Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.

:lmao

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.

[baseline bum]

:lmao

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.

:rollin

[DarrinS]

:lmao

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.


I'd rather have a principal component analysis done properly by a non-degreed individual than one done incorrectly by a PhD.

[Parker2112]

lol, Manny hating on an entire group of professionals based on the actors who play them on TV...

[LnGrrrR]

Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.

Didn't you JUST say that you trusted weathermen because they haven't been indoctrinated like climatologists?

[LnGrrrR]

These are the people who see day to day weather across the world. They haven't (as a whole) been indoctrinated by the climatologist classes, which I see clearly teaching false science.

[Winehole23]

Shit, evidently, you can have ZERO credentials and win a Nobel Prize based on scenarios that are orders of magnitude greater than IPCC's worst case scenario.Riposte, Manny?

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't you JUST say that you trusted weathermen because they haven't been indoctrinated like climatologists?
Not quite that. I'm just saying they aren't taught the agenda.

[RandomGuy]

None of use outright deny that CO2 causes warming. We only deny that it causes as much as you fear-mongers claim, and that it's not enough to be concerned about.

If you can't get the argument right, please stop typing your propaganda.

How much warming is that exactly?

Can you please tell me how much warming has so far been attributed to CO2 increases?

[RandomGuy]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/tv_meteorologists_survey_findings_march_2010.pdf


Excerpt:
About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.



Consenus = weak science

:lmao

[DarrinS]

:lmao


Or, just read their emails and review their shitty computer code. If you're still okay with their work, :downspin:

[MannyIsGod]

lol, Manny hating on an entire group of professionals based on the actors who play them on TV...

WTF are you talking about? I'm hating on the actors. You think I'm hating on meteorologists?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

[MannyIsGod]

Riposte, Manny?

I have to respond to Darrin's complete non sequitur? No thanks.

[DarrinS]

I have to respond to Darrin's complete non sequitur? No thanks.


You're ok with PhD's doing shoddy analyses?

[Parker2112]

WTF are you talking about? I'm hating on the actors. You think I'm hating on meteorologists?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

you did. look at the tape. then you qualified it, somewhat.

[Parker2112]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

[Wild Cobra]

How much warming is that exactly?
My best guess is about 10% to 20% of the stated value by the AGW crowd.

Exactly...

You've got to be kidding.

Can you please tell me how much warming has so far been attributed to CO2 increases?
Of course not. Neither can they. They claim a range if I remember right of 0.6C to 0.85C. I say it's about 0.1C, but we really can't know as fact how much. I am absolutely certain it is no more than 1/3rd what they claim.

[RandomGuy]

My best guess is about 10% to 20% of the stated value by the AGW crowd.

Exactly...

You've got to be kidding.

Of course not. Neither can they. They claim a range if I remember right of 0.6C to 0.85C. I say it's about 0.1C, but we really can't know as fact how much. I am absolutely certain it is no more than 1/3rd what they claim.

"we really can't know as fact how much"

As I have stated before, I don't need to know how many inches are between me and the cliff to know that I need to not step over the cliff.

As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary to take some prudent, conservative risk-avoiding steps.

If you are that certain, get into a scientific journal with some data and a paper. Unless, of course, you don't think your science will hold up under scrutiny.

[Wild Cobra]

"we really can't know as fact how much"

As I have stated before, I don't need to know how many inches are between me and the cliff to know that I need to not step over the cliff.

But we aren't even close to falling off with greenhouse gasses. Now black carbon, that's a different story.


As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary to take some prudent, conservative risk-avoiding steps.

Agreed, so you must be one who lives in a house with barred windows, never goes out, in fear of life.


If you are that certain, get into a scientific journal with some data and a paper. Unless, of course, you don't think your science will hold up under scrutiny.

I don't need to. the information has been put out already. i have linked good articles and data in the past, that others use also.

[MannyIsGod]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

LOL?

Do you know what I'm studying? There is a reason I put it in quotes.

[lefty]

Aaaah climate change.........


But it's not cold in Montreal, which is rather weird this time of the year

[RandomGuy]

As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary, to take some prudent and conservative risk-avoiding steps.



Agreed, so you must be one who lives in a house with barred windows, never goes out, in fear of life.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/thanks4info[1].gif

You suck at psycho-analysis. You suck even more at risk management. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

LOL?

Do you know what I'm studying? There is a reason I put it in quotes.

:facepalm:

[Wild Cobra]

You suck at psycho-analysis. You suck even more at risk management. :lol
You want us to spend money to fight global warming in ways that do no good. You lack of understanding the sciences in this regard are placing the risk factor far higher than it should be. Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk... If that's how you live your life, then I expect you live a very isolated life as to avoid risk. That's how silly I see you "risk analysis" on this topic. You wish that we do unexceptionably stupid measures to avoid a risk that will never happen in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

You want us to spend money to fight global warming in ways that do no good. You lack of understanding the sciences in this regard are placing the risk factor far higher than it should be. Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk... If that's how you live your life, then I expect you live a very isolated life as to avoid risk. That's how silly I see you "risk analysis" on this topic. You wish that we do unexceptionably stupid measures to avoid a risk that will never happen in the first place.

One in a trillion?

Really, you are THAT certain about it?

99.9999999% sure is more sure than *anybody* studying it is.

And you have come to this degree of certainty about one of the most complex natural systems that mankind has tried to understand so far all without ever having gathered any first-hand data, or submitted your theories/conclusions to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

To top off this highly-unscientific statement, you berate me for being risk adverse and essentially use a strawman logical fallacy to distort my previously-stated beliefs about the scale of action needed.

So let's do a well-worn riff on this, and set about chalking up a few more unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.

Would limiting CO2 emissions be harmful to our economy?

[RandomGuy]

unexceptionably stupid measures

Um, what?

[Winehole23]

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

unexceptionable adj : completely acceptable; not open to exception or reproach; "two unexceptionable witnesses"; "a judge's ethics should be unexceptionable" [syn: unimpeachable (http://dictionary.die.net/unimpeachable)]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Unexceptionable \Un`ex*cep"tion*a*ble\, a.
Not liable to any exception or objection; unobjectionable;
faultless; good; excellent; as, a man of most unexceptionable
character. -- Un`ex*cep"tion*a*ble*ness (http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionableness), n. --
Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly (http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionably), adv.http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionable

[Winehole23]

"Unimpeachable" is clearly the better choice for the ironic emphasis WC probably intended. The semantic confusion around the crypto-technical and somewhat prissified word "unexceptionable," appears to have undermined his jocular thrust.

[RandomGuy]

"Unimpeachable" is clearly the better choice for the ironic emphasis WC probably intended. The semantic confusion around the crypto-technical and somewhat prissified word "unexceptionable," appears to have undermined his jocular thrust.

Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly, adv.

I googled the word, as it looked suspiciously like a nonsensical neologism ala certain recent Pailinisms.

There is also the fact that it is an adverb used to modify a noun... but hey that is being unnecessarily picky.

Anyhooo, I am still waiting on him to answer my question for our little kibuki theater bit, so I can chalk it up on the scoreboard.

Anyone else care to take up the "will cutting CO2 emissions harm our economy"?

[DarrinS]

Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly, adv.

I googled the word, as it looked suspiciously like a nonsensical neologism ala certain recent Pailinisms.




irony

[Wild Cobra]

One in a trillion?

Really, you are THAT certain about it?

99.9999999% sure is more sure than *anybody* studying it is.

That CO2 is the major cause. Yet, I am absolutely certain.


And you have come to this degree of certainty about one of the most complex natural systems that mankind has tried to understand so far all without ever having gathered any first-hand data, or submitted your theories/conclusions to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I'm not trying to specifically quantify it, which would make applying a certainty impossible.


To top off this highly-unscientific statement, you berate me for being risk adverse and essentially use a strawman logical fallacy to distort my previously-stated beliefs about the scale of action needed.

If you only understood the aspects I am applying, you wouldn't say that.


So let's do a well-worn riff on this, and set about chalking up a few more unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.

Would limiting CO2 emissions be harmful to our economy?

It depends on the degree in which you limit it. There will be some effect from minor, and may boost jobs for an overall gain, to disastrous. It just depends on how far you take it by regulation and taxes. I will say that the current proposals of Tax and Trade will definitely harm the economy.

I am not against reasonable measures to limit CO2. In fact, i wish we could do like in games. Save and load. If we could eliminate all anthropogenic CO2, what would the levels be in a year. I will contend that they will rise, because the CO2 cycle is not yet in equilibrium from the warming of the oceans that have occurred for the last 250+ years. The oceans should be able to sink more than the 45% to 55% of our emissions than they do today.

[Wild Cobra]

http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionable
OK, you found another mistake of mine. One point to you.

You do know what I meant though, right?

[Wild Cobra]

irony
It's been a while since I said this, but English was always my worse subject in school.

[RandomGuy]

irony

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

OK, you found another mistake of mine. One point to you.

You do know what I meant though, right?

Honestly, I wasn't quite sure. I did figure it out tho' after a re-read. Minor thing I regret even bringing up. 'nuff said.

[Wild Cobra]

Unacceptable would have been a better choice. I don't recall why I typed what I did.

[RandomGuy]

That CO2 is the major cause. Yet, I am absolutely certain.

I'm not trying to specifically quantify it, which would make applying a certainty impossible.

If you only understood the aspects I am applying, you wouldn't say that.


I understand enough. I don't think you are really considering the full interaction of the climate system as a whole.

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty if there are any tipping points or where they are.

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty exactly how all the factors interact with each other and to what degree some cycles feed/subtract other cycles.

As I have said before, if the level of certainty was that great, you would be able to EASILY get a paper through any peer-review process.

The fact that you haven't, says that I can probably assign your "certainty" the same weight as I assign the guy who is 99.99999% sure he has debunked the theory of relativity.

If/when you write that 99.999999% proof-positive paper and submit it to a climate research peer-review journal, I will change that assessment of how much to weigh your theory, not before.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, there is such a simplistic way to look at some things. As complex as the climate systems are, conservation of mass and energy prevail. The simple fact that the energy of the sun has changed by known quantities allow us to know what the energy is without ofter factors changing. That said, the remaining energy available to the greenhouse effect cannot exceed about 3/8th the total warming since 1750. We know that other factors, which are far easier to quantify, like soot on ice, contribute to about 3/16th the greenhouse effect or more. That leaves no more than 3/16th of the greenhouse effect to be of greenhouse gasses and other factors.

True science rules. Conservation of mass and energy has yet to be shown wrong.

Now you show me any evidence that the greenhouse gasses can have the stated effect at only 3/16th what the claims are based on, and I'll listen.

[DarrinS]

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty exactly how all the factors interact with each other and to what degree some cycles feed/subtract other cycles.

As I have said before, if the level of certainty was that great, you would be able to EASILY get a paper through any peer-review process.

The fact that you haven't, says that I can probably assign your "certainty" the same weight as I assign the guy who is 99.99999% sure he has debunked the theory of relativity.

If/when you write that 99.999999% proof-positive paper and submit it to a climate research peer-review journal, I will change that assessment of how much to weigh your theory, not before.



Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

It's ironic that you bring up negative feedbacks when the IPCC models tend to minimize their affects and/or ignore them altogether.

You mention "all the factors that interact with each other", which I agree that their are hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that play a role --- yet IPCC is laser focused on CO2.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

It's ironic that you bring up negative feedbacks when the IPCC models tend to minimize their affects and/or ignore them altogether.

You mention "all the factors that interact with each other", which I agree that their are hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that play a role --- yet IPCC is laser focused on CO2.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

unexceptionably stupid measures

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1464

:toast

I learned a new word at least.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

You might want to read back a few threads... WC said "one out of a trillion" upthread.

[RandomGuy]

Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk...



I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty if there are any tipping points or where they are.



Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

Real scientists don't. That was exactly my point.

(note: one in a trillion = .0000000001 or .00000001% )

Dude, seriously, don't ever stop posting. Every forum needs comic relief.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying the theory of conservation of mass and energy is wrong?

[RandomGuy]

Are you saying the theory of conservation of mass and energy is wrong?

