Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[JAD_333]

There's a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. No amount of rhetorical argument, cherry picked or misrepresentation of science, is going to convince anyone otherwise (that excludes, of course, the political right).

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

BTW, welcome to the WAB, Solastalgia.

We're happy to see all views expressed here. I would, however, caution you not to take a sarcastic tone, as you did in your reply to Officer of Engineers in a previous post. Unless you are a scientist with irrefutable proof of your convictions, which you can share here, you will be challenged. Keep your replies respectful. Remember, you cannot win an argument if you do not understand the other side's POV. And remember lack of definitive proof explains the lack of unanimity on this topic. Most of all, enjoy the give and take.

[Wooglin]

There's a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. No amount of rhetorical argument, cherry picked or misrepresentation of science, is going to convince anyone otherwise (that excludes, of course, the political right).

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Dana Nuccitelli, also skepiticalscience website hack. The survey was so ridiculous that even the AGW crowd was bashing it.
Are you just going to parrot SKS crap here?

[Wooglin]

Well, we can start with a paper published in the journal Science in 1981 that has been proven correct on it's predictions for AGW.
1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

Here's an article from The Guardian about a paper published in Nature Geoscience proving that early AGW prediction models have been proven accurate.
Global warming predictions prove accurate | Environment | theguardian.com



This is the #1 global warming denial myth. I recommend you go over this list of the most common climate myths propagated by deniers, before you continue to parrot talking points that can be heard on Fox News 24/7.





I've been hearing your AGW denial nonsense for the past 20 years as well. I've specifically been hearing the nonsense argument that you're making - that winter disproves AGW - on Fox News for the past few months (not to mention from dingbat Donald Trump and Sarah Palin).

You've seen as much snowfall as you did 45 years ago? Wow, some scientist you are there, sir.

I don't know where you live, but here in the US, we've been setting snowfall records right and left over this past winter.

In the midwest: Midwesterncities breaking snow records this January - UPI.com

On the east coast: U.S. East Shovels Record Snow as Temperatures Plunge - Bloomberg

Record drought on the west coast: Record Driest Year in California, Parts of Oregon - weather.com

By the way, before you say that large amount of snow disproves AGW, read this: Does record snowfall disprove global warming?

Some scientist he is? You're getting your "facts" from a cartoonist who is a paid GW advocate there genius. Well done.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

As for model predictions being accurate over the last 15 years... well you've either got to show me the models that predicted no warming trend for the last 15+ years or deny there's been no warming trend for the last 15+ years, which the IPCC fully acknowledges. Either way, good luck.

In the meantime:



to say that models have been accurate over the last 15 years requires quite the imagination.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



well, the irony is that the Dust Bowl -can- be attributed to man with rather more certainty than AGW. mechanization of farming in the 1920s meant a huge displacement of native top-soil rooting grasses; when the area was hit by drought, the dry soil blew away...

Asty:

Some truth in what you say, but lack of rain was the ultimate culprit. We all know droughts are recurring events, and we somewhat understand the weather patterns that cause them. But only recently has man been blamed for them. Well of course, as part of the ecosystem, man's hand (e.g. over-cultivation) may be seen in the aftermath of a major weather event. However, that's a far cry from seeing man's hand in the weather pattern itself. Science can correctly say evidence of long-term, global climate change exists; that's the easy part. But pinning the blame on man will be infinitely more difficult, and in the end, it may turn out some other force gets blamed, something governments are powerless to control.

[Solastalgia]

Can't tell you how many times someone comes into this thread to attack "deniers" and can't scrape together even the least of a substantive argument or elaborate on what anyone is in denial of exactly. Are you just the next chew toy or have you got a clue you can share with us?

Solastalgia

Word of caution: read through the many pages of this thread, see the depth of the arguments made here. The bias here indeed is on the skeptical end, but is also supported with source work. Relevant and reputable sources (ie. Not Wikipedia), plus comprehensive arguments are the name of the game here.

You want to support your case, you better be ready to work for it.

There's a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. No amount of rhetorical argument, cherry picked or misrepresentation of science, is going to convince anyone otherwise (that excludes, of course, the political right).

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

[Solastalgia]

SHOW ME ONE FREAKING PREDICTION BY YOUR AGW CROWD THAT ACTUALLY CAME TRUE?

Well, we can start with a paper published in the journal Science in 1981 that has been proven correct on it's predictions for AGW.
1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

Here's an article from The Guardian about an AGW prediction model paper published in Nature Geoscience proven accurate.

Global warming predictions prove accurate | Environment | theguardian.com

There's many more of these. I'm not going to list all of them here, as you can easily find them yourself.

You've missed the frigging point. You can point to climate change and says it's happening and I can do the same throughout earth's entire geographic history and say it's always happening.

