The Evolution of "Manmade Global Warming"

[Old Rocks]

Data.GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/22/12753.full.pdf

 

[westwall]

Data.GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model

Tainted by Hansens "corrections" of data over 50 years old. Real scientific there olfraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

Data.GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model

Tainted by Hansens "corrections" of data over 50 years old. Real scientific there olfraud.

Ah yes, the USGS falsifies the data, NASA falsifies the data, the Royal Society falsifies the data, there is no one to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat...................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data.GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model

Tainted by Hansens "corrections" of data over 50 years old. Real scientific there olfraud.

Ah yes, the USGS falsifies the data, NASA falsifies the data, the Royal Society falsifies the data, there is no one to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat...................

NASA believes in "Ocean acidification" Do you want to explain how the oceans have become acidic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming became "climate change" and "climate variability" when the winters of 2009/10 hit and the temps had stopped accelerating. NOW -- you'll find "Global Weirding" being used even on NASA/NOAA websites. And Hansen has jumped the shark that OldieRocks rides with blaming every weather headline on his cause.

As for "natural causes" --- Does THIS look like .2W/m2 change to YOU between 1750 and 2000?

Of course it doesn't.. Yet that's the claim in the IPCC reports. Because they "rationalize" the literature to allow them to BLESS the lower number. What you see there is MORE THAN 1/2 of the surface heat forcing that we're looking for in Global Warming. And that's before we do all the arm-waving and claim that since W/m2 increases -- water vapor predominates in the GHG heating and the effect is amplified.

Why is it that ALL the surface heating is credited to CO2 and man-made forcing? How much is due to the EXPECTED water vapor increase that would come from EITHER "natural" (solar) or "man-made" (C02). The water vapor doesn't care what's doing the forcing does it?

Then WHY is a 0.6W/m2 SOLAR TSI change CONSTANTLY discounted, misrepresented and obfuscated?
And WHY does the IPCC accept a solar observatory "correction" that the designers and operators of that measurement platform reject? Because it shows TSI continuing to increase over the 1990 -- 2010 timeframe --- that's why...

Old Rocks and the Warmers have declared that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky is not a factor in "Global Warming" It's CO2, no H2O, no CO2!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's talk about the evolution of denialism.

1. There's no warming!

2. Okay, there is warming, but it's not human-caused!

3. Okay, there is warming, but only some of it is human-caused!

4. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's a good thing!

5. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's not that bad, and it costs too much too fix.

6. Okay, humans are causing the warming, and it's awful, but we can't do anything, so it's everyone for themselves!

The denialists here fall in various places on this scale. They've all abandoned 1 by now. Some are still stuck on 2, but since even that looks increasingly ridiculous, they'll have to retreat to 3 soon. And later, they'll fall back again, to 4 and 5 and 6.

Can you address the OP?

Water vapor is responsible for 90% of the warming, why aren't you guys tracking how much H2O is in the atmosphere?

 

[westwall]

Let's talk about the evolution of denialism.

1. There's no warming!

2. Okay, there is warming, but it's not human-caused!

3. Okay, there is warming, but only some of it is human-caused!

4. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's a good thing!

5. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's not that bad, and it costs too much too fix.

6. Okay, humans are causing the warming, and it's awful, but we can't do anything, so it's everyone for themselves!

The denialists here fall in various places on this scale. They've all abandoned 1 by now. Some are still stuck on 2, but since even that looks increasingly ridiculous, they'll have to retreat to 3 soon. And later, they'll fall back again, to 4 and 5 and 6.

Can you address the OP?

Water vapor is responsible for 90% of the warming, why aren't you guys tracking how much H2O is in the atmosphere?

Because the New World Order types can't regulate (or attempt to at any rate) water vapor.
There's no MONEY in water vapor.

 

[mamooth]

Can you address the OP?

Water vapor is responsible for 90% of the warming, why aren't you guys tracking how much H2O is in the atmosphere?

But everyone is tracking it. Where on earth did you get the insane idea that no one was looking at water vapor?

