Global warming over the last 16 years

[CrusaderFrank]

We can create a black hole in a lab, but gosh darn it, it's way too hard to control for an additional 100PPM of CO2

That CO2 is sweeping the ocean like the Mud Shark and melting the ice caps

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

I'm going to ask you to show a little integrity here.

You have said that the ONLY evidence that could convince you of climate change is a reproducable lab test.

And yet we have seen that you accept other scientific concepts, such as black holes, which can not be produced in reproducable lab tests.

If you can accept the existance of black holes based on scientific research and observation - why do you not apply the same standards to climate change, where the research and obsevation is significantly stronger?

We can apply this to any one of a dozen other concepts, btw - I only chose black stars as an obvious example.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

I'm going to ask you to show a little integrity here.

You have said that the ONLY evidence that could convince you of climate change is a reproducable lab test.

And yet we have seen that you accept other scientific concepts, such as black holes, which can not be produced in reproducable lab tests.

If you can accept the existance of black holes based on scientific research and observation - why do you not apply the same standards to climate change, where the research and obsevation is significantly stronger?

We can apply this to any one of a dozen other concepts, btw - I only chose black stars as an obvious example.

You're confused and unable to read English. I've posted several articles were mini-Black holes were created in a lab.

Your theory is far, far, far simpler that that. You allege that a 100PPM increase in a closed system will cause "Global Warming" OK, show me

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

And again, black holes were only an example. There are dozens of concepts within physics which can not be produced in lab conditions for various reasons. Try quasars if you prefer.

And yet you do not apparently question the existance of those concepts, relying instead on observation and expert research and analysis.

It could hardly be more obvious that the only reason that you refute observation and analysis here - and insist upon lab tests - is because the observation and analysis here does not match your political views.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was the hottest year, which is why it's so cold.

If there was global warming, it ended 16 years ago, right on schedule. If you really want to increase temperatures, it's easy enough. Just move the sensor from a dirt lot that doesn't reflect heat, to a cement canyon with an asphalt floor that does reflect heat.

 

[skookerasbil]

It was the hottest year, which is why it's so cold.

If there was global warming, it ended 16 years ago, right on schedule. If you really want to increase temperatures, it's easy enough. Just move the sensor from a dirt lot that doesn't reflect heat, to a cement canyon with an asphalt floor that does reflect heat.

wInNIng sTRatEgiES


Except their losing.

 

[Saigon]

It was the hottest year, which is why it's so cold.

If there was global warming, it ended 16 years ago, right on schedule. If you really want to increase temperatures, it's easy enough. Just move the sensor from a dirt lot that doesn't reflect heat, to a cement canyon with an asphalt floor that does reflect heat.

And yet 2012 was the hottest year in American history - a fact which has been linked here more than once.

It just takes my breath away that Fundamentalists can be so hermetically sealed to all and any information.

Here it is again for the American Talibanists!

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-08/national/36207396_1_noaa-analysis-climate-change-thomas-r-karl

 

[SSDD]

Right.

So actually no field research at all, regardless of who it was conducted by, how it was conducted, or what conclusions it drew, would convince you of climate change.

In which case there isn't much point discussing this with you, is there?

There is no argument that the climate is changing. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause it. If it were so powerful that a hundred parts per million could alter the global climate, a repeatable experiment supporting the claim should be possible. No such experiment has ever been done.

Field work can show a changing climate, but showing a changing climate does not show the cause.

 

[SSDD]

Deniers often whine about temperature station being sited in improper locations, like at airports or near air conditioning vents, and they demand that their data be removed from any temperature calculation and the sites shut down.

That isn't what is happening with the data...or the sites. CRN is NOAA'state of the art surface temperature network...the equipment is pristine and the locations are meticulously situated to the point that no "adjustment" is necessary. You don't hear much about that network because the results coming out of there don't support the claims of any warming, much less rapid warming.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I agree with you, by and large. Though I would go further and say that this stage there are not many people who would dispute that CO2 is a major factor in climate change (though possibly not the sole factor) - I think it's fair to say that this stopped being a heavily disputed point several years ago now.

Outside of the US there are not many countries where the human role in that climate change is hotly disputed either. I'm always baffled by the numbers on this board still fighting what seems to be a long lost war from where I sit.

 

[SSDD]

What happens in a lab is of no real value here - what matters is what is happening to the planet on a daily basis. Just this month we have seen Sydney record its hottest daily temperature ever (46C), and Australia record its hottest daily temperature ever (40.5C).

Really? Then what do you base the claims that CO2 is responsible on? If its claimed heating or heat trapping mechanisms can't be detected even in a lab, what on earth makes you think it can be detected out in the wild?

We have also seen research released showing that the collapse of Andean glaciers has been more severe than previously estimated, and establsihing that many glaciers have fallen to half of the size they averaged in the 1970's.