???

No.

Not sure what led you to believe that, but I will take a stab:

You are attempting to set up a dichotomy, wherein you tie your belief/theory directly to that of a law of physics so that I am either forced to accept your conclusion, or reject it, and thereby reject a law of physics.

This is a false dichotomy, simply because it does not allow for your potential to have misunderstood the system you are attempting to apply it to, or misapply the law itself.

If there exists, beyond a 1 in a trillion chance, an instance in which the complex system of our climate behaves in a way that runs counter to your understanding, then your attempt to establish that dichotomy is misguided.

Further,

The IPCC itself says that many aspects of the climate system and interactions between factors are not very well understood or tested. For you to reach such a level of certainty means that you, more than any other human being on the planet, have reached a more full understanding of our climate than any other human being has claimed to achieve.

I think you have made a fallacy of composition, wherein the behavior of the whole is not fully predicted by the individual parts. This is a bit like looking at a lump of water, carbon, and trace metals and thinking that those materials would never amount to a sentient being if put together, or that cutting an elephant in half would result in two smaller elephants.

This lump of water, carbon, and trace metals would beg to differ.

[RandomGuy]

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.



Survival in the Sahel
It's getting harder all the time (http://www.economist.com/node/17628093)

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/images-magazine/2010/12/04/MA/20101204_MAM964.gif


But now the rains have started bringing problems too. Farmers and aid workers say rainfall has been more erratic and stormy for at least the past five years, though it is unclear whether any areas are getting more water overall. Kagara is just one pocket of woe; an hour’s drive north, this year’s floods left over 50,000 people homeless in the desert country of Niger. Ruined harvests caused crippling food shortages that put more than half of the population at risk of going hungry in the spring. Countries across the Sahelian belt have suffered similar deluges. The number of those who routinely lose crops, cattle or houses in such floods has been rising steadily since 2005.

So the Sahel’s inhabitants are increasingly facing a cycle of extreme dry and wet spells, raising doubts as to whether the region is really habitable at all. Each season seems to exacerbate the problems of the next. When torrential rains destroy crops, Sahelians are even likelier to suffer from food shortages in the following dry months. “This next season will be very worrying,” says Carlos Muñoz, an adviser in west Africa for Oxfam, one of several aid agencies in the area.

[Wild Cobra]

???

No.

Not sure what led you to believe that, but I will take a stab:

You are attempting to set up a dichotomy, wherein you tie your belief/theory directly to that of a law of physics so that I am either forced to accept your conclusion, or reject it, and thereby reject a law of physics.

This is a false dichotomy, simply because it does not allow for your potential to have misunderstood the system you are attempting to apply it to, or misapply the law itself.

If there exists, beyond a 1 in a trillion chance, an instance in which the complex system of our climate behaves in a way that runs counter to your understanding, then your attempt to establish that dichotomy is misguided.

Further,

The IPCC itself says that many aspects of the climate system and interactions between factors are not very well understood or tested. For you to reach such a level of certainty means that you, more than any other human being on the planet, have reached a more full understanding of our climate than any other human being has claimed to achieve.

I think you have made a fallacy of composition, wherein the behavior of the whole is not fully predicted by the individual parts. This is a bit like looking at a lump of water, carbon, and trace metals and thinking that those materials would never amount to a sentient being if put together, or that cutting an elephant in half would result in two smaller elephants.

This lump of water, carbon, and trace metals would beg to differ.
Sometimes the simplest things should be used. In this case, energy must be maintained. This concept does not prove my point with any quantitative values for CO2, but just that the sun has increased by a given known amount within an well accepted small error, and when you subtract this energy from the stated warming, there is little left for greenhouse gasses. Most certainly not what they are trumped up to be. Now unless you can show that the extra energy from the sun does not cause extra heat, the the AGW people are factually wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Survival in the Sahel
It's getting harder all the time (http://www.economist.com/node/17628093)

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/images-magazine/2010/12/04/MA/20101204_MAM964.gif
And who's to say this isn't natural climate change?

This is not a good example of anything, except to prove you are grasping at straws. It's a poor area to begin with for growing anything. It's a transitional area between two distinct climates. Any fool should know this area is unstable.

[RandomGuy]

And who's to say this isn't natural climate change?

This is not a good example of anything, except to prove you are grasping at straws. It's a poor area to begin with for growing anything. It's a transitional area between two distinct climates. Any fool should know this area is unstable.

Blame the victim. Classic.

[Wild Cobra]

Blame the victim. Classic.
Now you are taking the typical liberal view. The claimed victim cannot be talked about.

I'm not blaming the victim. I am stating facts. the area between two distinct climates will have dramatic changes. There is no normal. It isn't called "sahel" for no reason.

wiki: Sahel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel)

There was a major drought in the Sahel in 1914, caused by annual rains far below average, that caused a large-scale famine. The 1960's saw a large increase in rainfall in the region, making the Northern drier region more accessible. There was a push, supported by governments, for people to move northwards, and as the long drought-period from 1968 through 1974 began, the grazing quickly became unsustainable, and large-scale denuding of the terrain followed. Like the drought in 1914, this led to a large-scale famine, but this time it was somewhat tempered by international visibility and an outpouring of aid. This catastrophe led to the founding of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

In June to August, 2010, famine struck the Sahel. Niger's crops failed to mature in the heat and famine occurred. 350,000 faced starvation and 1,200,000 were at risk of famine. In Chad, the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) on June 22 in Faya, breaking a record set in 1961 at the same location. Niger tied its highest temperature record set in 1998, on also June 22, at 47.1°C in Bilma. That record was broken the next day, on June 23 when Bilma hit 48.2°C (118.8°F). The hottest temperature recorded in Sudan was reached on June 25, at 49.6°C (121.3°F) in Dongola, breaking a record set in 1987. Niger reported diarrhea, starvation, gastroenteritis, malnutrition and respiratory diseases killed and sickened many children July 14th. The new military junta is appealing for international food aid and has taken serious steps to calling over seas help since coming to office in February 2010. On July 26 the heat reached near record levels over Chad and Niger, and about 20 had reportedly died in northern Niger of dehydration on July the 27th.
Dramatic changes are normal.

[MannyIsGod]

I haven't read the paper in question yet but the idea that clouds cause the ENSO is not supported in the least. Dr. Dessler puts it really polietly in this post but thats the kind of thinking behind of those who don't acknowledge AGW.


I have a paper in this week’s issue of Science on the cloud feedback that may be of interest to realclimate readers. As you may know, clouds are important regulators of the amount of energy in and out of the climate system. Clouds both reflect sunlight back to space and a trap infrared radiation and keep it from escaping the space. Changes in clouds can therefore have profound impacts on our climate.

A positive cloud feedback loop posits a scenario whereby an initial warming of the planet, caused, for example, by increases in greenhouse gases, causes clouds to trap more energy and lead to further warming. Such a process amplifies the direct heating by greenhouse gases. Models have been long predicted this, but testing the models has proved difficult.

Making the issue even more contentious, some of the more credible skeptics out there (e.g., Lindzen, Spencer) have been arguing that clouds behave quite differently from that predicted by models. In fact, they argue, clouds will stabilize the climate and prevent climate change from occurring (i.e., clouds will provide a negative feedback).

In my new paper, I calculate the energy trapped by clouds and observe how it varies as the climate warms and cools during El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles. I find that, as the climate warms, clouds trap an additional 0.54±0.74W/m2 for every degree of warming. Thus, the cloud feedback is likely positive, but I cannot rule out a slight negative feedback.

It is important to note that while a slight negative feedback cannot be ruled out, the data do not support a negative feedback large enough to substantially cancel the well-established positive feedbacks, such as water vapor, as Lindzen and Spencer would argue.

I have also compared the results to climate models. Taken as a group, the models substantially reproduce the observations. This increases my confidence that the models are accurately simulating the variations of clouds with climate change.

Obviously, climate skeptics are quite upset with my results. Dr. Roy Spencer, for example, has been criticizing my paper on his blog. Dr. Spencer’s argument is, as he wrote in an e-mail to Dr. Richard Kerr of Science:

Andy’s study assumes that all co-variations between clouds and temperature are due to feedback, when in fact they are a mixture of feedback and “internal forcing” (natural cloud fluctuation causing temperature changes).
Now, Andy DOES at least raise this as a possibility, referencing our (Spencer & Braswell) 2010 JGR paper on the subject (his ref. #26). But he then claims that since (1) ENSO is the main source of climate variability during 2000-2010, and since (2) no one has demonstrated that ENSO is in any way caused by cloud changes, that our cause-versus-effect claim does not apply to the 2000-2010 time period.
His second claim is incorrect.
As Fig. 4a in our paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf ) shows, the major 2007-08 La Nina event shows the characteristic looping pattern in temperature-versus-radiative flux data that results from clouds causing temperature changes

In other words, Dr. Spencer is arguing that clouds are causing ENSO cycles, so the direction of causality in my analysis is incorrect and my conclusions are in error.

After reading this, I initiated a cordial and useful exchange of e-mails with Dr. Spencer (you can read the full e-mail exchange here). We ultimately agreed that the fundamental disagreement between us is over what causes ENSO. Short paraphrase:

Spencer: ENSO is caused by clouds. You cannot infer the response of clouds to surface temperature in such a situation.

Dessler: ENSO is not caused by clouds, but is driven by internal dynamics of the ocean-atmosphere system. Clouds may amplify the warming, and that’s the cloud feedback I’m trying to measure.

My position is the mainstream one, backed up by decades of research. This mainstream theory is quite successful at simulating almost all of the aspects of ENSO.

Dr. Spencer, on the other hand, is as far out of the mainstream when it comes to ENSO as he is when it comes to climate change. He is advancing here a completely new and untested theory of ENSO — based on just one figure in one of his papers (and, as I told him in one of our e-mails, there are other interpretations of those data that do not agree with his interpretation).
Thus, the burden of proof is Dr. Spencer to show that his theory of causality during ENSO is correct. He is, at present, far from meeting that burden. And until Dr. Spencer satisfies this burden, I don’t think anyone can take his criticisms seriously.
It’s also worth noting that the picture I’m painting of our disagreement (and backed up by the e-mail exchange linked above) is quite different from the picture provided by Dr. Spencer on his blog. His blog is full of conspiracies and purposeful suppression of the truth. In particular, he accuses me of ignoring his work. But as you can see, I have not ignored it — I have dismissed it because I think it has no merit. That’s quite different.

I would also like to respond to his accusation that the timing of the paper is somehow connected to the IPCC’s meeting in Cancun. I can assure everyone that no one pressured me in any aspect of the publication of this paper. As Dr. Spencer knows well, authors have no control over when a paper ultimately gets published.

And as far as my interest in influencing the policy debate goes, I’ll just say that I’m in College Station this week, while Dr. Spencer is in Cancun. In fact, Dr. Spencer had a press conference in Cancun — about my paper. I didn’t have a press conference about my paper. Draw your own conclusion.

I hope that this post has explained my work and cleared up exactly what my disagreement with Dr. Spencer is. If interested readers do some basic research on the causes of ENSO, I’m confident they will agree with me that my interpretation of the data is sound.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/#more-5676

[rascal]

I walked the earth in the 1960s and now and it has gotten warmer here in the northeast. Less major snowstorms and warmer winters. No denying that it is not happening but how much influence man has on it is another argument. Natural events Solar activity, natural warming trend since the ice age- temps swing back and forth through the eras) are more powerful than man but man has some influence.

There is too much evidence to support that global warming is happening. Warmer recorded temps worldwide and melting of icecaps. I don't know why people still want to deny that it is happening.

[TE]

Climate change is just a part of the earth's cycle. It has been shown, through research, that the Earth once went through climate change. Surely, if it is a cycle, it will occur again. Which points to what is occurring right now.

[RandomGuy]

Now you are taking the typical liberal view. The claimed victim cannot be talked about.

I'm not blaming the victim. I am stating facts. the area between two distinct climates will have dramatic changes. There is no normal. It isn't called "sahel" for no reason.

wiki: Sahel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel)

Dramatic changes are normal.

Fair enough.

