Climate Change

[Dr Q]

The possibility of climate change is a special worry for Arizona, because we depend on water from the Colorado River.  I am very discouraged by the lack of understanding of this topic by our politicians.  Interesting to see how the media follow the lead of the politicians.  Who do you think has the better grasp on reality, National Review or Daily KOS?  Here is Tucker Carlson arguing with Bill Nye the Science Guy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445338/tucker-carlson-bill-nye-debate-climate-change

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/02/28/1638509/

[Dr Q]

Looks like Nye gave some excellent answers in spite of Carlson talking over him. Carlson seems to be saying that he won't believe the science if he can't get an exact prediction of what will happen and when. That's like saying he won't believe smoking causes cancer if doctors can't tell him who will get it and when.

We should stop debating the science, and focus the discussion on what to do about it. a) put a lot of money into developing alternative energy, or b) put those funds into moving cities away from coastlines, building huge aqueducts, etc. or c) try to limit the warming by "geoengineering" the climate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

For those who still have some doubts about the actual records on global temperatures, here are some excellent graphs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html

Check out the records for your own city here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/world/how-much-warmer-was-your-city-in-2016.html#kavq

And for a good general website explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation:
https://skepticalscience.com

And for the ultimate simple explanation of climate science:

https://skepticalscience.com/tweet-or-not-at-donald-trump.html

3/15/2017 Note:  The rest of this topic is a long debate over the science of global warming, not what I was intending.  Please start a new topic if you would like to talk about something else, like what to do about it.

[Pete Weaver]

Hi David, 

Thanks for your open mind about the subject! It seems to be a rare trait.

 I've been studying this for 20 years. I was an atmospheric sciences major in the early 70's and have been a weather buff ever since. I've had a love for the sciences since I was in elementary school.

 I'm appalled by the unscientific conclusions many climate scientists promote. The future of science is at stake here. Are we going to have science based on what can be empirically validated or are we going to give up our reasoning minds to a higher authority that will tell us what to think? Climate models are hypothetical projections with tuned parameters that have no relation to what is actually happening in the real world. These are being treated as undisputed fact even though empirical measurements show many of their assumptions to be wrong. 

In order to produce dangerous warming there must be a strong positive feedback from water vapor. Empirical measurements show this is not happening. Measurements also show that clouds have cooled more than models projected. These two things can account for the discrepancy between models and observations.

I'm at a loss as to why the CERES data is not being promoted by skeptics. It seems to be overlooked. This wouldn't be the first time I've noticed something before it becomes mainstream. Back in 2002 I was commenting that climate models weren't taking into account the negative feedback that the extra CO2 would increase photosynthesis. Models were predicting too much CO2 growth by not including this obvious sink. I was derided even back then for being anti-science for understanding photosynthesis! It wasn't till 2012 that James Hansen wrote a paper on it using it as an excuse for the pause in warming that was happening. If these guys are so smart, how can a layman be 10 years ahead of one of the top climate scientists?

The solutions to all our problems exist in the human creative ability to innovate. Alternative energy development will make fossil fuels obsolete. Some of those solutions already exist but have been suppressed. 30 years ago a very close friend of mine was involved with a company that built a working engine that could run for 50,000 miles on a $20 can of catalyst. While preparing their IPO an army of lawyers from big oil came in threatening patent infringement. Being a small startup without resources they had to fold. We wouldn't be having this debate if that engine had been allowed to be developed.

[Dr Q]

Hi Pete, and welcome to our forum.  I've used Google Groups for in-depth discussions in Computer Science classes, and when it works, it is excellent.  We can post graphs, code snippets, and images, whatever we like.

The audience here is non-technical, so it will be helpful if we don't throw around too many acronyms.  You could start by posting that graph showing data inconsistent with the current scientific consensus.  Don't expect readers to do a lot of background reading.  Keep it at the level of Bill Nye's presentation, and we won't lose anyone.

Here is the current scientific consensus on what is happening in our atmosphere.  Click on the link for more explanation.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGreenhouse_Effect.svg

The numbers are energy flows in watts per square meter (W/m2).  On average, 235 W/m2 is absorbed from the sun (67 by the atmosphere and 168 by the ground).  For a precise balance, with no net warming or cooling, that same 235 W/m2 goes back into space (195 from the atmosphere and 40 as direct radiation from the ground).  Adding a little extra CO2 to the atmosphere increases the absorption of radiation from the ground, warming the atmosphere.

