"Yes, Let's Please have More Conversations about Global Warming."

[Guest]

Very good question oG! And, let me add that they want it to be man made global warming, or it doesn't work for them.

I know that's what you were referring to, but I'm just going for maximum clarity here. )

[JoeMo]

It's the man-made part that gives me fits - especially when one understands tha water vapor makes up 98% of all the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

OTOH, did you notice that without exception, all 44 of the latest climate models indicate an upward temperature trend?

[Guest]

It's the man-made part that gives me fits - especially when one understands tha water vapor makes up 98% of all the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

It's because these cycles are not man made.

And deep down inside you know that, through instinct and common sense. Hence the fits. :)

[Bravus]

Quote:

Sorry, CAGW enthusiasts. I realize this isn't what you wanted to hear.

It's time all CAGW zealots took a long deep breath and looked in the mirror.

Then ask the question "Why did I want Global warming to be true so badly?"

First point. It was and is true. This is one data set. Will bring the ocean temperature data set shortly. That's where most of the 'missing heat' is going: which is why the prediction is now for an ice-free Arctic summer in 2015 or 2016, rather than (as earlier predicted) in 90 years or so.

Second point: we *don't* want it to be true! We would love it to not be true. But it is. We don't wish for reality, and we can't wish it away. It just is what it is.

More on other points later.

The reverse question might be worth asking, though: why do you want to wish away reality?

[Bravus]

http://skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03...irms/?mobile=nc

And so on.

'Climate change has stopped or paused' is simply not true. Global heat keeps rising, it's just being stored differently.

[Bravus]

On the 'water vapor forms the majority of greenhouse gases', this is true.

The issue is, though, that there is a 'natural greenhouse effect'. Mars has almost none, and is too cold for life, Venus has too much, and is too hot for life. Earth has the right amount, and is just right for life.

That natural greenhouse effect is the net effect of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, mainly.

The thing is, we have no control over the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere - it is caused by solar heating, and changes with solar heating. It's beyond our control, and human activities are not contributing to it - not directly.

We are, however, pouring *trillions of tons* of new carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. While carbon dioxide is a small proportion of the atmosphere in absolute terms, the key thing is that we have almost *doubled* its concentration in the past 150 years or so.

Think of almost anything... say salt in the human body. We need a certain (very small) amount to survive, but if that was doubled we'd be in big trouble.

Humanity is not at all responsible for the natural greenhouse effect, but is largely responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. And it is the enhanced greenhouse effect that is causing climate change.

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=3508

[Igakusei]

Think of almost anything... say salt in the human body. We need a certain (very small) amount to survive, but if that was doubled we'd be in big trouble.

This is a thoroughly excellent analogy, and I hope you don't mind if I steal it.

[olger]

The chart reveals that almost every computer model is wrong. Another year below the the group, and the last hope that one might be right will be gone. Most of the models are significantly in error, some wildly so.

[Tom Wetmore]

It still shows an upward trend. Also as already noted, this is just one data factor, lower atmospheric temperature, air temperature. Major factors not accounted for in this data set are surface temperature and ocean temperature. Those are most often considered as the major factors in the overall global warming trend that is contributing to climate change and creating more extreme weather conditions.

The question is to what extent is the temperature of the lower atmospheric layers significantly contributing to the apparent changes in climate and how do they effect and correlate with the other factors. It seems to me that considering air temperature in isolation from all the other factors is like determining a person's health by only tracking skin temperature of just exposed skin.

Also worth considering is a comparison of the upper atmospheric temperatures. What do the trends look like there?

[Planey]

Come on, Tom and Dave...

Too many more sensible, rational posts and we'll have to close this thread...

Graeme

[Neil D]

Oh pleeease, PLaney....Let us continue to watch the stubborn and their slow demise as they continue to argue the unenviable and untenable myths they hold...the behavior exhibited is a good study in psychology....it is amazing to see the ludicrous illusions they maintain to support thier myth/poor premises. This is what a person does with truth...and some of the most vocal people are religionists...When we see them crying out to the caves to fall on them, then they will understand that it is not only too late, but that they never truely understood thier relationship with God....like many of the virgins who forgot to purchase oil, awaiting for the bridegroom....

