I am not a member of any "crusher crew" or affiliated with any organization. I am just a private individual with a degree in Env Sci and am currently working as an HVAC contractor. I post about AGW because I know the science and feel it is my civic duty to counter the paid AGW denialist propaganda machine and the unpaid crazed and ignorant ideologues.
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
I am not a member of any "crusher crew" or affiliated with any organization. I am just a private individual with a degree in Env Sci and am currently working as an HVAC contractor. I post about AGW because I know the science and feel it is my civic duty to counter the paid AGW denialist propaganda machine and the unpaid crazed and ignorant ideologues.
your science was a mythbusters show which indicated you had no idea how greenhouse gases were supposed to work in theory.
no i don't work for a think tank. It is curious to me that Jem, who has never made any claims of having a science background, seems to be far more up to date on the latest science than you, even though you have a degree in environmental science.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or what? You and piehole seem very confused about this essential thing.
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas then AGW has to happen. It's really that simple. The latest bullshit studies from fools and frauds like Salby notwithstanding. CO2 is, was and always will be a greenhouse gas. It has been and is the most important variable that controls the earth's long term temperature level.
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas then AGW has to happen. It's really that simple. The latest bullshit studies from fools and frauds like Salby notwithstanding. CO2 is, was and always will be a greenhouse gas. It has been and is the most important variable that controls the earth's long term temperature level.
Well it's curious to me that you would be so intellectually disingenuous and obviously full of shit. I have little doubt that you are consciously lying your ass off. I wonder why.
Hansen's hypothesis is certainly still valid and will continue to be as long CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The fact that you would bring up the 16 year pause as evidence of the failure of the theory of AGW is proof that you are really much much stupider than you pretend to be, or you are a lying propagandist. I'm going with the latter. You know the pause means shit.
And who makes a better propagandist for AGW denial than someone who appears to be a liberal?
fraudcurrents the fact that you do not understand that when the models fail this badly it calls into question the entire theory that man made co2 is causing warming makes you either a fool or a lying drone. Since I have explained this to you many times it makes you the disingenuous lying drone.
Once again here is a well known nutter scientist trying to put his best spin on it even though the models have fallen outside of the allowable 2.5% range. and understand we are now at just about the 18 year mark.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Last edited:
Apparently you have me confused with someone else. I mentioned the pause in passing, but did not say, nor suggest, that it is cause for rejection of Hansen's hypothesis, which it isn't. I mentioned it to be accurate regarding the temperature record from the late 19th century through today.
Let me add that you are fast losing credibility with me. Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength. Furthermore, gases may play roles in addition to their greenhouse function -- CO2 certainly does. Some of these additional roles might even have the effect of cooling the atmosphere. For a gas that is quite soluble in water the gas-solute equilibrium, a function of temperature, affects it concentration measurement in humid air. Usually CO2 in dry air would be reported, but all scientists know that this is not necessarily the free concentration of CO2 gas in humid air. These are complex and dynamic relationships. To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous. Having the property of greater absorption in the infrared region than in the visible region, where it is transparent, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for CO2's greenhouse properties to show up in the overall scheme of things. It would be an understatement to say that your view of CO2's role in the atmosphere is extremely naive.
Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor. Even if I disagreed with him, I would never refer to him as a fool and a fraud, nor would I refer to James Hansen, someone I believe has made an honest mistake, as a fool and a fraud. Surely some degree of respect is due to those who know far more about this global climate issue then we.
Snow set to blast Scotland as forecasters warn of 'coldest August spell in a century'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wo-weeks-bad-weather-ahead.html#ixzz3AlLglBZE
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wo-weeks-bad-weather-ahead.html#ixzz3AlLglBZE
Jem, I hadn't seen the Storch Spiegel dialogue you posted until just now. Naturally I'm gratified to see that Storch's assessment of what the two possibilities are for the models failing are exactly as I surmised from my examination of the NCDC data. (Assuming that in a few more years of observation the consensus is that the hypothesis on which the models depend is indeed seriously flawed.) I'm pretty confident at this point that that will be the case. That's why I suggested to dbPhoenix that we allow another five years before instituting serious carbon emission controls. That should be enough time for the science community to reach a conclusion with regard to the validity of the Hansen hypothesis.
As I mentioned in my very long post, of the two alternative explanations for what is actually observed versus what was expected according to the hypothesis, I prefer the first explanation, since that accords best with Occam's razor.
The two explanations being: a. CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas, and as a result the temperature is largely independent of CO2 concentration;
or b. CO2 does have an affect but it is countered by natural events to the extent that it appears ineffective as a green house gas.
In either case, temperature will appear independent of CO2 concentration, but CO2 should have some dependence on temperature. This would be consistent with both Salby's findings and the NCDC data and a growing body of others' work as well. The observation that temperature leads CO2 would be explained.
In one sense we should thank James Hansen. His hypothesis, though likely wrong, resulted in a great acceleration of our knowledge! This is the way science works. We form an hypothesis, and then test it. The difficult part for we humans is to avoid letting our egos become invested in the outcome.
As I mentioned in my very long post, of the two alternative explanations for what is actually observed versus what was expected according to the hypothesis, I prefer the first explanation, since that accords best with Occam's razor.
The two explanations being: a. CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas, and as a result the temperature is largely independent of CO2 concentration;
or b. CO2 does have an affect but it is countered by natural events to the extent that it appears ineffective as a green house gas.
In either case, temperature will appear independent of CO2 concentration, but CO2 should have some dependence on temperature. This would be consistent with both Salby's findings and the NCDC data and a growing body of others' work as well. The observation that temperature leads CO2 would be explained.
In one sense we should thank James Hansen. His hypothesis, though likely wrong, resulted in a great acceleration of our knowledge! This is the way science works. We form an hypothesis, and then test it. The difficult part for we humans is to avoid letting our egos become invested in the outcome.