Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Ben Dhyan]

So why did you ask?

 

[siti]

So why did you ask?

I presented a series of graphs that showed the main factors in climate variability (as far as I understand it) were showing either negative or stable trends over the period in question except for atmospheric CO2 levels (we could look at methane and other GHGs - the trends for the most part, and definitely in combination, would show similar trends) which were the only factor that has continued to show a positive trend over the period in question, and asked what did you believe to be the cause of the undeniable warming of the climate over the last 50-70 years...you responded (correctly IMO) that it was the combined result of natural and human contributions. I agree with that, but the key natural factors are not contributing to warming at present as far as I can see and some may be masking the real, longer term, effect of human activity because they are in negative phases in terms of their contributions. So human activity still seems to be the most significant positive factor over the last few decades. I thought you'd got it, but then you said...

By scientific methodology, I mean the accounting of all factors associated with climate change, such as solar variations, volcanic eruptions, changes in atmospheric composition such as an increase in carbon dioxide. methane, water vapor, ElNiño/La Niña effects, ocean heat circulation, etc.
I await the details...

But haven't I just given a fair bit of this - what else do you need?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I presented a series of graphs that showed the main factors in climate variability (as far as I understand it) were showing either negative or stable trends over the period in question except for atmospheric CO2 levels (we could look at methane and other GHGs - the trends for the most part, and definitely in combination, would show similar trends) which were the only factor that has continued to show a positive trend over the period in question, and asked what did you believe to be the cause of the undeniable warming of the climate over the last 50-70 years...you responded (correctly IMO) that it was the combined result of natural and human contributions. I agree with that, but the key natural factors are not contributing to warming at present as far as I can see and some may be masking the real, longer term, effect of human activity because they are in negative phases in terms of their contributions. So human activity still seems to be the most significant positive factor over the last few decades. I thought you'd got it, but then you said...

But haven't I just given a fair bit of this - what else do you need?

We all pretty much know what the variables are, but the devil is in the details. What are the figures in the GCM calculations that you believe to be evidence that humans are totally responsible for the warming since 1979?

Here is a graph (source is Dr Roy Spencer) showing 90 agw Global Climate Models all offering different amounts of forcings, feedbacks, etc., and thus all get different results, with 95% of them wrong because they over estimate the human derived CO2 forcing. The ones that are near to reality show that the present rate of warming is benign, and there is definitely no catastrophic ahead at the end of the 21st century if it continues at this rate.

 

[Debateable]

Simply saying the word "climategate" is not evidence.



Because it it was a jpeg of a graph with no citation to where the data came from.

I wasn't referring to the graph but the site as a whole. Did you even read/look at it?

 

[metis]

So we are all supposed to believe that something that consists of 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which we only produce 4% of that (or 0.0016% of the atmosphere) has been the primary cause of all the warming we have been seeing? WTF are you smoking?

Right after this I'm going to put you on ignore for obvious reasons.

As a long-time subscriber to "Scientific American", plus being in science for 50 years myself, I have seen the evolution on this topic from the climate scientists for decades now, who now are absolutely certain that not only are we in a stage of global warming, but also that it is human actions of various types that is the main cause.

This is not guess-work in their part, so when I see a response like yours above, the implication of what you're saying is that these scientists are either ignorant, truth-challenged, or both. It is supreme arrogance for you to basically state that they don't know what they're talking about and that you supposedly do.

Have a nice life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well Debateable, fortunately we do not get our science from scientific American, a once wonderful science magazine that lost its way when it became politicized. Anyways, reality will always eventually expose flawed science...

 

[siti]

95% of them wrong because they over estimate the human derived CO2 forcing. The ones that are near to reality show that the present rate of warming is benign, and there is definitely no catastrophic ahead at the end of the 21st century if it continues at this rate.

