It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[emzie]

Real scientists bold and underline their papers so their stupid peers won't miss something.

 

[Dale]

There's a real issue among climate scientists in creating an atmosphere of exclusion, sure. You seem to be taking that fact and stretching it to say there is no consensus as to what is going on, and that as a whole, the scientific community is trying to cook the books to force political change on people. That's... a bit of a non sequitur.

There's two parts to climate science: observation and prediction. The latter is where you see dissent in the field. Basically everyone agrees the earth is warming. Some skeptics have asked about data collection being biased (location of readings, why certain stations are picked over others) but this has, by in large, been debunked. Skeptics have accepted these things, deniers have not.

However, when we move into prediction, we get into questionable science all the time. Models are not the earth, and models aren't easily back dated to test how accurate they would have been. The consequences of global warming are very much speculation, but that it's happening is not. If you disagree with this, you are no longer a skeptic, but a denier.

True there's a lot of dissent over prediction models. There's some scientists who deny new research and rely solely on outdated models. Those same scientists refuse to acknowledge recent research showing all manner of interesting facts, including (but not limited to) the effect of combined natural forcing models (as opposed to limited natural forcing models the IPCC like to use) showing that the climate is no where near as sensitive to CO2 changes as assumed 5, 10, 20 years ago. Most "whole atmosphere" models are now showing with the accumulated new knowledge on oceanic effects, solar and cosmic effects, and many other natural effects, that climate sensitivity is 66% to 95% less sensitive than the IPCC predicts. New research has also shown that some IPCC assumed positive forcings on the climate are actually negative forcings (such as proof Trenberth's "missing heat" is not in the deep ocean but actually dissipated to space).

When AGW advocates realise that "research kept happening" after IPCC assumptions, the better.

 

[BasketCase]

Real scientists bold and underline their papers so their stupid peers won't miss something.

Darn tootin'! (at least one person still misunderstood my second-previous post--maybe I need more underlining and boldfacing? With italics?? AND COLOR?? )

 

[Gatsby]

Seriously, there was hardly any pollution during the Ice age, so how did it warm up?

Interesting question - I recall reading somewhere that the end of the last Ice Age would have been just another brief interglacial - perhaps around 5000 years long - in the ice-age cycle before another ice-age set in: but this interglacial was different because this time there were modern humans spread across much of the planet. Some of these human populations had the means, motive and opportunity to start practicing large-scale agriculture and land clearing when the climate warmed up at the end of the last ice-age. The growth of agriculture and land clearing over the next few thousand years might have generated enough greenhouse emissions to prolong the warm interglacial climate and delay the onset of the next ice-age. But in the last few centuries with the advent of fossil fuel-powered industralisation, humanity began to generate enough emissions to not just delay the next ice-age but actually trigger global warming.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Greenhouse gasses do not smooth out temperature gradients.

I was gonna point to Venus, but BasketCase beat me to it. In the extreme, greenhouse gases can indeed smooth out temperature gradients.

But there are a lot of other variables on Earth that could get in the way of this hypothetical broad-brush pattern. And even in a Business As Usual scenario, the amount of CO2 we'll add in a few centuries is tiny compared to Venus. So I wouldn't want to predict whether man-made GHGs will smooth or roughen the temperatures, at least until I saw the best models (if they agreed about it).

 

[Defiant47]

I didn't. I compared the insulating properties of Venus to the insulating properties of Earth. (I call "straw man"! )

But there are a lot of other variables on Earth that could get in the way of this hypothetical broad-brush pattern.

This.

Does Venus have oceans? Does Venus have ocean currents? Does Venus have polar ice caps?

There are a lot of extra factors that render this comparison null.

 

[FriendlyFire]

All 50 States Have Set High Temperature Records This July

Limbaugh: The Killer 116° Heat Index Is ‘Manufactured By The Government’

They’re playing games with us on this heat wave, again. Even Drudge. Drudge getting sucked in here. Going to be 116 in Washington. No, it’s not. It’s gonna be like 100, maybe 99. A heat index, manufactured by the government to tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there.

