• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Paper: CO2 NOT the Source of Recent Warming

Care to give a hint on who you are talking to??

Considering the fact that my post was directly following yours, and that I have been addressing yours and Vicchio's assertions in all my posts in this thread, it is quite obvious that I am referring to you.
 
Considering the fact that my post was directly following yours, and that I have been addressing yours and Vicchio's assertions in all my posts in this thread, it is quite obvious that I am referring to you.

OK, now that I dragged that out of you, how about a hint on exactly what claim I made that you believe is false/incorrect.

Sheesh, I am about to dismiss you completely if you can't post cognizant comments.
 
Just saying something is a lie/false doesn't make it so. I say your statement was a falsehood KC
 
The problem here is that this paper makes no assertion that GHGs don't contribute to the warming of oceans, and because of that you cannot assert from this paper that they were claiming that GHG (and therefore CO2) don't contribute to global warming, which is what Gill and yourself are attempting to do.

Do you actually believe that GHG can warm the oceans and NOT warm land? If this is what you are talking about, perhaps you should have read the first post of this thread:

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of 11natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.
 
OK, now that I dragged that out of you

Um, how did you "drag it out of me"? It was quite obvious I was referring to you, given the fact that all of my posts addressed your assertions and that the post before you inquired was right after one of yours. There was no "dragging" required, but simply a failure of understanding on your part.

how about a hint on exactly what claim I made that you believe is false/incorrect.

In your original post you made the following statement:

"That's right... this paper not only dares to dispute the 'consensus' that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for any recent global warming"

Which is an incorrect statement, as I showed in this post:

Me said:
The problem here is that this paper makes no assertion that GHGs don't contribute to the warming of oceans, and because of that you cannot assert from this paper that they were claiming that GHG (and therefore CO2) don't contribute to global warming, which is what Gill and yourself are attempting to do.

Do you actually believe that GHG can warm the oceans and NOT warm land? If this is what you are talking about, perhaps you should have read the first post of this thread:

This is irrelevant, as I am discussing your assertion that this paper "dares to dispute the 'consensus' that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for any recent global warming". What we are discussing is not whether or not GHG can contribute to warming oceans, but whether or not this paper actually makes that claim. And with the quote that you provided in your original post and in this one, you prove your own statement wrong:

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of 11natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

Emphasis mine.
 
Um, how did you "drag it out of me"? It was quite obvious I was referring to you, given the fact that all of my posts addressed your assertions and that the post before you inquired was right after one of yours. There was no "dragging" required, but simply a failure of understanding on your part.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but most people either quote the person's post they are referring to or address them by name. I don't live on this board day and night, so don't keep up with every reply in every thread that I participate in.

In your original post you made the following statement:

"That's right... this paper not only dares to dispute the 'consensus' that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for any recent global warming"

Which is an incorrect statement, as I showed in this post:
How is my statement incorrect? Does the paper not dispute the consensus that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming? This paper clearly states:

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
emphasis mine.

Which part of the bolded section is unclear??
 
How is my statement incorrect? Does the paper not dispute the consensus that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming? This paper clearly states:

No, it nowhere states that "the 'consensus' that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are [not] responsible for any recent global warming". It refers to the warming of oceans, while saying that "the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG...is a matter of active investigation". So instead of saying that "GHG's are not responsible" it says that it is a matter of investigation.

If they were making the claim, as you think for some reason, that GHG's aren't responsible for the warming of oceans, then they wouldn't consider it a matter of investigation.

Moreover, let's look at this statement again:

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

All this states is that land warming is due "largely" to warming oceans and is not directly due to GHG's. It nowhere makes any claims that GHG's don't contribute to the warming of oceans. Until you can provide a quote from here that says that GHG's don't contribute to the warming of oceans, your statement is incorrect.

And as I have quoted them saying that it is actually a matter to be looked into ("a matter of investigation"), this shows that they are actually making no statement either way and support more investigation into the subject.
 