The current warming trend can be explained by an imbalance of 0.85 watts/m2 MORE energy getting absorbed in the atmosphere and LESS energy returned to space.

[Pete Weaver]

That is way too simplified. Here is a better one with more of the parameters included they give .6Wm^2 as the imbalance. 

[Pete Weaver]

The above gives the estimates and doesn't reflect precise values that are actually happening. Clouds and convection can vary by more than the .6Wm^2 imbalance. 

This chart shows that GHG's are not increasing net heat retention.  Other factors are reducing it.

https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/dwlwir.png?w=640&h=252

[Dr Q]

Pete, I think we are losing our readers.  I'm not sure even if I understand what you are saying.  I'm guessing from our previous discussions that the chart shows infrared radiation from the CO2 in the atmosphere.  The red line is some kind of best fit.  The downward slope shows decreasing levels of radiation, which is inconsistent with a simple model in which that radiation would increase with higher concentrations of CO2.  Have I got this right?

P.S.  I shrunk your images to fit in the window.  Double click to expand to full screen.

[Pete Weaver]

Yes, you have it exactly right. Something is reducing DWIR significantly more than CO2 can increase it. With DWIR decreasing CO2 can't be causing the current temperature increase. For sure the last two years can be attributed to the super El Nino. El Nino's discharge accumulated solar energy stored in the oceans. 

Again I want to stress that AGW is still adding to the heat budget. It's just that something else more powerful is over-riding and countering the increase due to human emissions.  

[Dr Q]

Pete, none of us are climate scientists, so please explain any acronyms new to this discussion.  Think of having a debate with Bill Nye.  How would you present your argument?

Is this correct:

GHG - Greenhouse gases, including water vapor and CO2 - any gases that absorb infrared radiation

DWIR - DownWelling InfraRed - heat waves radiated downward from the GHG in the atmosphere

AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming - that part of global warming attributed to man's activities

If what you are saying is correct, then a lot of climate scientists have made a major error.  Can you tell us more about that DWIR graph.  How were the measurements made?  Have you talked with other climate scientists about this?  Do they have an explanation?

[Pete Weaver]

The graph is all sky. This means clouds are included. They have algorithms tuned to empirical measurements that validate the findings. 

Climate scientists tend to not be interested in empirical data. They put their faith in climate model output. The mainstream view is that natural variation will even out. This ignores the fact that natural variation can drop us into an ice age or rapidly pull us out of one. I don't think most climate scientists would see this data as an error. They would write it off as an aberration that will eventually reverse.

 I became a skeptic because in discussions with other scientists they reject empirical data and cling to climate model projections. The number of top climate scientists arguing against empirical validation of models put this into the realm of pseudo science. 

 I have not been able to get much engagement on this issue. Nobody has said I'm wrong but nobody has given an unqualified your right either. Maybe because it is so obvious. 

[Dr Q]

This raises more questions than it answers, and certainly doesn't justify any claim that the consensus model is pseudo science.  Rather than speculate about the possible misinterpretation of satellite data, the effects of clouds, or any other factors in a hugely complex atmosphere, I would like to look at the original source to answer my questions.  Can you provide a link to the page where you found that graph?  Have they made any direct measurements of DWIR?

[waves...@earthlink.net]

I wasn't saying the models are pseudo science. The climate scientists who are refusing to accept empirical measurements that expose model errors are engaging in pseudo science. There have been lots of papers published identifying model errors. About 50% of the models contain parameters that are unrealistic. These models are given equal weighting with ones that are in the ballpark. I haven't seen any evidence that the bad models are being improved or thrown out. 

Here is the page where you can order graphs. https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp 

Yes they do make direct measurements. I had a PDF that explains the process but can't locate it right now.

[Dr Q]

OK, I found some direct measurements of radiant heat at the Earth's surface coming from the atmosphere.  This is much less complicated than indirect measurements from satellites, and it shows unambiguously the contributions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases.

Whatever extraneous factors are affecting the data in your graph (clouds, weather patterns, etc.) this graph is direct evidence that man-made CO2 is absorbing heat from the ground and warming the atmosphere.

