An expert explains why we are where we are with AGW alarmism today

[Buzz]

Incorrect, only ignorant fools and science denying morons claim NASA is full of shit.

Who is claiming NASA is full of shit? Not me. All I am claiming is that the graph you are citing does not say that all the warming the planet has seen since 1880 is only 0.51°C. Too bad you don't know how to read graphs because if you did you would know I am correct.

 

[Buzz]

So you think that I am wrong but cannot prove it, I think that means that what you think is a belief!

I don't need to come up with a specific number to prove you wrong. Logic is all that is needed.

The question was what amount of negative aerosol forcing needs to be subtracted from the 0.105°C of greenhouse gas forcing between 2011 and 2020?
While the SPM does not have the data supporting the graph, we can see that roughly - 0.4°C is subtracted from 1.5°C to arrive at the total Human influence of 1.1°C, or 26.6% over the last century.
This would mean that using IPCC AR6's numbers for aerosols the calculated forcing between 2011 and 2020 would be 73.3% of 0.105°C or .0769C.
Since the IPCC says it warmed 0.1°C between 2011 and 2020, and forcing positive and negative accounts for .0769°C,
then the only remaining unknown (which could be applied to feedbacks) is 0.023°C, from an input warming of 0.98°C (warming to 2011).
Remember that 100% of the ECS type feedback is already included in the recorded temperatures to 2011?

View attachment 67356847

You are getting this all completely backward. The negative forcing from aerosols have already been removed. So... if you want to just assess the warming from GHGs and their feedbacks you would need to add back the warming that was removed by the aerosols. Take your cited IPCC graph. The warming from just GHGs is larger than the total that is lower due to the negative forcings from aerosols.

Damn long... as many times as we have discussed this kind of thing one would think you understand the subject. But obviously, you don't.

 

[Nickyjo]

Ya do realize that the guy linked in the OP is one of the worlds leading atmospheric physicists with over 200+ published papers and 30 years teaching it at MIT

But what the hell would he know .... right ?

And I realize that equally qualified scientists disagree with him. Go figure. Let him go to Glasgow and present his info. But this seems like Prager Paranoia to me.

But tell me, what aside from Soros-funded Sierra Club hippies bent on world domination has caused all the countries of the world to be concerned about this hoax? Why do oil company websites admit that fossil fuels are affecting the climate? I would rather be saving whales than worried about climate change, so disprove the generally accepted science. I am sure there were scientists assuring us that tobacco was harmless, that auto emissions didn’t cause smog. There was even a famous fool that said that windmills cause cancer. No wonder Don Quixote attacked them. As someone said, believe it was Sen. McCain, if human caused climate change is real, we should do certain things. If it’s not the case, much of what is suggested is advisable for us to do anyway.

 

[Buzz]

I was pointing out is id more complicated and that your remarks were wrong.

Yes it is even more complicate that that. I'm glad you agree you misspoke earlier.

Where, exactly was I wrong, or did I agree that I misspoke? I didn't. You are just lying again.

 

[Buzz]

No fella he got you fair and square

Well... it looks like Glitch isn't the only denialist around here who doesn't know how to read a graph.

 

[longview]

I don't need to come up with a specific number to prove you wrong. Logic is all that is needed.

Then present the logic, that validates that the feedback factor of 2.72 exists within one of the temperature datasets?
Remember the only way for 2XCO2 forcing of 1.1°C to become 3°C of total warming, is if there is a 2.72 feedback factor?

You are getting this all completely backward. The negative forcing from aerosols have already been removed. So... if you want to just assess the warming from GHGs and their feedbacks you would need to add back the warming that was removed by the aerosols. Take your cited IPCC graph. The warming from just GHGs is larger than the total that is lower due to the negative forcings from aerosols.


Damn long... as many times as we have discussed this kind of thing one would think you understand the subject. But obviously, you don't.

Buzz, the only thing in question is the amount of total feedbacks in the last decade, 2011 to 2020.
The recorded temperature in 2011 is inclusive of all of the feedbacks, both positive and negative,
The only unknown is how much of the 0.1°C of warming between 2011 and 2020 is from forcing vs feedbacks.
NOAA's AGGI says that the increase in greenhouse gasses should force 0.105°C of warming, which does not include the possible negative aerosol forcing.
The IPCC graph lists the long term ratio of aerosol negative forcing to warming at 26.6%, so the most the negative forcing could do,
is to decrease the 0.105°C by 26.6% down to 0.077°C.
So even accounting for the negative aerosol forcing, only 0.022°C of unknown warming exists that could possibly be positive feedback,
but it would be feedback to all the warming up to 2011, so the feedback factor cannot be 2.72!

 

[longview]

And I realize that equally qualified scientists disagree with him. Go figure. Let him go to Glasgow and present his info. But this seems like Prager Paranoia to me.