No, it nowhere states that "the 'consensus' that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are [not] responsible for any recent global warming". It refers to the warming of oceans, while saying that "the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG...is a matter of active investigation". So instead of saying that "GHG's are not responsible" it says that it is a matter of investigation.

If they were making the claim, as you think for some reason, that GHG's aren't responsible for the warming of oceans, then they wouldn't consider it a matter of investigation.

Moreover, let's look at this statement again:



All this states is that land warming is due "largely" to warming oceans and is not directly due to GHG's. It nowhere makes any claims that GHG's don't contribute to the warming of oceans. Until you can provide a quote from here that says that GHG's don't contribute to the warming of oceans, your statement is incorrect.

And as I have quoted them saying that it is actually a matter to be looked into ("a matter of investigation"), this shows that they are actually making no statement either way and support more investigation into the subject.

Look, I'm not going to spend a week while you cherry pick and wordsmith what you think the paper says. In my opinion and many others, the author's meaning and conclusions are quite obvious.

My suggestion to you is to read the entire paper and you will get a better grasp of their conclusions. If you have trouble understanding any of it, I'll be glad to help or direct you to a web site that explains it.
 
Show me where the authors of the study claim that either:

1. GHG don't contribute to global warming in any way shape or form (directly or indirectly); or,
2. GHG don't contribute to warming of the oceans.

And I will revise my statement that you are incorrect. Until you can do either of those, your statement that this study claims that GHG don't contribute to global warming is incorrect.

And for the record, I haven't cherry picked anything. I even addressed your statement directly, showing what they meant when they said that. Can you support your argument or not? That's really what it comes down to. Since you were unable or unwilling to respond to my last post which directly addressed why you were wrong, I'm guessing that you can't.
 
Last edited:
Show me where the authors of the study claim that either:

1. GHG don't contribute to global warming in any way shape or form (directly or indirectly); or,
2. GHG don't contribute to warming of the oceans.

And I will revise my statement that you are incorrect. Until you can do either of those, your statement that this study claims that GHG don't contribute to global warming is incorrect.

And for the record, I haven't cherry picked anything. I even addressed your statement directly, showing what they meant when they said that. Can you support your argument or not? That's really what it comes down to. Since you were unable or unwilling to respond to my last post which directly addressed why you were wrong, I'm guessing that you can't.

Indeed we find compelling evidence from several atmospheric general circulation model simulations without prescribed GHG, aerosol, and solar forcing variations (Table 1) that the continental warming in Fig. 1a is largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases over the continents (Table 2)

Any more questions??
 
No, my original questions still stand. The quote you presented says exactly the same thing as this quote:

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

You haven't answered any of my questions, and merely provided a different quote that says the same thing as the above one, so they still stand.

"Continental warming wasn't directly caused by GHG, and is mostly due to warming oceans" does not mean the same thing as "GHG does not contribute at all to continental warming, nor does it contribute to warming oceans".
 
No, my original questions still stand. The quote you presented says exactly the same thing as this quote:



You haven't answered any of my questions, and merely provided a different quote that says the same thing as the above one, so they still stand.

"Continental warming wasn't directly caused by GHG, and is mostly due to warming oceans" does not mean the same thing as "GHG does not contribute at all to continental warming, nor does it contribute to warming oceans".

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The paper says that continental warming is primarily due to warming oceans. Simple, clear statement. If you are looking for someone to claim that GHG has zero contribution to warming, forget about it. It will never happen. Of course GHG has some affect on warming, so to look for a statement that says is doesn't is silly and pointless. GHG, along with many other factors such as land use changes. That statement couldn't be said if GHG raised global temps by only 0.01 degree every hundred years.

The point of the paper is that continental warming is not primarily due to GHG. Continental warming is due to warming oceans. They ran models with no GHG and the continents still warmed.

Another important finding in the paper is that that IPCC models have substantial errors. They go on to state that natural variability can't be ruled out to account for changes in SST. This is EXACTLY what most skeptics have been claiming for years.
 
Yeah know, when they taught us to use the Forecast models, one of the first things they do is explain how many of the models have "biases". One will over state lows in certain situations, while another will weaken highs too fast in another situation.

