Global Temp Changes

[billvon 2,882]

>Michael Mann, the top climate scientists at a major university, an IPCC luminary
>and a co-author of the Democrats climate plank, openly claims that CO2 is the
>sovereign driver of climate change.

And the weaseling begins.

"Climate scientists claim CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science."
"No they don't."
"Well, uh, one scientist says that CO2 is the SOVEREIGN driver in climate change."

[brenthutch 428]

billvon

>Michael Mann, the top climate scientists at a major university, an IPCC luminary
>and a co-author of the Democrats climate plank, openly claims that CO2 is the
>sovereign driver of climate change.

And the weaseling begins.

"Climate scientists claim CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science."
"No they don't."
"Well, uh, one scientist says that CO2 is the SOVEREIGN driver in climate change."

Sovereign: supreme, absolute, unlimited, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full.

I stand by my characterization, no weaseling required.

[billvon 2,882]

>I stand by my characterization, no weaseling required.

OK. Then I am sure you will be able to show a quote where Mann claims that CO2 is the only (supreme, absolute, unlimited, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full) driver for climate change.

[brenthutch 428]

"Climate change is real and human activities are responsible."

[brenthutch 428]

billvon

>Ok Mr. math genius, who has a lower carbon footprint, you or a backward hayseed Amish man?

If he runs a pig farm? I have the lower footprint.

Of course if you eat any pork products, you would own a portion of that footprint.

[billvon 2,882]

>"Climate change is real and human activities are responsible."

I agree.

Now, can you show me a quote where he says, as you claim, that CO2 is the only (supreme, absolute, unlimited, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full) driver for climate change?

Or have you already weaseled?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>"Climate change is real and human activities are responsible."

That line will be hard to stick with should this continue

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/despite-denial-data-shows-global-temperatures-are-dropping-fast/

Quote

Over the last couple of years there have been many articles about how they have been record-breakers in global temperature. It’s often sold as a simple ‘the planet is getting warmer only because of us’ story. As I have discussed before the concurrent El Nino was dismissed by some climate scientists as having an insignificant contribution to that record. However, there is a great deal of confusion and diversity in the assessment of its contribution. Some scientists maintain that it was the recent very strong El Nino that elevated the temperature to record levels.

Nevertheless some maintain that warm records would have been broken without the El Nino (although the significant contribution made by the highly unusual warm “Pacific Blob” is usually ignored).

As the 2015/16 El Nino started to wane wiser heads said the records would fade along with it, “No El Nino, no record,” they said, showing that the El Nino was responsible for edging the years to be records.

It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out. So the time is right, one would have thought, to monitor that cooling process and see what can be deduced to set the recent record warm years into their proper context.

"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 428]

billvon

>"Climate change is real and human activities are responsible."

I agree.

Now, can you show me a quote where he says, as you claim, that CO2 is the only (supreme, absolute, unlimited, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full) driver for climate change?

Or have you already weaseled?

Remember this?

"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."


(This post was edited by billvon on Nov 28, 2016, 1:11 PM)

According to Michael Mann (and you apparently). CO2 is the bullet in the head. Again no weaseling required.

[DJL 235]

Quote

https://wattsupwiththat.com/...s-are-dropping-fast/

Wattsup with you and this website? It is a huge crock of boiling shit as far as sources go. Honestly man, do the smallest bit of scraping on your sources. For example go look up what "wood for trees" refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The "woodsfortrees.org" website is something run by a software engineer and you can create any type of graph you want just by putting in the numbers. Look! I made a graph! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sawtooth:10/detrend:90/mean:91

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 1,934]

rushmc

wattsupwiththat.com

The post-truth advocate strikes again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,882]

>According to Michael Mann (and you apparently). CO2 is the bullet in the head.

No. I have never claimed that CO2 is the only factor that is causing warming. Neither has Mann. You are, once again, wrong.

(Looking forward to your next weasel.)

[billvon 2,882]

>That line will be hard to stick with should this continue

>Nevertheless some maintain that warm records would have been broken without the El Nino

Not hard at all. We are now in a La Nina, a cooler-than-normal part of the cycle. If there were no AGW, then we'd see lower than average temperatures. Let's see what the facts are:

From the NWS ENSO discussion:

================
Synopsis: La Niña conditions are present and slightly favored to persist (~55% chance) through winter 2016-17.

La Niña conditions were observed during October, with negative sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in early November stretching across most of the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean
================

From NOAA:

======================
Global Summary Information - October 2016

See Full Report

Note: With this report and data release, the National Centers for Environmental Information is transitioning to improved versions of its global land (GHCN-M version 3.3.0) and ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) datasets. Please note that anomalies and ranks reflect the historical record according to these updated versions. Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports. For more, please visit the associated FAQ and supplemental information.

Last month tied as third warmest October on record for the globe
Year-to-date remains record warm

The October temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.31°F above the 20th century average of 57.1°F. This tied with 2003 as third highest for October in the 1880–2016 record. This October was 0.47°F cooler than the record warmth of October 2015 when El Niño conditions were strengthening. The October 2016 departure from average was also 0.90°F cooler than the all-time record warmth of March 2016 when the El Niño was near the end of its peak.
=======================

So we are in a cooling phase and we just had the third warmest October ever.

No, not hard at all.

[brenthutch 428]

billvon

>According to Michael Mann (and you apparently). CO2 is the bullet in the head.

No. I have never claimed that CO2 is the only factor that is causing warming. Neither has Mann. You are, once again, wrong.

(Looking forward to your next weasel.)

