Evidence that global warming IS happening

[westwall]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography?

No, I don't. Do you have some evidence to support that?



No, I don't. Do you have some evidence to support THAT?



And you know this because... you've asked them all?



You seem to believe that you know geology better than do I. Is that belief based on some mystical power you possess? No. You believe it because you claim to have had a great deal more education in that field and claim to have done original research on geological topics. And that is why I believe that PhDs doing climate research, getting published in peer reviewed journals and getting cited by other PhDs doing climate research know more about the climate that those who do NONE of those things.

That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major.

1) We aren't talking about teaching classes
2) To my knowledge (and I imagine this will soon change) no college in the US offers a program in "climatology".
3) What you say is simply untrue.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.

A PhD from any field would be unable to teach upper level classes from any different field. There's a reason these subjects are separated. There's a reason you can't get a BS in "Science" or even "Physical Science" or "Natural Science". You've got an ego problem and it shows every time you try to push on us how incredibly tough a program is - ooooo - G E O L O G Y. Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty certain that not a single individual at this board buys that your contention is valid or that you have the life experience to even make it.

This one statement shows just how completely clueless you truly are. Thank you for the assist, I couldn't have made you look more like a fool than this. And just so you know... 2nd year classes are NOT UPPER LEVEL!

 

[Abraham3]

Really? Gosh, if only I could count to 4 I might have been able to figure that out.

"Become familiar with other names climatology studies fall under. Although a college degree is necessary, most colleges don't offer a "climatology" degree. Instead, climatology courses are offered through other degree programs.
Atmospheric science programs, the study of the atmosphere, might be the closest match to climatology.
Other majors that include climatology studies are environmental science, earth science, oceanography, hydrology, geography and meteorology."

How to Be a Climatologist: 5 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

"Meteorology and Climatology

Have you wondered what creates a hurricane? Why is there sometimes a rainbow after a storm? Our meteorology and climatology option can help you answer those questions and more.

If you plan on being the next budding meteorologist or have a strong interest in weather and climate, this option was designed for you. Our goal is to teach you the general principles of science in systematic investigations of earth-atmosphere system and subsystem dynamics and to train you in the use of technology (satellites, radar, automated weather observations, and numerical weather prediction) to analyze these systems on a variety of spatial and temporal scales

This option has been broken into two tracks to address a variety of career interests. If you’re considering a career where knowledge of operational meteorology and climatology somewhat relates to your job, then our general track would be your option, leading to careers in emergency management, environmental analysis, and transportation planning.

Our professional meteorologist track meets the American Meteorological Society (AMS) qualifications for the title "meteorologist" and Federal Civil Service requirements (GS1340) for employment by the National Weather Service.

If your goal is to be a broadcast meteorologist, we have several opportunities to help you learn. We work with our nationally recognized Department of Telecommunications to help you get comfortable in front of the camera. You will also have hands-on broadcast opportunities such as your own spot on Cardinal-Vision 57, Ball State’s student-run television station, or an opportunity with NewsLink Indiana, which delivers news to east central Indiana."

https://cms.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/geography/academicsadmissions/programs/bachelors/meteorologyclimatology

"Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have?
Bullseye asked 6 years ago
I always hear that GW advocates only take the word of climatologists-- weather forecasters, geologists, etc etc opinions don't count.

Here are the resumes-- and educational background for several "climatologists".
Personnel | Southeast Regional Climate Center

Until VERY recently universities did not teach "climate" as a stand-alone degree-------- so basically right now most folks claiming to be climatologists actually have degrees in other types of Earth sciences.
Additional Details
Edit-- so it appears that the current crop of "climatologists" are no different than physicists, mathematicians, geologists, and meteorologists-- or anyone else having multiple degrees in the physical sciences-- or a career in Earth "sciences".
6 years ago
Edit-- then why -- when a group of "Earth" scientists reject GW theory --- are they immediately rejected by the GW advocates?? with the statement, "they are not climatologists". Actually there is no such thing as a Climatologist!"

Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have? - Yahoo Answers

And so forth.

Clueless.

 

[westwall]

Really? Gosh, if only I could count to 4 I might have been able to figure that out.

"Become familiar with other names climatology studies fall under. Although a college degree is necessary, most colleges don't offer a "climatology" degree. Instead, climatology courses are offered through other degree programs.
Atmospheric science programs, the study of the atmosphere, might be the closest match to climatology.
Other majors that include climatology studies are environmental science, earth science, oceanography, hydrology, geography and meteorology."

How to Be a Climatologist: 5 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

"Meteorology and Climatology

Have you wondered what creates a hurricane? Why is there sometimes a rainbow after a storm? Our meteorology and climatology option can help you answer those questions and more.

If you plan on being the next budding meteorologist or have a strong interest in weather and climate, this option was designed for you. Our goal is to teach you the general principles of science in systematic investigations of earth-atmosphere system and subsystem dynamics and to train you in the use of technology (satellites, radar, automated weather observations, and numerical weather prediction) to analyze these systems on a variety of spatial and temporal scales

This option has been broken into two tracks to address a variety of career interests. If you’re considering a career where knowledge of operational meteorology and climatology somewhat relates to your job, then our general track would be your option, leading to careers in emergency management, environmental analysis, and transportation planning.

Our professional meteorologist track meets the American Meteorological Society (AMS) qualifications for the title "meteorologist" and Federal Civil Service requirements (GS1340) for employment by the National Weather Service.

If your goal is to be a broadcast meteorologist, we have several opportunities to help you learn. We work with our nationally recognized Department of Telecommunications to help you get comfortable in front of the camera. You will also have hands-on broadcast opportunities such as your own spot on Cardinal-Vision 57, Ball State’s student-run television station, or an opportunity with NewsLink Indiana, which delivers news to east central Indiana."

https://cms.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/geography/academicsadmissions/programs/bachelors/meteorologyclimatology

"Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have?
Bullseye asked 6 years ago
I always hear that GW advocates only take the word of climatologists-- weather forecasters, geologists, etc etc opinions don't count.

Here are the resumes-- and educational background for several "climatologists".
Personnel | Southeast Regional Climate Center

Until VERY recently universities did not teach "climate" as a stand-alone degree-------- so basically right now most folks claiming to be climatologists actually have degrees in other types of Earth sciences.
Additional Details
Edit-- so it appears that the current crop of "climatologists" are no different than physicists, mathematicians, geologists, and meteorologists-- or anyone else having multiple degrees in the physical sciences-- or a career in Earth "sciences".
6 years ago
Edit-- then why -- when a group of "Earth" scientists reject GW theory --- are they immediately rejected by the GW advocates?? with the statement, "they are not climatologists". Actually there is no such thing as a Climatologist!"

Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have? - Yahoo Answers

And so forth.

Clueless.

Yes, I agree you truly are clueless.

 

[Kosh]

Once again another failed thread from the AGW cult.

Global Warming will happen on this planet with or without humans.

CO2 does not drive climate.

AGW is farce based on religious dogma.

 

[SSDD]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.

No.



What disinformation and what "fraudelent" science?

We might begin with making predictions based on the AGW hypothesis when they remain unsure what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to CO2.

It demonstrates how broken the peer review process in climate pseudoscience is.

 

[Abraham3]

The question was addressed to Mr Wildcard. Are you Mr Wildcard?

 

[Abraham3]

Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.

No.
What disinformation and what "fraudelent" science?

We might begin with making predictions based on the AGW hypothesis when they remain unsure what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to CO2.

It demonstrates how broken the peer review process in climate pseudoscience is.

Well, I'm guessing Mr Wildcard will not be back to explain his comments, so let's deal with yours.

The precise value of either the transient or long term climate sensitivity has no bearing on the validity of AGW. You didn't say it did, but obviously you reject AGW.

