Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Models are in line with observations. They certainly aren't perfect, but they adequate predict the global mean surface temperature within a reasonable margin of error.

First, CO2 isn't the only driver of climate. It's one among many drivers. It's just that it is the dominating factor today. Second, we have warmed in the last 20 years...by a lot actually.

There are many proposed solutions. They all have pros and cons that need to be considered. And, of course, any solution also needs to be weighed against other humanitarian goals like economic development, poverty, sickness, etc. My personal opinion is that the safest solution is to reduce carbon emissions and expedite the move from a fossil fuel based economy to one that is based a sustainable energy source. Fossil fuels will run out anyway so this move won't be for naught regardless of your views on climate change.

 

If any of that information were accurate and true I would agree with you - but, and it's a big but...

Those sources have repeatedly been shown to be cooking the data.

Wiping out the MWP, cooling the 1930s, warming the 70s, "smoothing" that arrives at prescribed conclusions, etc.

Science is about being able to test and attempt to falsify claims and data. Everything you cite there has been shown to be false - the result of "scientists" with an agenda cooking their data.

I would hope "Climategate" would have given you zealots some pause and reason to subject your theories and data to rigorous attempts to falsify it; but alas, no.

The agenda and leftist goals at the end of the rainbow trump the facts.

 

None of my sources have cooked the data. Climate models really do have useful skill and the Earth really has warmed. On the later point there are over 2 dozen datasets that confirm the global mean surface temperature is increasing. There isn't a single dataset in existence that says otherwise; not a single one.

You're getting your information from non-expert bloggers who push conspiracy theories. Their claims of "cooking the data" are themselves fraudulent. Oh, and nobody wiped out the MWP. And smoothing data does not change the conclusion. Just look at my graph above. The red line is a 5yr lowess average that smooths out the variability in the data so that the longterm signal pops out more. That's all. The conclusion is the exact same regardless of whether you show the red line or not. Do you disagree?

Sure, how about you start with showing me how Hansen's famous 1988 computer model prediction was falsified. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you think someone can be "cooking their data" and still arrive at a reasonably accurate prediction 30 years later. And that's despite Pinatubo cooling the Earth by 0.4C and the enactment of policies that resulted in less greenhouse gases being emitted (CFCs to be specific) than a business-as-usual scenario from 1988.

Here is his paper. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

And that was 30 years ago. Predictions and postdictions are even better today.

You probably want something that didn't involve computers eh? How about Arrhenius' 1896 prediction which is actually astonishingly accurate considering how little (relatively speaking) he had to go on.

Here is his paper. http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

How was it that he was able to not only predict that humans would warm the planet but also quantify how much it would warm within a reasonable margin of error? And that was 120+ years ago!

Let's talk about climategate shall we? First, I have a hunch that you don't actually know what the central claim even was. I also suspect you got all of your information from non-expert bloggers who themselves have a history of misrepresenting research and outright fraud. So prove me wrong. What was the central issue regarding climategate? What was the subject matter being discussed in those emails?

Maybe you could enlighten us with your theory as to why the Earth has warmed significantly since 1960? Or do you deny that it was warming? If so what datasets can you present to support your claim?

 

Even though the sustained maximum was AFTER WW II...

No, that's just your red herring again. Solar magnetic activity does not drive climate change on earth primarily through TSI. We know TSI didn't change enough to cause the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, though their link to sunspot activity is indisputable.

I.e., too little to cause any significant problem.

 

What, possibly, is significant over a temp average that has increased less than a degree? Can you honestly tell me that you could even tell the difference? And that is the unfortunate truth. A grand total of <1C.... devastating.... And I'll just suggest that I can't find any reason that this hasn't happened as a result of natural cold abatement at the end of the last global cooling event starting in or around the late 1500s...

 

Of course I can tell. The precision on the global mean surface temperature is 0.05C for convention datasets and 0.01C for reanalysis. The change is 2 orders of magnitude higher than the precision of the measurement. So a range of 0.95 - 1.05C isn't even remotely close to 0.00C. It's impossible not to tell the difference.

I never said it was devastating. That's your strawman. You can tear it down all you want. Hell, I'll even help you if you want.

So what caused the cold to abate?

 

Yes. Though it's going to be difficult convincing you of anything because you literally deny any and all data that is even remotely related climate change.

The Medieval Maximum didn't contribute to the MWP and the Maunder Minimum didn't contribute to the LIA?

Ok, so let me get this straight...2 W/m^2 isn't enough to have an effect, but somehow a 1 W/m^2 (at most) difference between grand solar cycles is so effective that even 50 years after the solar maximum, which by the way took 200 years from trough to peak, there's still so much excess heat being produced by the Sun that the Earth still hasn't equalized to it yet?

 

I wasn't there. Neither were you. Likely, less clouds. cause it sure wasn't man made CO2.....

 

So you know for a fact that CO2 definitely doesn't impact the climate?

So I have to ask...if you don't believe the greenhouse gas effect is a thing then how do you explain the faint young Sun problem?

 

Nice. Of course you mischaracterize because you have nothing else. But hey, you tried. Still, no participation trophies to hand out here...

 

So set me straight. Does CO2 influence the climate or not?

 

Very little... it's nothing more than a trace gas.

