• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has the AGW "consensus" come to an end?

sawyerloggingon said:
AGW scientist draw or at least drew a direct correlation between C02 levels and temps, now that the correlation isn't there they and you are falling over yourselves to say there just may be other factors involved and C02 levels may just not be the primary driver of climate. Slowly but surly you are coming around to reality. First you changed global warming to climate change and now you are admitting that C02 may be nothing more than a bit player in a very complex system as us non warmers have been saying for years now.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken about this supposed idea in the AGW crowd of a direct correlation. That was a straw man erected by fools in the right wing echo chamber, and believed by fools who listen to them. And now, you are believing you have had some kind of a "victory" over AGW because it didn't fulfill the terms of the straw man.

But I have asked you not what you think of the scientists thoughts. I have invited you to once think for yourself. I will do it once again: If there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the greenhouse effect longer term, yet there also still remains shorter term influences strong enough to cause shorter term variability, what would you expect the temperature record to look like?

You are capable to answer the question. You are aware that these shorter term influences exist and that they should not disappear if a longer term influence were to become important. Does it seem rational to you that anyone would predict that any temperature increase due to CO2 would be a smooth rise?

It doesn't seem rational to climate scientists either, and so they did not predict a smooth rise. It is sad that many believed that they did, because that belief is making fools out of people who listened to and believed such dishonesty.

There are other ways that AGW could be disproven, but this route you are parroting is not one of them.
 
Dezaad said:
Your problem is you think you've said something intelligent. Be silent and you'll be on the right track.
Click to expand...

That's what you've got??? Pitiful.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You mean like the consensus of the past, that the world was flat?
Click to expand...

No, I mean I suspect he doesn't know what the word really means because he's using it in a context that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you took another poll of climatologists and saw that a smaller percentage of them endorsed the prevailing AGW concepts, you'd have evidence that the consensus was "coming to an end."

The article he linked doesn't show evidence that this has occurred.
 
Jack Hays said:
"The Economist" is, by a wide margin, the most prestigious English language news magazine in the world.
Click to expand...

Don't know about that prestige or margin, but you're still missing the key part where it's a news magazine. You are reading an article written by a guy with a philosophy degree regarding the goings on in climatology. He tossed you a couple anecdotes and you accepted his narrative. Thankfully, real science undergoes a more rigorous process.

This isn't unique to climatology. Journalism regarding science is universally terrible. Also, I should point out that this is a blog posted on the Economist website.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
You are mistaken about this supposed idea in the AGW crowd of a direct correlation. That was a straw man erected by fools in the right wing echo chamber, and believed by fools who listen to them. And now, you are believing you have had some kind of a "victory" over AGW because it didn't fulfill the terms of the straw man.

But I have asked you not what you think of the scientists thoughts. I have invited you to once think for yourself. I will do it once again: If there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the greenhouse effect longer term, yet there also still remains shorter term influences strong enough to cause shorter term variability, what would you expect the temperature record to look like?

You are capable to answer the question. You are aware that these shorter term influences exist and that they should not disappear if a longer term influence were to become important. Does it seem rational to you that anyone would predict that any temperature increase due to CO2 would be a smooth rise?

It doesn't seem rational to climate scientists either, and so they did not predict a smooth rise. It is sad that many believed that they did, because that belief is making fools out of people who listened to and believed such dishonesty.

There are other ways that AGW could be disproven, but this route you are parroting is not one of them.
Click to expand...

If you are of the view that there is no direct correlation between C02 and climate we have nothing to argue about, we are on the same side of the issue.:peace
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you are of the view that there is no direct correlation between C02 and climate we have nothing to argue about, we are on the same side of the issue.:peace
Click to expand...

So you agree there is a strong correlation, but not a direct one? Excellent.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Where did I say that? You must mean you think there is a strong correlation so now you are changing your story again. That was a very short period of agreement.:lol:
Click to expand...

I thought you said that if I think there is no direct correlation then we have nothing to argue about, and yet now you say we do, even though I do agree that the correlation is not direct. It is you that is changing your story.

So, how about a real dialogue instead of silly games?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you are of the view that there is no direct correlation between C02 and climate we have nothing to argue about, we are on the same side of the issue.:peace
Click to expand...

A correlation can exist and not be perfect (or "direct") It would be imperfect if there were othe influences in addition to the one under discussion. So, I doubt we agree, even though we both believe the correlation is imperfect.
 
Dezaad said:
A correlation can exist and not be perfect (or "direct") It would be imperfect if there were othe influences in addition to the one under discussion. So, I doubt we agree, even though we both believe the correlation is imperfect.
Click to expand...

Hey your the one back tracking on the correlation between climate and C02, I have been very consistent in saying C02 may well be a factor in climate but there are so many factors that it is a minor player and basing our energy policy on C02 levels is absurd. Warmers who have been obsessed with C02 being the primary driver of climate have been chastened by recent events and may have to face reality soon. You are a good example of this by now accepting the fact that many other things besides C02 effect climate and your backing down is a mentally healthy thing, you are on the right track.:)
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Hey your the one back tracking on the correlation between climate and C02, I have been very consistent in saying C02 may well be a factor in climate but there are so many factors that it is a minor player and basing our energy policy on C02 levels is absurd. Warmers who have been obsessed with C02 being the primary driver of climate have been chastened by recent events and may have to face reality soon. You are a good example of this by now accepting the fact that many other things besides C02 effect climate and your backing down is a mentally healthy thing, you are on the right track.:)
Click to expand...

