args

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

"NASA data, which I cited in [6], shows there has been no global warming for 17 years." So how do we have two competing sources for what should be the same information? PRO [5] - IPCC CON [6] - NASA? If we look closely, CON's [6] doesn't actually reference NASA, it references wattsupwiththat.com. The wattsupwiththat article uses RSS data, not NASA data. RSS, or Remote Sensing Systems, does not measure temperatures using a thermometer, it takes readings of microwaves, as explained on its homepage http://www.remss.com...; The data demonstrates that microwaves are not "net heating" the earth, but CON and the wattsupwiththat article argue that the earth itself is not being warmed. When measured by thermometers throughout the globe, IPCC and NASA sources have shown that the earth clearly is being warmed. CON's [6] is a particularly ironic source in the context of this debate, during which CON has advocated sunspots as an alternative temperature explanation to CO2. CON argues that "decadal average" means that the meaning of "anomaly" is reset every decade. The IPCC actually addressed this concern by setting every decadal average relative to the same constant (in this case, "Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1961−1990."[7]). "My primary reference for the claim that that IPCC models cannot explain the 17 year lack of global warming is Tinsdale's book “Climate Models Fail” [7]." - CON The existence of a book title is not an argued debate point. If CON has read Tisdale's book, he should be able to explain and present what he learned in this debate. Otherwise, I should be having this debate with Bob Tisdale. "Tinsdale provides a book length comparison of IPCC model results showing that what actually happened in climate was outside of the error band of model predictions." - CON Which model predictions do CON and Tisdale speak of? Because when the IPCC compared model predictions to observations, the temperature observations were outside the 'natural forcings' band of model predictions, and well withing the 'natural and anthropogenic forcings' band of model predictions. This was part of what I presented in round 4. "Tinsdale also referenced the Mauritsen paper, which I linked in [7]" - CON CON [7] references Tinsdale, not Mauritsen. "Temperature was supposed to rise sharply after 2000, as the figure shows, but it did not. Models proved wrong cannot be relied upon for future predictions." Perhaps CON missed this: the blue shading is the natural, absence-of-man prediction; the pink shading is the natural + anthropogenic predictions; and the black line is the reading taken by the thermometers. The black line is consistent with the blue shading for the antarctic region, seems indecisive for the Southern Ocean, and correllates with the pink shading for the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and Antarctica. "Pro's initial contention was that vanishing Arctic sea ice proves that CO2 dominates climate." - CON PRO's initial contention was actually that temperature anomalies correspond to a rise in CO2 as predicted by the greenhouse effect, and demonstrated by sea ice temperature, sea ice mass, climate temperature, ocean temperature, and ocean PH. "Correlation does not prove causation." - CON PRO [3] http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> 20th century physics consisted of bombarding particles into each other and measuring the deviation of their paths. This was well-tested far beyond being a correlation argument, to the point that physicists predict photonic behavior with laser precision (literally). It is by this mechanism that greenhouse theory exists. It's not a correlation argument, it mathematically calculates that visible photons have no trouble passing through the earth's atmosphere to warm the surface, but upon bouncing back upwards and losing energy (increasing wavelength), are prone to be deflected back at the earth by greenhouse gases. This re-warms the earth. "Global warming is global, so it cannot be that Arctic ice measures warming but Antarctic ice does not." - CON They both measure warming, but remember - it's global, so we cannot use Antarctic ice to ignore temperature observations from the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and - yes - even the temperature readings of the Antarctic (as I pointed out in round 3, ice and temperature cannot have a linear relationship except at temperatures near freezing point - this is why 'absorption of energy' is more relevant than short term temperature). "In the last round, Pro changed his position and argued that total ice is important and not sea ice" - CON I argued that deuterium levels from the last ten thousand years were less relevant than energy readings from the last century. CON's narrative of my position is unrecognizable to me, so my most objective route at this point is to request of voters that they actually find the "PRO" arguments that correlate with the "CON" narrative before either agreeing or disagreeing with it - and vice versa. "total ice has been decreasing since the early 1800s, well before any claim of anthropogenic warming." - CON Deforestation has actually increased net CO2 emissions since before 1750 [9], http://zfacts.com...; /> but in negotiating this debate, CON chose "temperature anomalies from 1900 to 2200 are / will be predominantly anthropogenic" from a number of other possible Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists subtopics, so we'll have to save that discussion for another day. As I have explained at least three times in this debate, ice represents two out of seven continents to measure, and as CON has explained, this is a discussion about global temperature. "Pro claimed that melting land ice in Antarctica caused the increase in sea ice." - CON I discussed three measurements - temperature, volume, and area. These were ALL in regards to land ice in Antarctica. PRO Round 3: Both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are supposed to be far below freezing, and neither will commence a serious level of shrinking until they reach the melting temperature of water. As the top of the ice caps melt, the water runs down and is cooled by the ice below, slightly reducing or maintaining the total mass of the ice while possibly increasing the total area. However, it also increases the average temperatures of the Antarctic and Arctic. "Future CO2 levels are unknown" - CON Solar, volcanic, botanic, and other alleged hidden variables in century-measured climate change would have to accelerate hundreds of times over in the next two centuries if anthropogenic CO2 is to become a 'secondary' driver of climate anomalies. This can even be deduced from CON's use of geological data, which covers up to 600 million years at a time. Current physical predictions indicate that anthropogenic global warming will be steady and lingering for several centuries, and statistically comprehensive climate data corresponds to this theory. 9. http://zfacts.com...