It's a wonderful boon though for radical leftists (and their dupes) who hate freedom and humanity.

As I said before, the arguments don't stand up against falsification... but you'll have none of that, huh?? You're living in denial.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide You are terribly incorrect and spreading disinformation.

 

Overall its fine, pockets have issues such as Detroit, but when was the last time we have a waterborne disease outbreak under normal water treatment conditions ,over century maybe, its in the modern age damned unlikely. An in much of the nation the air is fine to. As for climate change unless everyone in the world is ready to go cold turkey on the modern worlds energy output needs there is nothing to do but adapt to it as we work on doing that using alternatives maybe in a century we can get there.

 

Then explain these things to me.

1. Why is it that after 150 years of laboratory experiments we've been able to nail down CO2's molecular vibrations to photons with wave numbers 667, 1388, and 2349 and why does this agree with quantum electrodynamics theory every time it's tested?

2. Why is the Earth around 15C instead of the -18C predicted by a pure black body radiator?

3. How do you explain the faint young Sun problem?

4. How do you explain the climate in any era of the past?

5. And why does the modern theory of climate which incorporates dozens of radiative forcing processes (including greenhouse gases) explain both past and present climate so well?

I'm not a liberal, leftist, Democrat, or whatever.

Hmm...can you explain how Hansen's 1988 prediction of warming by 2016 was only off by 0.05C? Can you explain how Callendar [1938] and Arrhenius [1896] were able to predict the warming with astonishing accuracy considering how little they had to go on? And why is it that today's computer models (see post #101) predict the global mean surface temperature so well? And why does the observed warming match so well with what quantum electrodynamic theory would predict for the cross sectional area of CO2 present in the atmosphere? How am I the one in denial here?

 

That is a bald fabrication -- like most of the data you think support your AGW screaming.

Of course they did, they were the primary causes, but not primarily through the mechanism of TSI.

You have no intention of getting it straight. Watch:

Fabrication. It's just not enough to be the main driver.

See? You again focus on TSI, and refuse to consider the possibility of any other effect of solar variation. There are so many cyclical and chaotic sources of variation, we cannot expect the earth to equalize EVER.

 

If it wasn't TSI then what was it?

 

A few ppm of black ink in a glass of water will block all visible light. As reality shows, traces can be very effective at absorbing radiation. Your crank theory there fails hard.

One of my ongoing points is that while mainstream science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, being it's real science, every single denier is a card-carrying member of the right-wing-kook-extremist-authoritarian cult. Thanks for providing another data point in support of my overall point.

We talk about the science, because we can. All of the science supports us. You run in terror from the science, covering your retreat with various wild-eyed conspiracy theories, because all the hard data flatly contradicts you. Denialism is entirely a political movement. If right wing authoritarianism ceased to exist, denialism would immediately cease to exist. In stark contrast, if leftist politics ceased to exist, it wouldn't affect the mainstream science at all.

There are many things that can falsify AGW theory. That's because it's real science. Real science can be falsified, so AGW theory can be falsified. It's just that AGW theory is very good science, so none of the data is falsifying it. For example, here's a quick list of 10 things that would falsify AGW theory.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
Demonstrating CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Demonstrating a source to account for the added heat that wasn't known before
Demonstrating climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

In contrast, there's literally nothing could falsify your pseudoscience beliefs, making your beliefs more like a religion. If you disagree, please do what not a single denier here has ever had the guts to do, despite me asking many times. Do what I did, and list what kind of hard data that you would consider to be a disproof of your theory. If you can't or won't, that demonstrates how you're a pseudoscience cultist.

 

Do you mean “ fewer” clouds. If you just googled a reputable source, you’d see that a change in the mean temps of just one to two degrees requires massive amounts of heat. When that happens, it means summers are hotter while some other areas are actually colder during the winter. The much hotter summer weather at the ice caps can be the time of the greatest melting, even though the average temp rise is small. Once this cycle starts and ice sheets are no longer there to reflect radiation back into space, the melting can accelerate even without increased CO2 levels.
It’s not rocket science, but does require you listen to somone other then Fox.

 

And don't forget the accelerated natural release of methane...

 

And don’t forget that oil companies used to release the highly greenhouse effective methane during drilling. We had restrictions. The Trump gov. has relaxed these requirements. Being that he is one of the only world leaders who has not signed onto the accords and has used rhetoric that pretty much confirms his ignorance, we are now assured he doesn’t really care.

 

And don't forget that CO2 is in a feedback with the temperature. That means as the temperature goes up the natural flux goes up as well. And CO2 also catalyzes temperature changes that means the temperature goes up as result and the cycle continues.

 

Sweet. So now, you don't actually have an answer. Do tell, how would any of your conditionality then be met, absent a non natural, man made intervention that creates the impetus then for the warming that you've just suggested has to have happened? tic toc....

 

Why don't you just refer to the NASA web site, or any of the 3400 plus accredited universities in the world. I'm in agreement with them.

 

Well, good to know you have an opinion wholly based on the mob mentality. Your answer then, is that you have no answer, that you hope that either NASA or the 3400 plus other accredited universities of the world might have an answer, and whatever that is, you'll agree to it. Well, thanks for the laugh.