It doesn’t surprise me that mainstream climate science looks “incoherent” to you. Looking back over your posts, I see that you have a special talent for insult and personal attack. It’s disappointing that you can’t seem to resist the compulsion to insult long enough to say something intelligent on the topic of global warming.

Don’t you just hate it when someone answers the weakest argument? It’s just so tendentious.

I’ve never worked with modelers in solid-state physics or chemistry. Your comments are true, I’m sure. But climate model results are the weakest argument for understanding climate dynamics. As a tool for analyzing the principles of climate dynamics, they are certainly more powerful than mere opinion. But no one is claiming that they are “proof” of global warming.

Additionally, more than once, discrepancies between the observed trends and the models have been resolved in favor of the models, when errors in the data analysis of the observations became apparent. Maybe models are still being used in chemistry and physics because they have some utility, in spite of their flaws and uncertainties.

Models aside, simple observation provides evidence of CO2′s effects on the environment. For example, levels of carbonic acid in the worlds’ oceans are increasing at a rate one hundred times faster than the world has seen for millions of years. Ocean acidification threatens photosynthetic plankton, which have shells of calcium carbonate. Increasing acidification interrupts their ability to grow, meaning they remove less carbon from the atmosphere. This conclusion does not rely on complex climate models. It relies on high school level chemistry. The cause is the ever-increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the results will wreck havoc on marine eco-systems. And this change is effectively irreversible.

The Antarctic Peninsula’s average annual temp is close to the melting point of ice. The continent of Antarctica is 35 C below the melting point of ice. The Peninsula is geographically dissimilar to the continent (subject to ocean currents, etc.) It stands to reason that warming would be evident on the Peninsula before it manifests on the Continent. Why would you expect melting on the Peninsula to occur simultaneously and homogeneously with melting on the Continent?

A prediction of global warming theory is that the South Pole will warm and the ice will melt. But this is a chaotic process that will take place over decades and centuries. It is not something that is expected to happen in a homogenous manner over every geographic region at the same time.

Further more, the collapse of a massive ice shelf is unprecedented since the last ice age. This is evidence from marine bed sediment cores that the current warming is outside of the bounds of natural variability.

With more precipitation and deeper snow at the South Pole, the snow load on the sea ice becomes heavy enough that it suppresses the ice below sea level. This results in even more and even thicker sea ice when the snow refreezes as more ice. This is not a wild guess by a politically motivated ideologue, but a reasonable interpretation of recent satellite data by a NASA scientist that explains how ice shelves are melting in one region, while sea ice advances in other regions.

The climate is a complex non-linear dynamic of numerous forces, moderated by feedbacks and delayed reactions, taking place on a background of inherent variability and natural climate cycles. It only stands to reason that the effects of global warming would be varied and disparate, and play out over time, simply because of the complex nature of the interactions.

The manner in which global warming can play a role in the intensification of droughts and floods is not hard to fathom. Warming intensifies the hydrologic cycle. Warming increases evaporation, which increases precipitation. This means more flooding, but also more droughts. Droughts come about where the atmosphere is not favorable to rain or snow, and the evaporated moisture travels to other regions. The additional evaporation from the surface leads to a drying of the soil, and more severe and widespread droughts. Also, precipitation is more pronounced in the winter and spring, while drying is more pronounced in the summer. Hence, the mechanism by which global warming is responsible for an increasing intensity of droughts AND floods is well understood. What appears to be a contradiction to Dave is actually a well-understood phenomenon.

Dave makes the assertion that he can’t believe global warming can be responsible for seemingly contradictory effects, like droughts AND floods. You call that a strong argument. But Dave offers no examples, no reasoning, and no research to back up his disbelief, instead relying on his faith in religion. I’d be interested on your opinion. What reasoning or evidence implies that global warming can’t be manifest disparately in different regions? Is it really plausible that global warming should manifest only one type of response, equally in every region, all at one time? Who believes this?

Mr. Seward wrote:
… and instead made a big deal about the spelling of Ice Age.

Building another straw man Mr. Seward? It was not about your spelling, it was about the fact that the term “ice age” and “Ice Age” have different meanings, something you seem unable to grasp. Attempt this mischaracterization again and I will feel quite justified calling you a bold faced liar.

Mr. Seward wrote:
Arguments over spelling are a waste of time. I would never complain about your spelling, if you hadn’t insisted on ignoring my point in previous posts

Your demand that I respond to “Singer’s quotes an honest presentation” is a ploy to shift the burden of proof. I feel no obligation to play your silly games. I will state this once again. The burden of proof is with you. You’re the one who made the claim:

And yet Singer’s website is a catalogue of distortions and misrepresentation of the observed evidence.

