Is global warming even real?

The problem I am having is with the use of the word denialist.
To deny, in this context, is to know the truth but declare it as false. ( lie to oneself )
The use of the word denialist is inevitably inflammatory, pejorative, and insulting.

I could just as easily claim that mainstream science is in denial when it generates theoretical models that lead to an absurd "particle, wave duality" or claims it knows what is happening in the universe today knowing that the information they are relying on is sometimes over a few billion years old (given the life expectancy of stars) or the universe appearing to be missing 84.5% of the mass predicted.
Would I be insulting science by suggesting such things?
Using the term denialist is unnecessarily insulting and the tool of a troll or flamer. IMO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And then, because that work was so thorough - as to overcome the mountain of evidence that has been corroborated to date (since say 1824) - then a scientific revolution would be declared. Corroboration after corroboration of the results would be so clear and convincing that a new consensus would build around the work of this new genius. There would be "ticker tape parades" (something equivalent) in New York and around the world, and the principals who did the breakthrough work would be awarded 200+ medals of honor (one from each country in the world) in what would be the biggest celebration since Obama's election parties. And then, after the party was over and the clean up crews came in to mop up, there would be angry denunciations of the climate deniers, for interfering in the progress of science since the G W Bush era, for delaying this earth shattering work, stealing the agenda, and promoting the fear and loathing of science. Investigations would be done, some folks would be arraigned, a lot more would be discredited, and the so-called Conservative political factions would fall like houses of cards, all over the world. And from that day forward, internet posters would just be discussing the science, for the sake of science, having developed a deep aversion for ignorance in all its forms.

That about covers it. I represent the kind of person who was surprised that it took so long to make climate science a priority. I learned about the Keeling curve in the Nixon era, and I guess I just assumed everyone else with an average education did too. At the time I don't think I had a very good concept of what global warming was, but in my young mind the planet was being "oxidized" - more or less turning to ash. So for me to hear it enunciated so much better years later, I was quite relieved that so many people understand it better than me. And since then I have learned quite a bit more about it - motivated by the so-called "new evidence" of deniers - which always contained those elements you list above.

Yes, and in the latter case, they often try to show that water vapor - which of course will evolve naturally - is more harmful than CO2 which is the wrong way to cast this. Water vapor has a higher heat absorption per unit volume of air, but it is limited in concentration by saturation (at which point the excess condenses as precipitation and falls back to the ground). CO2 on the other hand is a trace gas, which means it can increase in concentration without any appreciable limit like the case of water vapor. Worse is the refusal by deniers to admit that, regardless of this detail, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the harm done by water vapor. So that gets back to the illogic and fallacy you mention above. Tell them this, and they just fall silent, or keep returning to the tired old stuff already trotted out and already swatted down many times before.

I wonder how much the energy companies have spent so far inciting irrational people. And for at least the past 15 years or so. Hopefully the old idiots will die off and everyone will look back and wonder how society tolerated them for so long.

And the sad part of this is that they have infiltrated the churches and exploited the emotions of weak and vulnerable minds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think it has to do with whether you are predicting more or less warming than the various models predict. The term "denier" means someone who denies climate science. Thus if your position is "I feel that the positive feedback for methane forcing will result in an additional X degrees of warming by 2100 and here's why . . . ." that's not denial. Similarly, if your position is "I don't think that cloud formation is modeled accurately; I've done some research and the net forcing is negative" that's not denial either.

"There's no warming!" - that's denial. So is "those climate guys are all liars" and "it's cold out so climate change is false." Basically when you do a wholesale denial of large parts of climate science based on your desire to align to a politically-correct view of how the climate is changing.

Specificially I'd call Evans a denier because he denies almost all climate science. Specifically he has held these positions:

The climate sensitivity is lower than everyone thinks it is
The temperature record is unreliable so we're not really warming much
It's all heat islands and the like; no real warming
Hansen's 1998 prediction was wrong so all climate science is suspect
Scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970's so we can't believe them now
It warmed back in 1940 and there wasn't as much CO2 then
It's really cooling, not warming
Cosmic rays cause warming, not people
The climate has changed before, so even if we are warming, it's not our fault
We are coming out of a little ice age so of course it's warming
There's no evidence that it is CO2
CO2 lags temperature historically so it can't be CO2 that's causing the warming

You will note that some of these positions actually contradict each other, like "there's no warming" and "it's cosmic rays, not humans, that are causing the warming." This is another characteristic of the denier - they often contradict themselves, because what is important to them is not the facts, but the denial of climate science. Thus they support anything that contradicts climate science, even if it is not self-consistent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So it should be used only when it's accurate.

 

Here's a question that is a little off topic that maybe someone could provide an easy answer to.
We all know that water evaporates at any point above zero C ( yes?)