Have those glaciers never melted before....ever? And upon what actual observable science do you make the claim that it is human activity that is causing it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

And again, black holes were only an example. There are dozens of concepts within physics which can not be produced in lab conditions for various reasons. Try quasars if you prefer.

And yet you do not apparently question the existance of those concepts, relying instead on observation and expert research and analysis.

It could hardly be more obvious that the only reason that you refute observation and analysis here - and insist upon lab tests - is because the observation and analysis here does not match your political views.

So, AGW is like a quasar. It's so powerful, we fear the effect of adding 100PPM of CO2 to a container in a laboratory setting. Is that what you;re telling us?

100PPM of CO2 is like a quasar.

I see the return of my Marshall Applegate picture

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

And again, black holes were only an example. There are dozens of concepts within physics which can not be produced in lab conditions for various reasons. Try quasars if you prefer.

And yet you do not apparently question the existance of those concepts, relying instead on observation and expert research and analysis.

It could hardly be more obvious that the only reason that you refute observation and analysis here - and insist upon lab tests - is because the observation and analysis here does not match your political views.

It's one of two things and it's really simple:

Your theory is testable in the lab -- and it fails or you're saying that the system is far too complex to test in a lab.

If you fail in the lab you need a new theory (unless you're a Cult)

If the system is too complicate to be replicated in the lab, if there are too many variables you can have no confidence that your theory is describing reality.

 

[SSDD]

Frank -

Because we both know that the experiment is a red herring.

It is of absolutely no importance and relevance here, and if it was, you wouldn't be mentioning it.

Being able to reproducing a black hole in a lab makes no difference to the exisrtance of black holes.

Of no importance to you because you believe. Belief, unfortunately is not science. I don't believe so I want to see actual science, not output from computer models that aren't based on actual science, not assuptions based on the output of computer models that aren't actual science.

Tell you what...You show me proof that Trenberth et al's energy budget is spot on correct, and you will go a long way towards convincing me that the AGW hypothesis is on to something. That energy budget is at the foundation of climate science and damned near every computer model and research project uses that budget as a given, so surely there should be some hard proof that it is correct.

Failing proof that that energy budget is spot on correct is a strong indicator that climate science is the unfortunate victim of a world class error cascade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

I think we both know that even if a suitable lab experiment could be designed and implemented, you would reject the results outright.

What happens in a lab is of no real value here - what matters is what is happening to the planet on a daily basis. Just this month we have seen Sydney record its hottest daily temperature ever (46C), and Australia record its hottest daily temperature ever (40.5C).

We have also seen research released showing that the collapse of Andean glaciers has been more severe than previously estimated, and establsihing that many glaciers have fallen to half of the size they averaged in the 1970's.

If you actually cared at all about this topic or about science - that is what you'd be looking at.

Then in the same breath you say that the cold and snow in China and Russia are also due to Global Warming

You see how absurd that it, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was the hottest year, which is why it's so cold.

If there was global warming, it ended 16 years ago, right on schedule. If you really want to increase temperatures, it's easy enough. Just move the sensor from a dirt lot that doesn't reflect heat, to a cement canyon with an asphalt floor that does reflect heat.

And yet 2012 was the hottest year in American history - a fact which has been linked here more than once.

It just takes my breath away that Fundamentalists can be so hermetically sealed to all and any information.

Here it is again for the American Talibanists!

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

When we point out that it was just as warm in the America in the 1930's, we're told that it's not relevant because that's not global

 

[SSDD]

It was the hottest year, which is why it's so cold.

Again, which altered record are you using?

 

[SSDD]

I agree with you, by and large. Though I would go further and say that this stage there are not many people who would dispute that CO2 is a major factor in climate change (though possibly not the sole factor) - I think it's fair to say that this stopped being a heavily disputed point several years ago now.

You are right, there are a log of people who believe that CO2 is a major factor. I am asking upon what hard evidence do they place that belief? Trenberth's energy budget?

Outside of the US there are not many countries where the human role in that climate change is hotly disputed either. I'm always baffled by the numbers on this board still fighting what seems to be a long lost war from where I sit.

Belief in the AGW hypothesis is based on one of two things, money in the case of scientists who depend on grant money for a living, or political leanings for those who don't. It isn't based on hard evidence, it isn't based on observable experiments, it isn't even based on real observation...it is based on an assumtion that correlation somehow constitutes causation.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I am not using altered records.

Seriously man - that is such a poor argument. It's as much of a red herring as Frank insisting on lab tests - and then accepting evidence of other scientific concepts without lab tests.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I am not using altered records.

Are you sure? How are you sure? There is plenty of evidence of alteration...what makes you think the record you are using is pristine? Which record are you using?

Speaking with such confidence when you have nothing that could possibly engender such confidence is one of the cultish memes of the warmist bunch.