Global climate debate-the facts

Not at all. Steady cold and dry climate is not good by human standards, whereas a climate that gets slowly warmer and wetter is.

Sudden change is always disruptive, but a heat wave is less so than a cold snap.

Eventual death is in the cards for all of us. The notion that a significant number of people are going to die because of warmer climate has no basis in fact.

Again, that's clearly just false. Vast areas of the Northern Hemisphere are virtually empty because they are too cold. Warm them up, and they will be able to support billions of people.

That's a political question. But your premise that they will have to move has no basis in fact.

There is no basis for your claim that 1G will have to relocate.

 

That's completely false as shown by the historical record. The Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, and Medieval Warm Period are all times of greater human development than the intervening cold periods.

What fast warming. The real world data shows a climate sensitivity of CO2 at ~ 1 deg C which would result in an ~ 1 deg C warming per century using the IPCC A1B CO2 scenario. Economic analyses consensus indicates net benefits of global warming of 3 deg C from the temp in the year 2000. And then the countries most adversely affected are those third world countries of today's standards. There is no threat of billions of people dying in the next ~ 200 years.

 

Are those the "deniers" with whom you agree that global warming is not solely the result of increasing CO2 emissions ?? Or are they the people who understand that global warming is net beneficial for the next 3 deg C ??

 

And we again, go round and round. The problem with the AGW faithful is that even the smallest amount of warming satisfies their dogma. Even if, like the preceding number of years the "average" is up less than .05F. So less than a twentieth of a degree constitutes evidence of their faith. Personally, I am unlikely to be able to actually differentiate even one full degree, and likely most ecosystems in our complex environment wouldn't either. It's a problematic gap in the theology. Can the climate warm and be a net benefactor to the species of the world? I suppose it ultimately links back to how Malthusian the AGW advocate is.

The important thing to remember is that this is simply another manifestation of the not in my back yard crutch progressives rely on. They always assume that they get to be a part of the survivors in their apocalyptic version of the future. As unlikely as that actually would be.

 

Agreed but Mr. Mamooth acknowledges that there are multiple causes of global warming and that human CO2 emissions are not responsible for all the global warming that we see. He also claims that the IPCC also acknowledges this fact but of course the IPCC only is concerned with the human contribution.

 

I said trend. The LIA was a fluctuation on that trend.

And the "recovery" from it was done by 1880 at the latest, when temps went down again.

The warming has been pretty steady since 1970 up to the current time. There's never been a significant pause.

The directly measured data says that's wrong, as that "recovery" theory does not explain the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Only global warming theory explains all the directly measured data, which is why it is the accepted theory. In order for that theory to be replaced, someone has to come up with a theory that explains the observed data even better. Nobody has.

 

You making up weird stories about what we supposedly believe only makes you look bad.

Then you should probably lose such an immoral "if I can't feel it, it doesn't exist" theology, no?

It could. Most of the studies say it doesn't. About the only cost-benefit economist that favors a little warming is Richard Tol, and most in the economics field regard his stuff as shoddy work. Almost every other analysis says any further warming is economically destructive. The cost-benefit question becomes how much to spend on mitigating the harm.

No, the science doesn't change because of your political or personal beliefs, no matter how much you wish it did.

A rather shocking reversal of reality, given that it's your side who says "screw everyone else as long as my backyard is okay" to the people of the world, and it's the liberals who are making sacrifices.

You always assume your own immoral way of thinking is how ethical people think. Not the case.

 

Is there some reason we should accept your cults version of the Bible? Your charts and graphs from cult organizations bent on spreading the religion with doctored and falsified date turned into pretty little color book pictures?

 

As was the 19th-20th C warming.

Nope. The thermal inertia of the oceans means that the recovery in solar activity will take centuries to bring temperatures back up to normal.

No it hasn't. It was rapid 1970-1998, during the up-phase of the decadal oceanic oscillation, but then stopped for ~15 years during the down-phase. These phases of the 60-year temperature cycle are VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the temperature record going back over 100 years. See YOUR OWN CHART, below.

False. See above.

Nope. False. The directly measured (i.e., undoctored to support AGW theory) data say the earth's temperature is effectively decoupled from CO2.

Wrong. Natural variations and human activities other than CO2 emissions explain all those data. In particular, increased human night-time thermogenic activities, which explain why increased night-time temperatures are responsible for virtually all the measured warming.

No, that's false, as AGW theory does not explain why temperatures fell 1940-1970 despite rapidly increasing CO2.

It's the accepted theory because it is the politically required theory.

Nonsense. The data are well explained by analysis that does not require outlandish over-estimates of CO2 sensitivity and water vapor feedback. The recovery from the LIA followed by the multimillennial high in solar activity in the second half of the 20th C overlaid on the decadal oscillation does just fine.

 

The truth is the truth...weather you believe it or not.

 

Very true. And you are going to find out exactly what the truth about AGW theory is.

 

Come up with a better theory , backed by evidence, and I will consider it. But as long as the debate consists of name calling and political ideology I am not interested.

 

Lies and distortions are the rule in the AGW cult whether you believe it or not. Climate gate proved that.

 

The oceans weren't warming 1940-1980. You theory says they would have to be warming. Hence, your theory is obviously wrong, being that the observed data says it's wrong.

I can read a graph, and I see it showing constant strong warming since 1970. And now you're telling me to believe you instead of my lying eyes. That's not going to work.

And here we go. The data contradicts your cult dogma, therefore you automatically claim the data is faked. Boring.

Utter nonsense. "Night time thermogenic" activities have no effect of any sort on stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

If you disagree, explain your claims in detail. For example, tell everyone how "human night time thermogenic activities" cause the atmosphere at the edge of space to only dip in longwave emissions in the GHG bands.

