View Single Post
Old 09-11-2013, 09:49 AM   #34
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.
You've got it exactly backwards. It's the deniers who draw straight lines from one point to another, carefully cherry-picked to make their best "argument", and ignore all the rest of the data.

Quote:
They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"
No. AGW is more than just "the surface is warmer". There are many kinds of observations and many lines of evidence that point directly at our burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the changes we're observing.

If our use of fossil fuels had very little impact on the climate system, we wouldn't be observing ocean acidification (as we are), cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere (which we are) and the various other changes.

You're basically trying to claim that climate science has gotten it entirely wrong over the last 100 years. That's a very extraordinary claim (on par with the idea that the earth is really flat or that evolution is entirely wrong) and requires extraordinary evidence. So far, the deniers have provided absolutely no evidence for their claims. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Quote:
Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.
Wrong. Outside of the random impact or mega-eruption, global climate has never changed with the scale and rapidity we've observed in the history of our species, and for much longer periods than even that.

CO2 has not been at 400ppm for at least 800,000 years, likely at least 3 million years. We've increased it ~40% in under 200 years.

Quote:
The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.


If it wasn't for us, the planet would be cooling. We're overwhelming the natural forcings.

Quote:
Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts.
That's a statement of faith, unsupported by the evidence and observations.

There's no reason to believe that suddenly all the metrics by which we observe anthropogenic climate change to reverse themselves. Again, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

Quote:
As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.
Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote