Global Temp Changes

[billvon 2,384]

>The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013.

Looks like you were wrong about that.

[billvon 2,384]

>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/...levels-accelerating/

Answer from your very own denier site:
"This shows that the rate has been higher in the last two decades than in the last century . . .I have not made any regression analysis to show whether the small increase is statistically significant or not."

So yes, it is accelerating; even deniers admit this. Watt has not done the work to show how significant this acceleration is.

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

John Kerry was busted for making things up. Doesn't matter at all. What matters, again:

...glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is declining, sea level is rising, and global average temps are rising.

And have been since the end of the last ice age.

[gowlerk 1,903]

None of my points are in dispute by anyone who has any credibility. Because they are not just points. They are demonstrable facts.

You are arguing against facts from a political point of view. Facts are not influenced by politics.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

And have been since the end of the last ice age.

Not CO2 levels. Which is the salient fact, along with the rate of change. You also use arguments that are not really germane to the point. Long term historic climate change is real. But completely irrelevant to what is happening now.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

None of my points are in dispute by anyone who has any credibility. Because they are not just points. They are demonstrable facts.

You are arguing against facts from a political point of view. Facts are not influenced by politics.

Spin this around and you got it right.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

Quote

And have been since the end of the last ice age.

Not CO2 levels. Which is the salient fact, along with the rate of change. You also use arguments that are not really germane to the point. Long term historic climate change is real. But completely irrelevant to what is happening now.

Correlation does not imply causation. Don't feel bad, it is a confusion that many suffer from.

[billvon 2,384]

>Correlation does not imply causation.

That is certainly true. But if you shoot someone in the head and they die, you aren't going to be able to say "just because I shot him doesn't mean I caused his death! Correlation does not imply causation." Because while correlation does not imply causation, it certainly doesn't prove the opposite.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in a planet's atmosphere you will CAUSE (important word there; write it down) more heat to be retained. Retaining more heat will CAUSE (there it is again!) average temperatures to rise. This is science, not assumption.

Perhaps you don't believe this. Here's an easy test:

Fill a large chamber with nitrogen. Shine long wave infrared through it. Note how much IR passes through the chamber. Now switch to CO2. See if more, less or the same IR passes through the chamber.

For extra credit, see what the temperatures of the gases do in both of the above cases.

Or you could do it on a planetary scale. Emit enough CO2 to increase CO2 concentrations by 50%. Now see if the temperature rises, falls or stays the same.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Correlation does not imply causation.

That is certainly true. But if you shoot someone in the head and they die, you aren't going to be able to say "just because I shot him doesn't mean I caused his death! Correlation does not imply causation." Because while correlation does not imply causation, it certainly doesn't prove the opposite.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in a planet's atmosphere you will CAUSE (important word there; write it down) more heat to be retained. Retaining more heat will CAUSE (there it is again!) average temperatures to rise. This is science, not assumption.

Perhaps you don't believe this. Here's an easy test:

Fill a large chamber with nitrogen. Shine long wave infrared through it. Note how much IR passes through the chamber. Now switch to CO2. See if more, less or the same IR passes through the chamber.

For extra credit, see what the temperatures of the gases do in both of the above cases.

Or you could do it on a planetary scale. Emit enough CO2 to increase CO2 concentrations by 50%. Now see if the temperature rises, falls or stays the same.

anyone who pays attention knows there is much more to this than what you post.
Hell, even you know it but, that does not help you to try and confuse the masses now does it Bill!

Same tactic use by the using the term climate change and moving away from man made global warming. Same meaning in your world but the change allows you to change how you present your bait

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 383]

You forgot to add oxygen, water vapor, clouds, precipitation, oceans, lakes, a biosphere, reinforcing and mitigating feedbacks, oceanic and atmospheric circulations, solar variability, etc etc. Not as straight forward as your little desktop experiment.

[billvon 2,384]

>anyone who pays attention knows there is much more to this than what you post.

Of course there is. The above are merely the basics.

>Same tactic use by the using the term climate change and moving away from
>man made global warming.

Man made global warming - see below
Anthropogenic global warming - the warming we see from increased greenhouse gas emission
Climate change - changes in the climate; these include AGW (see above)

They are different terms that mean different things. Words mean things, even in the age of Trump.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>anyone who pays attention knows there is much more to this than what you post.

Of course there is. The above are merely the basics.