For a good explanation of the basic science, see the article "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?"

     https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-basic.htm

A simple mathematical model predicts a global warming of ΔTs = 1.2 K for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is less than the 2 to 4.5 K predicted by more sophisticated models, but amazingly close considering its only algebra, no computer simulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

[Dr Q]

Pete, we are losing some folks when we spend too much time in the weeds.  Contact me by email if you want to pursue any further the question of what is causing global warming.  We'll get back here with our conclusion, I promise.  Meanwhile, for those who don't have time to read the scientific papers, here is climate science in a nutshell:

     https://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/836637742272503808  :>)

[Pete Weaver]

Skeptical Science is a propaganda site. I have spent a lot of time there examining their claims. It's mostly miss-direction. There is no possibility for you to understand what is actually going on in climate science if that is your main source. This site would be a  good counter. They have compiled hundreds of current papers on climate. If you want to know what the most recent improvements in our understanding are, this is a good reference. Science is moving forward in spite of the media distortions.

 http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.3jO4b9MO.dpbs

 Almost nobody questions CO2's role as a GHG. The question is how much human emissions are contributing to warming. Nobody knows what that amount is because there are thousands of variables in flux and models lack the grid resolution to weight accurately. The margins of errors are orders of magnitude larger than the effect they are trying to measure. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Slight changes in clouds, convection and ocean heat distribution dwarf CO2 in magnitude. My observation based on the CERES data is empirical proof of that last statement. Other factors are preventing CO2 from increasing DWIR. 

I've been reading scientific papers on climate for 20 years. I have digested many of the foundational papers for AGW theory. What you hear in the media and from some politicians is not what most climate scientists would say. There is almost no support for the dangerous warming meme in the scientific literature. A tiny minority of activist scientists have been given the megaphone and all other voices are shouted down. 

[Dr Q]

Pete, when you call climate scientists "pseudo", when you label as "propaganda" a site that has an excellent counter to your argument, rather than address the argument itself, when you dive into the weeds every time I try to keep the focus on simple science, all of that has my BS detector flashing red.

I read the first two paragraphs of your link to notrickszone.com, and it mischaracterizes what scientists are saying is "settled" science.  The basic science is settled, not the details.  This is a "straw man" argument.

If you want to move this discussion forward, we've got to focus on the basic question - Is CO2 causing the recent rise in global temperature?  I think we are in agreement that there is a parallel rise in CO2 and temperature, but you are doubting that CO2 is the cause.  There is a simple one-page argument for yes here:

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

Your counter so far is some noisy satellite data that you say contradicts the direct measurements shown in the link above. You complain that scientists won't take your interpretation of this data seriously. Write a paper. I'll be glad to review it for you.

[Dr Q]

Trump's request for the names of all federal employees who had attended conferences involving climate change has sent a clear message to any scientists remaining after the big purge.  This along with budget cuts and the order to take down websites that provide useful data to the public will start a positive feedback cycle.  Dumbing down the public will make it easier to elect anti-science politicians, which will lead to further cuts in science and more dumbing down.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-seeks-big-budget-cuts-for-climate-research/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20170308

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1021165321320645&set=a.819629544807558.1073741827.100002815597515&type=3&theater

[Dr Q]

Pete, I found an even better article on possible inconsistencies of the satellite data with the current consensus on global warming.  Turns out there were some errors in the data, but the main lesson to be learned is - don't expect scientists to be flawless.  We can expect,  however, that errors will be acknowledged and corrected.  Peer review isn't perfect, but it does screen out a lot of BS.

https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

[Pete Weaver]

David, 

Climate scientists who refuse to accept empirical measurements are by definition engaging in "pseudo" science. 

SKS does not have an "excellent counter" to my argument. They engage in deception by omission. Do you think that cherry picking 2 points for comparison is the basis for any meaningful conclusions? You would have to look at all the data points between 1970 and 1996 to establish if there is a trend. The chart of GHG's doesn't include water vapor which is at least 90% of the greenhouse effect. Why would they omit this if not to deceive?  The chart would look far different in scale with CO2 looking small by comparison if WV was included. They also claim that natural variation has had no effect on warming. This statement is contradicted by evidence of a grand solar maximum from 1945-2005 and the PDO in a warm phase with the AMO joining in during the rapid warming from 1979-98. 

There is no theory of climate that is full proof. The best we have are the Milankovitch cycles which fail sometimes.

 You are being mislead by relying on SKS for your information. The link I gave you is no more biased than SKS. The difference is they have links to relevant recent peer reviewed papers on a variety of subjects categorized for easy reference. Why would you dismiss current peer reviewed science in favor of known propaganda?