These are things you learn over long periods of time. Things that are tweaked and taken into account.

People that point to climate models, which are vastly larger, longer running and more simplified then forecast models, and say "SEE! Warming!" crack me up. These are models, models that haven't had the time to be tested against real conditions, models that haven't been tested over long periods of time to understand what is and isn't working.
 
Yeah know, when they taught us to use the Forecast models, one of the first things they do is explain how many of the models have "biases". One will over state lows in certain situations, while another will weaken highs too fast in another situation.

These are things you learn over long periods of time. Things that are tweaked and taken into account.

People that point to climate models, which are vastly larger, longer running and more simplified then forecast models, and say "SEE! Warming!" crack me up. These are models, models that haven't had the time to be tested against real conditions, models that haven't been tested over long periods of time to understand what is and isn't working.

I'm not a meteorologist or a climatologist, but I've been fascinated by weather all my life. I got my first weather station when I was 8 years old. I still follow weather and weather forecasting VERY closely.

It amazes me that so many people think meteorology and climatology are exact sciences. They are far from it. I read the NWS Forecast Discussions every day because the NWS meteorologists talk about the exact things you mentioned, i.e. model biases and the experience to recognize them.

We've come a long way, but we've got a long way to go before I believe any long-term forecasts, especially ones that attempt to predict the climate 50 years from now.
 
National Weather Service Watch Warning Advisory Summary

On my daily reading list. It's the Forecast discussion for San Antonio.

DISCUSSION...
DESPITE A CHILLY START TO THE DAY...TEMPERATURES WILL WARM TO
SEASONAL NORMALS UNDER SUNNY SKIES. RIDGING ALOFT WILL KEEP THE
DRY AIRMASS OVER OUR REGION FOR ANOTHER NIGHT. CLEAR SKIES AND
LIGHT WINDS WILL ENABLE GOOD RADIATIONAL COOLING TONIGHT WITH
TEMPERATURES DROPPING TO NEAR FREEZING SATURDAY MORNING. SOUTHERLY
WINDS SATURDAY AFTERNOON WILL PUSH GULF MOISTURE BACK INTO THE
REGION. THE WARM AND MOIST AIR ADVECTION WILL BRING A RETURN OF
CLOUDY SKIES SATURDAY NIGHT WITH PATCHY FOG EXPECTED IN THE NEAR-
SUNRISE HOURS SUNDAY MORNING. OVERNIGHT LOWS WILL BE NOTICEABLY
WARMER AS THEY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE 40S.

AN APPROACHING COLD FRONT WILL BRING A CHANCE FOR RAIN ON SUNDAY.
HOWEVER...AS WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH MOST OF THE COLD FRONTS
THIS SEASON...RAIN CHANCES WILL BE LOW AND GENERALLY LIMITED TO
THE SOUTHEASTERN COUNTIES WHERE MOISTURE AVAILABILITY WILL BE
GREATEST. AS THE SYSTEM PUSHES TO THE WEST...RAIN CHANCES WILL
EXIT SUNDAY NIGHT. TEMPERATURES SUNDAY NIGHT WILL ONCE AGAIN BE
MILD AS THE FRONT ARRIVES EARLY MONDAY MORNING WITH THE STRONG CAA
LAGGING A FEW HOURS BEHIND THE WIND SHIFT.

STRONG AND GUSTY NORTH WINDS ON MONDAY WILL PUSH A VERY DRY
AIRMASS INTO THE REGION. THE DRY AIRMASS WILL ENSURE CLEAR SKIES
MONDAY NIGHT WITH ANOTHER AREA-WIDE FREEZE EXPECTED TUESDAY
MORNING. A FEW MORE NEAR-FREEZING MORNINGS WILL BE IN STORE BEFORE
RETURN FLOW BRINGS BACK SOME CLOUD COVER BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
ASIDE FROM THE CHILLY MORNINGS...TEMPERATURES THROUGH THE END OF
THE FORECAST WILL OTHERWISE BE NEAR NORMAL FOR EARLY FEBRUARY WITH
NO RAIN IN SIGHT.
 
