For Coggins on AGW

[_Fortigurn]

Mr. Coffee, I've updated your record in my sig.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Mr. Coffee, I've updated your record in my sig.

Danke, brother.

[_Fortigurn]

[quoting something he seems not to have checked] Everyone accepts that it has warmed significantly, as the planet has recovered from the global chill of the Little Ice Age.

Unfortunately views on the 'Little Ice Age' have changed over the last three years. It is now clear that there is insufficient evidence to make the case that the LIA was a global phenomenon. There is clear evidence that it was at the very least a phenomenon of significant cooling within the northern hemisphere, but also that the temperature decreases did not occur uniformly even across the northern hemisphere.

You just added to my sig again.

[_Coggins7]

You are done CaliforniaKid. Your just another poseur who can't engage in intellectually honest, ingenuous, critical debate. You are now exposed for the intellectual charlatan you are.

I gave you a link, you prevaricating little twit, to a entire host of articles on both the alleged connection between CO2 and warming and ocean warming, and you cherry picked two paragraphs from one article which you claim so not support my point. And yet:

What it means

Lyman et al. note that the physical causes of the type of variability they discovered "are not yet well understood," and that "this variability is not adequately simulated in the current generation of coupled climate models used to study the impact of anthropogenic influences on climate," which shortcoming, as they describe it, "may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate influences."

This statement suggests to us that they and many other scientists feel there has not yet been an adequate demonstration of human-induced climate influences in world ocean temperature data. In addition, it would appear there currently is little hope of finding such a connection in sub-sets of world ocean data any time soon, for Lyman et al. report that "the relatively small magnitude of the globally averaged signal is dwarfed by much larger regional variations in ocean heat content anomaly." In fact, whereas they report that "the recent decrease in heat content amounts to an average cooling rate of -1.0 ± 0.3 W/m2 (of the earth's total surface area) from 2003 to 2005," regional variations "sometimes exceed the equivalent of a local air-sea heat flux anomaly of 50 W/m2 applied continuously over 2 years.

Let's see, the GCMs can't adequately model variability in ocean temperature, the earth's oceans have recently cooled, and the 'signal" indicating potential human influence is "dwarfed by much larger regional variations in ocean heat content anomaly."

Pray tell, Mr. Wizard, which part of this supports your claims above and is in contradiction to mine?

[_Mr. Coffee]

You are done CaliforniaKid. Your just another poseur who can't engage in intellectually honest, ingenuous, critical debate.

So says the lying piece of fundimentalist crap that falsifies his evidence...


CK, now's when you start working the body and follow with a good, solid hook.

[_Coggins7]

Poor Mr. Coffee. He's smoked his last bowl, the Playboy Channel is encountering technical difficulties, There's no more Valium in the sock drawer, and his girlfriend is right in the middle of a Herpes outbreak. What's left to do but hit the message boards and vent some good ol'e teenage angst and rage against the machine.

Smells like teen spirit.

And for many, this goes on well into the thirties...

[_CaliforniaKid]

You are done CaliforniaKid. Your just another poseur who can't engage in intellectually honest, ingenuous, critical debate. You are now exposed for the intellectual charlatan you are.

I gave you a link, you prevaricating little twit, to a entire host of articles on both the alleged connection between CO2 and warming and ocean warming, and you cherry picked two paragraphs from one article which you claim so not support my point. And yet:

Coggins, you inimical ninny, that was posted by Mr. Coffee, not by me. If you're going to engage in ad hominem, at least get it right.

My short answer to your cut-and-paste above is that the 400-1000 year time-lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase does not preclude the sort of positive feed back mechanism I mentioned in my original post. (I have put a space in the middle of "feed back" because I notice the compound word was rendered f*** in the OP; an odd substitution, to say the least.) Basically what this means is that some third-party event causes a temperature increase, which triggers a release of CO2, methane, etc. from oceans, which aggravates the warming trend. The warming trend in turn causes release of more greenhouse gases. This cycle continues until the supply of greenhouse gases dissolved in the oceans is essentially exhausted, or until some other cooling mechanism kicks in. Melting of ice caps (i.e. reduction of reflective surface area) can also aggravate the warming trend, similarly resulting in positive feed back. A rise in CO2 does not initiate climate change in the historical climate record because there is no natural cause other than temperature increase that causes release of large enough quantities of CO2. That situation has changed now that humans are on the scene. We have injected a large quantity of both CO2 and CH4 (which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2) into the atmosphere, and the change we have seen recently may indeed be the beginning of a greenhouse-triggered warming trend.

Let's take the first claim first, that "CO2 levels are rising rapidly, largely as a result of human greenhouse emissions."

I should note that your post actually seemed to target my third claim more than the first. The first claim is not really disputed, except by the most strident opponents of the leftist agenda.

I should also note that several people have made predictions about who will "pwn" who in this "debate." I am not much interested in debating. Nor do I think myself qualified to debate. I simply want a discussion. More, perhaps, tomorrow.

-CK

[_Coggins7]

Yes, that should have been Mr. Coffee. But you're just as bad, so eat it and like it. In anycase, Mr. Coffee posted something ascribed to me that I didn't write, so now we're all even.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, that should have been Mr. Coffee. But you're just as bad, so eat it and like it. In anycase, Mr. Coffee posted something ascribed to me that I didn't write, so now we're all even.

No, you're not even. Neither Coffee nor CK posted anything like the vitriolic personal attack (the herpes bit was especially low, even for you) you put up above. Do you have a legit response to CK's counter? Or is this yet another instance wherein you've had your butt handed to you?

[_CaliforniaKid]

But you're just as bad, so eat it and like it.

Your supernatural insight into my character is uncanny.