More evidence of global warming.

[xoggoth]

So what do such examinations of micro events mean? (and, yes, in the context of a long-term warming of an entire planet, they are micro events) Very little, you can't start with details that are subject to a myriad of factors and prove major principles.

There are some inescapable facts here:

a) CO2 and CH4 add to the greenhouse effect, the increased warming of which was calculated with quite remarkable accuracy by Fourier in 1827, indicating that calculations based on the major principles, without considering irrelevant micro factors like El Nino, can be basically sound, as anyone with any grasp of modelling would know.

b) CO2 is being increased by humans due to deforestation and fossil fuel burning.

c) CH4, a far more potent greenhouse gas, is locked up in enormous quantities in soil and beneath the sea. The release of this CH4 is temperature related, meaning that a positive feedback effect is a reality.

d) Loss of ice sheets is also a major factor because they reflect, and therefore reduce, solar energy - another potential positive feedback effect.

I am not saying global warming due to human activity is a fact as I cannot pretend to have delved into the models, there may be other factors not considered, (increasing cloud cover maybe) but I am suggesting these are the basics you need to look at. Localised or time limited weather patterns are simply not relevant. Nor is it a refutation to point to other historic factors like increased solar energy, global warming due to one factor does not preclude additional global warming due to another.

[sasguru]

So what do such examinations of micro events mean? (and, yes, in the context of a long-term warming of an entire planet, they are micro events) Very little, you can't start with details that are subject to a myriad of factors and prove major principles.

There are some inescapable facts here:

a) CO2 and CH4 add to the greenhouse effect, the increased warming of which was calculated with quite remarkable accuracy by Fourier in 1827, indicating that calculations based on the major principles, without considering irrelevant micro factors like El Nino, can be basically sound, as anyone with any grasp of modelling would know.

b) CO2 is being increased by humans due to deforestation and fossil fuel burning.

c) CH4, a far more potent greenhouse gas, is locked up in enormous quantities in soil and beneath the sea. The release of this CH4 is temperature related, meaning that a positive feedback effect is a reality.

d) Loss of ice sheets is also a major factor because they reflect, and therefore reduce, solar energy - another potential positive feedback effect.

I am not saying global warming due to human activity is a fact as I cannot pretend to have delved into the models, there may be other factors not considered, (increasing cloud cover maybe) but I am suggesting these are the basics you need to look at. Localised or time limited weather patterns are simply not relevant. Nor is it a refutation to point to other historic factors like increased solar energy, global warming due to one factor does not preclude additional global warming due to another.

Quite. The difference in thinking between someone clever and the likes of BB and EO is clear to see.

[sasguru]

Can you please explain how the trend (red line) has been calculated?

linear least squares regression

That doesn't answer the question. A trend line is usually some sort of moving average. How was this one calculated?

[EternalOptimist]

So what do such examinations of micro events mean? (and, yes, in the context of a long-term warming of an entire planet, they are micro events) Very little, you can't start with details that are subject to a myriad of factors and prove major principles.

There are some inescapable facts here:

a) CO2 and CH4 add to the greenhouse effect, the increased warming of which was calculated with quite remarkable accuracy by Fourier in 1827, indicating that calculations based on the major principles, without considering irrelevant micro factors like El Nino, can be basically sound, as anyone with any grasp of modelling would know.

b) CO2 is being increased by humans due to deforestation and fossil fuel burning.

c) CH4, a far more potent greenhouse gas, is locked up in enormous quantities in soil and beneath the sea. The release of this CH4 is temperature related, meaning that a positive feedback effect is a reality.

d) Loss of ice sheets is also a major factor because they reflect, and therefore reduce, solar energy - another potential positive feedback effect.