No, my original questions still stand. The quote you presented says exactly the same thing as this quote:

You haven't answered any of my questions, and merely provided a different quote that says the same thing as the above one, so they still stand.

"Continental warming wasn't directly caused by GHG, and is mostly due to warming oceans" does not mean the same thing as "GHG does not contribute at all to continental warming, nor does it contribute to warming oceans".
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Good luck with getting an honest answer from gill
 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Good luck with getting an honest answer from gill

Hold up Jfuh, you've been called out on various issues, like accusing me of lying about the GISS images not lasting on the forum. Do admit now you were wrong?
 
Hold up Jfuh, you've been called out on various issues, like accusing me of lying about the GISS images not lasting on the forum. Do admit now you were wrong?

Notice all, that Jfuh refuses to even say "yeah, okay you had a point I was wrong" on something so simple as this point.

Jfuh, I know you think if you ignore this, it goes away, no one will notice... I'll bring it up EVERYTIME you demand someone admit they were wrong, because you have no right to do so.
 
Hold up Jfuh, you've been called out on various issues, like accusing me of lying about the GISS images not lasting on the forum. Do admit now you were wrong?
You're still lying about those GISS images. Lying by ommission is still lying.
You going to demonstrate what the ten hottest years of the last 150 years were?
 
You're still lying about those GISS images. Lying by ommission is still lying.
You going to demonstrate what the ten hottest years of the last 150 years were?

I am?

HEY EVERYONE! JFUH'S admitting he cannot accept he was wrong!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/42493-last-year-ranked-top-10-heat-10.html
Testing of GISS site images
Fig1.gif


Funny thing vic, might be just beginers luck or some miraculous magical feat, but I don't seem to have any problem posting the images from GISS website directly onto this forum. Simple copy and paste was all I did.
Maybe that's what you ought do


Great, well here's the two I used, off GISS let's see if they do as has happened before, where they are up for a bit, then stop working.

station.gif


station.gif

Note, the lack of image Jfuh. That's why I posted them via Photobucket because the GISS images won't stick around. You called me a liar. The proof is for all to see, you don't know what you're talking about. Your credibility, just dropped again.
 
I am?

HEY EVERYONE! JFUH'S admitting he cannot accept he was wrong!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/42493-last-year-ranked-top-10-heat-10.html
:lamo grow up vic you're embarrassing yourself.

MrVicchio said:
Note, the lack of image Jfuh. That's why I posted them via Photobucket because the GISS images won't stick around.
Sure

MrVicchio said:
You called me a liar. The proof is for all to see, you don't know what you're talking about. Your credibility, just dropped again.
:lamo, funny thing vic, where're the images?
You claim the GISS website doesnt image properly, funny how YOU seem to be the only one with that problem.
 
:lamo grow up vic you're embarrassing yourself.

Sure


:lamo, funny thing vic, where're the images?
You claim the GISS website doesnt image properly, funny how YOU seem to be the only one with that problem.

You've never posted a GISS data image, one from a station... I have.

You called me out for putting two into photobucket, saying it was bad data. I explained why and you called me a liar. I proved you were... wrong.

Jfuh, admit it, you were wrong. That you cannot admit such, says everything.
 
You've never posted a GISS data image, one from a station... I have.

You called me out for putting two into photobucket, saying it was bad data. I explained why and you called me a liar. I proved you were... wrong.

Jfuh, admit it, you were wrong. That you cannot admit such, says everything.

I don't believe he's capable of admitting that he's wrong. He certainly never has that I know of, even when there was no doubt.
 
I don't believe he's capable of admitting that he's wrong. He certainly never has that I know of, even when there was no doubt.

This is true, and I know it's true. Perhaps it's silly of me to expect Jfuh to say I dunno...

"Oh hey look at that, they must update their images, I guess I was wrong, the GISS images DO go to boxes after a few days, looks like a week. Good to know".

He cannot do this, he won't do this.
 
Back
Top Bottom