Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[hollodero]

(02-28-2017, 06:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And what of amplification?  Where is the evidence?

This was first being proposed 20+ years ago...and if it was correct, we should be much warmer than we are now.  And that's clearly not the case, not before the latest lowering of past temperatures.

Yes, that is true and that was what I said. It's warming less rapidly as assumed from IPCC.
But it still has gotten 0.7° warmer.

(02-28-2017, 06:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But when you look at the troposphere (or whatever it's called), measurable warming is, at most, no more than on the surface (despite all the faults with surface temperatures).

Well, we live in the troposphere. Or in scientific terms, in "whatever it's called".
So well, it's about the warming in said sphere. Not about the warming in earth's core, not about the warming in the Exosphere. But the one we live in. That might be a bit anthropocentric, but well, that's how I roll.

[quote='JustWinBaby' pid='349158' dateline='1488274647']
  That's a 100% fail for the argument.  That's where water vapor or other amplifying effects would be seen - but there's no evidence of it.  Nada.  Which is a pretty simple explanation of why the catastrophic warming models have failed.  Because they're shitty models that don't actually understand that which they pretend to describe.

What are you even talking about.
Again, we have a measurable warming in, yes, the troposphere, in which greenhouse effects take place. The warming is about 0.07 C° per decade right now, the fastest rise in about 60 million years. 2016 was the warmest year in probably 115.000 years and the warmest year ever measured, followed by 2015 and 2014. Global temperatures rise, they have risen about at least, at least 0,7°C since pre-industrial times. These are things that aren't theory, these are the things that are there.
So you can now either say:

a) That's all not true, those numbers are forged for all scientists are liberal dumb-dumbs who follow their leader's agenda or get filthy rich by doing so, some yuge conspiracy.
b) That is true, but there's a whole other explanation. It's the increase in space worm mating that warms earth. These mating spaceworms sure heat things up. Or you have an even better explanation, but then, produce it. Don't babble incoherent stuff about the scientific method.

You obviously choose c) the warming is not "catastrophic" (for whatever that means), hence it all is irrelevant, for scientists earlier claimed otherwise, hence lies lies lies. And I get so tired of that argument. No serious scientist would have prognosed with absolute certainty how things will pan out. There are "bad apple" sensationalists that maybe exaggerated on purpose, sure. But that factor doesn't disprove global warming in any way, shape or form. Yes, they deal with models, and maybe these models were, as you so eloquently said, "shitty" - because that's what usually happpens when models deal with complex systems full of yet unknowns. They don't produce 100% accurate predictions. And have to be continuously enhanced.
Then again... there's real warming that can be observed, so it's not like they failed completely.

About the amplifications. Their existence can't be fully proven unless by experiment - just in this case, when they are proven, we already have a much warmer planed that has drastically changed. So what they are at this point are dangers. I don't really know what happens, maybe there aren't amplifying affects, maybe warming slows down, and then phew! Or it doesn't and you got your "evidence" by seeing an unpleasantly warmed planed. Now then what.

The occurrence of ice ages pretty much shows amplifications, per se, have taken place, just in the opposite direction (think ice surfaces). You can paint the possible warming amplifications as pure imagination, an invention to scare good, oilloyal people like you. My guess is they're not, at least not all of them. And even if they are, we would still have to battle the warming that already is there to see.
You can say we can handle that then. But whatever, I don't really want to take the slim chance that all scientists got it dead wrong and that one condescending big-mouth no-fact guy from the bengals board - and some republicans who don't know anything about science - got it right. By all logic, that is a very unlikely outcome.