I will have to admit my thoughts on the article were not too far from yours. It seemed a bit of a stretch, but I thought it would be interesting to tweak your sensibilities a bit by playing devil's advocate.

People shouldn't try to farm in marginal areas, unless they are really desperate, and the five year variation talked about in the article is really not a very large data set to draw any meaningful conclusions about climate change for any given area.

[RandomGuy]

Climate change is just a part of the earth's cycle. It has been shown, through research, that the Earth once went through climate change. Surely, if it is a cycle, it will occur again. Which points to what is occurring right now.

Indeed. The question we need to get a grip on is how much humans are affecting that natural change.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't read the paper in question yet but the idea that clouds cause the ENSO is not supported in the least. Dr. Dessler puts it really polietly in this post but thats the kind of thinking behind of those who don't acknowledge AGW.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/#more-5676

Interesting, and illustrative.

It also supports the position I took in the OP. Many deniers are great at picking apart the minutae of things they disagree with, but, like many conspiracy theorists, when you ask them to support their own assertions, they deflect.

[DarrinS]

I walked the earth in the 1960s and now and it has gotten warmer here in the northeast. Less major snowstorms and warmer winters. No denying that it is not happening but how much influence man has on it is another argument. Natural events Solar activity, natural warming trend since the ice age- temps swing back and forth through the eras) are more powerful than man but man has some influence.

There is too much evidence to support that global warming is happening. Warmer recorded temps worldwide and melting of icecaps. I don't know why people still want to deny that it is happening.


No one denies that global warming and global cooling happen, i.e. climate changes, it's just that one group seems to think that the climate change of the past century is somehow unprecedented. To me, that group denies that "climate change" is the norm. They are the climate change "deniers".

[DarrinS]

Interesting, and illustrative.

It also supports the position I took in the OP. Many deniers are great at picking apart the minutae of things they disagree with, but, like many conspiracy theorists, when you ask them to support their own assertions, they deflect.


Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see". :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see". :lmao

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

:lmao

[johnsmith]

I think the real question here is:

RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?

[DarrinS]

I think the real question here is:

RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?



Because rationalwiki said so.

[RandomGuy]

Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see". :lmao

Childish smiley snit-fits aside, it seems like a case of differing opinions.

If some genuine climate scientists want to weigh in for non-doomsday scenarios, that is fine with me. I have no ideological iron in the fire, or any axe to grind. I would breath a huge sigh of relief were the people to study it come to think the worst is really improbable, and that we aren't having much effect.

The point that Mr. Dessler made about him not grandstanding and Mr. Spencer doing precisely that still stands, whatever you think of their respective positions.

(shrugs)

Even if we come to the conclusion that massive CO2 emissions are not going to harm us, we still face the certain depletion scenarios for coal/gas/oil, and the price rises that will accompany that.

Investing today in energy sources that don't depend on these forms of energy is still a no-brainer, simply because it will make us far more competitive down the road, and energy is still relatively cheap, compared to what it will be in the future.

The sooner we start down the road to adapting to that, the better.


(edit)
To be clear:
I was calling my own responses to Darrin's posts childish. Simply dismissing something someone posts with nothing more than a cliche'd smiley is exactly that.

[RandomGuy]

I think the real question here is:

RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?

Because many of the people who hold very firm beliefs concerning greenhouse gases and man's effect on our climate do so out of political motivations, i.e. knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

Sewn into the fabric of this belief are conspiracy theories that posit that the entire community of climate scientists who hold the opinion that man is affecting the climate with our activities are only doing so out of self-interest or naked grabs for power.

I think that because I have looked into a lot of source links provided by Wild Cobra over the years of arguing about this, and found that much of what gets put forth as "evidence" is either wrong, illogical, and sometimes outright deceitful.

I have listed some of this earlier in the thread.

Darrin's assertion aside, I came to this realization long before reading rationalwiki. That others have reached similar conclusions concerning what I call the "denier" movement was used by me as support for my own position.

Darrin's particular scorecard in this thread reinforces the premise of the OP, and is why I have been studiously keeping track.

[RandomGuy]

Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

An excellent example of cherry-picking data, a mildly dishonest way of making a point. Exactly the kind of thing that people who believe in pseudo-science do all the time.

You selected the narrow range of data that supports your position, while ignoring the more relevant larger data set that doesn't.

[RandomGuy]

Because rationalwiki said so.

By the way, this chalks up your tenth logical fallacy, a strawman logical fallacy, in which you distort what I think to make your point.

[MannyIsGod]

Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see". :lmao

I'm well aware of John Spencer's work which proves the earth is warming. You know, the same work that you ignore even though you're trying to bring it up now?

I will say this about Christy. He's right to question doomsday scenarios. This isn't a bad movie and its not going to play out that way. You should also know that he says it is impossible that humanity has not affected the climate which is a position you dismiss daily.

You pick and choose what you want from these men, Darrin.

Its his cloud ideas that have little to no merit. I would love to see the proof that ENSO is a result of clouds. If nothing else it would be an interesting read for me. The fact that so many of his beliefs regarding global warming are based upon this type of unproven ideas is not good for legitimacy of his positions.

[MannyIsGod]

Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

Thats funny because I explained it to you in this very thread. I agree you don't hear it though. You ignore what you want to ignore. Its an incredibly clear pattern.

[DarrinS]

I'm well aware of John Spencer's work which proves the earth is warming. You know, the same work that you ignore even though you're trying to bring it up now?


No one denies it has warmed in the past 100 years. I even posted the number, roughly 0.6 deg C. Is that historically unprecedented warming in that span of time?




I will say this about Christy. He's right to question doomsday scenarios. This isn't a bad movie and its not going to play out that way. You should also know that he says it is impossible that humanity has not affected the climate which is a position you dismiss daily.


I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.




You pick and choose what you want from these men, Darrin.



Nope.

[MannyIsGod]

No one denies it has warmed in the past 100 years. I even posted the number, roughly 0.6 deg C. Is that historically unprecedented warming in that span of time?


Its irrelevant whether or not warming like that has occurred before. Its not unprecedented to have that amount of warming in a 100 year span. Its also not very important whether or not it happened.

What is really important is why did this warming occur and what will happen next. You of course want to focus on the irreverent. No one's surprised.



I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.


So do climate scientists. The problem is that the experts have come up with numbers you don't like. You and WC should publish a paper explaining to them why they're wrong.





Nope.

Yup.

[DarrinS]

Its irrelevant whether or not warming like that has occurred before. Its not unprecedented to have that amount of warming in a 100 year span. Its also not very important whether or not it happened.


It's absolutely relevant. If it's not unprecedented warming, why is "climate change" an important issue?




What is really important is why did this warming occur and what will happen next.


How much of the 0.6 deg. increase is from CO2? I'd like a link if you have one.




So do climate scientists. The problem is that the experts have come up with numbers you don't like.


0.6 deg/century is not scary to me. I don't like that their computer models are failing to predict current temp. trends.

[RandomGuy]

I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.

I wonder just how much we are affecting systems and processes that we know very little about.

Positive and negative feedback loops are a reality of the universe and are found everywhere, both in human endeavors and in nature.

Although you are loathe to admit it, we don't know if or where any of the tipping points are in that complex system.

When press on a lightswitch with an increasing amount of force, at some point you WILL flip that switch.

Neither you, nor any scientist you care to name knows where that point is for our climate.

I would rather not press our luck, especially when solutions to limiting risk are both easy, and probably in our best interest anyways.

[MannyIsGod]

It's absolutely relevant. If it's not unprecedented warming, why is "climate change" an important issue?


Because climate change can have serious world wide affects? This is such a stupid question it blows me my mind. I didn't realize something had to be unprecedented for it to be a problem. Good to know that problems are only such the first time they occur.



How much of the 0.6 deg. increase is from CO2? I'd like a link if you have one.


I've provided several links for exactly that and yet you still ask for more? Read the fucking thread Darrin. Deny again that you don't ignore shit while showing your ignorance of data given to you in the very thread you're posting in.

You're like a 2 year old standing over a spilled glass of milk saying "I didn't do it".



0.6 deg/century is not scary to me. I don't like that their computer models are failing to predict current temp. trends.

The computer models are not failing to predict temperature trends you're just piss poor at understanding how to use them. They're not going to give you a month by month, year by year or decade by decade breakdown of what exactly the temperate will do and you can't look at an individual model and try to use that to predict what the temperature will be at such and such point in time.

While they are different, I'll compare climate models to weather models so you can get an understanding of how scientists use them. There are some weather models that are far better than others. There are some weather models that are good at one thing but terrible at many others. There are regional models, and there are global models. There are short term models and there are long term models.

Almost no single model on its own will ever give you very accurate data outside a few of the big ones (but the big ones themselves aren't individual models but larger ensembles) such as the Euro and the GFS. What forecasters do, is look at a larger number of models and their output in order to get a better understanding of the whole picture and work from that. No one looks at a GFS plot 7 days out and expects it to be exactly as that plot reads. If you did that then your data would almost always be wrong.

Individual models don't mean anything. The overall trend by hundreds of different computer simulations is what matters.

[DarrinS]

I wonder just how much we are affecting systems and processes that we know very little about.

Positive and negative feedback loops are a reality of the universe and are found everywhere, both in human endeavors and in nature.

Although you are loathe to admit it, we don't know if or where any of the tipping points are in that complex system.

When press on a lightswitch with an increasing amount of force, at some point you WILL flip that switch.

Neither you, nor any scientist you care to name knows where that point is for our climate.

I would rather not press our luck, especially when solutions to limiting risk are both easy, and probably in our best interest anyways.




I'm confused by your posts, whether you believe in doomsday scenarios or not. Evidently, you belive in these so-called "tipping points".

[xrayzebra]

Man influencing earth temperatures. What arrogance.
At one time the earth was covered with snow and ice and
then earth had a warming trend. Mankind, if it existed
during that phase, had no hand in that warming trend.
Then a little ice age came along, no fault of man, and
then another warming trend that ended the little ice
age. Again mankind had nothing to do with the warming
phase.

Now we have a group of so called scientist who want to
blame mankind for any warming we may have. And
strangely, if we just tax the "rich" nations and give it
to the poor nations all will be solved and mankind
can live without fear of a scorched earth.

Why is that, can anyone answer how higher taxes
and giving to the poor nations will really solve the
problem.

Kinda reminds me of redistribution of wealth that
all the Socialist want.

Just my thoughts.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm confused by your posts, whether you believe in doomsday scenarios or not. Evidently, you belive in these so-called "tipping points".

Believe in? Why would anyone completely discount the possibility tipping points? They're not some mythical being, its a possibility. You can believe the possibility is small or large but your wording is beyond ridiculous.

[DarrinS]

Man influencing earth temperatures. What arrogance.
At one time the earth was covered with snow and ice and
then earth had a warming trend. Mankind, if it existed
during that phase, had no hand in that warming trend.
Then a little ice age came along, no fault of man, and
then another warming trend that ended the little ice
age. Again mankind had nothing to do with the warming
phase.

Now we have a group of so called scientist who want to
blame mankind for any warming we may have. And
strangely, if we just tax the "rich" nations and give it
to the poor nations all will be solved and mankind
can live without fear of a scorched earth.

Why is that, can anyone answer how higher taxes
and giving to the poor nations will really solve the
problem.

Kinda reminds me of redistribution of wealth that
all the Socialist want.

Just my thoughts.





If you DENY that Manhattan will be underwater in 100 years because of a trace gas that makes up 3.8% of the atmosphere, and which humans only contribute 3% to, then you are a batshit crazy flat-earther of the highest order. I really don't see how people make that argument with a straight face.

[DarrinS]

Believe in? Why would anyone completely discount the possibility tipping points? They're not some mythical being, its a possibility. You can believe the possibility is small or large but your wording is beyond ridiculous.


Ok, what happens when you reach a "tipping point"?


Keep in mind that you've already said you don't believe in doomsday scenarios.

[MannyIsGod]

There's believe in again. Tipping points aren't unicorns. I don't think they are a major concern but I also don't believe they're out of the realm of possibility. You apparently have a hard time with the concept of risk.