The projections being made cover a wide range of parameters, the two most common being sensitivity and various emission scenarios. For some time now, the position of the IPCC, and thus of the community of climate scientists, has been that the most likely value for TRANSIENT sensitivity is 3C but that it possibly ranges from 2C to 4.5C.

Many of these parameters will never be known with great precision because they do not possess precise values. If you plan on taking no action till our knowledge has reached some arbitrary level of accuracy, you will never take action. Obviously, that is your core intent and has been all along. But, as a general policy for dealing with potential threats, endlessly waiting for improved data is the sort of policy that minimizes response cost at the expense of maximizing harm. Pardon me if I don't buy it.

PS: None of that is disinformation or fraudulent science. It is your effort to prevent any action that would harm fossil fuel industry profits regardless of the danger such inaction presents to humanity. That effort involves all manner of disinformation and has made use of a VERY high percentage of fraudulent science. I'm quite certain the world's climate scientists would agree with me. But you don't trust scientists, do you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Want to take action?

Accept nuclear
Invest big time in fusion

Both sides will agree and we can move forward.

 

[Theowl32]

Just go purchase your carbon credit and leave us rational thinkers alone.

Also, keep sticking with the left wing cliches....like big oil and capitalism being the reasons for the so called man made GW.

It obviously works on simple minds.

 

[SSDD]

The precise value of either the transient or long term climate sensitivity has no bearing on the validity of AGW. You didn't say it did, but obviously you reject AGW.

Of course it does as that is the basis for the GCM's operating based on the AGW hypothesis. That also explains their abject failure. GCM's with very low sensitivity to CO2 outperform those with higher sensitivity upon which alarmist claims are based.

projections being made cover a wide range of parameters, the two most common being sensitivity and various emission scenarios. For some time now, the position of the IPCC, and thus of the community of climate scientists, has been that the most likely value for TRANSIENT sensitivity is 3C but that it possibly ranges from 2C to 4.5C.

So you are saying that the predictions are based on a climate sensitivity with a margin of error of greater than 100%....the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero. The only effect CO2 has on the temperature is its addition to atmospheric pressure. The fact that CO2 has continued to rise for the past 17 years while temperatures have flatlined or dropped slightly is evidence that other factors that are not understood at all at this time are driving the temperature. How long must the temperature remain flat or drop before you can bring yourself to admit that CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the atmospheric pressure.

of these parameters will never be known with great precision because they do not possess precise values.

They are nothing more than fudge factors to plug into GCM's to get desired results to fuel the hoax.

you plan on taking no action till our knowledge has reached some arbitrary level of accuracy, you will never take action.

I am light years ahead of you....you have fallen for the hoax and I recognized it upon my first view of trenberth's cartoon energy budget. Every observation since has confirmed my initial position. You, on the other hand are apparently going to ride the hoax to the bitter end either from abject stupidity or fierce political motivation.

 

[mamooth]

The ENSO forecast keeps leaning more towards an El Nino forming in the summer.

Air temperatures lag the ENSO state by around 6 months, and 2014 started with a weak La Nina, so 2014 won't be a record breaking year. 2015, on the other hand, probably will be. And when that happens, denialists will instantly flip flip from "La Nina doesn't affect temps!" to "The new record high doesn't count because El Nino affected the temps!". And then they'll use 2015 as the new baseline to prove all post-2015 warming has stopped.

 

[Abraham3]

The validity of AGW requires only that transient climate sensitivity be a positive, non-zero number.

When you say "...the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero" are you suggesting that it is a variable? What was climate sensitivity between 1980 and 2000? How about between 1941 and 1979? How about between 1900 and 1940?

Just for your information, climate sensitivity is not always a climate model parameter. CMIP5, a coupled land-ocean-atmosphere GCM used by the IPCC, produces climate sensitivity as an output or emergent parameter. Essentially, it works the model to match reality and tells you what sensitivity is required to do so.