This is the #1 global warming denial myth. I recommend you go over this list of the most common climate myths propagated by deniers, before you continue to parrot talking points that can be heard on Fox News 24/7.

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, and this somehow tells us that humans can't be the main cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research and simple logic show this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

In summary the past reveals our climate is sensitive to small changes in heat.

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

The 'climate changed naturally in the past' argument is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments. It's equivalent to seeing a dead body with a knife sticking out the back, then arguing the death must be natural because people died naturally in the past. It fails to even consider the available evidence.

I've been hearing this nonsense for the past 20 years and each time, I get a new freaking excuse why their predictions didn't come true. And I have been hearing environmental disaster of one form or another for the past 45 years and we're still here. This year, I saw just as much snow as I did 45 years ago and twenty years ago, I was told that I would be wearing shorts in January. Yeah, not happening.

I've been hearing your AGW denial nonsense for the past 20 years as well. I've specifically been hearing the nonsense argument that you're making - that winter disproves AGW - on Fox News for the past few months (not to mention from dingbat Donald Trump and Sarah Palin).

You've seen as much snowfall as you did 45 years ago? Wow, some scientist you are there, sir.

I don't know where you live, but here in the US, we've been setting snowfall records right and left over this past winter.

In the midwest: Midwesterncities breaking snow records this January - UPI.com

On the east coast: U.S. East Shovels Record Snow as Temperatures Plunge - Bloomberg

By the way, before you say that large amount of snow disproves AGW, read this: Does record snowfall disprove global warming?

To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.

[Red Team]

Can't tell you how many times I've heard climate change deniers make the semantically argument, "I'm not a climate change denier, of course the climate changes!"

Anyone that's involved in this issue knows that the term climate change denial really means anthropogenic global warming denial.

Solastalgia

Word of caution: read through the many pages of this thread, see the depth of the arguments made here. The bias here indeed is on the skeptical end, but is also supported with source work. Relevant and reputable sources (ie. Not Wikipedia), plus comprehensive arguments are the name of the game here.

You want to support your case, you better be ready to work for it.

[Wooglin]

Can't tell you how many times I've heard climate change deniers make the semantically argument, "I'm not a climate change denier, of course the climate changes!"

Anyone that's involved in this issue knows that the term climate change denial really means anthropogenic global warming denial.

Can't tell you how many times someone comes into this thread to attack "deniers" and can't scrape together even the least of a substantive argument or elaborate on what anyone is in denial of exactly. Are you just the next chew toy or have you got a clue you can share with us?

[Wooglin]

You guys are ridiculous.

from wikipedia:

from wikipedia:

Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat e.g. the increases in deaths from infectious disease.[1]

The alarmist prefers intimidation and coercion to reasoned debate, and is often motivated by the desire to bring themselves to the forefront of discussion.

Again, feel free to elaborate, and be specific. I'm really interested in knowing what exactly I'm in denial of.

[Parihaka]

The amount of climate change denial on here is worrisome.

LOL, you should have us all put in camps for reeducation comrade.

You guys are ridiculous.

from wikipedia:

Links are preferred here. Semantic possibly, but call us old fashioned :)

Can't tell you how many times I've heard climate change deniers make the semantically argument, "I'm not a climate change denier, of course the climate changes!"

I think you'll find it's semantic, not semantically

Anyone that's involved in this issue knows that the term climate change denial really means anthropogenic global warming denial.

Then 1: why use the term 'climate change', as quoted above and 2: now we have that out of the way, what exactly do you mean by anthropogenic global warming?

You've missed the frigging point. You can point to climate change and says it's happening and I can do the same throughout earth's entire geographic history and say it's always happening.

But SHOW ME ONE FREAKING PREDICTION BY YOUR AGW CROWD THAT ACTUALLY CAME TRUE?

I've been hearing this nonsense for the past 20 years and each time, I get a new freaking excuse why their predictions didn't come true. And I have been hearing environmental disaster of one form or another for the past 45 years and we're still here. This year, I saw just as much snow as I did 45 years ago and twenty years ago, I was told that I would be wearing shorts in January. Yeah, not happening.

[Solastalgia]

Can't tell you how many times I've heard climate change deniers make the semantically argument, "I'm not a climate change denier, of course the climate changes!"

Anyone that's involved in this issue knows that the term climate change denial really means anthropogenic global warming denial.

[Solastalgia]

You guys are ridiculous.

from wikipedia:

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

[Wooglin]

The amount of climate change denial on here is worrisome.

Really? Who here denies climate changes?

If you really mean anthropogenic global warming, then please elaborate on what exactly you mean. Be specific.

AGW denial. Not climate change denial. We're still officially recovering from the last ice age and the climate better be warming up ... or Winter is Coming.