options are available to those affected, etc. Assuming that climate change is the issue that alarmists are making it out to be. I believe we discussed the shortcomings of how solar (name removed by moderator)uts are used in climate modelling on another thread (or possibly very early in this one), but there is now a great deal of evidence (700+ peer reviewed papers since 2…

Or the Climate Sensitivity Estimates that you dismissed as “disinformation” based upon your misreading of what Robson was actually doing by citing 13 different current papers which all claim the IPCC reports are basing their recommendations on overly pessimistic sensitivity estimates.

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

A well-reasoned explication of the current state of the Estimate of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that shows alarmism isn’t warranted. [How sensitive is the atmosphere?]

 

[HarryStotle]

Finally, what’s also worrisome are negative feedback, or those that absorb warming. That may be good news unless one realizes the cost of such. In this case, we might be underestimating the problem because we’ve been looking at surface temperature. What is the cost of heat being absorbed by oceans?

That was the climate sensitivity estimate problem that Robson dealt with in the video I cited earlier.

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

A well-reasoned explication of the current state of the Estimate of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that shows alarmism isn’t warranted. [How sensitive is the atmosphere?]

Rather, it affects other causes of warming. Because, as deniers even admit, the science is complex, then there is a possibility that an increase in CO2 that’s above what happens in natural cycles may lead to positive feedback loops kicking in which increase warming. So far, over 50 of them have been detected the last two decades.

Certainly, the issue is complex, which is why conclusions — especially conclusions that are very costly to human beings in the developing world due to rising cost of energy and the “sustainable only” options being pushed by alarmists — ought to be very tentative at this time.

 

[EndTimes]

This is disingenuous of you at best.

Yep … Enough to ignore…

 

[ralfyman]

It’s not a “climate sensitivity estimate problem” but the point that we are underestimating warming, especially given the fact that much of the heat is being absorbed by oceans. Worse, we’re not certain of the effects of that.

The point that CO2 is the main cause of warming is also wrong. Rather, CO2 has a forcing factor on multiple causes. Hence, feedback loops. More details in the NAS final report.

Finally, conclusions made by the NAS and by BEST, which was funded by deniers, should not be costly precisely because of the “rising cost of energy” and the fact that pollution, among others, has led to damage on a significant scale. That’s why even people in the developing world are very much aware of these three problems, and the Church supports them. Only deniers still refuse to acknowledge that we face not one but at least three problems.

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s not a “climate sensitivity estimate problem” but the point that we are underestimating warming, especially given the fact that much of the heat is being absorbed by oceans. Worse, we’re not certain of the effects of that.

Yeah, I’ve read the literature on “heat absorbed by oceans.” I’m not convinced you have support in the science on that.

That we’re “not certain” doesn’t establish anything. Fear mongering based on the “unknown” doesn’t, either.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am still waiting for you to address the problem of solar (name removed by moderator)uts in current climate models.

I would be glad to do that, but only on the grounds that we agree on whether we are debating by appeals to authority or by acting just scientists ourselves. I will try to abide by either one. But once you choose , you have to stick with it. So can you commit to acting just like a scientist? Or can you commit to just comparing authorities?

 

[ralfyman]

There are several studies mentioned here:

Observations and models agree that the oceans are warming faster

Also, the conclusions are not meant to lead to fear mongering but to prepare for its effects. That’s why not just the Catholic Church via PAS but also multinational banks like HSBC, insurers like Lloyds of London, and even military groups like the US armed forces have published reports on the same.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I am still waiting for you to address the problem of solar (name removed by moderator)uts in current climate models.

I would be glad to do that, but only on the grounds that we agree on whether we are debating by appeals to authority or by acting just scientists ourselves. I will try to abide by either one. But once you choose , you have to stick with it. So can you commit to acting just like a scientist? Or can you commit to just comparing authorities?

Look, merely because I bring up Heller or Lindzen or Happer does not mean I am “comparing authorities.” What I have done is recognize the source. I have and continue to explicate what that source states as clearly and pointedly as possible.

What you have done is dismiss the source as not properly a “climate scientist” (even though many like Curry, Spencer, Soon, are) and then write them off as “spreading disinformation” because they are not on your side of the narrative.

That, despite when you were asked to provide the best reasons you have for accepting the warming narrative, you cited about half dozen papers not written by climate scientists.

So “disinformation” for me, but “acceptable science” for you.

If you want to “act like a scientist” then proper citation is required, but the science is not dismissed merely because you don’t like the authority being cited.

You have to address the science whether or not you like the source. That would be doing science properly.

Anything else is succumbing to the genetic fallacy.