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't believe in evolution.

 

[mamooth]

Global Warming became "climate change" and "climate variability"

The Bush administration coining the term, of course. Republicans and their silly ideas.

As for "natural causes" --- Does THIS look like .2W/m2 change to YOU between 1750 and 2000?

No, it was increasing between 1750 and 1950. After 1950, a slight decline. Warming starts around 1970. Interesting theory you have, that decrease in TSI should cause warming. I can't imagine why no one pays any attention to it.

Orbital factors can't be the cause either. Those cause a fast warmup to start the interglacial, then a very slow cooldown into the next ice age. That fast warmup was 8,000 years ago. Orbital factors are pushing us towards cooling now. Fortunately, or unforunately, depending how you look at it, we've probably already put the next ice age on hold, with our GHGs overriding the orbital forcings.

So, it's not TSI. It's not orbital factors. There's no evidence that cosmic rays have any effect. So what are the causes of these magical natural cycles?

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Warming became "climate change" and "climate variability"

The Bush administration coining the term, of course. Republicans and their silly ideas.

As for "natural causes" --- Does THIS look like .2W/m2 change to YOU between 1750 and 2000?

No, it was increasing between 1750 and 1950. After 1950, a slight decline. Warming starts around 1970. Interesting theory you have, that decrease in TSI should cause warming. I can't imagine why no one pays any attention to it.

Orbital factors can't be the cause either. Those cause a fast warmup to start the interglacial, then a very slow cooldown into the next ice age. That fast warmup was 8,000 years ago. Orbital factors are pushing us towards cooling now. Fortunately, or unforunately, depending how you look at it, we've probably already put the next ice age on hold, with our GHGs overriding the orbital forcings.

So, it's not TSI. It's not orbital factors. There's no evidence that cosmic rays have any effect. So what are the causes of these magical natural cycles?

There's no "slight decline" in that TSI study.. In fact -- there are time constants associated with "turning up the heat" as the oceans stabilize over decades. You got ANY IDEA why the IPCC chose to represent that TSI increase as 0.2W/m2??? That doesn't "stink" to you?

NONE of your historical fable is accurate as the explanations for PREVIOUS sudden warm-ups were ALL associated with well-known cyclical solar-astro-orbital phenomenon.

Just a 5% modulation in cloud cover could cause the 1.6W/m2 forcing function for this warming and percent cloud cover has been on the decline for the past 50 years. There are several NEW studies confirming the linkage between cosmic rays and cloud cover.

THere are AMPLE studies finding upticks in the long-term and average TSI. ALL OF THEM discounted and mangled by the IPCC.

Not to mention the possibilities of SHIFTS in the solar spectral content that could affect the GHouse "window".. We've only had access to continuous studies of this via satellite for less than 15 years.

Your knowledge of what's been declared is EXTREMELY filtered and stilted. As are your willfilly constructed assertions that that the alarmists aren't using weather headlines to attempt to scare the bejeezus out of the common folk..

How do you like the last few hurricane seasons BTW? I thought FOR CERTAIN -- we were told that more frequent and more powerful major storms were gonna spawn due to a 0.5degC rise in temp.. Did I miss some?

But I love the way you invoke the inevitability of the next Ice Age being "right around the corner" due to orbital forcings of the climate. Evidentally --- you're starting to hedge your bet.. Maybe -- there's still hope for your scientific curiousity and ability to be skeptical about public policy masquerading as science.

You're correct that MANY of those REAL KNOWN orbital-solar CYCLICAL known effects are currently peaking and will decline. So the REAL forcing WILL make itself clear within the next decade.. Stay tuned.... This shouldn't take much longer...

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your impending Ice Age.. A 92% chance of a significant climate change NOT due to CO2.
It's not that this dissident science doesn't exist. It's because it's largely been suppressed by the Ministry of Warming..

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.‘

World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’


Read more: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you address the OP?

Water vapor is responsible for 90% of the warming, why aren't you guys tracking how much H2O is in the atmosphere?