CO2 is considered a potent GHG because while it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere it contributes almost 1% to Earth's heat budget. The consensus position is that CO2 is the control knob of climate. This is very much like saying the tip of the tail wags the dog. The scale of other factors effecting climate dwarf CO2's contribution. Read some of the papers listed. Many quantify the impact natural variation has in contradiction to the mainstream distortions. Natural variation has dominated CO2 on all time scales. Dismissing that fact is pseudo science. 

[Dr Q]

Pete, can we put aside all the politics and name-calling, and postpone a conclusion that the scientific community is pushing a hoax. Let's focus on just the basic question - what is driving the global warming over the last few decades?  Most scientists believe it is CO2.  What else could it be?  If it is water vapor, that would be easy to measure.  Also, there would be some external driving force.  It can't be just the normal increase expected from the observed warming of the planet.  That would be confusing cause and effect (the tail wagging the dog to use your analogy).  It can't be variations in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles?) or the sun's power.  Those would be easy to observe.  It can't be volcanic activity.  Same reason.  It can't be methane, or some other pollutant.  These ARE external inputs, but the calculated warming from those is smaller than from CO2.  What alternative is there?

[jman]

[Pete Weaver]

What politics? Nobody who knows me would label me right wing. I'm progressive on most issues. Where do you see me talking politics?  

Where do I say it is a "hoax"? More than once I have stated that AGW is real. The amount of warming human emissions are causing is very much in question but pretty much everyone including me thinks we are responsible for some. 

The PDO correlates to warming much better than CO2 does. The blob turned the index positive. The Amo is also positive and has been shown to affect global climate. The El Nino of 2010 and the super El Nino of 2015-16 account for most of the observed warming. There has been little warming other than as a result of those factors.

As for external inputs, The grand solar maximum is still working through the system- Hmm copy/paste not working. I had a paper to reference. 

Please look at the papers I linked to. The main conclusions are listed so you don't have to wade through each paper. You will find my claims are backed up by substantial research.  

[Dr Q]

I had to google PDO.

Doesn't look like PDO could be the driver.  Same for the other possibilities you mentioned.

As for the papers you would like me to look at, I assume you mean the 500 listed at notrickszone.com.  If you have a specific paper you would like me to look at, give me a link, and tell me how it relates to the question at hand.

[Pete Weaver]

The chart uses GISS temps which are warmer than other data. If you use UAH or RSS it would look different. In addition you can't isolate one factor. Climate is a combination of all the forcing's. See the recent paper attached that supports my statement. 

 Lüdecke et al., 2016       Fourier analyses of worldwide temperature proxy data show a multitude of spectral lines, indicating multi-periodic dynamics of the climate system. The proxy data investigated in this study all show an approximately 200 year period, which has been related to the solar De Vries/Suess cycle. This cycle is consistent with temperature measurements from about 1750 to present, suggesting that the solar De Vries/Suess cycle is of importance for the recent and near future climate variations. … [A] 65 year cycle, indicative for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The latter, together with the approximately 200 year [solar] cycle, appears to dominate the recent temperatures. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/#sthash.r8UwGkat.wR5iFZou.dpuf

[Pete Weaver]

There is no reason why the current warm phase of the PDO is not contributing like this paper found during previous warm phases. It also debunks the SKS claim that natural variation has had no effect.

Meehl et al., 2016       Contribution of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation to twentieth-century global surface temperature trends … Longer-term externally forced trends in global mean surface temperatures (GMSTs) are embedded in the background noise of internally generated multidecadal variability1. A key mode of internal variability is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which contributed to a reduced GMST trend during the early 2000s. We use a novel, physical phenomenon-based approach to quantify the contribution from a source of internally generated multidecadal variability—the IPO—to multidecadal GMST trends. Here we show that the largest IPO contributions occurred in its positive phase during the rapid warming periods from 1910–1941 and 1971–1995, with the IPO contributing 71% and 75%, respectively, to the difference between the median values of the externally forced trends and observed trends. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/#sthash.r8UwGkat.YdaNmhFH.dpuf

[Pete Weaver]

Getting back to the original discussion, this paper supports my claim that other factors (clouds) are preventing CO2 from being the cause of recent warming. 