No, you said that; CO2 to the climate system was analogous to a bullet in the head. Your words not mine. But by all means, continue to equivocate. (And you accuse ME of weaseling?)

[billvon 2,882]

>No, you said that; CO2 to the climate system was analogous to a bullet in the head. Your words not
>mine. But by all means, continue to equivocate. (And you accuse ME of weaseling?)

Yes. You are weaseling.

You claimed that "Michael Mann, the top climate scientists at a major university, an IPCC luminary and a co-author of the Democrats climate plank, openly claims that CO2 is the sovereign driver of climate change." You further defined sovereign as "supreme, absolute, unlimited, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full."

In other words, you posted BS. I called you on it. You then went on to Google and searched for what you claimed. You couldn't find it, and now you are weaseling.

So either post Michael Mann's claim that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, or admit you were wrong. (I am willing to bet you are physically incapable of doing either one of those things.)

[brenthutch 428]

I am sorry that there is not a transcript of the one hour long "Lunch Bag Forum" I attended some years back. He was asked about natural variability, he said the warming we are witnessing is unprecedented, outside the range of natural variability and caused by man made CO2. Of course CO2 is not the only driver of climate, but according to Mann it is the only driver of recent warming.

[DJL 235]

Just out of curiosity, why are you so adamant that there is no man made global warming. What do you think you're accomplishing?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,882]

>I am sorry that there is not a transcript of the one hour long "Lunch Bag Forum"

OK, so you cannot produce the quote that you claim he said.

Here's an actual transcript from one of those chats you mention:

==================
Michael Mann: Yes, methane, it turns out, is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. A single methane molecule absorbs more atmospheric heating than a single CO2 molecule. Now, there are other complications in comparing them, because methane has a different lifetime in the atmosphere. CO2 stays around for a very long time . Methane tends to be absorbed by the climate system on a time frame of a decade or two decades and because of that it just doesn't stick around as much. And so when you are comparing the two problems you have to look at not just how much warming you can get, but the time scale over which that warming is likely to happen.

And it turns out that your metric of danger; what you think of and what you envision as dangerous climate change is going to determine to some extent the relative risks of these two contributors. If you are worried that we are going to pass some sort of tipping point within the next decade or two decades, where we trigger things like the dramatic acceleration of the melting of the ice sheets or the shutdown of the ocean circulation pattern that helps warm Europe, the conveyor belt ocean circulation, or a fundamental shift in the way that El Niño behaves that could have profound impacts for drought and rainfall patterns around the world, if you're worried abut those sorts of dramatic changes that could be triggered by an abrupt short term amount of warming, then methane, it turns out, is a real player. Methane really has the potential to aggravate the warming that we see over the next decade or two.

Now if your worried about sort of the longer term warming of the planet, the longer term changes in climate, well then it's really CO2 which is the main player. And so, to some extent, one's concern abut CO2 versus methane is going to depend on the things you're concerned about happening. What your tolerance is, what your metric is for defining dangerous changes in climate.

One would be best served by avoiding the increase in concentrations of both of them because they carry different types of risk as far as climate responses are concerned.

Now, methane is getting into the atmosphere a number of different ways. Methane is produced by livestock and by agriculture, so there's a certain amount of human-produced methane from agricultural practices, from livestock raising, but it's also escaping into the atmosphere because of fracking, because of natural gas drilling, the use of so-called fracking - hydraulic fracturing - to try to get at the methane, the natural gas that's contained in the bedrock below, where fluids are injected and they crack the bedrock and allow that methane to escape and potentially be recovered. But some of it actually escapes into the atmosphere. It's what we call fugitive methane.
=====================

[brenthutch 428]

billvon

>I am sorry that there is not a transcript of the one hour long "Lunch Bag Forum"

OK, so you cannot produce the quote that you claim he said.

Here's an actual transcript from one of those chats you mention:

==================
Michael Mann:

Now if your worried about sort of the longer term warming of the planet, the longer term changes in climate, well then it's really CO2 which is the main player.
=====================

Yep that sounds familiar.

[billvon 2,882]

>Yep that sounds familiar.

Then that's what you misremembered. CO2 is the biggest factor; it is certainly not the only one.

[brenthutch 428]

No just the main one.

[rushmc 23]

brenthutch

I am sorry that there is not a transcript of the one hour long "Lunch Bag Forum" I attended some years back. He was asked about natural variability, he said the warming we are witnessing is unprecedented, outside the range of natural variability and caused by man made CO2. Of course CO2 is not the only driver of climate, but according to Mann it is the only driver of recent warming.

You need to keep asking them what they are going to do about worldwide cooling at an unprecedented level that is happening today

"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 428]

No need to, the unprecedented cooling is a direct result of the unprecedented and undisputed warming.

[billvon 2,882]

>You need to keep asking them what they are going to do about worldwide cooling
>at an unprecedented level that is happening today

You mean the "unprecedented cooling" that just gave us the third warmest October ever?

That takes some RushMC-scale twisting to take the third warmest October ever and turn it into "unprecedented cooling."

Continue, please!

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

No need to, the unprecedented cooling is a direct result of the unprecedented and undisputed warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M&feature=share

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>You need to keep asking them what they are going to do about worldwide cooling
>at an unprecedented level that is happening today

You mean the "unprecedented cooling" that just gave us the third warmest October ever?

That takes some RushMC-scale twisting to take the third warmest October ever and turn it into "unprecedented cooling."

Continue, please!

Ya
You are one of the deniers the article I posted spoke about.

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