That conclusion is valid if, and only if, the problem is overestimating anthropogenic GHG forcing - but if the problem is underestimating the combined cooling effects of solar activity, ocean current oscillations and volcanic activity all being in relative negative phases (in terms of their combine climate effects) then the opposite might be true - the relatively (compared to the models) slow warming over the last decade or so could be hiding a bigger problem than it currently appears. Even Dr Spencer's latest data predicts warming of 1.1 degree C per century and his graph, above, shows the actual data on track to somewhere between about 0.5 to 0.8 degrees C higher temps in 2028 than the 1979 to 1983 average. Oh - and BTW - Dr Spencer's group has confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year to date on the satellite record, although they correctly point out that the 2016 spike, like the 1998 one in the satellite data is linked to a strong El Nino event.

Anyway, here's the latest graph from their UAH Global Temperature Report page with temp readings up to Jan this year (the trend is still obvious even if you were to remove the El Nino years from the data):

BTW - where in the dozens of posts I have made about this issue did I ever say that human activity is "totally responsible" for global warming? I have never made such a ridiculous claim. That would be analogous to saying that cigarette smoking is 100% responsible for lung cancer. Your argument seems to analogous to saying that because there may be other factors, such as genetics, occupational exposure to chemicals or dust, etc. quitting smoking makes no sense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That conclusion is valid if, and only if, the problem is overestimating anthropogenic GHG forcing - but if the problem is underestimating the combined cooling effects of solar activity, ocean current oscillations and volcanic activity all being in relative negative phases (in terms of their combine climate effects) then the opposite might be true - the relatively (compared to the models) slow warming over the last decade or so could be hiding a bigger problem than it currently appears. Even Dr Spencer's latest data predicts warming of 1.1 degree C per century and his graph, above, shows the actual data on track to somewhere between about 0.5 to 0.8 degrees C higher temps in 2028 than the 1979 to 1983 average. Oh - and BTW - Dr Spencer's group has confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year to date on the satellite record, although they correctly point out that the 2016 spike, like the 1998 one in the satellite data is linked to a strong El Nino event.

Anyway, here's the latest graph from their UAH Global Temperature Report page with temp readings up to Jan this year (the trend is still obvious even if you were to remove the El Nino years from the data):

BTW - where in the dozens of posts I have made about this issue did I ever say that human activity is "totally responsible" for global warming? I have never made such a ridiculous claim. That would be analogous to saying that cigarette smoking is 100% responsible for lung cancer. Your argument seems to analogous to saying that because there may be other factors, such as genetics, occupational exposure to chemicals or dust, etc. quitting smoking makes no sense.

But testing the GCMs over time against reality is the only way to validate scientific understanding of global climate, and so far the results show clearly climate science is not up to it, Suggesting "if the problem is underestimating the combined cooling effects of solar activity, ocean current oscillations and volcanic activity all being in relative negative phases (in terms of their combine climate effects) then the opposite might be true", does not change the facts, 95% of the GCMs were running too hot and thus most of them can be dismissed already.

As the warming trend stands, 1.1 C warming this century would be great for the planet, much better than 1.1C cooler, for it will be a greener planet and higher agricultural production.

I note your comment, "BTW - where in the dozens of posts I have made about this issue did I ever say that human activity is "totally responsible" for global warming? I have never made such a ridiculous claim", and explain that it was Jose Fly who was making that claim, I am relieved that you are on my side....

 

[leibowde84]

Economic conservatives have been saying this for years, that Global Warming is a religion promoting a theocracy with the Socialist State as God and the objective to defeat capitalism. Blind faith strikes once again.



She’ll probably have to walk that one back...somehow. Anybody catch this on CNN, or NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR/NY Times/Washington Post...etc.

None of this shows any reason to doubt man caused climate change. I agree that this specific person has a troubling cause for pushing environmentalism. But, she in no way represents all environmentalists. So, why would this one person's quote prove anything, in your opinion? Just curious.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok, my bad

Thank you.

