They can only be proportional at about the 10 micrometer band. the primary band will have almost no noticeable effect.
Oh and lol @ you now saying solar output has dropped.
They can only be proportional at about the 10 micrometer band. the primary band will have almost no noticeable effect.
less solar output = less IR to emit through the atmosphere.
So let me get this straight. Your theory is that warming that has occoured so far is do to increased solar output but decreases in out going radiation at bands associated with greenhouses gases and no where else in the same timebframe is due to a decrease in solar output?
LOL
So let me get this straight. Your theory is that warming that has occoured so far is do to increased solar output but decreases in out going radiation at bands associated with greenhouses gases and no where else in the same timebframe is due to a decrease in solar output?
LOL
We are talking about different time frames. Warming, yes, because of the total increased solar output since the maunder minima, and the increase from about 1900 to about 1950. Over the last 8 years, solar radiation has been decreasing.
What time frame are you refering to? Have that CO2 vs. heat output data handy since 1979, and is the the 3.9 um or 10.7 um data you are referring to?
If you're going to make the claim that the atmospheric window is shrinking with increased CO2, shouldn't you rule out mathematically consider the shrinking driving energy also?
Manny...
May want to read this:
Reducing Noise in the MSU Daily Lower-Tropospheric Global Temperature Dataset
Average TSI is also lower over that same time frame.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-14-2010 at 08:59 PM.
Serious question for those that think the science of AGW is as rock-solid as Newtonian physics and that skeptics are akin to people that think the moon landing was faked:
What would cons ute falsification of AGW, specifiically that CO2 causes out-of-control global warming?
What do you mean falsification?
In order for AGW to be incorrect you have to do a couple of things. Explain what IS causing the warming and explain why the known phenomenon of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not happening in this cir stance.
WC you know how I know you don't know AGW theory well at all (aside from the fact that you contradict yourself on a constant basis, improperly use incomplete equations, and provide graphs that are blatantly made with agendas)?
You post a study done over 15 years ago that has errors in it acknowledged by the authors themselves. The UAH satellite observations were done incorrectly, have been corrected, and are now one of the four main data sets used to show the warming.
I've discussed this very data set with Darrin in the recent climate threads yet you're asking me to read one of the initial studies that has now been shown to be incorrect?
Awesome. You couldn't make this stuff up.
YOU should read this and stop trying to google your way to disproving AGW theory.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...1/finalreport/
No one through this entire debate has ever classified climate research as "rock-solid a Newtonian physics".
This is your twelfth logical fallacy.
It is what is known as a strawman fallacy, in which you distort the views of others in an attempt to discredit them.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Four logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
As stated in the OP, I do not think that all people who are skeptics of AGW/ACC are nutjobs on the order of thinking the moon landing was faked.
I do think that a very large streak of irrationality runs through the general population who doubts it though. Many, like you and WC, suspect a "left wing plot" of some sort.
Getting on to your question, I would say that the majority of scientific reports done so far would have to have faked or created data in some manner.
Despite what you think, the "climategate" emails fall far short of this, and you have no real proof of any malign intent on the part of the majority of climate scientists.
While I am willing to entertain the notion that one or two people in the field might have faked data and or studies in order to further their careers, I find it highly implausible that a significant percentage have done so.
Most of what deniers have presented as "evidence" of this vast plot have been honest mistakes that have been magnified far out of proportion.
That you and WC, and many deniers routinely slip into strawman distortions of other's views I would present as very ample evidence that you and people who hold your views on this topic generally play fast and loose with truth and logic in a very pointed attempt to convince others, fairness and honesty be damned.
Sadly, no few of the scientifically illiterate public is swayed by these pseudoscientific methods and propaganda, hence the OP.
Manny directly addressed my question, but you went off on some tangent about me believing in a vast left wing conspiracy.
As future temperature anomaly data are recorded and made publicly available, what trends in that data would tend to falsify the theory that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change? It's not a difficult question.
I fully accept that yes, the sun's output affects temperatures on earth.
No climate scientist would claim otherwise.
The assertion is that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would be for the added amounts of CO2.
How warm would it have been?
That isn't the question you asked initially.
The answer to that not difficult question is:
Increases in CO2 concentrations without increases in temperature or climate fluctuation beyond what would normally be expected through natural cycles, such as the sun's output.
The IPCC report is readily available and puts forth a likely temperature range, if memory serves.
Perhaps you could read it and tell me.
That's been happening for the past 10 years and also happened for the 30-year period between 1940 and 1970.
Then there's no need for the term "denier".
That is your interpretation of the evidence, yes, an interpretation directly at odds with IPCC and the majority of climate scientists.
As I have noted before:
If one takes the estimates of CO2 emissions as being fairly accurate I would note that in roughly 1985 more CO2 was emitted in that year by human activity than had been emitted by all of humanity in total up until 1970.
We have since more than doubled our output, and this trend is continuing.
The IPCC has noted temperature increases beyond what they consider "natural" (and they do take into account variations in the suns-output to my understanding) that have increased corresponding with the increases in CO2 concentration.
Sooner or later, it will become more and more obvious either way.
Again, as I have stated before, I hope WC is right, but being conservative when it comes to risk, I prefer action, especially when it is beneficial to the long-term well being of our economy for reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and their effect on our climate system.
That depends on whether one needs or wants to make a distinction between honest skeptics and pseudoscientific political hacks.
I feel that is an important distinction, and use the term in that sense.
There are indeed honest skeptics who do not resort to making dishonest or illogical arguments. I have read in the course of many discussions, papers and articles from a few of them.
You talk about the IPCC as if they speak with a unified voice. Many of the IPCC scientists disagree with you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
