How can you “oppose” AGW? It is happening and we are causing it.

That is just garbage!

AGW is happening now and we are causing it.

Proceed from here.

I am no longer going to waste time on conservatives frightened by change. I have tried in the past and it doesn’t change their mind because FEAR overrides it.

Leave it as this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
As we increase the greenhouse effect the earth grows hotter.
The earth has been growing hotter: 2015 will be the world’s hottest year on record.

So increasing CO2 increases the globes temperatures.

Now, you will make up a little fairy story to belittle all that. The FEAR is still there and so is the FEAR AGW is happening! Happy Christmass!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Let us all give the great gizmo three cheers for bringing his version of quantitative argument to the table!

I didn’t say the Earth was a greenhouse.

I said there was a greenhouse effect from higher and higher concentrations of CO2 (and methane, water (clouds) and nitrous oxide. . .) and there is, temperatures keep on rising. The man on the land knows that, he has had to change practises, the genetics of what he grows be it wheat or cattle. It is only frightened little boys in the cities, paralysed by fear of change, who try to deny it. Meh! Grown ups face the challenges coming their way.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:45pm:



Ah, A Clayton's greenhouse.

' and there is, temperatures keep on rising' - you do know correlation is not causation, don't you.

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:13pm:

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Correlation doesn't imply causation because the world isn't linear. Correlation still needs to exist in science or there is no impetus for further method to be employed for indeed there is nothing further to investigate!

You're really good at this propaganda stuff broseph 

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 4:13pm:


actually there is plenty of convection "IN" a greenhouse - it's at the interface, ie the glass enclosure, where the heat escapes via conduction.

....a little bit like the earth's atmosphere where there is convection until you get to the top layer where convection decreases to essentially zero.

In any case, you need to look at the thermodynamics and energy transfer as a whole.

You should apologise for making Baking Soda type Dr Sircus clown comments in public....

and after you have published your written apology, you must implement a self banishment punishment.

Muslims are currently breeding like rats, white anglo saxons have stopped breeding altogether, in 100 years the white race will be extinct and the planet will be overun by muslims so who gives a friggin rats arse what sort of planet we leave for those spastics, they'll be too preoccupied with rape, murder, pedophilia and war to worry about the weather. 

Bobby. wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 9:49pm:

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 11:01am:


By about 0.6C..if it behaves the same as the last one..Which would basically  negate the warming since 1850ish..

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


Good, now stop sh!tting yourself over the propaganda of the oligarchy who want to tax us plebs on the air we breath through their banks. Banks will run the carbon derivatives market.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


Yes it is but it is also a trace gas which means that it exists in minute amounts at 0.04% of the atmosphere that's 0.0004 of the atmosphere.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


It certainly contributes in some small way.



Quote:


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


That is an incorrect statement, temperature controls the amount of CO2 that gets released into our atmosphere, CO2 doesn't control temperature, it contributes in some small way and that's about it.

Here take a look at Earth's energy budget, watch from the 54 minute mark.




Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


The Earth temperature fluctuates in cycles it goes up and it goes down, don't try and tell me that you think we can somehow controls this and have the temperature flatline....???...if you do think we can do this you are a person.

Today we have some of the lowest temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our history, and what goes down will go up, don't forget we are still coming our of a mini ice age.



Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:
.

No incorrect statement increasing CO2 contributes to global warming but CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth in all of our known history, even when it was 20 times more abundant at (7000 ppm)  in the atmosphere.



Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 3:01pm:


No fairy stories just cold hard facts......

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50am:



You may want to do some research. Mediaeval Warm Period NewZealand,  Antarctica, Chile, Tasmania.

Merely because there is less evidence, because there is less landmass, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:


Let me know if it ever happens again.

Here comes batman again with his fake graphs from Wattsupme.
The same ones every time. 
No new arguments, just tired old refuted ones.

How much commission do you get for that?

Facts are funny things, they are not actually open to debate.

The sad thing about debating facts is that the facts seem to get lost in the desire to win a war of words...

It seems that both sides are equally happy with this situation.

Now, if those who disagree with AGW are correct with their version of facts we have nothing to be too worried about. I think that would be a reasonable thing to consider.

Of course, if those who agree with AGW are correct with their version of facts, then it would seem equally reasonable that we have a lot to be very worried about.

What is obvious -while the debate keeps on raging, no significant change is happening to our environmental damaging practices which, if we do nothing about, will at some point tip the scale (regardless of climate) and not in our favour.

We live in a closed system, therefore, the more shyte we pump in, the less efficient that closes system will be at sustaining us.

Carry on winning the public opinion war, because I am sure at the end of the day that will be some comfort when the facts come home to bite your faces off...

The church of the climate change evangelicals has converted David Attenborough to their religion now, he is now a born again climate change christian, its a big name to have brain washed, well done climate cranks 

David Attenborough is still extremely sharp for his age (89).

He has a degree in Natural Sciences.

innocentbystander. wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 8:20pm:


You mean like Arnie? It's not about politics. It also looks like the GOP in the US is haemorrhaging  over trying to sustain denialist lies.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/theres-an-emerging-right-wing-divide-on-climate-...

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:41am:


You're talking about a dumbed down summary of the science?

BTW - have you seen this?

'Recent trends in global mean surface air temperature fall outside the 90% range predicted by models using the CMIP5 forcings and scenarios; this recent period of muted warming is dubbed the "hiatus". The hiatus has attracted broad attention in both the popular press and the scientific literature, primarily because of its perceived implications for understanding long-term trends. Many hypotheses have been offered to explain the warming slowdown during the hiatus, and comprehensive studies of this period across multiple variables and spatial scales will likely improve our understanding of the physical mechanisms driving global temperature change and variability.

We argue, however, that decadal temperature trends by themselves are unlikely to constrain future trajectories of global mean temperature and that the hiatus does not significantly revise our understanding of overall climate sensitivity. Instead, we demonstrate that, because of the poorly constrained nature of the hiatus, model-observation disagreements over this period may be resolvable via uncertainties in the observations, modeled internal variability, forcing estimates, or (more likely) some combination of all three factors. We define the hiatus interval as 1998-2012, endpoints judiciously chosen to minimize observed warming by including the large 1998 El Niño event and excluding 2014, an exceptionally warm year. Such choices are fundamentally subjective and cannot be considered "random", so any probabilistic statements regarding the likelihood of this occurring need to be made carefully. Using this definition, the observed global temperature trend estimates from four datasets fall outside the 5-95% interval predicted by the CMIP5 models. Here we explore some of the plausible explanations for this discrepancy, and show that no unique explanation is likely to fully account for the hiatus.'

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma03110j.html

Seems like the hiatus is alive and well despite Karl et al.

Seems also that the models are not best, despite ealier headlines.

'Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models'

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-systematic-errors-climate.html

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 11:07am:



Yeah, the one interfered with by politicians that may not reflect the science.

The problem is that the MSM reports the SPM as the science. Which completely screws the message. The mugs accept the SPM as gospel.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:21am:



Where in the SPM does it mention "hiatus"? A fact that caused at least one reader of this forum to trumpet that the IPCC had never said that there was an hiatus. For that matter the models never forecast an hiatus.

What about doubts about the climate models? In the report they used and expert judgement to determine the climate model output. Conclusion: the models were running too hot. Else the roars would have been "it is worse than we thought".  But somehow in spite of that their confidence in the models went from high to very high.