Let's look up a few terms. The first bit is from Wikipedia's article on climate sensitivity. The second is from AR4, though I assume there is an equivalent section in AR5. It likes 3C.

Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[4] This is a change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".[5] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.
A model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years. A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.
Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabilization, the ECS is more useful.
An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the effective climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity. This "may vary with forcing history and climate state".
A less commonly used concept, the Earth system sensitivity (ESS), can be defined which includes the effects of slower feedbacks, such as the albedo change from melting the large ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. These extra feedbacks make the ESS larger than the ECS — possibly twice as large — but also mean that it may well not apply to current conditions.

and

8.6.2.1 Definition of Climate Sensitivity

As defined in previous assessments (Cubasch et al., 2001) and in the Glossary, the global annual mean surface air temperature change experienced by the climate system after it has attained a new equilibrium in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is referred to as the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (unit is °C), and is often simply termed the ‘climate sensitivity’. It has long been estimated from numerical experiments in which an AGCM is coupled to a simple non-dynamic model of the upper ocean with prescribed ocean heat transports (usually referred to as ‘mixed-layer’ or ‘slab’ ocean models) and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled. In AOGCMs and non-steady-state (or transient) simulations, the ‘transient climate response’ (TCR; Cubasch et al., 2001) is defined as the global annual mean surface air temperature change (with respect to a ‘control’ run) averaged over a 20-year period centred at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% yr–1 compound CO2 increase scenario. That response depends both on the sensitivity and on the ocean heat uptake. An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity in transient climate change integrations is obtained from the ‘effective climate sensitivity’ (Murphy, 1995). It corresponds to the global temperature response that would occur if the AOGCM was run to equilibrium with feedback strengths held fixed at the values diagnosed at some point of the transient climate evolution. It is computed from the oceanic heat storage, the radiative forcing and the surface temperature change (Cubasch et al., 2001; Gregory et al., 2002).

The climate sensitivity depends on the type of forcing agents applied to the climate system and on their geographical and vertical distributions (Allen and Ingram, 2002; Sausen et al., 2002; Joshi et al., 2003). As it is influenced by the nature and the magnitude of the feedbacks at work in the climate response, it also depends on the mean climate state (Boer and Yu, 2003). Some differences in climate sensitivity will also result simply from differences in the particular radiative forcing calculated by different radiation codes (see Sections 10.2.1 and 8.6.2.3). The global annual mean surface temperature change thus presents limitations regarding the description and the understanding of the climate response to an external forcing. Indeed, the regional temperature response to a uniform forcing (and even more to a vertically or geographically distributed forcing) is highly inhomogeneous. In addition, climate sensitivity only considers the surface mean temperature and gives no indication of the occurrence of abrupt changes or extreme events. Despite its limitations, however, the climate sensitivity remains a useful concept because many aspects of a climate model scale well with global average temperature (although not necessarily across models), because the global mean temperature of the Earth is fairly well measured, and because it provides a simple way to quantify and compare the climate response simulated by different models to a specified perturbation. By focusing on the global scale, climate sensitivity can also help separate the climate response from regional variability.

 

[Abraham3]

For some reason, there's no THANKS button on the post this came from. Let me try it this way:

THANKS MAMOOTH!

The ENSO forecast keeps leaning more towards an El Nino forming in the summer.

Air temperatures lag the ENSO state by around 6 months, and 2014 started with a weak La Nina, so 2014 won't be a record breaking year. 2015, on the other hand, probably will be. And when that happens, denialists will instantly flip flip from "La Nina doesn't affect temps!" to "The new record high doesn't count because El Nino affected the temps!". And then they'll use 2015 as the new baseline to prove all post-2015 warming has stopped.

 

[SSDD]

The validity of AGW requires only that transient climate sensitivity be a positive, non-zero number.