Nope, it fails in multiple ways.

Temp dip from 1880-1910. That's a "recovery?". I thought recovery meant "up".

Solar increase. Kind of step increase around 1940. And temperatures ... don't follow it. Well, not for 30 years. So where was the heat hiding? Not in the oceans, because we measured the temperatures there. Heat can't hide out in a mystery dimension for 30 years until it suddenly pops up, so the theory is nonsense.

 

I already did: increased solar activity + the trendless decadal oscillation explains the data just fine.

 

Nope. Wrong. There was not enough deep ocean temperature data being gathered in the 1940-1980 period to conclude they weren't warming. That's just something you made up.

Nope. Wrong again. There is not enough observed data from that period to support such a conclusion.

No you can't, and no, you don't. The hiatus beginning in the late 90s is VISUALLY OBVIOUS.

Wrong again. I am inviting readers to look at the graph themselves, and see that whether your eyes are lying or not, warming effectively stopped for 15 years after 1998 before an exceptional El Nino (and upward alteration of thermometer readings) pushed it higher in 2015-16.

There would be no basis for such a claim if the data were not consistently being altered to reduce earlier temperatures and increase later ones. But that is exactly what has been done.

Wrong. They alter albedo, convection patterns, etc.

Wrong: they OBVIOUSLY increase night-time back radiation.

Not associated with the relevant effects.

See above.

It didn't.

Nope. You haven't named one, and you won't.

That was the precise 30-year down-phase of the 60-year oscillation. 1880-1910 down; 1910-1940, up; 1940-1970, down; 1970-2000, up. Remember? Of course you don't. You always have to forget the 60-year oscillation, because it proves AGW theory is false.

Flat false. Solar activity was anomalously high from the late 19th C until 2000; and in any case, its effect is seen over multi-cycle periods -- the secular trend since the end of the LIA nearly 200 years ago -- not on a scale of decades.

No we didn't.

The theory is probably correct, and certainly matches the empirically observed data better than AGW theory. All your objections are spurious and fallacious, as proved above.

 

You don't think NASA has taken this into consideration?

 

And how did the heat get into the deep ocean without being in the shallow ocean first? Being your theory needs magic to work, it's wrong.

It's visually obvious that the "hiatus" is a denier fiction. There's only a minor slowdown, the same kind that happens over and over. I can read a graph, so your reality-defying claims can't fool me.

If you can't support your claims without invoking debunked dishonest conspiracy theories, they're clearly not very good claims

That big lie doesn't get less any dishonest with repetition. The adjustments have made the past look warmer, and thus made the warming look smaller. That matter is not up for debate, at least not by any honest person. You're just wrong, and your conspiracy theory is crap.

http://variable-variability.blogspo...zation-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

That's nice. And totally unsupported. And none of that would have any effect on stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. You're just waving your hands around wildly.

Even in the places where "human night time thermogenic activities" aren't happening. That's the amazing magical part of your theory.

So, your "human night time thermogenic activities" theory also does not explain the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Hence, it's wrong.

We discard such bad science because your "cycle" it doesn't exist outside of the two rough "cycles" you cherrypicked. Go back further, there is no such cycle. If there's a cycle, why is there no cycle?



It fails to hindcast. And it fails to futurecast, because it predicted there should have been strong cooling starting in 2000. 16 years of warming shot that down. The theory fails completely.

It also stinks as science, because it gives no sensible physical mechanism to drive the 60 year cycle. L&S propose something to do with Jupiter and Saturn. You invoke the PDO, which does not run in regular 60 year cycles.

So you're admitting solar activity dipped in 2000, and yet the world just kept warming strongly, especially the oceans. That kills the solar theory dead.

Reality contradicts your theory in multiple ways, therefore it's obviously wrong. In contrast, AGW theory explains everything perfectly, no magic required. It is the simplest theory that explain all of the observed evidence, hence it is most likely to be correct.

 

The boy seriously loves his colorful little charts and graphs based on complete BS from AGW true believer sites.

- - - Updated - - -

NASA wants to prove a conclusion they have already reached so the answer is no.

 

I would place the credibility of NASA far above some anonymous "saw man" on the internet.

 

Good luck with that! 'Debate the facts?!?' With True Believers from the left?!?

I don't think so. You'll get lots of logical fallacies, plenty of name calling, i suppose some 'denier!' accusations.. the typical fare for 'debates' with the hysterical left. I would fall over in a dead faint if i ever got some rational, empirical response for any of these kinds of 'scientific' discussions. All they have is Fake Science. There is no desire to deal with facts or reality, as their whole aim is to OBSCURE facts & reality.

 

OK let's talk about the credibility of NASA. People in the AGW crowd talk about NASA as if it's the same bunch of rocket scientist that put a man on the moon and brought home the guys in Apollo 13. It is not. This whole climate division of NASA is a separate entity that is highly politicized and basically created and funded to promote AGW. They have piggybacked on the great men that came before them and are attempting to ride their cost tails of respect and legitimacy.

 

They only consider TSI, not total solar activity. One reason is so little is really known about it yet but there is a definite link, though the actual process is unknown, between sun spots and cooling/warming.

 

You seriously love your cult conspiracy theories. They're all you have left. After all, every bit of data says your cult teachings are totally wrong. Therefore, you have to say all the data is faked. It's not like honesty is an option for you. You'd be expelled from your cult if you were honest, and to cult herd herdbeasts, that's like a death sentence.

 

https://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08...imate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/

Let me guess ... the solar scientists are now part of the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy, right?