[xrayzebra]

If you DENY that Manhattan will be underwater in 100 years because of a trace gas that makes up 3.8% of the atmosphere, and which humans only contribute 3% to, then you are a batshit crazy flat-earther of the highest order. I really don't see how people make that argument with a straight face.

Deny or affirm........:lmao

You and I nor anyone else posting on here will
be around in 100 years to see anything. Nor
will the people who keep telling us that is going
to occur.

If you care to remember, some of these quasi-
experts have told us that flooding was imminent.
But tell me, what flooding has occurred.

And by the way you didn't answer the question
of how money will solve all the problems.

And you can take all you fade ass stats and
put them where the sun doesn't shine. Or
have you forgotten all the BS stats that were
proved bogus with the emails that came to light.
:downspin:

[RandomGuy]

I'm confused by your posts, whether you believe in doomsday scenarios or not. Evidently, you belive in these so-called "tipping points".

No need to be confused. :)

I do believe that systems can have tipping points that create feedback loops, because I have seen plenty of examples.

I do believe our climate is complex enough to potentially have those feedback loops and tipping points.

I do believe that neither you, nor anyone else, despite their 99.999999% certainty, really truly knows where those points are.

I believe that "doomsday" scenarios tend to be fairly remote, and real doom and gloom scenarios for our climate probably fall in that category.

I do not believe we really have a really good grasp on the actual probability of that happening.

I believe risk has two dimensions, magnitude and probability.

Does that help?

I also believe some reasonable steps towards reducing CO2 emissions, even if slightly harmful to our economy in the short-run, make a LOT of long-term sense for reasons that have nothing to do with the climate and all the uncertainty involved in that topic, and everything to do with the mathematical certainty that we will run out of fossil fuels and long before full depletion will experience uncomfortable increases in the cost of fossil fuel energy.

[RandomGuy]

Man influencing earth temperatures. What arrogance.
At one time the earth was covered with snow and ice and
then earth had a warming trend. Mankind, if it existed
during that phase, had no hand in that warming trend.
Then a little ice age came along, no fault of man, and
then another warming trend that ended the little ice
age. Again mankind had nothing to do with the warming
phase.

That is a purely emotional argument. The truth of whether or not the thought of our activities affecting the climate is completely independent on it being "arrogant".

It is a bit like saying "It is arrogant for Randomguy to think he will die someday."

The certainty of my death and its underlying truth is completely irrelevant to any emotion associated with that.

Lastly, I would point out that at no time in any of that history you cited were there 6.8 billion (and growing) human beings with a global civilization producing gigatons of greenhouse gases.

That little differentiating factor has only happened in the last few decades.

Saying that climate change in the past was always caused by nature, and therefore must always BE caused by nature has the same logical form of the following:

"Every time I pointed this revolver at my head before and pulled the trigger, nothing happened, so therefore I can continue to do so..."

Not exactly a compelling logical argument.

[RandomGuy]

Deny or affirm........:lmao

You and I nor anyone else posting on here will
be around in 100 years to see anything. Nor
will the people who keep telling us that is going
to occur.

If you care to remember, some of these quasi-
experts have told us that flooding was imminent.
But tell me, what flooding has occurred.

And by the way you didn't answer the question
of how money will solve all the problems.

And you can take all you fade ass stats and
put them where the sun doesn't shine. Or
have you forgotten all the BS stats that were
proved bogus with the emails that came to light.
:downspin:

I might not be here in 100 years, but my children might be, and their grandchilden will quite possibly be here.

You might not feel morally obligated to take conservative risk avoiding measures today, but your decendants will have to live with your/our decisions, and that, to me, means that I am morally obligated to be a bit conservative in my approach to poking a sleeping bear.

[Wild Cobra]

I walked the earth in the 1960s and now and it has gotten warmer here in the northeast. Less major snowstorms and warmer winters. No denying that it is not happening but how much influence man has on it is another argument. Natural events Solar activity, natural warming trend since the ice age- temps swing back and forth through the eras) are more powerful than man but man has some influence.

There is too much evidence to support that global warming is happening. Warmer recorded temps worldwide and melting of icecaps. I don't know why people still want to deny that it is happening.
Nobody is a denier of global warming. Just the anthropogenic vs. natural influence of it.

[Wild Cobra]

People shouldn't try to farm in marginal areas, unless they are really desperate, and the five year variation talked about in the article is really not a very large data set to draw any meaningful conclusions about climate change for any given area.
I think we both agree here, and agree they are desperate people too.

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:

Interesting, and illustrative.

Many AGW proponentd are great at picking apart the minutae of things they disagree with, but, like many conspiracy theorists, when you ask them to support their own assertions, they deflect.

[Wild Cobra]

No one denies that global warming and global cooling happen, i.e. climate changes, it's just that one group seems to think that the climate change of the past century is somehow unprecedented. To me, that group denies that "climate change" is the norm. They are the climate change "deniers".
Ditto.

[Wild Cobra]

Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record.
Speaking of satellite record of surface temperatures...

Lets not forget, that when satellites first started tracking temperatures, we have an unquantified level of cooling from atmospheric particulates. As the first world powers, being responsible for most of it, and primarily us... the USA... we formed the EPA, and started cleaning up our act.

That said...

This 20+ year trend from the 70's to the early 2000's definitely has a component of relative warming increases, because of a cleaner atmosphere.

[Wild Cobra]

Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg:lmao
Are you laughing because you don't understand the facts, or don't believe the facts?

[Wild Cobra]

An excellent example of cherry-picking data, a mildly dishonest way of making a point. Exactly the kind of thing that people who believe in pseudo-science do all the time.

You selected the narrow range of data that supports your position, while ignoring the more relevant larger data set that doesn't.
You just explained what the AGW crowd does. Darrin simply illustrated that increases in CO2 do not mean warming occurs. Now think about how many times the AGW crowd cites the increases from 1970 when they want to make a point. We see that is is already at a 30 year low, so why do you give them a pass for every time they cite such cherry picked examples?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm well aware of John Spencer's work which proves the earth is warming. You know, the same work that you ignore even though you're trying to bring it up now?

I see it as only proving the earth has warmed since the use of satellite data, which was already at a 30+ year low.

Why do you get convinced so easily by propaganda?

[Wild Cobra]

Man influencing earth temperatures. What arrogance.
At one time the earth was covered with snow and ice and
then earth had a warming trend. Mankind, if it existed
during that phase, had no hand in that warming trend.
Then a little ice age came along, no fault of man, and
then another warming trend that ended the little ice
age. Again mankind had nothing to do with the warming
phase.

Some people just cannot see past their own confined knowledge.

How many of you AGW people understand the Milankovitch Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles), and it's flaws related to using only northern insolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation). How many of you also understand Kepler's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keplers_law), and how the energy received by the sun varies with eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity)?

Manny...

Did they teach you why eccentricity is a factor in climate change?

Another question is why don't the AGW alarmists discuss these factors?

[Wild Cobra]

fixed:

If you DENY that Manhattan will be underwater in 100 years because of a trace gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere, and which humans only contribute 3% to, then you are a batshit crazy flat-earther of the highest order. I really don't see how people make that argument with a straight face.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, what happens when you reach a "tipping point"?


Keep in mind that you've already said you don't believe in doomsday scenarios.
He believes Earth will become another Venus I bet.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, can you explain to us the relevance of eccentricity on a climate system?

Surly, this important fact is taught in one of your 101 level classes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Eccentricity_rocky_planets.jpg

If you look at the source link, you see that 0 = 2007.

Orbital Eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity)

[DarrinS]

fixed:

Thanks.

[xrayzebra]

I might not be here in 100 years, but my children might be, and their grandchilden will quite possibly be here.

You might not feel morally obligated to take conservative risk avoiding measures today, but your decendants will have to live with your/our decisions, and that, to me, means that I am morally obligated to be a bit conservative in my approach to poking a sleeping bear.


And you accuse me of being emotional in a
previous post.

You still don't answer the questions posed. How is
taking money from so called rich countries and
giving it to so called poor countries going to
solve any problems.

If a problem truly does exist then something more
than a carbon tax needs to instituted.

No this is a man made crisis alright, by the
socialist wanting wealth re-distribution, not
by activities of man.

[Jekka]

Manny, can you explain to us the relevance of eccentricity on a climate system?

Surly, this important fact is taught in one of your 101 level classes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Eccentricity_rocky_planets.jpg

If you look at the source link, you see that 0 = 2007.

Orbital Eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity)

You grasp at so many straws. Its not orbital. Why? Think timescale.

-Manny

[rascal]

Are you laughing because you don't understand the facts, or don't believe the facts?

Where are the numbers since 1970 and why were those not included?

[DarrinS]

Where are the numbers since 1970 and why were those not included?

The point of that graph is to show that there's cooling for a 30 year period, despite increasing CO2 during that time. No one is trying to hide the data since 1970.


Here's another 30-year period that's not very impressive. Unless you think that temperature variation within 1 degreee Celcius is frightening.

Yawn.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif

[MannyIsGod]

Well done, Darrin. Spoken like someone who clearly doesn't understand global temperature figures.

It is funny to see you dance though. First its cooling, then we don't do enough to add CO2 to the atmosphere and now its ONLY warming a certain amount.

Nice.

[Wild Cobra]

Where are the numbers since 1970 and why were those not included?
If you followed past conversations, the AGW crowd likes to tell everyone how much warming we had since the 70's, and use satellite data to support their claims, which started in the 70's. This short term data starts at a low point. I simply countered the argument of cherry picking. Now I don't think Darrin intended that as cherry picking as he was accused of. I think his intent was the same as mine, to show there are normal short term trends that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[Wild Cobra]

You grasp at so many straws. Its not orbital. Why? Think timescale.

-Manny
I don't grasp at straws. Not my fault you don't understand. You simply don't see the correlation of what the chart shows - at least for those who understand the effect eccentricity has. You see, we started coming out of the last major ice age when the vector of the eccentricity changed. This slow warming trend will continue for another 20+k years. We have no way to stop it. Solar irradiation changes will still drive the Bond events, but over the course of several thousand years, we will continue to warm up.

This long term trend has more relevance than the way the AGW crowd quantifies the effect of CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

The point of that graph is to show that there's cooling for a 30 year period, despite increasing CO2 during that time. No one is trying to hide the data since 1970.


Here's another 30-year period that's not very impressive. Unless you think that temperature variation within 1 degreee Celcius is frightening.

Yawn.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif
It bothers me that this one uses a 13 month average instead of a 12 month average.

[Wild Cobra]

Well done, Darrin. Spoken like someone who clearly doesn't understand global temperature figures.

It is funny to see you dance though. First its cooling, then we don't do enough to add CO2 to the atmosphere and now its ONLY warming a certain amount.

Nice.
Wow... Just wow...

Ignore his obvious point.

Are you really that dumb?

[Yonivore]

Wow... Just wow...

Ignore his obvious point.

Are you really that dumb?
Oooo! Oooo! Let me answer that.

YES! MANNY IS THAT DUMB.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't grasp at straws. Not my fault you don't understand. You simply don't see the correlation of what the chart shows - at least for those who understand the effect eccentricity has. You see, we started coming out of the last major ice age when the vector of the eccentricity changed. This slow warming trend will continue for another 20+k years. We have no way to stop it. Solar irradiation changes will still drive the Bond events, but over the course of several thousand years, we will continue to warm up.

This long term trend has more relevance than the way the AGW crowd quantifies the effect of CO2.

Long term as in 100s of thousands of years you still may not see a temperature rise like AGW is capable of causing. Its not my fault you can't understand that.

Orbital changes will show up as increased solar radiation. Thats something you somehow can't understand that hasn't increased enough to cause the warming we've seen.

Its not my fault you can't understand that very simple fact.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow... Just wow...

Ignore his obvious point.

Are you really that dumb?

The obvious point that .6 degrees Celsius isn't a big deal? Given the context of the situation its a big deal. The fact that you guys don't understand that isn't my fault.

[MannyIsGod]

Oooo! Oooo! Let me answer that.

YES! MANNY IS THAT DUMB.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in the thread with any training in the relevant sciences and I'm the dumb one.