>Same tactic use by the using the term climate change and moving away from
>man made global warming.

Man made global warming - see below
Anthropogenic global warming - the warming we see from increased greenhouse gas emission
Climate change - changes in the climate; these include AGW (see above)

They are different terms that mean different things. Words mean things, even in the age of Trump.

Yes
Words do mean things
But you intermingle them to confuse conversations and attempt to get gotcha moments.

Yes Bill
Words, IN CONTEXT, do mean things.

By the way.
The climate changes.
That is what it does.
And it now appears that the so called man made record temps were in fact caused by a natural reoccurring phenomena. And the pause is really happening despite the NASA data changes.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,384]

>You forgot to add . . . .

You can add them if you like. The basics of AGW are listed above. Now let's go through yours:

>oxygen

A weak greenhouse gas. Its concentration is (fortunately) not changing significantly.

>water vapor

A very strong greenhouse gas, and causes most of our greenhouse effect. Fortunately the availability of water vapor (i.e. water from our oceans) has not changed significantly.

>clouds

During the day they cool (overall.) At night they warm (overall.)

>precipitation

Removes water from the atmosphere (see above.)

>oceans, lakes

Adds water to the atmosphere

>a biosphere

The biosphere at one point could deal with all the CO2 we were producing - and thus kept CO2 levels relatively constant. We have broken that, which is why CO2 levels are increasing.

>reinforcing and mitigating feedbacks

Ah, now you have opened a very large can of worms! There are a large set of positive feedbacks (i.e. increases warming) and negative feedbacks (i.e. decreases warming.) But beware! You are now well into the heart of climate research, and all the above assumes that we are warming due to CO2. In other words, if we are not warming, all the above feedback terms are meaningless, because there is no signal to feed back.

>Not as straight forward as your little desktop experiment.

To go back to the previous example:

If you shoot someone in the head and they die, you caused their death. Even if you then state:

"You forgot to mention how the brain works. And you didn't mention the risk of stroke, or lung cancer, or tripping and falling. Or pulmonary edema, or pneumonia, or the role that potassium plays in the regulation of neural function. Or how the pituitary works. And you forgot that some people have lived for years without any functioning brain. I guess life isn't as simple as your claim that shooting someone in the head kills them! Are you still going to claim that shooting that guy in the head caused his death?"

Answer - yes.

[billvon 2,384]

>Words do mean things

Good! We agree. Perhaps then you can use the terms "anthropogenic global warming" and "climate change" correctly, rather than for a cheap slam.

> And the pause is really happening despite the NASA data changes.....

"There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"

Warmest years on record:

1 2015 +1.62F
2 2014 +1.33F
3 2010 +1.26F
4 2013 +1.19F
5 2005 +1.17F
6 1998 +1.13F

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

Correlation does not imply causation. Don't feel bad, it is a confusion that many suffer from.

I certainly don't feel bad. The cause of the rapid rise in global temperatures is known. It's not long term cycles, it's the effect of increased greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. And we know where those gases are coming from.

The only people expressing any doubt about that fact are people like you who are afraid that there may be a financial cost involved in doing something about it. You and your kind are merely raising false arguments in an attempt to influence the politics of your country.

If you want to discuss whether or not the human race is adaptable enough to deal with the coming changes and therefore should not spend any money attempting to stop the changes I could respect that. But if your starting point is denying that we are having an effect, you are merely another lying liar.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

The problem with your bullet-in-the-brain metaphor is that unlike a bullet, there is no evidence that warmer temperatures are deleterious, man made or otherwise.

[billvon 2,384]

Quote

The problem with your bullet-in-the-brain metaphor is that unlike a bullet, there is no evidence that warmer temperatures are deleterious, man made or otherwise.

See, now you just flipped from a type II to a type III. You deny that AGW exists, then when called on it, say "look, so maybe it does exist, but it will all be good!"

Deniers often do this because they know they can't argue the science - and indeed they are often not even trying to. Their underlying goal is to stop any mitigation efforts because then "the other side wins." Hence, type I works ("there is no warming") as well as type II ("OK so it's warming but we had nothing to do with it") and type III ("OK so maybe we did have an effect but it will all be good.") And they flip from argument to argument depending on anything from their understanding of the science to how cold it is in their back yard that day.

Overall it makes them impossible to take seriously - since their argument changes on a day to day basis.