Can you show me where I ever said the correlation between CO2 and average temp was perfect? After you fail at that, I will expect to see the words "I guess you are not backtracking after all." But it is irrelevant if you think I am.

And then, Can you show me where any climate scientist said anything like that, either? You have either misunderstood what you have read or you have listening to the wrong people.

I have already characterized our disagreement. We disagree on the weight of the influence of CO2 as opposed to the other shorter term influences. I have demonstrated that human emmissions of co2 could result in AGW where we might see a pause that looks like the average temp for the last 15 years. You have declined to deny that this would be a logical outcome. You should concede defeat on that point so that we can move on to the next argument about AGW.

The last 15 years of relatively stable temps fits into the model for AGW since AGW models would all anticipate pauses like this. Nothing has changed in climate science models to accommodate this reality, and nothing would need to.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm comfortable sharing the same understanding as "The Economist.":peace
Click to expand...
Nothing like agreeing with a journalist instead of a scientist when it comes to science. :lol:
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
Hey your the one back tracking on the correlation between climate and C02, I have been very consistent in saying C02 may well be a factor in climate but there are so many factors that it is a minor player and basing our energy policy on C02 levels is absurd. Warmers who have been obsessed with C02 being the primary driver of climate have been chastened by recent events and may have to face reality soon. You are a good example of this by now accepting the fact that many other things besides C02 effect climate and your backing down is a mentally healthy thing, you are on the right track.:)
Click to expand...

You are confusing "the primary driver of the observed trend in a particular period" with "the primary driver of climate always," I think.

And if you think anyone on the AGW side has ever ignored the fact that other factors exist and are important, you're just being foolish and ignorant. If that's the case, you should read up a lot more actual climate research and then maybe you'll understand a bit more about all the variables being considered. But, alas, you can only lead a horse to water...
 
Dezaad said:
Can you show me where I ever said the correlation between CO2 and average temp was perfect? After you fail at that, I will expect to see the words "I guess you are not backtracking after all." But it is irrelevant if you think I am.

And then, Can you show me where any climate scientist said anything like that, either? You have either misunderstood what you have read or you have listening to the wrong people.

I have already characterized our disagreement. We disagree on the weight of the influence of CO2 as opposed to the other shorter term influences. I have demonstrated that human emmissions of co2 could result in AGW where we might see a pause that looks like the average temp for the last 15 years. You have declined to deny that this would be a logical outcome. You should concede defeat on that point so that we can move on to the next argument about AGW.

The last 15 years of relatively stable temps fits into the model for AGW since AGW models would all anticipate pauses like this. Nothing has changed in climate science models to accommodate this reality, and nothing would need to.
Click to expand...

Can you show me those models? The only so called predictions of this "pause" I can find are retrospective CYA so called predictions. Can you show me when this was predicted ahead of the event?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Can you show me those models? The only so called predictions of this "pause" I can find are retrospective CYA so called predictions. Can you show me when this was predicted ahead of the event?
Click to expand...

It's called 'confidence intervals'. You can't predict a random pause in warming, unless you could have expected solar activity dropped as much as it has.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's called 'confidence intervals'. You can't predict a random pause in warming, unless you could have expected solar activity dropped as much as it has.
Click to expand...

I'm really looking for this "model" all the warmers are referring to that say this was predicted. All I can find is sites where they say "our models predicted this" but then they never present those models from oh so many years ago to verify their statement. I think what you are seeing and admitting here is that the sun is the primary driver of climate. That seems obvious to most of us but to hard core warmers it seems to be a revelation. There are a multitude of things that effect weather C02 likely being one of them but nothing compares to the sun. If it suddenly burned a few percentage points higher we would burn up, if it suddenly burned a few percentage points cooler we would go into an immediate ice age. Fortunately the sun seems to stay in the one-tenth of one percent range but even that effects the earth. Nothing compares with the sun and everything but the sun itself are side issues. The fact is the climate is going to do what it is going to do and even if we tried to we could do nothing more than very slightly tweak it.
 
Maybe if I type it slower?

C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s ?

The models take variability into account. The warming we've seen is within confidence intervals.
 
The consensus has not dissipated among the scientific community. The forthcoming IPCC report will reaffirm the strong level of confidence concerning the role of anthropogenic factors on climate change.

What one has seen in recent years is a slowing of the warming on the surface. Some have grabbed onto that idea as proof for their contrarian beliefs.

The earth's large and persistent energy imbalance is leading to warming at three areas: lower atmosphere, surface, and oceans. The lower atmosphere has warmed most slowly. The surface is undergoing a slowdown in the warming, but a reversal. In part, much of the recent period has been dominated by neutral ENSO or La Niña conditions, not to mention the cold cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The global land and surface anomalies were the warmest on record for the most recent strong La Niña.

If the consensus were wrong, then one should be unable to find the warming throughout the earth's climate system. However, if one goes to the oceans, one finds aggressive warming has been continuing, particularly below 700 meters (0-2000m warming > 0-700 m warming).

NODC07252013_zps06cc9242.jpg


A recent paper that highlights the strong warming in the deep ocean can be found at: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

In sum, a look at the entire climate system shows that ongoing warming is continuing unabated. For at least the time being, much of that warming is occurring in the deep ocean.
 
Has the AGW "consensus" come to an end?
Click to expand...

No; and neither has the AGW-denier nonsense come to an end, it seems. Party on. Let non-scientists look for snippets they think trumps what the overwhelming majority of climate scientist studying the effect have to say.

Then choose which one to side with: scientists; pinheads.
 
In message #48, my sentence should read: "The surface is undergoing a slowdown in the warming, but not a reversal." I regret the error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom