CDZ A science based discussion concerning climate change

[Boston1]

Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.

The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.

Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.

While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.

The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.

What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )

The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.

How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address

Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I'll direct you to a friends website

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...

That is OPINION and not fact. Do you know the difference?

On the contrary its well established science corroborated through numerous studies. The footnotes and citations are extensive. Feel free to explore them and get back to us

 

[Boston1]

Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.

The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.

Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.

While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.

The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.

What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )

The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.

How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address

Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I'll direct you to a friends website

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...

A Real Climate.org link?

I thought you didn't want to politicize this debate and you are linking to a site by the AGW cult of Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Stephan Rahmstorf?

Well if anyone wants to read it better hurry before Real climate goes dark once again.

I can't imagine why anyone would refuse to listen to honest climate scientists on climate science. Of course they are the leading edge of the work in this field and of course they are best qualified to provide us with explanations concerning the science.

I've been lucky enough to work with many of these people and a harder working and more dedicated group could hardly be found elsewhere

Also I'd suggest looking up the term religion vs the term science.

Ones beliefs are based on faith and the others compelled by careful study and scrutiny of the science. Completely different motivating factors.

 

[Boston1]

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.

• Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
  
• Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems
  
• How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
  
• Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

There will always be a portion of climate change that is natural. All the typical cycles are still in place even if they are obscured by the recent CO2 forcing and now also CH4 is reacting as well.

 

[Boston1]

Well now wait a minute, Solar radiation is incoming but its measured in watts per meter as is the outgoing radiation. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I didn't mention anything about trapping or outgoing. although your comment was somewhat unclear. CO2 = a longer residency time of the total solar irradiation. Once again the data and experiments you are talking about are all extremely old science, say 125 years ago Arrhenius calculated the consequences of varying amounts of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. He eventually became the chair of the Nobel Prize Committee.

If you are trying to make a statement then please lets use standard weights and measures, otherwise you might as well be talking gibberish. If you are trying to pose a question, then kindly base it on a correct premise.

This is what you posted "Thats because you may not be aware of both long and short wave radiation. A greenhouse gas is such because it is of the right size and shape that it reflects a very specific type of radiation or frequency. The frequency of radiation that enters the atmosphere from the sun is different than the frequency of radiation that reflects from the earths surface"

you clearly stated different FREQ reflected vs. incoming. you implied GHG reflects differently each. You said it not me. Quit trying to twist and sping with big words. It does not matter what units one uses. 0.00394 or 394ppm...........I don't care what you call it, just show some proof GW from GHG is real.

I'm unclear on exactly what your complaint is. The frequency difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiant heat is the correct answer to your previous statement in which you seemed to be asking what the difference was.

 

[Boston1]

Maybe because life requires a specific range of temperature? Your whole rant depends on it.

Ah a specific range, thats good, we're making progress. So there is no specific tempurature that the earth is supposed to be as you asked initially ?

 

[leftwinger]

The Earth is surrounded by Atmosphere held in by gravity. A trace element of that is CO2 (0.0394% or 394ppm). The claim is that this trace element holds in reflected sunlight and causes Earth temp to rise.

This is difficult to simply "believe" without clear proof. 0.0394% of anything would seem negligible.

The atmospheric volume extends up to 6 miles with different layers? To convince normal Americans GW is caused by CO2 and not normal weather patterns will require more than words.

 

[TNHarley]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Yes, climate change has been real for billions of years. lol
What do we do about it is the question

 

[Boston1]

The Earth is surrounded by Atmosphere held in by gravity. A trace element of that is CO2 (0.0394% or 394ppm). The claim is that this trace element holds in reflected sunlight and causes Earth temp to rise.

This is difficult to simply "believe" without clear proof. 0.0394% of anything would seem negligible.

The atmospheric volume extends up to 6 miles with different layers? To convince normal Americans GW is caused by CO2 and not normal weather patterns will require more than words.

Explain it to the DMV

Quote

1. 
   All 50 states have now set .08% blood alcoholconcentration (BAC) as the legal limit for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired (DWI). For commercial drivers, a BAC of .04% can result in a DUI or DWI conviction nationwide.
   DUI & DWI Laws & Enforcement | DMV.org

End Quote

 

[westwall]

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.

• Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
  
• Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems
  
• How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
  
• Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

The first link is a MODEL. That means it is not factual data. Do you know what data is?

The second link is OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?

The third link is OPINION. See above.

The fourth link is OPINION. See above.

The fifth link is OPINION based on computer models which is yet again NOT DATA!

I am asking for some simple empirical evidence for your assertions and you can't present one bit. Do you not understand basic scientific protocols? Do you understand that science is only interested in facts, not opinions? Do you knwo the difference between opinion and fact?

From the first study:

"Here I show that the agreement between model results and observations for the past 1000 years is sufficiently compelling to allow one to conclude that natural variability plays only a subsidiary role in the 20th-century warming and that the most parsimonious explanation for most of the warming is that it is due to the anthropogenic increase in GHG."​

Reading the study, I see that they use data and they use modeling. They compare the data with the results of models.

As for the others, if you want to access the data that supported them, you'll need to refer to the references sections of them and obtain the documents referenced for that is where the data are. You don't think I'm going to give you a "data dump" do you? I think you are asking us to provide a "neat and tidy" paper that has all the data and the analysis "wrapped up with a bow" in one place. Does that even exist? Some things might come close, but to your satisfaction, I don't know. Did I not write "taken in total" when I provided the other links? That's why.

There are yet other sources of information/data (as with the earlier content, refer also to the references provided at these sites/with the documents):

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
  
• 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
• How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
• http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Yes, climate change has been real for billions of years. lol
What do we do about it is the question

Yes, and therein lies the crux of the issue. While climate is always changing its almost always changing within a certain set of parameters. Outside the normal RATE OF CHANGE the climate exceedes evolutionary forces and we have mass extinction like what was seen in the KT boundary extinction or the P-Tr. Except todays event is artificial. Man burned all that sequestered CO2 from fossil fuel reserves and screwed up the atmospheric chemistry.

 

[westwall]

Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.

The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.

Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.

While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.

The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.

What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )

The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.

How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address

Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I'll direct you to a friends website

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...

That is OPINION and not fact. Do you know the difference?

On the contrary its well established science corroborated through numerous studies. The footnotes and citations are extensive. Feel free to explore them and get back to us

No. It is you who need to show us compelling science to back up your claims. To date the entirety of AGW theory is based on computer models which the uneducated think are actually meaningful. Those of us with a scientific background however understand that models are not facts. As I said, you have no clue about science in general. Here's a fact. The oceans are the heat oceans of the planet. When the oceans are warmer the planet is warmer. UV radiation from the Sun penetrates to a depth of up to 500 meters and that is what heats the oceans. Long Wave Infra Red radiation (the mechanism that is claimed to be the source of the AGW warming) on the other hand is not even capable of penetrating the skin of the water. Any water. Thus you are trying to assert that a radiative source that can't even penetrate one millimeter into the oceans is responsible for warming the planet.

It fails in its first test. Those are known as facts.

 

[westwall]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Yes, climate change has been real for billions of years. lol
What do we do about it is the question

Yes, and therein lies the crux of the issue. While climate is always changing its almost always changing within a certain set of parameters. Outside the normal RATE OF CHANGE the climate exceedes evolutionary forces and we have mass extinction like what was seen in the KT boundary extinction or the P-Tr. Except todays event is artificial. Man burned all that sequestered CO2 from fossil fuel reserves and screwed up the atmospheric chemistry.

This is an outright lie. We are experiencing a exceptionally rare period of time where the climate is relatively benign. The history of this planet is far different from what you are claiming.

 

[JoeMoma]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

 

[Boston1]

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.

• Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
  
• Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems
  
• How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
  
• Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

The first link is a MODEL. That means it is not factual data. Do you know what data is?

The second link is OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?

The third link is OPINION. See above.

The fourth link is OPINION. See above.

The fifth link is OPINION based on computer models which is yet again NOT DATA!

I am asking for some simple empirical evidence for your assertions and you can't present one bit. Do you not understand basic scientific protocols? Do you understand that science is only interested in facts, not opinions? Do you knwo the difference between opinion and fact?

From the first study:

"Here I show that the agreement between model results and observations for the past 1000 years is sufficiently compelling to allow one to conclude that natural variability plays only a subsidiary role in the 20th-century warming and that the most parsimonious explanation for most of the warming is that it is due to the anthropogenic increase in GHG."​

Reading the study, I see that they use data and they use modeling. They compare the data with the results of models.

As for the others, if you want to access the data that supported them, you'll need to refer to the references sections of them and obtain the documents referenced for that is where the data are. You don't think I'm going to give you a "data dump" do you? I think you are asking us to provide a "neat and tidy" paper that has all the data and the analysis "wrapped up with a bow" in one place. Does that even exist? Some things might come close, but to your satisfaction, I don't know. Did I not write "taken in total" when I provided the other links? That's why.

There are yet other sources of information/data (as with the earlier content, refer also to the references provided at these sites/with the documents):

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
  
• 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
• How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
• http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

Any good theory should be able to predict. The theory of rapid global climate change has been doing so for around 125 years, and quite accurately.

see
3 First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896

Quote
A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.
End Quote

Scientists today estimate a doubling of CO2 will result in roughly the same 5~6° C

While the models used to predict this were written out by hand at the time they are really no different than models today that run on the same principals.

Speaking of computer models they represent predictions. Once a model has been calibrated to hindcast then it can be asked to forecast. The vast majority of the parameters these models have been asked to predict they have done so quite accurately. So again we have a proof of concept as well as verifiable success in the production process. The theory is sound.

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't imagine why anyone would refuse to listen to honest climate scientists on climate science. Of course they are the leading edge of the work in this field and of course they are best qualified to provide us with explanations concerning the science.

I've been lucky enough to work with many of these people and a harder working and more dedicated group could hardly be found elsewhere

Also I'd suggest looking up the term religion vs the term science.

Ones beliefs are based on faith and the others compelled by careful study and scrutiny of the science. Completely different motivating factors.

...And just what share of the population in the U.S. has any interest in "careful study" of much of anything?

Have you not noticed we live in a culture suffused with soundbites and tweets rather than one of personal scholarly research, logical debate and intellectually rigorous analysis? LOL Rare is the day when I don't see/hear someone complaining about handouts, yet with pitiful frequency are daily handed out brief little snippets of (mis) information telling ideologues what to think. This even as not one of the topics in those snippets can be well understood in 150 characters or less and the typical recipient has but a fleeting and vague recollection (if any awareness at all) of what a scholarly paper looks like or that Google Scholar even exists, to say nothing of actually using it.

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Yes, climate change has been real for billions of years. lol
What do we do about it is the question

Yes, and therein lies the crux of the issue. While climate is always changing its almost always changing within a certain set of parameters. Outside the normal RATE OF CHANGE the climate exceedes evolutionary forces and we have mass extinction like what was seen in the KT boundary extinction or the P-Tr. Except todays event is artificial. Man burned all that sequestered CO2 from fossil fuel reserves and screwed up the atmospheric chemistry.

This is an outright lie. We are experiencing a exceptionally rare period of time where the climate is relatively benign. The history of this planet is far different from what you are claiming.

Of course its not a lie. The additional CO2 within the atmosphere shows a distinct isotopic signature of having come from fossil fuels. Ergo we know that virtually ALL of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. An artificial influence created by man on the atmospheric chemistry.

I'm floored that anyone would suggest such strongly supported facts are a lie.

We can discuss the isotopic signature if you like. The evidence is however overwhelming

 

[Wyatt earp]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

 

[westwall]

I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.

I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.

• Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
  
• Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems
  
• How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
  
• Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

The first link is a MODEL. That means it is not factual data. Do you know what data is?

The second link is OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?

The third link is OPINION. See above.

The fourth link is OPINION. See above.

The fifth link is OPINION based on computer models which is yet again NOT DATA!

I am asking for some simple empirical evidence for your assertions and you can't present one bit. Do you not understand basic scientific protocols? Do you understand that science is only interested in facts, not opinions? Do you knwo the difference between opinion and fact?

From the first study:

"Here I show that the agreement between model results and observations for the past 1000 years is sufficiently compelling to allow one to conclude that natural variability plays only a subsidiary role in the 20th-century warming and that the most parsimonious explanation for most of the warming is that it is due to the anthropogenic increase in GHG."​

Reading the study, I see that they use data and they use modeling. They compare the data with the results of models.

As for the others, if you want to access the data that supported them, you'll need to refer to the references sections of them and obtain the documents referenced for that is where the data are. You don't think I'm going to give you a "data dump" do you? I think you are asking us to provide a "neat and tidy" paper that has all the data and the analysis "wrapped up with a bow" in one place. Does that even exist? Some things might come close, but to your satisfaction, I don't know. Did I not write "taken in total" when I provided the other links? That's why.

There are yet other sources of information/data (as with the earlier content, refer also to the references provided at these sites/with the documents):

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
  
• 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
• How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
• http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

Any good theory should be able to predict. The theory of rapid global climate change has been doing so for around 125 years, and quite accurately.

see
3 First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896

Quote
A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.
End Quote

Scientists today estimate a doubling of CO2 will result in roughly the same 5~6° C

While the models used to predict this were written out by hand at the time they are really no different than models today that run on the same principals.

Speaking of computer models they represent predictions. Once a model has been calibrated to hindcast then it can be asked to forecast. The vast majority of the parameters these models have been asked to predict they have done so quite accurately. So again we have a proof of concept as well as verifiable success in the production process. The theory is sound.

Yes. It is known that CO2 is a GHG. Well established. What has never been proven is that CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that exist in our atmosphere have any impact on global temperature. You are WAY off on the temperature increase possible with a doubling of the CO2 content. Where have you been? Even the IPCC has backed way off on their predictions and now only ascribe a one to two degree increase with a doubling of the CO2 content.

The computer models that you are so proud of are laughably bad. Here is just one of dozens of papers that have shown the AGW computer models to be so bad as to be worse than useless.



"We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[westwall]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Yes, climate change has been real for billions of years. lol
What do we do about it is the question

Yes, and therein lies the crux of the issue. While climate is always changing its almost always changing within a certain set of parameters. Outside the normal RATE OF CHANGE the climate exceedes evolutionary forces and we have mass extinction like what was seen in the KT boundary extinction or the P-Tr. Except todays event is artificial. Man burned all that sequestered CO2 from fossil fuel reserves and screwed up the atmospheric chemistry.

This is an outright lie. We are experiencing a exceptionally rare period of time where the climate is relatively benign. The history of this planet is far different from what you are claiming.

Of course its not a lie. The additional CO2 within the atmosphere shows a distinct isotopic signature of having come from fossil fuels. Ergo we know that virtually ALL of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. An artificial influence created by man on the atmospheric chemistry.

I'm floored that anyone would suggest such strongly supported facts are a lie.

We can discuss the isotopic signature if you like. The evidence is however overwhelming

Yes, it is a lie. What is the Residence Time of CO2? And since when does correlation equal causation? If you are going to talk about science how about following some of the rules of science and not propaganda.

 

[westwall]

I can't imagine why anyone would refuse to listen to honest climate scientists on climate science. Of course they are the leading edge of the work in this field and of course they are best qualified to provide us with explanations concerning the science.

I've been lucky enough to work with many of these people and a harder working and more dedicated group could hardly be found elsewhere

Also I'd suggest looking up the term religion vs the term science.

Ones beliefs are based on faith and the others compelled by careful study and scrutiny of the science. Completely different motivating factors.

...And just what share of the population in the U.S. has any interest in "careful study" of much of anything?

Have you not noticed we live in a culture suffused with soundbites and tweets rather than one of personal scholarly research, logical debate and intellectually rigorous analysis? LOL Rare is the day when I don't see/hear someone complaining about handouts, yet with pitiful frequency are daily handed out brief little snippets of (mis) information telling ideologues what to think. This even as not one of the topics in those snippets can be well understood in 150 characters or less and the typical recipient has but a fleeting and vague recollection (if any awareness at all) of what a scholarly paper looks like or that Google Scholar even exists, to say nothing of actually using it.

Climate science is based wholly on sound bites and computer models that have been proven to be worse than useless.