Song, Wang & Tang, 2016      A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect … In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR [outgoing longwave radiation] anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. …  [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2).  … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

ntz-greenhouse-effect-hiatus

[T]he influences of water vapor and clouds … contribute approximately 75% of the total [greenhouse] effect. … The results above indicate that the notably downward Gaa tendency over the central tropical Pacific indeed plays an important role in inducing the greenhouse effect hiatus since the 1990s. What causes this decreasing Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]? The variation of the greenhouse effect is substantially influenced by its contributors, including water vapor, clouds, and GHGs. GHG concentrations have risen steadily during recent decades. The variations of metrics related to the other two contributors are given in Fig. 4a and are based on the CERES-EBAF products between 2003 and 2014. The total column precipitable water (TCPW) anomaly significantly increases at a rate of 0.44 cm yr−1. However, the cloud area fraction (CAF) anomaly is reduced by −0.60% yr−1, which is consistent with the decreasing cloud activity described in previous publications. Therefore, although the greenhouse effect can be enhanced by increasing GHGs and water vapor in the atmosphere, it can be weakened by decreasing clouds. If these two actions offset each other, a hiatus of the global greenhouse effect will result.  … [T]he atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters both become trendless when clouds are considered. … Overall, the downward tendency of clouds is the dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect hiatus.

[Clouds are predominant determinant of greenhouse effect variations; the substantial increase in CO2 emissions between 1992 and 2014 effectively exerted no influence in enhancing the greenhouse effect.]

[Dr Q]

Your links all lead to a list of 133 papers.  Still too many.  I need to see one paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal with a simple, clear presentation of PDO data showing how it correlates with global temperature.

As for the GISS data (Google: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) it's the upward trend that's important, not small differences with other measures of global temperature.  The cyclic correlations with the PDO Index suggest that PDO is having some effect on short-term global temperatures, just not an upward trend since 1900.  That makes sense, since these natural oscillations don't add anything to net global energy.  They just move energy back and forth from one place to another in a cyclic fashion.

Let's stick with one topic at a time.  We're pretty close to concluding that global warming is not from the PDO.

[Pete Weaver]

Here is the link to the 1st paper. http://epic.awi.de/41139/1/polfor_2016_015.pdf 

There are dozens that link the PDO to climate change. Why are you ignoring my statement about all the variables needing to be accounted for? There is no single variable controlling climate. The climate we get is the sum of all forcing's. The other papers listed support my conclusions.

Natural variation can drop us into an ice age or rapidly pull us out of one. It is not a zero sum game that can be dismissed. The great ocean oscillations are the primary way that stored solar energy is distributed. The warm phases release energy to the atmosphere so that it can escape to space. Global temperatures always drop after an El Nino. 

  I could show you how SKS has misrepresented every climate myth claim if I had the time. By repeating their distortions you are supporting a disinformation campaign. Are you going to accept peer reviewed science or are you going to continue to believe propaganda? 

[Dr Q]

Pete, I don't like to be ignoring evidence that you believe is important, but I have very limited time, and not enough expertise in climate science to get deep into Fourier analysis of climate data (in spite of my PhD in physics, which involved heavy use of Fourier analysis).  What I do have is a good understanding of basic science, and lots of experience as an engineering manager dealing with scientific BS, mostly from salesmen trying to sell my company a product, some with junk science in court.  Perhaps that experience has made me over-reactive when I see signs of BS in this debate over climate science.

Here is my proposal.  Let's come back later to the discussion of leading-edge research, and focus for now on the simple basic science of climate change.  I know you don't like the Skeptical Science website, but that is the clearest, most concise statement I have found of what is now the "consensus" view of most climate scientists.  The evidence and arguments presented there are easily understood by readers of our AZ-2 forum.  Consensus can be wrong, of course, so I am not making an "argument from authority", just using it as the clearest statement of one point of view.

Is the current global warming trend due to man's CO2 emissions?  Let's consider the evidence in empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.  Look at the total amount of CO2 we are generating and compare it to the total accumulated in the atmosphere:

Several points are worth noting on this chart.  First, the time scale of 1000 years is what we need to consider.  There have been much larger surges in CO2 going back millions of years, and life can adapt to these changes given enough time.  The danger for us is that the current spike in CO2 is happening over decades, not millennia.

Second, look at the large percentage change in atmospheric CO2.  For the first time in thousands of years, CO2 has risen to 400ppm.  That is 43% up from the pre-industrial level 280ppm.  There is certainly the possibility of significant climate change.

Are you with me so far?

[Pete Weaver]

I'm not with you on SKS. I have pointed out that their information is a misrepresentation of the facts. The data I have seen shows that more radiation is escaping to space than climate models projected. I also pointed out to you that their graph of GHG's doesn't include water vapor. By far the most important GHG! There have been several papers that show CO2 is negligible compared to WV. Water vapor seems to counter increases in CO2. AGW theory of rapid warming due to human emissions requires a strong positive WV feedback. No such effect has been observed in the real world. Water vapor has declined in the upper atmosphere. That has 10X the effect of an increase at the surface. This is what is preventing a strong water vapor feedback. 