I am not saying global warming due to human activity is a fact as I cannot pretend to have delved into the models, there may be other factors not considered, (increasing cloud cover maybe) but I am suggesting these are the basics you need to look at. Localised or time limited weather patterns are simply not relevant. Nor is it a refutation to point to other historic factors like increased solar energy, global warming due to one factor does not preclude additional global warming due to another.

you are ignoring two facts

firstly, the bandwidth that CO2 absorbs is saturated, so further increases in co2 will not have any effect.

secondly, if there were an inevitable and irreversible positive feedback due to increased co2
the planet would have reached that point many times in the past, and we would not be posting here today

[sasguru]

you are ignoring two facts

firstly, the bandwidth that CO2 reflects is saturated, so further increases in co2 will not have any effect.

Let's take the first "fact". What do you mean by that exactly and where's your evidence?

[xoggoth]

Again, I don't say it is fact, but that point is addressed here:

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

As an engineer with some experience of heat transfer modelling, i'm also not sure there aren't also some fallacies in the anti arguments that I have never seen pointed out. One of these is the idea that a growing area of polar ice sheets (if indeed it is) is a refutation of global warming . The size of an ice sheet is not solely related to global temperature but also to humidity and to, er, the size of the ice sheet, because it reflects the sun and cools the area. This is a micro effect that is more complicated than one might imagine.

What we really need to sort this is not examination of details, or satellite images of limited areas, or studies of Jurassic rock formations but thermometers all over the world, that would prove something. (After 20 years maybe)

[EternalOptimist]

Let's take the first "fact". What do you mean by that exactly and where's your evidence?

I found this convincing

logarithmic effect of co2

[EternalOptimist]

Again, I don't say it is fact, but that point is addressed here:

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

As an engineer with some experience of heat transfer modelling, i'm also not sure there aren't also some fallacies in the anti arguments that I have never seen pointed out. One of these is the idea that a growing area of polar ice sheets (if indeed it is) is a refutation of global warming . The size of an ice sheet is not solely related to global temperature but also to humidity and to, er, the size of the ice sheet, because it reflects the sun and cools the area. This is a micro effect that is more complicated than one might imagine.

What we really need to sort this is not examination of details, or satellite images of limited areas, or studies of Jurassic rock formations but thermometers all over the world, that would prove something. (After 20 years maybe)

I hate to disagree with you again,
but most sceptics believe that the ice has little to do with temperatures.
the reason why the ice in the north is low is due to wind mostly.

and the reason why the ice in the south is high is natural variability.

sceptics only raise it to prove the stupidity and cherry picking of the eco loons

[sasguru]

you are ignoring two facts

firstly, the bandwidth that CO2 absorbs is saturated, so further increases in co2 will not have any effect.

I found this convincing

logarithmic effect of co2

1. You claim something as "fact" because you found someone's blog convincing.
2. A quick google on this topic shows there is a multiplicity of evidence against the theory propounded in the blog.

From these 2 facts, and these are in fact, real facts as opposed to your "fact", I conclude that your reasoning processes are deficient and hence I can discount any further contributions you have to make, until such time as you learn to think straight.

HTH, BIDI.

[EternalOptimist]

1. You claim something as "fact" because you found someone's blog convincing.
2. A quick google on this topic shows there is a multiplicity of evidence against the theory propounded in the blog.

From these 2 facts, and these are in fact, real facts as opposed to your "fact", I conclude that your reasoning processes are deficient and hence I can discount any further contributions you have to make, until such time as you learn to think straight.

HTH, BIDI.

The truth is, people use their skills and brain power to determine what are facts for them. It's a philosophical construct. They can be unsure, certain, convinced, or yet to be convinced.
some people are convinced but open to persuasion.

let me give you an example.
some gobby tit waffles on about who invented the concept of the zero. he is convinced of his facts.
let us call him sasguru.
He denigrated a fellow who had different facts, called him a cretin and said IHTH BIDI a few times
let us call tha fellow EO

I dont think anyone needs any more info on how THAT all panned out.

but the few weeks silence from the gob that followed(as he licked his wounds and swallowed his pride) were very welcome to all concerned

HTH BIDI