But tell me, what aside from Soros-funded Sierra Club hippies bent on world domination has caused all the countries of the world to be concerned about this hoax? Why do oil company websites admit that fossil fuels are affecting the climate? I would rather be saving whales than worried about climate change, so disprove the generally accepted science. I am sure there were scientists assuring us that tobacco was harmless, that auto emissions didn’t cause smog. There was even a famous fool that said that windmills cause cancer. No wonder Don Quixote attacked them. As someone said, believe it was Sen. McCain, if human caused climate change is real, we should do certain things. If it’s not the case, much of what is suggested is advisable for us to do anyway.

It is not that Human cause climate change is not real, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing the level will cause some warming.
The question is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2? If our annual emissions of ~9.6GtC will only cause 1.5°C of average warming over 180 years,
it is not any different than the warming we have all observed in our lifetimes.
If, on the other have the the increases would cause 4.5°C of warming in that same time period, it could be a real problem.
Thankfully, based on the observed warming, the sensitivity appears to be at the extreme low end of the scale.
We are at 57% of the effect of doubling the CO2 level, an have only observed 1.1°C of warming, which if 100% were from the increases in CO2,
would mean that doubling the level in small steps, would only produce about 1.92°C of total warming, spread on 180 years.
The reality is that 100% of the observed warming is not from CO2 only. Roughly 0.31°C is from increases in other greenhouse gasses.

 

[bluesmoke]

If a person has over 200 per reviewed publication on the topic of climate, should one be surprised if there is a rejection in the group?
The fact remains that, the high feedback factors needed for a doubling of CO2 to be 3 C or higher, cannot be demonstrated with the observed temperature data!

The fact remains that whatever you and Lindzen say does not change the position of the science community on ACC, incl estimates of future warming. I'm sticking with what they say, not what you and Lindzen say, except that I agree with Lindzen with the elementary tenets of climate science, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. Only I think it does warm the climate, not just should.

 

[longview]

The fact remains that whatever you and Lindzen say does not change the position of the science community on ACC, incl estimates of future warming. I'm sticking with what they say, not what you and Lindzen say, except that I agree with Lindzen with the elementary tenets of climate science, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. Only I think it does warm the climate, not just should.

Do you understand that the scientific consensus does not include a sensitivity!

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, he takes a reasonable approach.

I couldn't find any of his quotes on that. I believe his view is on "second hand smoke." Not smoking. I could be wrong, but can you please find a credible source if you are going to contend that?

Yes, Lindzen takes a reasonable approach that result in stupid mistakes and embarrassment.

' "In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking." James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." '

(see section On Tobacco):

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, Lindzen takes a reasonable approach that result in stupid mistakes and embarrassment.

' "In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking." James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." '

(see section On Tobacco):

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

Again, that is information someone else is claiming. Where are Lindzen's actual quotes?

And again, all I can find in credible quotes is him saying this about "passive smoking." Passive smoking is second hand smoking. Why does the left continue top repeat lies from pundits?

I suggest you find his actual quotes. Not what someone else is claiming he said.

Are lies all you guys can discredit him with?

 

[Threegoofs]

Again, that is information someone else is claiming. Where are Lindzen's actual quotes?

And again, all I can find in credible quotes is him saying this about "passive smoking." Passive smoking is second hand smoking. Why does the left continue top repeat lies from pundits?

I suggest you find his actual quotes. Not what someone else is claiming he said.

Are lies all you guys can discredit him with?

So now a reporters story in Newsweek is a ‘lie’ because you don’t like what it says?

Classic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So now a reporters story in Newsweek is a ‘lie’ because you don’t like what it says?

Classic.

Let them give proper sourcing. Until then, it is hearsay.

Again, I only know of him specifying "passive smoking."

Prove me wrong. I dare you. Hold on to the lies other people tell you like normal.

 

[flogger]

Well... it looks like Glitch isn't the only denialist around here who doesn't know how to read a graph.

OK then what is this 'ideal' global mean temperature and why would it better than what we already have ? What are your 'solutions' to this 'problem' and what peer reviewed scientific evidence do you have that if implemented they would make the slightest difference to temperature ?

 

[Ug make hammer]

I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious

I've got to Group 2 "scientists who believe there are many causes of climate change". Already there's a false definition, since group 1 do not deny this.
Point 4 "only since the 1960's have emissions been sufficient to cause warming, observed since the 19th C" This is wrong. Carbon has increased all that time. Possibly land clearing is being ignored.
Point 5 "no prediction can be made" yet he quotes IPCC 2007
Now we get into characterizing the motives of politicians, activists and media. This is just embarassingly stupid, I have no further comment.
"The climate will have the final word" is so smug and callous towards humanity, it's hard to believe Lindzen wasn't professor of Economics.