[brenthutch 383]

Reminds me of warmist hysteria, if it rains, global warming; if it is hot, global warming; drought, global warming; cold, global warming. Regardless of the set of facts, it is all global warming.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Slate

Seriously? Aren't they one of those false news sites?

Quote

Overall it makes them impossible to take seriously...

Oh, the irony...

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in a planet's atmosphere you will CAUSE (important word there; write it down) more heat to be retained. Retaining more heat will CAUSE (there it is again!) average temperatures to rise. This is science, not assumption.

Yeah, right. CO2's weight fraction in the troposphere is currently 0.0004. And at current rates, it'll be ~100 years before it reaches 0.0008. Which will produce a rise in temperature of about 1DegF. Considering our species wouldn't be here without the 60DegF greenhouse warming due to water vapor, this change will not be catastrophic.

Quote

Fill a large chamber with nitrogen.

Nitrogen does not have a dipole moment. In order to be a "greenhouse gas", there must be a dipole moment. Lots of molecules out there that have dipole moments.

Considering the uncertainty in measurements, everything that's happening can equally be judged to be part of a natural cycle. Nothing being measured today can justify extracting $1 Trillion dollars from the productive economy, and giving it to multiple UN agencies to redistribute that money. That is pure insanity, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Not as straight forward as your little desktop experiment.

+1

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,384]

>Yeah, right. CO2's weight fraction in the troposphere is currently 0.0004. And at
>current rates, it'll be ~100 years before it reaches 0.0008. Which will produce a rise
>in temperature of about 1DegF.

It has already produced a rise of 1.6F.

>Nitrogen does not have a dipole moment. In order to be a "greenhouse gas", there
>must be a dipole moment. Lots of compounds out there that have dipole moments.

Correct. Which is why CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

>Considering the uncertainty in measurements, everything that's happening can
>equally be judged to be part of a natural cycle.

When warming was measured in tenths of a degree, you could make a good argument for that.

It is now 1.6F, and this year will likely have an even larger warming signal.

>Nothing being measured today can justify extracting $1 Trillion dollars from the
>productive economy, and giving it to multiple UN agencies to redistribute that
>money.

Fortunately that is not the plan, nor is the problem that warming is bad today. Mitigation strategies are intended to prevent _future_ problems.

Some people are able to plan for the future, some aren't. Up until now we had people who could. Bruce Schneier has a good perspective on this:
==============================
- We over-react to immediate threats and under-react to long-term threats.

The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That's what brains did for several hundred million years -- and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.

Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain's most stunning innovations, and we wouldn't have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.

- We under-react to changes that occur slowly and over time.

The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.
================================

Some people have that "ability to duck that which is not yet coming" - these are the people who advocate for climate change research and mitigation even though it will cost money, who exercise even though it is inconvenient, who go to college even if their friends are having more fun without studying, who invest in 401k's even though it takes spending money out of their pockets. Some are not.

[gowlerk 1,903]

brenthutch

Reminds me of warmist hysteria, if it rains, global warming; if it is hot, global warming; drought, global warming; cold, global warming. Regardless of the set of facts, it is all global warming.

We understand that this is weather. Like I keep saying, CO2 is rising, the ice is melting. Like never before in recorded history. (not geological history, but history written down). That is climate. These are the facts. It's very simple really. When you feel cold you put on a sweater. If it warms up you take it off. We've put a sweater on the Earth, but we can't take it off. And we aren't really sure just how sweaty we are going to get. And how uncomfortable it will be. Because we've never done it before. You keep talking about hysteria. There is no hysteria, except maybe from people who are afraid of changing because they are used to doing things a certain way and they don't like to change. The deniers are the true alarmists.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It has already produced a rise of 1.6F.

Since when?

Quote

In order to be a "greenhouse gas", there must be a dipole moment.

Actually, that's not completely true. CH4 does not have a dipole moment. What else is going on out there that isn't understood? Quite a bit, IMO.

Later note here: I just went out to verify my understanding of CH4's lack of a dipole moment. Every site I came across also said CO2 _does_not_ have a dipole moment... due to it's linear arrangement.

We are missing something here... I'm still trying to catch my breath re: CO2... I've taken it as gospel for years now that it had a dipole moment... And I was wrong.

Quote

Fortunately that is not the plan,...

So, what is the plan?

We are all engines of karma

[brenthutch 383]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=12rKlxlVKTw

Nearly a decade with a fever and we are still here. Can't be much of a fever.