[Yonivore]

Yeah - I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in the thread with any training in the relevant sciences and I'm the dumb one.
Yep. What a waste of an education, Manny.

[Wild Cobra]

Long term as in 100s of thousands of years you still may not see a temperature rise like AGW is capable of causing. Its not my fault you can't understand that.

Orbital changes will show up as increased solar radiation. Thats something you somehow can't understand that hasn't increased enough to cause the warming we've seen.

Its not my fault you can't understand that very simple fact.
Again, you jump to conclusions. The AGW crowd claims that long term we will see temperature increases from anthropogenic forces. What they are doing, and the true believers like you don't understand, it they will claim this natural change is man-made, and claim their position was correct.

[Wild Cobra]

The obvious point that .6 degrees Celsius isn't a big deal? Given the context of the situation its a big deal. The fact that you guys don't understand that isn't my fault.
Yep...

About a 0.8 C rise since 1750.

Very little is man made. Most of this increase is natural.

[RandomGuy]

Yep...

About a 0.8 C rise since 1750.

Very little is man made. Most of this increase is natural.

I'm sure you have modeled that extensively, and produced a peer-reviewed paper to prove this thesis, correct?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure you have modeled that extensively, and produced a peer-reviewed paper to prove this thesis, correct?
No.

I have gone by peer reviews papers like Lean 2004, and used other peer reviewed finding to show what they don't.

As for the peer review process, it lacks integrity in the field of climatology. the peer review process is being limited to those who already agree, rather than having an open process.

Peer review in climatology is a joke.

[RandomGuy]

No.

I have gone by peer reviews papers like Lean 2004, and used other peer reviewed finding to show what they don't.

As for the peer review process, it lacks integrity in the field of climatology. the peer review process is being limited to those who already agree, rather than having an open process.

Peer review in climatology is a joke.

So you keep saying.

If the science were so airtight in support of your theory, then it would still win out nonetheless. Biased and messy it might be, but the right idea, backed by appropriate data would still win out.

Unless you can prove that everybody involved in climate science is outright lying and dishonest.

Do you have proof that the thousands of people involved are all lying and dishonest?

[DarrinS]

So you keep saying.

If the science were so airtight in support of your theory, then it would still win out nonetheless. Biased and messy it might be, but the right idea, backed by appropriate data would still win out.

Unless you can prove that everybody involved in climate science is outright lying and dishonest.

Do you have proof that the thousands of people involved are all lying and dishonest?


lol "thousands"

[Wild Cobra]

So you keep saying.

If the science were so airtight in support of your theory, then it would still win out nonetheless. Biased and messy it might be, but the right idea, backed by appropriate data would still win out.

But my side is winning.

This is a topic invested by too many people and too much money right now. When you look at momentum, the AGW theory is constantly losing supporters. Their agenda isn't forming as it would if it were real. It won't be long till this AGW scare is a laughable part of history like the global cooling scare in the 70's was.


Unless you can prove that everybody involved in climate science is outright lying and dishonest.

No such thing needs to be proved. They need to prove their case, as the default position of science is to be skeptical. Something they all forgot.


Do you have proof that the thousands of people involved are all lying and dishonest?

I never said thousands were. Such a conspiracy would be impossible to maintain, and the few that are involved in lying have had some of their emails exposed.

Incorrect scientific believe has made it's way into the schools. The hypothesis, which barely warrants being called a theory, has been taught as fact for years. Just like the earth being flat used to be. One day, this will all correct itself. I will contend that most people believe the AGW lies because they were indoctrinated to believe it. Not because they have an agenda themselves, malice, profit etc.

[RandomGuy]

lol "thousands"

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

WC, PussyEater, Jack, et all are a total dupes, ignorant, self-flattering tools of the heavily financed and focused VRWC by the carbon-extractors/polluters to protect their profits.

What a fucking coincidence that all of climate scientists are wrong to the benefit of the wealthy conspiring polluters. Seems like the more and longer the VRWC pays, the luckier it gets. :lol

[DarrinS]

Great Britain desperately wishing for global warming


http://www.arksark.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/The-British-Big-Freeze-2010.jpg

[RandomGuy]

But my side is winning.

This is a topic invested by too many people and too much money right now. When you look at momentum, the AGW theory is constantly losing supporters. Their agenda isn't forming as it would if it were real.

There is more than enough money from the oil/coal companies going to fund such "studies" that I personally have to treat that with a fair amount of skepticism as well.

That one side is "losing supporters" to a well-funded propaganda campaign is not really all that convincing to me.

That is, by the way, an Appeal to Belief, another logical fallacy.




Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2) Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

Your implication that your theory is true, because more and more people believe it is true, does nothing for the merits of the case.

The science will win out in the end, of that I have no doubt.

[RandomGuy]

Oooo! Oooo! Let me answer that.

YES! MANNY IS THAT DUMB.


Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.


Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4677328&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668282&postcount=7



:wakeup

[DarrinS]

There is more than enough money from the oil/coal companies going to fund such "studies" that I personally have to treat that with a fair amount of skepticism as well.


The raw data aren't impressed with money.

[MannyIsGod]

Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.

[RandomGuy]

Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.


Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

DarrinS:

First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670471&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671143&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671237&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672034&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672682&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672707&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4673385&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672868&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810380&postcount=563

Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672758&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672772&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672790&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672822&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672831&postcount=361

Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4679228&postcount=412

Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810375&postcount=560



Darrin, aka smiley-boy, has done more to prove the assertion of the OP than anybody else so far. It seems he is on a singular mission to show how poorly thought out most "denier" arguments are.

For that, I must applaud him.

Thank you, Darrin.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/fig-2.jpg

Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.

[DarrinS]

Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.

It's funny that it still won't beat 1998.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, aka smiley-boy, has done more to prove the assertion of the OP than anybody else so far. It seems he is on a singular mission to show how poorly thought out most "denier" arguments are.

For that, I must applaud him.

Thank you, Darrin.


I think it says something that you spent that much time devoted to ME specifically.

[DarrinS]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/fig-2.jpg

Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.





I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.

[RandomGuy]

I think it says something that you spent that much time devoted to ME specifically.

You flatter yourself.

Given:
I spend time analysing every climate change "denier" and their arguments and statements.

You are only one of four listed in that post, I edited the others out.

I have provided links to every one of those logical fallacies, and shown how and why they are illogical or dishonest.

What is says is that you have posted here frequently, and when you have posted you have consistantly posted logically unsound and/or intellectually dishonest arguments.

That is *something*, indeed.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.


If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

That was exactly what I was trying to show, I spelled it out quite clearly.

Percentage of emissions, or percentage of atmosphere are fairly irrelevant measures of equilibrium disturbance and overall effects respectively.

Are you ignorant of that, or being deliberately misleading again?

[DarrinS]

That was exactly what I was trying to show, I spelled it out quite clearly.

Percentage of emissions, or percentage of atmosphere are fairly irrelevant measures of equilibrium disturbance and overall effects respectively.

Are you ignorant of that, or being deliberately misleading again?



What is the "equilibrium" composition of the atmosphere? And when has it been in that state?

[RandomGuy]

I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.



One of the other implications of that graph is that recent effects of such activity will be more pronounced than older effects, i.e. newer data more relevant than data before 1970 or so.

As I have pointed out, property and casualty underwriters have noted this trend in their data, i.e. more storms and more powerful storms.

[DarrinS]

One of the other implications of that graph is that recent effects of such activity will be more pronounced than older effects, i.e. newer data more relevant than data before 1970 or so.

As I have pointed out, property and casualty underwriters have noted this trend in their data, i.e. more storms and more powerful storms.


I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.

[RandomGuy]

What is the "equilibrium" composition of the atmosphere? And when has it been in that state?

Based on my understanding equilibrium changes over time with various other things.

I would guess that the atmosphere was at, more or less, an equilibrium value for current conditions around the period 1000-1900 or so.

Does that help?

I also noted that you ignored my question.

Were you giving us irrelevant data out of simple ignorance, or were you cherry-picking data again?

[RandomGuy]

I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.

"Global warming is real, and it affects our business." (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167493)



One of the new risks [the large insurer] Munich Re is tracking is climate change. The company has the world's most comprehensive database on natural disasters, with information going back centuries. It shows that the frequency of serious floods worldwide has more than tripled since 1980, while hurricanes and other severe windstorms have doubled.
"Global warming is real, and it affects our business," says Peter Hoppe, who heads the company's climate-change research. Munich Re has become a leading advocate for renewable-energy development, even joining a venture that plans to generate solar power in the Sahara and ship it under the Mediterranean to Europe.

[George Gervin's Afro]

darrins has emails to prove the hoax!

[Wild Cobra]

WC, PussyEater, Jack, et all are a total dupes, ignorant, self-flattering tools of the heavily financed and focused VRWC by the carbon-extractors/polluters to protect their profits.

What a fucking coincidence that all of climate scientists are wrong to the benefit of the wealthy conspiring polluters. Seems like the more and longer the VRWC pays, the luckier it gets. :lol
What science changed the world from being flat, to spherical?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/fig-2.jpg

Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.
Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quantitative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?

[MannyIsGod]

It's funny that it still won't beat 1998. Depends on which temperature set you go by. In any event, even the coolest readings don't have it behind 1998 by very much at all and as I said while 1998 was dominated by a strong El Nino 2010 has seen a very strong La Nina.

2010 is what you would expect in an AGW scenario.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.
The percentage of the gas is irrelevant on its own so do me a favor and stop repeating the figure.

As an example, if I put a small amount of cynaide into your body's system - less than 3% of your body mass for example - it could certainly have an effect on your body.

Adding 3% can be significant if that 3% stays in the atmosphere (and it does) and has a large effect (and it does).

Secondly, El Nino having more of an effect is a short term climate cycle. It doesn't negate the effects of AGW. For instance, the El Nino in 1998 was able to enhance global temperatures to the point of making it the warmest year on record. However, if had the same El Nino in 2010 we would have easily broken the record because 12 years later the earth has more energy in its system due to AGW. In fact, we have the opposite of an El Nino - La Nina - and global temps are likely to come up just short of 1998.

I don't know what logic would allow someone to come to the conclusion that AGW doesn't matter because of events such as the ENSO.

[DarrinS]

The percentage of the gas is irrelevant on its own so do me a favor and stop repeating the figure.

As an example, if I put a small amount of cynaide into your body's system - less than 3% of your body mass for example - it could certainly have an effect on your body.

Adding 3% can be significant if that 3% stays in the atmosphere (and it does) and has a large effect (and it does).



Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide. :rolleyes

[DarrinS]

If, in a hundred years, temps don't trend with CO2 (as anyone with eyeballs can see is not happening for the past decade), will there still be such a thing as a climate change "denier" and will the skeptic side still be considered pseudoscience?

[MannyIsGod]

I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.

I've said time and time again that the more active storm seasons we've been having aren't likely a product of AGW.

That being said, there are theories out that stronger storms are a likely by product of AGW. Also, there is some discussion on the lengthening of the Atlantic hurricane season due to the temperature increases and recent data tends to support this.

However, aside from hurricanes there are other storms and whether or not AGW is affecting this is also up for debate.

For Instance:


ot Arctic-Cold Continents
I'm in San Francisco this week for the world's largest gathering of Earth scientists, the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference. Over 15,000 scientists have descended upon the city, and there are a ridiculous number of fascinating talks on every conceivable aspect of Earth science, including, of course, climate change. One talk I attended yesterday was called, "Hot Arctic-Cold Continents: Hemispheric Impacts of Arctic Change.” The talk was given by Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, one of the world's experts on Arctic weather and climate (I spent many long months flying in the Arctic with him during the three Arctic field programs I participated in during the late 1980s.) Dr. Overland discussed the remarkable winter of 2009 – 2010, which brought record snowstorms to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, along with the coldest temperatures in 25 years, but also brought the warmest winter on record to Canada and much of the Arctic. He demonstrated that the Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a “Polar Vortex” of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009-2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air around the pole. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward. This pattern is kind of like leaving the refrigerator door ajar--the refrigerator warms up, but all of the cold air spills out into the house.


Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of how Arctic sea ice loss affects winter weather, from NOAA's Future of Arctic Sea Ice and Global Impacts web page.

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
This is all part of a natural climate pattern known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which took on its most extreme configuration in 145 years of record keeping during the winter of 2009 – 2010. The NAO is a climate pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of sea-level pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. It is one of oldest known climate oscillations--seafaring Scandinavians described the pattern several centuries ago. Through east-west oscillation motions of the Icelandic Low and the Azores High, the NAO controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. A large difference in the pressure between Iceland and the Azores (positive NAO) leads to increased westerly winds and mild and wet winters in Europe. Positive NAO conditions also cause the Icelandic Low to draw a stronger south-westerly flow of air over eastern North America, preventing Arctic air from plunging southward. In contrast, if the difference in sea-level pressure between Iceland and the Azores is small (negative NAO), westerly winds are suppressed, allowing Arctic air to spill southwards into eastern North America more readily. Negative NAO winters tend to bring cold winters to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, but leads to very warm conditions in the Arctic, since all the cold air spilling out of the Arctic gets replaced by warm air flowing poleward.

The winter of 2009 - 2010 had the most extreme negative NAO since record keeping began in 1865. This "Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern", resulting in a reversal of Polar Vortex and high pressure replacing low pressure over the Arctic, had occurred previously in only four winters during the past 160 years—1969, 1963, 1936, and 1881. Dr. Overland called the winter of 2009 – 2010 at least as surprising at the record 2007 loss of Arctic sea ice. He suspected that Arctic sea ice loss was a likely culprit for the event, since Francis et al. (2009) found that during 1979 - 2006, years that had unusually low summertime Arctic sea ice had a 10 - 20% reduction in the temperature difference between the Equator and North Pole. This resulted in a weaker jet stream with slower winds that lasted a full six months, through fall and winter. The weaker jet caused a weaker Aleutian Low and Icelandic Low during the winter, resulting in a more negative North Atlantic Oscillation, allowing cold air to spill out of the Arctic and into Europe and the Eastern U.S. Dr. Overland also stressed that natural chaos in the weather/climate system also played a role, as well as the El Niño/La Niña cycle and natural oscillations in stratospheric winds. Not every year that we see extremely high levels of Arctic sea ice loss will have a strongly negative NAO winter. For example, the record Arctic sea ice loss year of 2007 saw only a modest perturbation to the Arctic Vortex and the NAO during the winter of 2007 – 2008.

However, the strongly negative NAO is back again this winter. High pressure has replaced low pressure over the North Pole, and according to NOAA, the NAO index during November 2010 was the second lowest since 1950. This strongly negative NAO has continued into December, and we are on course to have a top-five most extreme December NAO. Cold air is once again spilling southwards into the Eastern U.S. And Europe, bringing record cold and fierce snowstorms. At the same time, warm air is flowing into the Arctic to replace the cold air spilling south--temperatures averaged more than 10°C (18°F) above average over much of Greenland so far this month. The latest 2-week forecast from the GFS model predicts that the Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern will continue for the next two weeks. However, the coldest air has sloshed over into Europe and Asia, and North America will see relatively seasonable temperatures the next two weeks.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html

Obviously this type of situation is exactly what underwriters would want information on. Insurance against citrus crop loss in Florida, for example, would need to be more expensive if climate change is inducing a more -NAO pattern.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide. :rolleyes

The point was not to draw a comparison between CO2 and Cyanide but to point out that a small amount of any substance can have dramatic effects. Simply trying to dismiss an argument with percentages completely out of context is wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quantitative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?

LOL

Trying so hard to avoid the 340349380433033403498 parts changer follow instructions from a diagram remarks I have for such a horribly ridiculous statement.

[MannyIsGod]

If, in a hundred years, temps don't trend with CO2 (as anyone with eyeballs can see is not happening for the past decade), will there still be such a thing as a climate change "denier" and will the skeptic side still be considered pseudoscience?

Not going to take anywhere near 100 years for this debate to be put to bed.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quantitative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?

You yourself have admitted that man's activities have had a "very slight" effect on temperatures.

We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

Not going to take anywhere near 100 years for this debate to be put to bed.

Nope. I give it another 15 years or so.

By then we will have, in all liklihood, roughly doubled our annual CO2 emissions from present levels.

That rate of emissions and 15 more years of data gathering should tell us enough to get a lot closer to pinning the whole thing down.

Hopefully that will not be too late to reverse any damage we may have done.

If so, I hope my children and decendants can forgive us for the mess they will have to deal with.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide. :rolleyes

A strawman fallacy, in which the statements or arguments made by another are distorted in order to somehow discredit the original idea.

That is your twelfth logical fallacy, if I am correct.

Do you always rely on flawed logic to think about important issues?

<edit>

I was not correct. This was only Darrins eleventh logical fallacy, not the twelfth. Although I could have missed one or two, who knows.

[Wild Cobra]

The percentage of the gas is irrelevant on its own so do me a favor and stop repeating the figure.

As an example, if I put a small amount of cynaide into your body's system - less than 3% of your body mass for example - it could certainly have an effect on your body.

That depends on the form of cyanide, doesn't it.

If your body already has 100 mg of cyanide in it, what does adding another 3 mg do?

I'm awaiting your answer.


Adding 3% can be significant if that 3% stays in the atmosphere (and it does) and has a large effect (and it does).

No, that's what your indoctrination says. the science has not properly eliminated other possibilities, and the known theories involving Henry's law, and solubility vs. temperature, say otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

The point was not to draw a comparison between CO2 and Cyanide but to point out that a small amount of any substance can have dramatic effects. Simply trying to dismiss an argument with percentages completely out of context is wrong.
Total fail.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

LOL

Trying so hard to avoid the 340349380433033403498 parts changer follow instructions from a diagram remarks I have for such a horribly ridiculous statement.
I said there was no quantifiable number. I didn't say it didn't cause warming.

How can you be smart enough to debate us, if you are too stupid to understand such simple concepts?

[DarrinS]

Not going to take anywhere near 100 years for this debate to be put to bed.



That's a relief. How about 30 years? We only need 15 more years of no statistically significant warming.

[Wild Cobra]

You yourself have admitted that man's activities have had a "very slight" effect on temperatures.

We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?
Lets see...

In the long term, to maintain a level of 400 ppm, we would have to emit a total carbon content into the atmosphere of about


The total carbon in the carbon cycle is approximately 41,940 giga-tons. Our annual emission is about 8 giga tons. Over the long term equalization occurs. We emit, on an annual basis, about 1% of the atmospheric content, but after the added sinking to establish equilibrium, only about 0.43% remains added to the atmospheric content. these are numbers we see. With the solar energy heating the oceans for the last few hundred years, and an approximate 800 year cycle, this warming is changing the equilibrium. You cannot say, without scientific doubt, that we wouldn't see near this increase if the oceans maintained their cooler heat content.

You really need to understand gas solubility in fluids, and Henry's law better.

I calculated it before. If the oceans maintained a constant temperature, it would take a very long time at 8 GtC annual to make a small increase in atmospheric levels.

Think about it. 8 GtC annual vs. 41,940 GtC total

Please study the Carbon Cycle.

[George Gervin's Afro]

wild cobra = flawed logic

[Wild Cobra]

You yourself have admitted that man's activities have had a "very slight" effect on temperatures.

We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?
Not by much.

The atmospheric window is already almost 100% covered by the opacity of CO2 to IR, in the associated spectral areas. It takes a very large change in CO2 to make a small change in how much IR escapes out to space. temperature stabilized at the point that incoming radiation +/-latent energy equals outgoing radiation.

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:

wild cobra = flawed logic, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how.

[RandomGuy]

Lets see...

In the long term, to maintain a level of 400 ppm, we would have to emit a total carbon content into the atmosphere of about


The total carbon in the carbon cycle is approximately 41,940 giga-tons. Our annual emission is about 8 giga tons. Over the long term equalization occurs. We emit, on an annual basis, about 1% of the atmospheric content, but after the added sinking to establish equilibrium, only about 0.43% remains added to the atmospheric content. these are numbers we see. With the solar energy heating the oceans for the last few hundred years, and an approximate 800 year cycle, this warming is changing the equilibrium. You cannot say, without scientific doubt, that we wouldn't see near this increase if the oceans maintained their cooler heat content.

You really need to understand gas solubility in fluids, and Henry's law better.

I calculated it before. If the oceans maintained a constant temperature, it would take a very long time at 8 GtC annual to make a small increase in atmospheric levels.

Think about it. 8 GtC annual vs. 41,940 GtC total

Please study the Carbon Cycle.

You really need to understand system dynamics better.

FWIW, the graph posted includes CO2 emissions from activities outside the normal buring of fossil fuels, such as gas flaring and cement manufacture.

"Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006"

Yearly output of man-made CO2 seems to be more on the order of 26GtC.

I don't think you know anything about the feedback cycles involved in all of this, and have made a fallacy of composition, in which the sum of the whole can have different characteristics than the components. Sure all of this has to obey the laws of physics, but we have only begun to understand the system of our climate, and the carbon cycle.

That you seem to think you understand both well enough to come to a near certain determination or conclusion is damning, since even the people who study this admit that it is far more complex than has been fully understood to date.

[RandomGuy]

Not by much.

The atmospheric window is already almost 100% covered by the opacity of CO2 to IR, in the associated spectral areas. It takes a very large change in CO2 to make a small change in how much IR escapes out to space. temperature stabilized at the point that incoming radiation +/-latent energy equals outgoing radiation.

"Not by much"

The "shoulders" argument, yet another thing I have seen put out into the aether.

Please quantify the effect, in terms of added surface temperature per added increase in concentration, then show me the data on which you have formed that conclusion.

[Wild Cobra]

Yearly output of man-made CO2 seems to be more on the order of 26GtC.

Yes, but GtC and GtCO2m are two different numbers.

Atoms of carbon are a molecular weight of 12. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. There is a 3:11 ratio. Your 26 GtCO2 becomes 7.09 GtC.

How can you debate such a topic when you lack the understanding for it?

How much of your beliefs are based on lack of understanding, and other people's propaganda?

[Wild Cobra]

"Not by much"

The "shoulders" argument, yet another thing I have seen put out into the aether.

Please quantify the effect, in terms of added surface temperature per added increase in concentration, then show me the data on which you have formed that conclusion.
Why should those who are rational, and show the AGW theory is way off, have to prove anything? isn't the AGW people making the claim that should have to show their work, in how they quantify the numbers? Ever see their methodology? I had teachers is school that not matter how correct your answers were, they gave you a failing grade if you didn't show your work.

I cannot quantify CO2 radiative forcing effects in the atmosphere, nor can the alarmists. I have however shown evidence, in several ways, why they are wrong. If you ever read how they quantify it, you would agree their methodology is a joke.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Yearly output of man-made CO2 seems to be more on the order of 26GtC.

As a conservative, I am OK with using 8 GtC, for a margin of error in my calculations. every source I have seen says less than 8 GtC. 8 GtC becomes 29-1/3 GtCO2. Higher than your 26 that you stuck your foot in your mouth with.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
LOL..

The giggling fits of a child...

[MannyIsGod]

LOL

The senile ramblings of an old man...

[RandomGuy]

We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?


Not by much.


Please quantify the effect, in terms of added surface temperature per added increase in concentration, then show me the data on which you have formed that conclusion.


I cannot quantify CO2 radiative forcing effects in the atmosphere, nor can the alarmists.

An honest answer, thank you.

So again, I am faced with a question of who to believe, people who study climate for a living, or people who don't.

People who study it for a living seem to be fairly sure we are doing some harm, and having an increasingly large effect.

Over time we will get to see the effects first-hand, as I am fairly certain we will do next to nothing as a civilization to reign in CO2 emissions, so we are lurching along that path.

The real conservative, risk-avoiding strategy would be to take some moderate steps to avoid the potential very negative outcomes, especially as these steps, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, offer some very tangible and plausible benefits outside the question of whether CO2 emissions are harmful.