My head hurts
Is this record breaking temps or isnt it ?

 

[Berzerker]

We've had 10-12 days of 100+ and the heat bubble is starting to move on. But our records were set between 1900-1940 with '36 being the worst, we had 59 days of 100+ that year.

nice posts BC

But wrt the hodgepodge, I welcome global warming. All that freshwater locked up in ice aint doin life much good. We just gotta figure out ways to store it before coastal cities get flooded too badly. I can think of a few

Besides, the Earth's tilt is decreasing and that means a cooling for the higher latitudes, we'll need those ghg in the atmosphere to help distribute heat away from the equator. Even the AGW crowd acknowledges the poles will warm more than the equator (thereby reducing the temperature differences between air masses and the fuel storms need).

 

[BasketCase]

Does Venus have oceans? Does Venus have ocean currents? Does Venus have polar ice caps?

All irrelevant.

When solar input to Venus changes radically (i.e. the night side) does the planet's nighttime climate change radically? Yes? Or no?

Why? Or why not?

 

[classical_hero]

Some like it hot, some like it very hot. I Personally hate winter and the cold, so bring on warmer summers.

 

[Defiant47]

All irrelevant.

When solar input to Venus changes radically (i.e. the night side) does the planet's nighttime climate change radically? Yes? Or no?

Why? Or why not?

All irrelevant.

Do oceans absorb heat? Does the melting of the polar ice caps have any effect on the global climate?

Do these pose a difference on the effect in climate on Earth compared to the climate on Venus?

 

[BasketCase]

Irrelevant.

Greenhouse gases act to prevent sudden and violent climate changes. I've provided sufficient evidence to qualify this claim as fact, and nobody has refuted it.

 

[Defiant47]

Irrelevant.

Your arguments do not include the other factors at work present on the Earth, that will undoubtedly cause these climate changes as a result of global warming from greenhouse gases. This has been shown by scientists worldwide, and your arguments have not refuted any of the data or its conclusions.

 

[BasketCase]

Your claim that I must include those other factors is a logical fallacy.

The Complex Question

Complex Question (Tying):

unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits.

For example, "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms ?"

The buffer effect of greenhouse gases (which acts to prevent violent climate changes) is a separate effect that must be considered on its own merits.

 

[Skwink]

My head hurts
Is this record breaking temps or isnt it ?

Have you been to Washington? That record is like 85 F.

 

[Defiant47]

Your claim that you must not is a logical fallacy.

Fallacy of the single cause

The fallacy of the single cause, also known as causal oversimplification, is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Would greenhouse gases have the same effect on Earth, when there are many different causes for the climate we have?

 

[BasketCase]

That's the thing. Venus is proof that there is a single, simple cause for the particular effect I'm considering (unless you can explain what else prevents Venus from cooling off suddenly and violently at night?). Your claim of single-cause fallacy is refuted.

 

[Defiant47]

Sorry, my use of single-cause fallacy was a backwards one, the inverse if you will.

The presence of other factors on Earth, such as the oceans and the ice caps (to name a few obvious ones) precludes the analogy of greenhouse effects having a similar effect on the climate - that of stabilization. Without even getting into the particulars (as some posters already have, e.g. ocean currents).

 

[BasketCase]

Wrong. Greenhouse gases are the first barrier to the entry of the Sun's energy. It is greenhouse gases that reduce or prevent the effects of ice caps and oceans (and other "particulars:.... ) not the other way around.

Besides, the Earth's tilt is decreasing and that means a cooling for the higher latitudes, we'll need those ghg in the atmosphere to help distribute heat away from the equator. Even the AGW crowd acknowledges the poles will warm more than the equator (thereby reducing the temperature differences between air masses and the fuel storms need).

Zerk, you can cite Venus as proof of your claims, too. That planet's poles are just as warm as the equator. Why? Because of the planet's greenhouse gas envelope. (Venus is like my favorite planet right now...... )

 

[Berzerker]

currents distribute heat, you're still avoiding BC's point about the ghg atmosphere of Venus doing it so effectively the day time and night time aint that different.