In any event, this does not negate the fact that there are other natural causes affecting the planet's temperature, many btw that can not be quantified, so to claim humans are 100% responsible for any warming since 1950 is absurd

So what percentage do you think is more accurate? And what natural cause do you think is adding to the current warming trend?

Ok, so where is the scientific methodology that proves that all warming since 1950 is purely a result of human activity? By scientific methodology, I mean the accounting of all factors associated with climate change, such as solar variations, volcanic eruptions, changes in atmospheric composition such as an increase in carbon dioxide. methane, water vapor, ElNiño/La Niña effects, ocean heat circulation, etc.

I await the details...

I've already explained.....when we examine all those natural forces you describe, we don't see anything that would cause the current warming trend. But when we factor in human activities, the trend is explained.

 

[siti]

1.1 C warming this century would be great for the planet, much better than 1.1C cooler, for it will be a greener planet and higher agricultural production.

No it will not, even 1 degree rise will raise sea levels sufficiently to endanger the existence of entire island nations in the Pacific and even highly populated areas of large, developed countries around the world, revert some green parts of the globe to desert and drastically reduce availability of fresh water in regions that are already struggling to provide enough for the human population. You are possibly correct that agricultural productivity may increase in some areas and for some key crops as more elevated regions become arable and currently arable regions become more more productive with more CO2 to fuel plant growth. But even if all that eventuates and we manage to deal with the negatives and take advantage of the positives over the next 80-100 years, what happens after that?

 

[Jose Fly]

I wasn't referring to the graph

Well that's weird, because it's what you linked to when I asked for the source for you claim.

but the site as a whole. Did you even read/look at it?

Yes I did.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you.

So what percentage do you think is more accurate? And what natural cause do you think is adding to the current warming trend?

I've already explained.....when we examine all those natural forces you describe, we don't see anything that would cause the current warming trend. But when we factor in human activities, the trend is explained.

You're welcome.

A GCM can only be considered accurate if its temperature predictions track reality. However looking at the graph, there are about 4 or 5 that show a reasonable degree of tracking, so one would need to look at the 'climate sensitivity' to CO2, but we can reasonably estimate it by looking at the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report(2013) conclusion on climates sensitivity which states..."Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5◦ C to 4.5◦ C (highcon-fidence), extremely unlikely less than 1◦C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6◦C (medium confidence)"

Now the definition of climate sensitivity goes like this..

"Climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide

Human-caused warming depends not only on how much carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, but also on how ‘sensitive’ the climate is to that carbon dioxide. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the con-centration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions con-tinue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower."

So global warming of 1.1 C over a century implies that at present trend, the extra human derived CO2 is not the demon the agw crowd have been pushing....

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That's what all anarchists, tyrants and their useful idiots who come to take freedom for granted, say.

I'm an anarchist that adores capitalism. We aren't all socialist weiners you know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it will not, even 1 degree rise will raise sea levels sufficiently to endanger the existence of entire island nations in the Pacific and even high/ly populated areas of large, developed countries around the world, revert some green parts of the globe to desert and drastically reduce availability of fresh water in regions that are already struggling to provide enough for the human population. You are possibly correct that agricultural productivity may increase in some areas and for some key crops as more elevated regions become arable and currently arable regions become more more productive with more CO2 to fuel plant growth. But even if all that eventuates and we manage to deal with the negatives and take advantage of the positives over the next 80-100 years, what happens after that?

Where is your evidence that sea level rise at present trend will threaten human existence?

Where is your evidence that climate change will revert green parts of the world to desert?

 

[siti]

Where is your evidence that sea level rise at present trend will threaten human existence?

Where is your evidence that climate change will revert green parts of the world to desert?