Empirical measurements show that CO2 is not causing rapid warming. The paper I referenced shows that no enhanced greenhouse effect has happened recently. 

Your PHD in Physics is going to waste if you are looking for the answers at SKS. You know that energy must be conserved. Energy in must equal energy out. The system response on Earth is to increase radiation to space of any temporary "imbalance". 

The climate models projecting more warming than has been observed are nothing more than tuned parameterizations. They don't physically represent the actual climate.

 Empirical measurement is the foundation of science. Empirical measurements show that many of the assumptions built into climate models are wrong. There are lots of papers quantifying those errors but they don't seem to be modifying climate models to observations. Many top climate scientists argue against empirical validation of models. How as a scientist can you rationalize this behavior?

[Dr Q]

Pete, I think you got the effect of water vapor backwards.  Climate scientists say that it amplifies the effect of CO2, rather than counters it.  A small amount of CO2 increments the temperature, which causes more water to evaporate, which absorbs more radiation from the ground, increasing the greenhouse effect, and amplifying the original increment in temperature.  But before we get off onto a whole new topic (DWIR, PDO, Fourier Analysis, ....) I'm going to insist that we finish one topic of my choice - the basic model showing that CO2 is at least a possible cause of the warming.  If all you can say is that it must be wrong, because it came from a website run by climate scientists who are all propagandists, I will have to conclude that you are a denier, not a skeptic.

Are there any facts being misrepresented in this chart?

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-basic.htm

[Pete Weaver]

I've pointed out to you the misrepresentations SKS makes. I could do that for every so called "climate myth" they claim to debunk. Misrepresentations are not the basis for evidence based discourse.  

I am citing current empirical measurements and scientific research. How does that make me a "denier"? I have stated repeatedly that AGW is real and our emissions should be causing some warming. Why do you continue to present this straw man argument that somehow I don't think human emissions could cause some warming? 

Empirical measurements show that water vapor has declined in the upper atmosphere. This has 10x the effect of an increase at the surface. Several papers have shown that with clouds included the feedback is slightly negative. Climate scientists are wrong about the magnitude of the WV feedback. The data is unambiguous. 

If you cannot accept empirical evidence I suggest that you are the denier here. Why are you clinging to misrepresentations in the face of real world facts? 

[Dr Q]

You can't just make wild statements that everything climate scientists say on skepticalscience.com is a "misrepresentation" while refusing to discuss the graph I copied from that website.  You say I won't accept empirical evidence, that I am clinging to a misrepresentation of real world facts.  That graph is a plot of the empirical evidence on CO2.  That is what climate scientists believe are the real-world facts.

You know what - this discussion is going nowhere, and we have probably lost our audience anyway, except for jman.  How about we put the CO2 question on hold, and look at a more general question:  What is the difference between denial and skepticism?  I can find plenty of examples of science denial, and no doubt you can find examples from climate alarmists.  We should be able to agree on what is bad science on either side of the climate debate.  Let's look for entertaining examples that speak for themselves, and don't require a lot of discussion.

Here is an example of the logical fallacy called "cherry picking".

[Pete Weaver]

Once again you resort to a straw man rather than respond to the scientific facts. I never said "everything" they say at SKS is a misrepresentation. Most of what they say is correct. It's what they leave out that misrepresents the facts. I gave you examples which you have not acknowledged as being deceptive.

You have shown an unwillingness to look at the actual facts I've presented so I'm done here. I tried to expose you to current research but it seems like you really don't want to know. 

Best wishes, Pete

[Dr Q]

Pete, I've responded to what looked to me like your best arguments.  I don't have time to research the others.

This topic has gotten so big that it is taking more than a minute to refresh the page, so I will mark it as closed.  We have spent the entire time debating the science, which was not my intention.  I will start an new topic for those of us who are satisfied that the basic science is settled, and want to discuss what to do about it.

I will also start a topic Good Science vs Bad.  There is a lot politics being injected into science these days, and it does not require a PhD to recognize it.  It should be possible to have a non-political discussion on this topic.  It should be beneficial for voters in AZ-2 to recognize bad science when they see it.

[Dr Q]

For those who have gotten this far in what might seem a frustrating discussion, I would like to close with some inspiring words from Carl Sagan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0