What are the evaporation rate changes as ambient temperature increases?
One would naively think that for every degree c hotter it gets the evaporation rate would increase accordingly.
Does any one have a link to this area of interest? ( say a graph etc )

 

Not at all. There are people out there who are climate change denialists who really believe what they have been told. That's why it is a potent political weapon - because you get people on your side who really believe that what you say is the truth. That's why there are so many efforts to "gussy up" denialism with the trappings of science. (Same thing was tried with both tobacco health risks and creationism.)

Do you consider yourself a climate change denialist?

Not really. It would be more funny than insulting.

 

And can evaporate below zero C. And there are some cases where it does not evaporate above zero C. But water CAN evaporate over zero C, yes.

Depends on ambient pressure and humidity as well. But in general it increases with temperature.

 

Not at all.. However I believe that climate change ( not only warming effects ) extends to other planets in our solar system which leads one to question the amount of human activity involvement.
Do you deny that planets in our solar system have been going through rapid and extraordinary change?

 

example:
Jupiter:
"Beginning in 2012, amateur observations revealed a noticeable increase in the rate at which the spot is shrinking -- by 580 miles per year -- changing its shape from an oval to a circle."
src NASA

 

Yes. It also sublimates at lower temperatures (snowpack vanishes under drying winds in the right conditions, even at subfeezing temperatures).

Nope. Nobody denies that, if informed.

Why does that lead you to doubt the well established influence of the anthro CO2 boost on the climate of this planet?

 

and what do you think is causing it? (Certainly not anthro influences...)

Neptune 1996-2002 c/o Hubble

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clearly shows Neptune as getting brighter by many orders of magnitude over only a 6 year period...
Img src

This dramatic changes with in our solar systems planets "climate" would be common knowledge with in the climate science fraternity. Why are they apparently choosing to ignore it do you think?

Is it because what this planet and other planets are undergoing is considerably greater in scale and a hell of a lot more scary than anything anthro could possibly cause.

I ask:
Is it just coincidence that the universe expansion was discovered to be accelerating in 1998?
so to answer you question:

IMO any recorded CO2 boost and associated warming is a trivial concern...

 

They aren't. Where do you think you are getting all this info from?

So?

 

I would say that denial of science is in itself inflammatory, pejorative, and insulting, esp. since (except for people with mental disabilities) it's entirely self-inflicted. Worst of all is the denial of science which can quite easily be confirmed - say with about an 8th or 9th grade level of education.

The absorption of heat by CO2 is such a topic - something that can be observed at home. Take some dry ice and let it sublimate into an inverted jar. Place a heat source near the jar. Using an infrared camera (or cell phone so equipped) notice that the heat signature is absorbed by the gas. Really, people, it's that simple. The rest is details, none of which override this operative fact: burn fossil fuels, and add to the net CO2, therefore we increase the net gain in heating of the atmosphere.

But of course, none of that matters to the denialist since they never actually cared about the health of the planet anyway, since their priorities are concerned with immediate material gain, immediate power, and the rush of inciting mobs of fellow denialists.

 

What is that suppose to mean? Coincidence with what?

 

Fortunately that has been questioned extensively, and a consensus has arisen, taking all the variables (insolation, cosmic ray activity, planetary alignment, anthropogenic gas emissions etc) into account.

Not at all. Heck, the Earth has gone through much more dramatic changes in the past.

Right . . . .

Wait. Surely you do not think that since one thing is not caused by anthopogenic changes, nothing is caused by anthropogenic changes? If you find your friend dead with a knife in his back, could I argue "he died of natural causes because other people have died of natural causes?"

 

Just to clarify,
The Hubble evidence displayed in the image I posted of Neptune's massive gain in reflected luminosity over a mere 6 years is able to be denied for it's ramifications.

That the scientific community has had this and other similar evidences staring them in the face since 2002 and wish to claim that solar luminosity has actually been in decline. And what is worse they expect others to believe them when all we have to do is get a cheap optical telescope and enjoy the night air for a few months.

It is little wonder that the world is confused about climate change when such scientific denial appears to be so entrenched.

 

We recently had a lunar eclipse. Will you use that to claim that the output of the Sun went to almost zero for a few hours, then recovered? That evidence was staring you right in the face - and you didn't even need a telescope to prove it!

 

Silly - fudge and fiddle!
Here's the image of Neptune again:
Please explain the obvious differences in luminosity between 1996 and 2002:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know but it is six years further along in its orbit, and as I recall highly inclined to the orbit plane. You should expect difference is solar reflected light.

 

Looks like cloud changes to me. Same reason the Earth changes its albedo from time to time. More clouds = higher albedo = more "luminosity."