Sea level is currently rising at just over 3mm a year in the South Pacific islands - you can look this up - it's a matter of record. The trend currently seems to be accelerating but even if we take the current rate, by the end of the century sea levels will be 30+cm higher than in 2000. (This is lower than the mid-range IPCC predictions which have been shown to underestimate current contributions from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice but lets stick with 30cm). 30cm may not seem much, but when your entire country rises no higher than 3m out of the sea and your island is barely more than a few paces across - and you have 100,000 people in overcrowded conditions on it, it is a serious issue. More frequent swamping of your landfill sites and what sewage systems there are contaminates the sea - from where you get your only source of protein. More frequent and more severe flood tides contaminate all your groundwater, freshwater and whatever crops you have - not to mention your homes and gardens. 30cm may be more than countries like Kiribati and the Marshall Islands can bear. And 30cm is about the most conservative estimate of likely sea level rise this century. I have visited both of these countries in recent years - I was in the Marshall Islands during a 'King tide' in 2015. During a King tide, there is effectively no island in large parts of the country - just shallow ocean with houses sticking out of it. I have seen the evidence of these effects first hand and my opinion, based on what I have seen, is that Kiribati is already doomed. I doubt it has a century left before it ceases to be a viable habitat for humans.

On desertification, here's a paper on that that compares IPCC models to actual data and finds that on that too, the models underestimate the pressure on dry land under global warming.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sea level is currently rising at just over 3mm a year in the South Pacific islands - you can look this up - it's a matter of record. The trend currently seems to be accelerating but even if we take the current rate, by the end of the century sea levels will be 30+cm higher than in 2000. (This is lower than the mid-range IPCC predictions which have been shown to underestimate current contributions from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice but lets stick with 30cm). 30cm may not seem much, but when your entire country rises no higher than 3m out of the sea and your island is barely more than a few paces across - and you have 100,000 people in overcrowded conditions on it, it is a serious issue. More frequent swamping of your landfill sites and what sewage systems there are contaminates the sea - from where you get your only source of protein. More frequent and more severe flood tides contaminate all your groundwater, freshwater and whatever crops you have - not to mention your homes and gardens. 30cm may be more than countries like Kiribati and the Marshall Islands can bear. And 30cm is about the most conservative estimate of likely sea level rise this century. I have visited both of these countries in recent years - I was in the Marshall Islands during a 'King tide' in 2015. During a King tide, there is effectively no island in large parts of the country - just shallow ocean with houses sticking out of it. I have seen the evidence of these effects first hand and my opinion, based on what I have seen, is that Kiribati is already doomed. I doubt it has a century left before it ceases to be a viable habitat for humans.

On desertification, here's a paper on that that compares IPCC models to actual data and finds that on that too, the models underestimate the pressure on dry land under global warming.

Haha....get real, what island in the world is going to disappear by a 1foot rise in sea level over one hundred years? And if you are not well read on the subject, all coral islands grow to keep up with the sea level rise. Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll


It appears there is a difference between your approach and mine in that you accept computer model projections of reality, whereas I rely on actual measured historical reality that shows no such catastrophe looming. Wrt desertification, there are numerous studies using satellite remote sensing that show the deserts are actually greening as CO2 increases, that's why I keep saying, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's plant food. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

 

[siti]

Haha....get real, what island in the world is going to disappear by a 1foot rise in sea level over one hundred years? And if you are not well read on the subject, all coral islands grow to keep up with the sea level rise.

Ben - once again you are displaying a profound lack of reading ability - nowhere did I mention that any island was going to "disappear". What is going to disappear is freshwater and safe and reliable food supply. 30cm of sea level rise (a very conservative estimate even compared to the data in the paper you linked to) will leave the coasts of these islands more vulnerable to flood tides and storm surges which compromise fresh water sources and what little crops there are, and also compromise sewage, water treatment, desalination plants and waste disposal systems all of which teeter precariously on the edge of the lagoon and/or the ocean (because there is nowhere else to put them).

I am perfectly well aware of the accretion and erosion processes that pertain to coral atolls - I have lived and worked in the Pacific Islands for 18 years.The question is not whether the islands will still be there, but whether they can still support their human populations. These are the questions that the paper you linked to are saying are most important - how the human populations can adapt to climate change and maintain the home lands of their ancestors in a condition that is fit for human habitation. In the case of South Tarawa in Kiribati and Ebeye in the Marshall Islands, for example, I doubt they will be able to do it and I suspect they will have to be largely abandoned by the end of the century. I could be wrong...