The real question always comes back to "what to do about it?". Many would argue that our current course of action, i.e. nothing, is the best because we just don't know the risk of negative outcomes (although WC does put it at less than .00000001% probability due to his certainty about *his* calculations).

I find this reckless, and about as un-conservative as one can get, especially when the near-certain benefits of limiting CO2 emissions over time are weighed.

[Wild Cobra]

An honest answer, thank you.

So again, I am faced with a question of who to believe, people who study climate for a living, or people who don't.

People who study it for a living seem to be fairly sure we are doing some harm, and having an increasingly large effect.

Over time we will get to see the effects first-hand, as I am fairly certain we will do next to nothing as a civilization to reign in CO2 emissions, so we are lurching along that path.

The real conservative, risk-avoiding strategy would be to take some moderate steps to avoid the potential very negative outcomes, especially as these steps, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, offer some very tangible and plausible benefits outside the question of whether CO2 emissions are harmful.

The real question always comes back to "what to do about it?". Many would argue that our current course of action, i.e. nothing, is the best because we just don't know the risk of negative outcomes (although WC does put it at less than .00000001% probability due to his certainty about *his* calculations).

I find this reckless, and about as un-conservative as one can get, especially when the near-certain benefits of limiting CO2 emissions over time are weighed.
It boils down to most believing because of indoctrination, and some pushing an agenda for money and power. Kings did it, churches did it. It has occurred over and over in history, and I would bet my life, this is another case of the past repeating itself.

[RandomGuy]

As a conservative, I am OK with using 8 GtC, for a margin of error in my calculations. every source I have seen says less than 8 GtC. 8 GtC becomes 29-1/3 GtCO2. Higher than your 26 that you stuck your foot in your mouth with.

I have never claimed to be error-free, nor have I claimed to be an expert in this. Science literate, yes, expert no.

Trying to reconcile differing sources and defintions of things is one of the difficulties involved in considering the subject, and why I defer to others.

Personally, I wonder if the C/CO2 distinction is made by others whom you base your data on.

[RandomGuy]

It boils down to most believing because of indoctrination, and some pushing an agenda for money and power. Kings did it, churches did it. It has occurred over and over in history, and I would bet my life, this is another case of the past repeating itself.

When Darwin presented his findings there was similar backlash from non-scientists, because it punctured certain dogmas.

I would bet this is another case of the past repeating itself.







Aren't historical analogies fun?

[DarrinS]

When Darwin presented his findings there was similar backlash from non-scientists, because it punctured certain dogmas.



You mean like the backlash from IPCC scientists?


http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf

[RandomGuy]

You mean like the backlash from IPCC scientists?


http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168241

[DarrinS]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168241


A link to your shitty article. Gee, thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

I have never claimed to be error-free, nor have I claimed to be an expert in this. Science literate, yes, expert no.
Well, learn some more, and maybe you'll get better than Manny.

Trying to reconcile differing sources and defintions of things is one of the difficulties involved in considering the subject, and why I defer to others.
Defering to others is a bad idea. Trust, but verify. Without the capacity to verify the integrity of what others say, you are just being another useful idiot for the agenda.

Personally, I wonder if the C/CO2 distinction is made by others whom you base your data on.
Yes, the scientific community is careful to note units, and I do my best to get it right. It is those like you who fail to consider the correct units, and maybe some of the AGW crowd?

The carbon cycle isn't limited to CO2. In the ocean, it has various carbonic forms. In the atmosphere, it also includes methane and other gasses, though CO2 is the primary carbon form by several factors in the atmosphere. When speaking of the carbon cycle, this is what we normally speak of:


Solution:

CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)

Conversion to carbonic acid:

CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3

First ionization:

H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)

Second ionization:

HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)

Also, using the weight of carbon atoms keeps us using all the same units instead of having to figure out the amount of carbon in each molecule individually.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168241
Yes, and the fact the poll says what is says should add to the healthy skepticism of the AGW theory.

[RandomGuy]

Defering to others is a bad idea. Trust, but verify. Without the capacity to verify the integrity of what others say, you are just being another useful idiot for the agenda.

"Deferring to others is a bad idea" from the guy who says "you people should trust me on this"?

Which is it? Should I defer to others or not?

Or should I just defer to you?

When I have delved into many of your claims and assertions on other topics, they have come up empty.

Why should this topic be any different? Because you have applied your confirmation bias to more information?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and the fact the poll says what is says should add to the healthy skepticism of the AGW theory.

"Most scientists tend to be Democrats"

More ad hominem.

"We should be skeptical of Democrats, simply because they are Democrats, and not base our judgements on the merit of any individual claim."

Don't you ever get tired of this particular logical fallacy?

[RandomGuy]

A link to your shitty article. Gee, thanks.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438

[Wild Cobra]

"Deferring to others is a bad idea" from the guy who says "you people should trust me on this"?

Which is it? Should I defer to others or not?

Or should I just defer to you?

When I have delved into many of your claims and assertions on other topics, they have come up empty.

Why should this topic be any different? Because you have applied your confirmation bias to more information?
Hey, I explain my methodology, and encourage others to learn the sciences well enough to follow.

Does the AGW crowd do that?

[RandomGuy]

Hey, I explain my methodology, and encourage others to learn the sciences well enough to follow.

Does the AGW crowd do that?

Your methodology of automatically believing things that confirm your beliefs and dismissing things that don't?

That one?

Or was I missing something?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, but GtC and GtCO2m are two different numbers.

Atoms of carbon are a molecular weight of 12. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. There is a 3:11 ratio. Your 26 GtCO2 becomes 7.09 GtC.

How can you debate such a topic when you lack the understanding for it?

How much of your beliefs are based on lack of understanding, and other people's propaganda?

RG, Please ignore the ramblings of WC. His arrogance is so amazing when you realize how moronic what he is saying is.

Yes, the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere is much smaller than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as it is only a component of CO2. It is also completely irrelevant considering that CO2 is the gas in question and we're not worried about carbon causing AGW we're worried about CO2.

The PPM of CO2 is in question, not carbon. Therefore its completely irrelevant (and retarded) to lower the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere into the amount of carbon.

WC is like a fat guy ordering a pizza and instead of saying he ate 8 slices he's trying to say he ONLY ate ONE pizza.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, Please ignore the ramblings of WC. His arrogance is so amazing when you realize how moronic what he is saying is.

Yes, the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere is much smaller than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as it is only a component of CO2. It is also completely irrelevant considering that CO2 is the gas in question and we're not worried about carbon causing AGW we're worried about CO2.

The PPM of CO2 is in question, not carbon. Therefore its completely irrelevant (and retarded) to lower the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere into the amount of carbon.

WC is like a fat guy ordering a pizza and instead of saying he ate 8 slices he's trying to say he ONLY ate ONE pizza.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm supposed to accept the unseen calculations of someone who can't figure out that we're not talking about carbon PPM in the atmosphere and rather CO2 PPM in the atmosphere?

Yeah, thats going to happen.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm supposed to accept the unseen calculations of someone who can't figure out that we're not talking about carbon PPM in the atmosphere and rather CO2 PPM in the atmosphere?

Yeah, thats going to happen.
How many times must you keep exposing your ass to us. From post #677:

In the atmosphere, it also includes methane and other gasses, though CO2 is the primary carbon form by several factors in the atmosphere.
The carbon cycle is not limited to CO2, but then you are obviously too stupid to get that.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats irrelevant when discussing PPM of CO2. CO2 isn't going to become CH4 because you wish it. The point of the conversation as to illustrate that CO2 is rising and you started rambling about how you don't see that the PPM is going to go up very much because its only 8 GT of carbon each year as opposed to 26 GT of CO2.

It makes no god damn sense. I'm not an idiot, WC and you can't just throw stupid jargon or a pretty chart out and convince me that you have a clue.

[Wild Cobra]

Thats irrelevant when discussing PPM of CO2. CO2 isn't going to become CH4 because you wish it. The point of the conversation as to illustrate that CO2 is rising and you started rambling about how you don't see that the PPM is going to go up very much because its only 8 GT of carbon each year as opposed to 26 GT of CO2.

It makes no god damn sense. I'm not an idiot, WC and you can't just throw stupid jargon or a pretty chart out and convince me that you have a clue.
But you are an idiot. I was merely pointing out that tons of carbon in the atmosphere are not the same as tons of CO2, and you want to imply I don't know there is a correlation to ppm.

Fuck you.

You are so fucking lame. So dumb that you think you are making winning points.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, I'll give you a clue about how stupid your presumed win over me is. It's called "Significant Figures." In the atmosphere, all but CO2 become insignificant when talking about the carbon cycle in 2 digit accuracy.

[MannyIsGod]

Merely pointing out my ass. You were converting them to carbon because you get to drop the tonnage by over 1/3

There was absolutely no reason to discuss the tonnage of carbon when discussing the increasing amount of carbon DIOXIDE into the atmosphere except to mislead.

I either give you credit for being a liar or being wrong. While I certainly think you capable of being a flat out liar your history of spewing out technical jargon and pointless charts in order to cover up your ignorance precedes you.

[Wild Cobra]

Merely pointing out my ass. You were converting them to carbon because you get to drop the tonnage by over 1/3

There was absolutely no reason to discuss the tonnage of carbon when discussing the increasing amount of carbon DIOXIDE into the atmosphere except to mislead.

I either give you credit for being a liar or being wrong. While I certainly think you capable of being a flat out liar your history of spewing out technical jargon and pointless charts in order to cover up your ignorance precedes you.
Wow...

Your ignorance is making you call me ignorant...

Wow...

[MannyIsGod]

And because of what I've stated above, I've come to pretty much just ignore or laugh at your posts. I don't believe many people (I could be wrong - I'm not in their heads - just a hunch) here give you much credit so I typically don't feel a need to address the bullshit you spew.

RG seemed to actually believe you were making a point, however, and I wanted to make sure he understood your conversion was absolute bullshit.

You're free to continue on with your bullshit at your leisure, WC.

:toast

[Wild Cobra]

And because of what I've stated above, I've come to pretty much just ignore or laugh at your posts. I don't believe many people (I could be wrong - I'm not in their heads - just a hunch) here give you much credit so I typically don't feel a need to address the bullshit you spew.

RG seemed to actually believe you were making a point, however, and I wanted to make sure he understood your conversion was absolute bullshit.

You're free to continue on with your bullshit at your leisure, WC.

:toast

I see now. You are throwing shit on the walls, to see how much sticks, and to make the less informed wary of the messenger.

Pretty shity tactics, but I guess bullshit is all that works when the truth isn't on your side.

[MannyIsGod]

Not by much.

The atmospheric window is already almost 100% covered by the opacity of CO2 to IR, in the associated spectral areas. It takes a very large change in CO2 to make a small change in how much IR escapes out to space. temperature stabilized at the point that incoming radiation +/-latent energy equals outgoing radiation.

I did find this spectacularly amusing btw.

[Wild Cobra]

I did find this spectacularly amusing btw.
Considering you don't know what I mean, I can believe that.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, another clue to your stupidity.

When talking about the carbon cycle, it is normal to talk the weight of carbon. Not CO2, or other forms, because each has it's own molecular mass. The carbon cycle deals with specific chemistry. The fact that you don't know in atmospheric form, it has a direct conversion to ppm, is your loss and ignorance. Not mine.

[MannyIsGod]

Considering you don't know what I mean, I can believe that.

Considering satellite spectroscopy has noted the drop of outgoing radiation in the same bands as greenhouse gas absorption I'd say your post is hilarious.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering satellite spectroscopy has noted the drop of outgoing radiation in the same bands as greenhouse gas absorption I'd say your post is hilarious.
That doesn't surprise me, since the driving force, the sun, has been emitting less energy these past few years.

I'll bet it is proportionally less.

[MannyIsGod]

The measurements date back 40 years so no.

They are proportional though. The change is directly proportional to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which completely contradicts your statement.

[MannyIsGod]

Double post.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and lol @ you now saying solar output has dropped.

[Wild Cobra]

The measurements date back 40 years so no.

They are proportional though. The change is directly proportional to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which completely contradicts your statement.
They can only be proportional at about the 10 micrometer band. the primary band will have almost no noticeable effect.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh and lol @ you now saying solar output has dropped.
less solar output = less IR to emit through the atmosphere.