I refer you to comment # 63.

Mr. Seward wrote:
You haven’t answered any of my questions to you, and you have the nerve to complain that I didn’t tell you what words you misspelled.

you just don’t get it. You made a claim that I misspelled a word. The burden of proof is with you. The questions you want me to answer are not based on any claim I have made, they are an attempt to shift the burden of proof from claims you made. Now either put up or shut up.

Mr. Seward wrote:
Your sole contribution to the debate has been to berate me, …

You are a proven plagiarizer. You, without proof, have berated Dr. Singer as well as others. You even claim to quote me “verbatim” (see below) when you did not. Your moral compass is in serious need of adjustment.

Mr. Seward wrote:
Greg. Prove that I’m distorting the science, if you think it is provable.

That has already been shown numerous times in this thread. Like a religious fanatic, facts that contradict a fanatics belief are ignored. Two examples. Comment # 77 where Mr. Seward didn’t cite the source, IOW he plagiarized and edited out relevant information that weakened his argument.

Mr. Seward’s plagiarized comment:
…has found that recent TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason satellite observations show an average increase in global mean sea level is more than 50 percent greater than the average rate of the last 50 years.

The article Seward plagiarized said:
…has found that recent TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason satellite observations show an average increase in global mean sea level of three millimeters a year from 1993-2005. This rate is more than 50 percent greater than the average rate of the last 50 years.

Removing the text that is in bold is clear evidence of intentionally misrepresenting the science. Also, in comment # 57, where Armand showed clear distortion of the science on Mr. Seward’s part.

And concering my misspelling of the word “loosing” when it should have been “losing”, and Mr. Seward’s subsequent repeat of my mistake.

I am demonstrating that I quoted Greg’s comment verbatim, exactly as he wrote it. Period.

Verbatim eh? “Exactly” as I wrote it? Looks like more Seward spin to me.

I wrote:
… it is a sign they are loosing the argument.

Mr. Seward wrote:
is a sign of loosing the argument.

This guy is a troll.

It’s a consequence of the weblog’s popularity and not malice on our part towards any particular poster.

Steve: Try again. We’ve been having some server problems as the site seems to be bumping against allotted memory. I’ll keep an eye out for it.

Comment by fFreddy: “In my opinion, your recharacterisation to “imminent”, without the geological context, is a deliberate distortion. Are we clear?”

No, not really. The question I posed to Greg was this: are Singer’s quotes an honest presentation of the current scientific understanding about global warming, or are they an example of a distortion and misrepresentation of the science? I gave several examples, including Singer’s comment (still on his website) that the threat of an ice age is more certain (more imminent) than the threat of global warming. I have asked Greg if he believes this to be true, and he sent me a link to a paper from 1997 that implied that an ice age is imminent (ice ages occur every 10,000 years, it’s been 10,000 years since the last ice age, hence…).

I informed Greg that more recent research indicates that the next ice age could be 15,000 years in the future, concluding that the date of the next ice age is not known with certainty. To claim, as I understand Singer’s statement, that the threat of an ice age is more certain (i.e. more imminent) than the threat from global warming (which is already discernable) is simply wrong.

Do you think that the threat from the next ice age is more certain than the threat from global warming? If not, is this line of argument (which is common in climate skeptic circles) an honest reflection of the science? I’d be interested in your opinion.

Comment by fFreddy : “Pointing out to Michael Seward that you don’t “loose” an argument, you “lose” it, and that by repeating Greg’s typo, he is demonstrating his lack of self-confidence in his own ability to spell ?”

I am demonstrating that I quoted Greg’s comment verbatim, exactly as he wrote it. Period.

How about resisting your compulsion to criticize my character, and instead comment on global warming? If that proves too difficult, speculate on my character flaws, and then say something of substance relevant to the debate.

This is the only place I know of where I can have a debate with climate skeptics. Please don’t screw up this opportunity by arguing over spelling mistakes. It is a waste of time.

“Geologists tell us that the present interglacial warm period will soon come to an end.”

You then immediately recharacterise this as :

Fred Singer is predicting an imminent Ice Age!

You proceed to repeat your recharacterisation rather a lot.
Personally, I am aware that geologists work on a differnt timescale to the rest of us, and when they say “soon”, they could be talking in millenia. In my opinion, your recharacterisation to “imminent”, without the geological context, is a deliberate distortion.
Are we clear ?