Lindzen signs off as "emeritus professort at MIT" though he hasn't held that job since 2013 (look up "emeritus professor" to see the true hypocrisy of this). Since then he's worked for Cato and PragerU. I wonder how such privately funded thinktanks fit into his model of Scientist, Skeptic Scientist, Politician, Activist and Media. Is it above, or below, Media?

 

[flogger]

I've got to Group 2 "scientists who believe there are many causes of climate change". Already there's a false definition, since group 1 do not deny this.
Point 4 "only since the 1960's have emissions been sufficient to cause warming, observed since the 19th C" This is wrong. Carbon has increased all that time. Possibly land clearing is being ignored.
Point 5 "no prediction can be made" yet he quotes IPCC 2007
Now we get into characterizing the motives of politicians, activists and media. This is just embarassingly stupid, I have no further comment.
"The climate will have the final word" is so smug and callous towards humanity, it's hard to believe Lindzen wasn't professor of Economics.

Lindzen signs off as "emeritus professort at MIT" though he hasn't held that job since 2013 (look up "emeritus professor" to see the true hypocrisy of this). Since then he's worked for Cato and PragerU. I wonder how such privately funded thinktanks fit into his model of Scientist, Skeptic Scientist, Politician, Activist and Media. Is it above, or below, Media?

What bit did he get wrong then ?

 

[Ug make hammer]

What bit did he get wrong then ?

Despite his calm "scientific" tone, he's arguing politics for most of the piece. That's where he went wrong.

Still, I don't have the academic reputation he has, so it would be false commiseration to speak of his academic career and what a sad end it is coming to!

Even such great scientists as Einstein have been tempted to give opinions outside their field (he exaggerated the harm of fallout btw) but in the end, other scientists don't judge them for it. They may learn from it.

 

[Nickyjo]

Have to repeat what I have mentioned before: a- skeptics, get thee to Glasgow later this month, submit papers, hold an alternative conference, bring snowballs, prove your case, convince governments to change course, and end all this foolishness; b- can anyone explain how seemingly all the nations of the world, the democrats and a significant chunk of the GOP, some oil companies (judging from their websites) all drank the same Kool-Aid?; c- and of course explain the ominous signs we were told to expect, like fires in the US west and even in Siberia, more serious storms, etc., that seems to be happening.

Not sure which denial will persevere on the US right wing: of climate change or Biden’s 2020 victory.

 

[watsup]

I have answered this and similar questions by you a bazillion times. Just how bad is your memory?

Please stop trolling me.

Psychological projection BIGTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[watsup]

Look. I have shown why what they say is wrong before. I have long ago quoted from each study they used on the consensus for example. Explained it. Not my problem you don't have the scientific competency to understand.

What good would it be for me to explain it in detail again? You will just deny it again.

Please stop harassing me.

Psychological projection BIGTIME! That's two in a row. Please quit trolling the moderators to try to make them think that another chatter is violating the rules when he's clearly not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Psychological projection BIGTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

recycled meme.

 

[Ug make hammer]

recycled meme.

Put in a little more effort, or just give up posting. You'll thank me for the advice!

 

[Deuce]

Then present the logic, that validates that the feedback factor of 2.72 exists within one of the temperature datasets?
Remember the only way for 2XCO2 forcing of 1.1°C to become 3°C of total warming, is if there is a 2.72 feedback factor?

Buzz, the only thing in question is the amount of total feedbacks in the last decade, 2011 to 2020.
The recorded temperature in 2011 is inclusive of all of the feedbacks, both positive and negative,
The only unknown is how much of the 0.1°C of warming between 2011 and 2020 is from forcing vs feedbacks.
NOAA's AGGI says that the increase in greenhouse gasses should force 0.105°C of warming, which does not include the possible negative aerosol forcing.
The IPCC graph lists the long term ratio of aerosol negative forcing to warming at 26.6%, so the most the negative forcing could do,
is to decrease the 0.105°C by 26.6% down to 0.077°C.
So even accounting for the negative aerosol forcing, only 0.022°C of unknown warming exists that could possibly be positive feedback,
but it would be feedback to all the warming up to 2011, so the feedback factor cannot be 2.72!

Will you stop with the goddamned napkin math. You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Will you stop with the goddamned napkin math. You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

Ironically, the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies to capable people too. So you're complaining that longview isn't dumbing it down enough for you, with the napkin math.

Or more bluntly: don't complain about napkin math unless you're up for the real thing.

 

[longview]

Will you stop with the goddamned napkin math. You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

What you are missing, is that is science, the simple concepts, the first approximations, have to work, before the more detailed work.
Later detail only improves the accuracy of the first approximation.
The climate will most likely respond the warming, the same way it has always responded to warming!
The climate feedbacks have no way of knowing what cause the warming, Human or natural,
and will respond as they always have to input warming.