[phkrause]

It comes down to just common sense. In all your years of living, just ask your self's, have you seen or felt a difference in the weather? I can remember back when I first moved up to MA, we actually had a spring, summer, fall, winter. Now we barely have any spring or fall. Seems we go from Winter right into Summer. When it snowed, it stay all winter, now it snows and it barely stays for a few weeks. I don't need charts, etc., to tell me that the climate, weather, whatever you want to call it is not the same as it was 50/60 years ago. Even in Germany, my relatives who still live there, are amazed at how weak the winters are. As here in Mass, when it snowed, it stay all winter. Not anymore.

[Igakusei]

It comes down to just common sense. In all your years of living, just ask your self's, have you seen or felt a difference in the weather?

Do you *really* think that my few decades of adult direct life experience is a reasonable standard by which to analyze and make judgements on something as large and complicated as this? If we all still relied primarily on personal experience and intuition, we'd still be hunter gatherers. Many very real aspects of the world around us are extremely counter-intuitive, especially at first before you've taken the time to look at and understand the data that supports said counter-intuitive conclusions. The monty hall problem mentioned in this video is an excellent example of this.

[CoAspen]

Well.....at least the disbeliever is being honest, they simply don't trust science! When 'common sense' is used as a trump card vs science, there is not really much more that can be said. Mind is not open for business!

[Bravus]

I'd like to note that pk seemed to be using his own experience of weather to support the notion that climate *is* changing rather than to deny it. While there are flaws in that approach in that it's local rather than global, I'm not sure he deserves the responses he got...

Cherrypicking and over-simplification (going further back through the thread to olger's post) are the tools of the propagandist, rather than the seeker for truth. The insistence on clinging to one particular data set that seems favourable to the case being made while ignoring all others really does beg the question: why do you so desperately want climate change not to be happening (that you are willing to ignore all evidence that it is)?

There are good reasons to wish it wasn't happening - we could carry on as we are. It would be convenient.

Al Gore got a number of details wrong in his movie, but it's title is dead on.

[Igakusei]

You're absolutely right, my apologies. But poor arguments are still poor arguments regardless of whether or not they reach a correct conclusion.

[phkrause]

I'd like to note that pk seemed to be using his own experience of weather to support the notion that climate *is* changing rather than to deny it. While there are flaws in that approach in that it's local rather than global, I'm not sure he deserves the responses he got...

Absolutely correct Bravus. It just amazes me how quick some are to criticize, even when the one they are criticizing is basically confirming there side. Even if it is a weak argument! The problem with charts and surveys, etc., is you have half the scientist saying no and the other half saying yes. I was just trying to show another perspective, a personal one, if that's to weak for some, to bad, but that's what does it for me. Once again Bravus, you are one of the few that has a knack for seeing both sides.

[Igakusei]

The conclusion of an argument is far less important to me than its validity. I actually only got through the part of your argument that I quoted before replying to it, because a bad argument is still a bad argument.

Defending climate change by pointing out how hot last summer was is just as fallacious as attacking it by pointing out how cold last winter was.

[phkrause]

First I didn't argue. I gave my opinion, period! Secondly I didn't say last summer or winter, I mentioned the last 50 years and how just in that amount of time you can see how the weather has changed. Besides it looks to me that all the charts in the world have not changed anyone's mind one iota, either way, but I suppose when we imply people are ignorant or stupid, that really changes there mind to your point of view????

[Igakusei]

First I didn't argue. I gave my opinion, period! Secondly I didn't say last summer or winter, I mentioned the last 50 years and how just in that amount of time you can see how the weather has changed. Besides it looks to me that all the charts in the world have not changed anyone's mind one iota, either way, but I suppose when we imply people are ignorant or stupid, that really changes there mind to your point of view????

[phkrause]

I'm with your post here.

[Bravus]

Righto, we'll have some more conversations about climate change. But perhaps, 'skeptics', just check the claim you are bringing against this list first?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php

[Igakusei]

I almost posted that here the other day. I wish it had links to even more resources, or at least citations for the stuff behind paywalls.

[olger]

I wonder if the "Global Warming" zealots will try to burn this chart!! ???