But everyone is tracking it. Where on earth did you get the insane idea that no one was looking at water vapor?

How much has H2O increased these past 20 years?

 

[mamooth]

Here's your impending Ice Age.. A 92% chance of a significant climate change NOT due to CO2.

And David Rose's big whopper lie article makes yet another appearance. Rose lied so brazenly about the Met that the Met, for the first time ever, felt compelled to publicly call someone out for misquoting them and misrepresenting the science.

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

This is what denialists have been reduced to, parroting debunked liars like David Rose.

 

[mamooth]

How much has H2O increased these past 20 years?

A remarkably difficult thing to measure, as detailed satellite measurements are a recent thing, and often disagreed with ground measurements. Rough ballpark figure, water vapor been rising by about 0.1%/year. That is, about 2% in 20 years.

And of course that increases warming. It's a greenhouse gas. But the change isn't not as important as the change from CO2. You can't linearly mulitiply and combine factors and declare all the warming is from water vapor; that's not how the physics works.

Due to the very short half-life, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Water vapor reacts to temperature changes and amplifies them, but is not a primary driver. Water vapor rains out too quickly to be the driver of anything. Some other long-term effect has to be in place to keep the change in water vapor in place. In the present case, temperature increase from CO2 stays in place to increase water vapor.

 

[westwall]

How much has H2O increased these past 20 years?

A remarkably difficult thing to measure, as detailed satellite measurements are a recent thing, and often disagreed with ground measurements. Rough ballpark figure, water vapor been rising by about 0.1%/year. That is, about 2% in 20 years.

And of course that increases warming. It's a greenhouse gas. But the change isn't not as important as the change from CO2. You can't linearly mulitiply and combine factors and declare all the warming is from water vapor; that's not how the physics works.

Due to the very short half-life, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Water vapor reacts to temperature changes and amplifies them, but is not a primary driver. Water vapor rains out too quickly to be the driver of anything. Some other long-term effect has to be in place to keep the change in water vapor in place. In the present case, temperature increase from CO2 stays in place to increase water vapor.

So, water vapor, which is continually renewed, is not the prime greenhouse gas? CO2 is the driver? How then do you reconcile the Vostock ice core data that shows warming occurs FIRST, then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. Oftentimes after the temps have allready fallen back down to the original levels or in the case of the LIA temps below what it was before the increase in CO2 occured.

You are myopic, like a bat. But then all of you science deniers are like that.

 

[mamooth]

How then do you reconcile the Vostock ice core data that shows warming occurs FIRST, then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise

I don't need to "reconcile" it, because it doesn't contradict me in any way. That's because I'm not using the really awful logic of "the present must happen exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different!". Conditions are wildly different now, CO2 is the driver now, and what happened at the end of the last ice age is not relevant.

You are myopic, like a bat. But then all of you science deniers are like that.

Pot, kettle, black. You're the one who keeps relying on debunked idiot logic. Are you unaware of how much your logic stinks, or are you simply so gung-ho on propagandizing that you don't care if your logic makes any sense?

 

[westwall]

How then do you reconcile the Vostock ice core data that shows warming occurs FIRST, then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise

I don't need to "reconcile" it, because it doesn't contradict me in any way. That's because I'm not using the really awful logic of "the present must happen exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different!". Conditions are wildly different now, CO2 is the driver now, and what happened at the end of the last ice age is not relevant.

You are myopic, like a bat. But then all of you science deniers are like that.

Pot, kettle, black. You're the one who keeps relying on debunked idiot logic. Are you unaware of how much your logic stinks, or are you simply so gung-ho on propagandizing that you don't care if your logic makes any sense?

It doesn't contradict you So. Tell me. Do you believe in cause and effect or are you totally a faith based person?

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes has been shown repeatedly what the physicists state concerning the feedback from the CO2 and CH4 outgassed as the Milankovic Cycles started the warming of the earth. He just continues the lie that all the denialists use. They know it is a lie, and they don't care. Anything to make points with people like Frankie Boy.