Global Warming: For Experts Only

[gwb-trading]

I didn't, but these guys did. Maybe you think that jem's opinion is as good as theirs? LOL

• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
• American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

How many times have the moderators told you to stop re-posting this over & over again.

 

[futurecurrents]

Sorry but I have to parse out pie's posts. There is just so much bullshit in them.

He said above.....and pie, feel free to respond whenever you want....

"These models all predicted temperature anomalies higher than observed!!!) "

Again NO THEY HAVEN'T. THAT IS A LIE!

I notice no references or charts or anything to support these absurd statements.

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem, I believe you have mentioned elsewhere that there is a diminishing radiative effect of CO2 with increasing concentration. This seems to be consistent certainly with theory but also now with observation. It is one of those things we do seem to have a very good handle on. I'm going to try and find one of the more recent Salby presentations and get you the link because Salby has beautifully illustrated exactly what you are referring to. I'll return to this post when I locate the link.

Salby is a fool, a fraud and an industry whore. I guess you haven't Googled him.

But think tank operatives refer to him all the time.

 

[futurecurrents]

How many times have the moderators told you to stop re-posting this over & over again.

You really like the idea of censuring the pertinent facts. Why is that? Do you think the opinions of all these experts is worthless? This was in response to a question about authority, PHD's etc. Get it?

I assume that you are the douchebag crying to them. How would you know what they have said to me?

PUT ME ON IGNORE

Look, I know you and your fellow denier operatives would love to bury the few relevant facts under never ending piles of bullshit. It's a classic denier machine tactic.

 

[stu]

Turns out the net is a decrease in warming not an increase. (Not meaning there is not a net warming, but rather that the warming is less, not, more than would be expected were their no feedback mechanism. I.e., a certis paribis situation. By the way, negative feedback is entirely consistent with predictions of all models incorporating positive feedback. These models all predicted temperature anomalies higher than observed!!!) Observation of "anomalies"* much less than predicted are the result of the Error Hansen's lab made when they assumed, a priori, the net feedback was positive. They made a mistake. They ignored clouds which form when warm water vapor rises to high altitude. The early models all ignored vertical convection which is nearly instantaneous and some are now saying it is the single most important negative feedback mechanism. There are many fatal errors in the models , but the main one was the a priori assumption of positive feedback! I'll be pleased to list quite a few more if you want me to. I'm certain I don't know about all of them.

__________
* we shouldn't be using that term anomaly, but it seems we are stuck with it.

Turns out no such thing. Heat is trapped by high altitude clouds. How is that going to be a negative feedback?
Clouds are highly variable. CO2 is constant and affects temperature comparatively quickly. CO2 in the atmosphere stays there. Clouds don't. CO2 dis-proportionally amplifies compared to the heat it has trapped. More CO2 artificially added can do nothing else but increase the effect. Those principles of science we have already agreed on in the previous post show that. With the variability of cloud and no cloud, comes variable positive and variable negative feedback effects. Against CO2, cloud is not even a comparable issue.

Some no doubt are saying clouds are the single most important negative feedback mechanism. But then some are also saying smoking helps you breathe. You might as well argue filter tips are the most important negative lung cancer feedback mechanism.

 

[stu]

in other words you could not identify any specific error, so you took refuge in the "not worth mentioning" excuse. I'd be happy to discuss specific errors, if you care to mention one and explain why it is in error. You haven't done that. I'm waiting patiently.

Ok,whatever. Deal with your bumble bee meets electric fan error first.

If you want to believe the vast majority of thousands of independent scientists everywhere all over the world are either totally incompetent or have been conspiring to ignore or lie about clouds and convection to collude in a global Hansen promotion fest of fatal errors, then that's your problem. Nothing could be less like how the scientific method works.

 

[Snarkhund]

Apparently there has been no increase in global temps over the last couple of decades.

Honestly I'm disappointed. I had rather hoped to see both coasts go under water drowning nearly every big problematic liberal city in North America.

Damned shame.

 

[piezoe]

Turns out no such thing. Heat is trapped by high altitude clouds. How is that going to be a negative feedback?

You may have forgot about daytime. Here is a fun experiment for you. All you need is a thermometer. You can get almost instaneous results. Measure the temperature is full bright sun at noon, then move into a shadow cast by a cloud and measure the temperature again. Report back.

CO2 in the atmosphere stays there.

not very long. half life around 5 to 10 years maybe. An estimate for the amount of anthropomorphic CO2 in the air at any time is around 30% of total but we can't observe it directly because the amount of CO2 from natural sourcing and sinking is three orders greater and these are not perfectly balanced. If they were perfectly balanced of course we could easily observe the anthro contribution because we'd see it against a constant background. But we can't. We can estmate though. We have only had accurate CO2 concentration reading for the past 50 years. Everything before that is from proxy.

Some no doubt are saying clouds are the single most important negative feedback mechanism.

I think vertical convection is . It's virtually instantaneous compared to other mechanisms.and there is about 30 degrees of cooling associated with it. I'll look it up for you, it might only be about 20 degrees. Oops, my mistake it is more than 60 deg of cooling.

 

[piezoe]

More CO2 artificially added can do nothing else but increase the effect.

That something we agree on, but only up to a point. You might be interested to know that the effect of adding more CO2 decreases with each addition to the point that by 600 ppm there is almost no measurable effect of adding more. Actually there is no measurable effect at any concentration. Its effect, in the atmosphere, has to be calculated, it can't be measured directly. You could do it in the lab though. (see the link to Salby's London talk I gave jem.)

 

[gwb-trading]

You really like the idea of censuring the pertinent facts. Why is that? Do you think the opinions of all these experts is worthless? This was in response to a question about authority, PHD's etc. Get it?

I assume that you are the douchebag crying to them. How would you know what they have said to me?

PUT ME ON IGNORE

Look, I know you and your fellow denier operatives would love to bury the few relevant facts under never ending piles of bullshit. It's a classic denier machine tactic.

Let's just take a look at a couple of the feedback points from moderators to you. This is just a subset.

Continually posting the same thing over and over again hundreds of times is an abuse of the forum. You have informed of this many times. Nobody needs to report you, the moderators catch up with your abusive behavior and take action.

---------------------------------------Screen Shots below ---------------------------------------------------