[MannyIsGod]

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

[Wild Cobra]

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?

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/tsixsa_eng.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

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?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny...

May want to read this:

Reducing Noise in the MSU Daily Lower-Tropospheric Global Temperature Dataset (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C0888%3ARNITMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Christyetal1995.jpg

Average TSI is also lower over that same time frame.

[Wild Cobra]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S19YagfNfII/AAAAAAAAAvM/SaQwmmF8wjg/S660/cool14.jpg

[DarrinS]

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 constitute falsification of AGW, specifiically that CO2 causes out-of-control global warming?

[MannyIsGod]

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 circumstance.

[MannyIsGod]

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/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/

[RandomGuy]

Serious question for those that think the science of AGW is as rock-solid as Newtonian physics ...

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.

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience 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.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


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 title 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]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

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

[RandomGuy]

Serious question for those that think ...that skeptics are akin to people that think the moon landing was faked:

What would constitute falsification of AGW, specifiically that CO2 causes out-of-control global warming?

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. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)

Sadly, no few of the scientifically illiterate public is swayed by these pseudoscientific methods and propaganda, hence the OP.

[DarrinS]

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. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)

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.

[RandomGuy]

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?



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.

[DarrinS]

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?

[RandomGuy]

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.

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.

[RandomGuy]

How warm would it have been?

The IPCC report is readily available and puts forth a likely temperature range, if memory serves.

Perhaps you could read it and tell me.

[DarrinS]

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.


That's been happening for the past 10 years and also happened for the 30-year period between 1940 and 1970.

[DarrinS]

No one through this entire debate has ever classified climate research as "rock-solid a Newtonian physics".



Then there's no need for the term "denier".

[RandomGuy]

[Increases in CO2 concentrations without increases in temperature or climate fluctuation beyond what would normally be expected through natural cycles has] been happening for the past 10 years and also happened for the 30-year period between 1940 and 1970.

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.

[RandomGuy]

Then there's no need for the term "denier".

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.

[DarrinS]

That is your interpretation of the evidence, yes, an interpretation directly at odds with IPCC and the majority of climate scientists.


You talk about the IPCC as if they speak with a unified voice. Many of the IPCC scientists disagree with you.

[RandomGuy]

You talk about the IPCC as if they speak with a unified voice. Many of the IPCC scientists disagree with you.

"Many" is not a majority.

As for "disagree with you", you imply that many climate scientists would disagree with the idea that "the majority of climate scientists think that man-made CO2 is causing the earth in general to be warmer than it might have been otherwise". Even the ones that disagree about CO2 would probably say that the majority of their collegues think otherwise. ;)

I know what you meant, but still, that is my understanding of the current stance of climate scientists on the issue.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.htm

... among others seem to say there is a fairly firm consensus.

[DarrinS]

"Many" is not a majority.

... among others seem to say there is a fairly firm consensus.

Meaningless

[Wild Cobra]

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 circumstance.
Wait a minute...

Scientific methodology fail on your part. You have to prove the AGW theory as correct, and have not!


Elements of scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
We are only at step 2 so the AGW thing is still only a hypothesis. Predictions still are failure as the commonplace.

[Wild Cobra]

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/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/
Yes, I know. I actually tried to pull the wool over your eyes on that one. The corrections go on to talk about the satellites not being the same place every 24 hours.

You passed that test.

Any idea how many I have brought up that you failed?

Even the corrected data is no proof that the temperature changes are caused by any one thing. They are simply data points.

[RandomGuy]

[A consensus of experts is meaningless]

We have been down that road before in this thread.

That is indeed an interesting assertion to make, and if you wish to pick it back up, we can.

Have I stated your meaning correctly here? or did you mean something else?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, I know. I actually tried to pull the wool over your eyes on that one. The corrections go on to talk about the satellites not being the same place every 24 hours.

You passed that test.

Any idea how many I have brought up that you failed?

Even the corrected data is no proof that the temperature changes are caused by any one thing. They are simply data points.

So according to WC he is now purposely being deceitful... yet he also wants to convince people that AGW is a hoax...


great logic!

:lmao:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, I know. I actually tried to pull the wool over your eyes on that one. The corrections go on to talk about the satellites not being the same place every 24 hours.

You passed that test.

Any idea how many I have brought up that you failed?

Even the corrected data is no proof that the temperature changes are caused by any one thing. They are simply data points.

:lmao
:lmao
:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I have too much history to go through, but this was one of the articles I read along with that:

Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies. Part II: A Tropospheric Retrieval and Trends during 1979–90 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C0858%3APARVOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

maybe you should consider the point that science is an ever changing field when it comes to ideas and beliefs. What is believed to be correct today, can easily become null and void in the future.

[RandomGuy]

Climate Debate: What's Warming Us Up? Human Activity or Mother Nature?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/12/091221073725.jpg
The cover of Chemical & Engineering News shows arctic ice in 2007 -- the lowest amount on record, with an open Northwest Passage visible. C&EN features a major analysis of the divisive issues at the heart of the global climate change debate. (Credit: The American Chemical Society)


C&EN's cover story notes that global warming believers and skeptics actually agree on a cluster of core points:

•Earth's atmospheric load of carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas -- has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s.
•Carbon dioxide bloat results largely from burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
•Average global temperatures have risen since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.
"But here is where the cordial agreements stop," writes Stephen K. Ritter, a senior correspondent for C&EN. "At the heart of the global warming debate is whether warming is directly the result of increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels, or if it is simply part of Earth's natural climatic variation."

Ritter presents a sweeping panorama of global climate change science from the point of view of those who support both scenarios. The story notes that the debate is growing ever more contentious in light of the recent disclosure of e-mail messages suggesting that some scientists supporting the human activities scenario tried to suppress publication of opposing viewpoints.

Most climate scientists maintain that man-made global warming is happening, the article states. This majority opinion has been disseminated in peer-reviewed reports over the past 20 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an entity established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

Climatologist Michael Hulme of the University of East Anglia, in England, told Ritter that the scientific evidence backing the basic idea of human activity changing the global climate system is now overwhelming, even if scientific predictions for future climate change are still shrouded in uncertainty.

"It is vital that we understand the many valid reasons for disagreeing about global warming and climate change," Hulme says in the article. "We must recognize that they are rooted in different political, national, organizational, religious, and intellectual cultures -- our different ways of seeing the world.

"But we must not hide behind the dangerously false premise that consensus science leads to consensus politics," Hulme adds. "In the end, politics will always trump science. Making constructive use of the idea of climate change means that we need better politics, not merely better science."

However, global-warming skeptics argue that there is still a lot of guesswork in how scientists come to their conclusions. They take exception to the notion that there is a "consensus" agreement on the science -- that the science is settled and devastating man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion.

"The only contentious aspect of the IPCC assessment is attribution -- what is the cause of global warming and climate change," says atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who is president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a public policy institute based in Arlington, Va. "We have looked at every bit of data that IPCC has brought forth, and we see no credible evidence for human-caused global warming. None."

In response to the latest IPCC report, Singer and other scientists formed the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). NIPCC is an international coalition of scientists -- 35 participants relative to the 2,500 participants in IPCC's 2007 assessment--convened to provide a "second opinion" on the scientific evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change. The NIPCC report was published by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based public policy organization. Unlike the IPCC report, the NIPCC conclusions are not peer-reviewed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221073725.htm

[DarrinS]

We have been down that road before in this thread.

That is indeed an interesting assertion to make, and if you wish to pick it back up, we can.

Have I stated your meaning correctly here? or did you mean something else?



Science does not progress by concensus.


KtPDuZzfzhw

[Wild Cobra]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience 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.

So, you agree then that the AGW theory is pseudoscience?


Elements of scientific method

Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Predictions continue to fail by the AGW community.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

I agree that most the emails are harmless. What do you make of quotes like this:


"The scientific community would come down on me if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

Phil Jones; 7/5/05
That 7 years is now 12 by some data.

[Wild Cobra]

Very good yo watch:

b-uzNBtdYOo

[RandomGuy]

Science does not progress by concensus.



Yes, actually it does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus)



Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, many people of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[8] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[9]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[10] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[11] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[10]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness...

Again, as I have noted, this consensus aside, limiting CO2 will have the benefit of weaning us from energy sources that face imminent economic depletion ahead of other countries that don't, among other things.


--------------------------
(edit)
Also, since you didn't really contradict me concenring the accuracy of my interpretation of your assertion, I will act on the assumption that it was a fair statement.

[A consensus of experts is meaningless] -DarrinS

[RandomGuy]

If the consensus of 9 of 10 doctors who review a spot on your X-ray is that you need to get a biopsy, is that a valid reason for the test?

[Wild Cobra]

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.

No climate scientist would claim otherwise.
Then why would they?

Let me ask you this. When the solar radiation is measured in watts per square meter, and radiative forcing uses the same measurements, then shouldn't any greenhouse forcing increase or decrease by a near linear percentage? The radiative forcing during the time period used by the IPCC, AR4, increased by 0.18%. This means the radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses should increase by that amount as well.

Would you agree or disagree?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then why would they?

Let me ask you this. When the solar radiation is measured in watts per square meter, and radiative forcing uses the same measurements, then shouldn't any greenhouse forcing increase or decrease by a near linear percentage? The radiative forcing during the time period used by the IPCC, AR4, increased by 0.18%. This means the radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses should increase by that amount as well.

Would you agree or disagree?

are you being deceitful this time wc?

[Wild Cobra]

The IPCC report is readily available and puts forth a likely temperature range, if memory serves.

Perhaps you could read it and tell me.

I have SAR, TAR, and AR4, readily available on my computer. Where do you want me to look?

[RandomGuy]

Then why would they?

Let me ask you this. When the solar radiation is measured in watts per square meter, and radiative forcing uses the same measurements, then shouldn't any greenhouse forcing increase or decrease by a near linear percentage? The radiative forcing during the time period used by the IPCC, AR4, increased by 0.18%. This means the radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses should increase by that amount as well.

Would you agree or disagree?

I do not consider myself informed enough to meaningfully commit to either. I will leave the quibbling over variables to the peer-review panels and publishing of papers.

Have you submitted your conclusions to a formal journal yet?

[Wild Cobra]

are you being deceitful this time wc?
Not at all. Lean 2004 has good numbers for solar irradiation by proxy data. Others studies show both higher and lower levels. I didn't pick the highest, which would account for 100%+ the global warming we have seen since 1750. Right or wrong, I trust Lean's assessments.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not consider myself informed enough to meaningfully commit to either. I will leave the quibbling over variables to the peer-review panels and publishing of papers.

Have you submitted your conclusions to a formal journal yet?
I don't have the time or credentials for anyone to consider a paper.

My God man...

It's simple math! Some things really are that simple.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I have SAR, TAR, and AR4, readily available on my computer. Where do you want me to look?

SAR, TAR, and AR4?

The question was directed to Darrin, but feel free to put forth something to fill in for him. He seems adverse to posts that take longer than a minute to compose.

Unless you are going to test me on its accuracy?

[Wild Cobra]

Also, since you didn't really contradict me concenring the accuracy of my interpretation of your assertion, I will act on the assumption that it was a fair statement.

I don't think you will find any of us "deniers" opposed to limiting CO2. However, it needs to be by methods that are not harmful to our economy.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have the time or credentials for anyone to consider a paper.

My God man...

It's simple math! Some things really are that simple.


If it were that simple, then it should be simple enough to model accurately, correct?

One of your main assertions regarding this issue that the climate models are not accurate enough.

Which is it, simple or complex?

[RandomGuy]

I don't think you will find any of us "deniers" opposed to limiting CO2. However, it needs to be by methods that are not harmful to our economy.

Short-term harmful or long-term harmful?

Harmful to whom?

I readily concede that most policy proposals that seek to limit CO2 emissions are harmful to *somebody*, especially in the short-term. That is a cost I am willing to bear, because I think the long-term benefits of moving to renewables and more efficiency outweigh the short-term harm.

But this moves on to another tangent. :)