...but you certainly are. It simply is not true that "all coral islands grow to keep up with sea level rise" - that is a ridiculous statement that suggests that far from being "well read", you haven't even read the paper you linked to because that clearly shows that some islands do indeed erode overall. Of course that still doesn't mean a 30cm rise in sea level will make them disappear - but, once again, I never said anything of the sort anyway.

I keep saying, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's plant food.

You do indeed (!) and it is indeed - but so are nitrogen and phosphorous and as plant growth increases as a result of increased photosynthesis guess what happens to the nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the soil? And guess what they call dry places where soils no longer have sufficient nutrient content to support sustainable plant growth? The experiment works well in the controlled conditions of a plant biology research plot - but it is a different situation altogether in the grain fields of east Africa (for example). I'm sure it could potentially be managed, but your proposed solution - just leave it - the plants will use up the extra CO2 is not only childishly simplistic, it is potentially catastrophically irresponsible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben - once again you are displaying a profound lack of reading ability - nowhere did I mention that any island was going to "disappear". What is going to disappear is freshwater and safe and reliable food supply. 30cm of sea level rise (a very conservative estimate even compared to the data in the paper you linked to) will leave the coasts of these islands more vulnerable to flood tides and storm surges which compromise fresh water sources and what little crops there are, and also compromise sewage, water treatment, desalination plants and waste disposal systems all of which teeter precariously on the edge of the lagoon and/or the ocean (because there is nowhere else to put them).

I am perfectly well aware of the accretion and erosion processes that pertain to coral atolls - I have lived and worked in the Pacific Islands for 18 years.The question is not whether the islands will still be there, but whether they can still support their human populations. These are the questions that the paper you linked to are saying are most important - how the human populations can adapt to climate change and maintain the home lands of their ancestors in a condition that is fit for human habitation. In the case of South Tarawa in Kiribati and Ebeye in the Marshall Islands, for example, I doubt they will be able to do it and I suspect they will have to be largely abandoned by the end of the century. I could be wrong...

...but you certainly are. It simply is not true that "all coral islands grow to keep up with sea level rise" - that is a ridiculous statement that suggests that far from being "well read", you haven't even read the paper you linked to because that clearly shows that some islands do indeed erode overall. Of course that still doesn't mean a 30cm rise in sea level will make them disappear - but, once again, I never said anything of the sort anyway.

You do indeed (!) and it is indeed - but so are nitrogen and phosphorous and as plant growth increases as a result of increased photosynthesis guess what happens to the nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the soil? And guess what they call dry places where soils no longer have sufficient nutrient content to support sustainable plant growth? The experiment works well in the controlled conditions of a plant biology research plot - but it is a different situation altogether in the grain fields of east Africa (for example). I'm sure it could potentially be managed, but your proposed solution - just leave it - the plants will use up the extra CO2 is not only childishly simplistic, it is potentially catastrophically irresponsible.

Reread my last paragraph in my last post about reality versus computer models of reality. That is why our arguing is a waste of time, I am talking about reality in the here and now, you about the theoretical models of reality presumed to exist in the future.

 

[Debateable]

Right after this I'm going to put you on ignore for obvious reasons.

As a long-time subscriber to "Scientific American", plus being in science for 50 years myself, I have seen the evolution on this topic from the climate scientists for decades now, who now are absolutely certain that not only are we in a stage of global warming, but also that it is human actions of various types that is the main cause.

This is not guess-work in their part, so when I see a response like yours above, the implication of what you're saying is that these scientists are either ignorant, truth-challenged, or both. It is supreme arrogance for you to basically state that they don't know what they're talking about and that you supposedly do.

Have a nice life.

Lol congrats.