When you say "...the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is nearing zero" are you suggesting that it is a variable? What was climate sensitivity between 1980 and 2000? How about between 1941 and 1979? How about between 1900 and 1940?

As i said, it is nearing zero. Its only contribution to the temperature is it's contribution to atmospheric pressure.

The AGW hypothesis just took another hit with a recent release of information by the MET in the UK. They find a significant global increase in specific humidity and a significant global decrease in relative humidity. Climate models based on the physics of the AGW hypothesis assume that while the climate warms, relative humidity will remain constant while specific humidity increases. Observation disproves this prediction time and time again.

Any idea who predicted precisely what would, in reality happen? Miskolczi's hypothesis predicted what would happen and guess what? It happened.

Here: From the MET:

HadISDH: Global land surface humidity monitoring from HadOBS (Met Office Hadley Centre): Quicklook decadal trends from direct PHA homogenised T, Td, Tw, e, q and RH from 1973 to 2012

Clip: Specific Humidity

There are widespread significant moistening trends across the globe, especially over the Tropics. These are less pervasive as the moistening trends shown for dewpoint temperature. They are very similar to trends in vapour pressure but not identical.....

Relative Humidity

There are widespread significant decreasing trends in relative humidity across the globe, especially over the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes. This may be referred to as drying which is confusing when all other moisture variables show moistening....

Miscolczi actually has a grasp of the physics and developed a hypothesis which actual observation bears out....as well as the fact that adding additional so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere do nothing.

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect

Clip: The GHE is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical.
All the General Circulation Models, also known as Global Climate Models (GCM), just set various evaporation and precipitation parameters to achieve approximately the result:
Relative humidity = constant.

This result is based on short term observations of temperature changes while CO2 concentrations were approximately constant, so they only hold true over periods when CO2 does not change much. It is invalid to extrapolate these observations to long term periods with increasing CO2. The modellers just assume relative humidity is also constant while CO2 concentrations change.

There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. This violates fundamental energy conservation laws. There are not separate energy balance equations for different greenhouse gases. There is not one set for water vapor, and a different set for CO2; there is one set of energy balance equations for the total atmosphere including all greenhouse gases. So it makes no sense to assign an arbitrary rule for one of the greenhouse gases.

 

[SSDD]

For some reason, there's no THANKS button on the post this came from. Let me try it this way:

THANKS MAMOOTH!

And when the high temps don't materialize, what will be your excuse then?

 

[Abraham3]

Excuse? From what would I need an excuse?

 

[SSDD]

Excuse? From what would I need an excuse?

Right...you, as always will simply ignore observation and continue to wail that the sky is falling.

 

[Abraham3]

So, given the definition of Transient Climate Sensitivity I provided, explain how you conclude that it is "approaching zero". Read them carefully. I'm not sure I understand what they're saying.

And keep in mind that the Greenhouse Effect is small (~1W/m^2) and while it has a significant effect over time, it can be fairly easily overriden by other, transient influences. So that while the transient climate sensitivity of the system is relatively constant, but it may be difficult to see in the noise.

 

[Kosh]

Excuse? From what would I need an excuse?

The fact that you can not post datasets with source code to prove that CO2 drives climate as your religion says it does.

 

[SSDD]

So, given the definition of Transient Climate Sensitivity I provided, explain how you conclude that it is "approaching zero". Read them carefully. I'm not sure I understand what they're saying.

I have been sure that you actually understand next to nothing for quite some time now. Aproaching zero = no effect. The idea that CO2 can cause warming is an idiot's belief.

keep in mind that the Greenhouse Effect is small (~1W/m^2) and while it has a significant effect over time, it can be fairly easily overriden by other, transient influences. So that while the transient climate sensitivity of the system is relatively constant, but it may be difficult to see in the noise.

There is nothing but noise....no CO2 signature in the climate whatsoever...it is a hoax...a scam...a fabrication....invented by charlatans and believed by idiots.