Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. [Archive] - Page 6

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 03:02 PM

My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.
Then do so. I've asked the same of Darrin as well.

I explained it when I presented the diagram I added numbers to.

The 0.12 W/sq meter of direct energy in the atmosphere is only about 28.5% of the solar energy not reflected. The remaining approximate 7.15% heats the surface of the earth, and this is where the IPCC conveniently losses it. They don't attribute the added energy into more latent heat, convection, and input to what the greenhouse gasses absorb. There is another 0.81 W/sq meter generated by the greenhouse effect by this increased input. Instead, it appears nowhere in the IPCC, and I can only conclude they included these extra values into the greenhouse gas increases that they attribute to increases greenhouse gas concentrations.

Just because we see can measure by proxy, more end result forcing by the greenhouse gasses, it does not mean it was the cause of greenhouse gasses.

If I take two equal pans of water, one from the hot tap, the other from the cold tap, and add equal heat to them, which is hotter when I remove the heat?

See, if I were able to do the cold water pan in 1750, and the hot water pan in modern day, the IPCC may as well say the change in end heat was because of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.

My point is proven by that simple graphic.

I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.

What about the more complex stuff?

They are too complex for me to give the modeling any merit, especially when the simple factors are obviously left out of the modeling.

Models do what you program them to do. Without being "all knowing," scientists program their models to react to their preconceived notions where the missing knowledge is at.

Have you contacted a climatologist in one of those AGW papers to find out? They're usually just an E-Mail away. I'd be interested in what feedback you get from them. My guess? It will be something along the lines of what I told you above.

No I haven't.

I may have to take the time sometime.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 03:11 PM

The 0.12 W/sq meter of direct energy in the atmosphere is only about 28.5% of the solar energy not reflected. The remaining approximate 7.15% heats the surface of the earth, and this is where the IPCC conveniently losses it. They don't attribute the added energy into more latent heat, convection, and input to what the greenhouse gasses absorb. There is another 0.81 W/sq meter generated by the greenhouse effect by this increased input. Instead, it appears nowhere in the IPCC, and I can only conclude they included these extra values into the greenhouse gas increases that they attribute to increases greenhouse gas concentrations.Sorry, this doesn't fly. Satellite measured outgoing longwave radiation and the ground measured downward LW radiation measurements have changed as more GHG are added into the atmosphere and that completely invalidates this argument. Not to mention you're using a broad increase in TSI over hundreds of years when we have accurate measurements from the last 30 years (where its decreased - incidently) where we can look for that type of correlation in a much more precise manner.

ElNono

09-01-2011, 03:13 PM

You guys just don't understand his intent

:lol

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 03:23 PM

Its not soot related because the melt is coming from underneath the ice. Its due to ocean heat content.
Not entirely, but NASA/GISS would disagree with if you say it has no increased effect.

We've discussed this also.

Which is more effective in heating the ocean?

The direct solar energy absorption because of the emissivity of the oceans, or the weak ability the change in atmospheric temperature has in changing fluid heat?

Even look at the heat content calculations, of changing a fluid temperature with a gas?

Again, which is more efficient. The direct application of heat (solar) or advection between the atmosphere and sea water with it's high salt concentration?

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 03:28 PM

Sorry, this doesn't fly. Satellite measured outgoing longwave radiation and the ground measured downward LW radiation measurements have changed as more GHG are added into the atmosphere and that completely invalidates this argument. Not to mention you're using a broad increase in TSI over hundreds of years when we have accurate measurements from the last 30 years (where its decreased - incidently) where we can look for that type of correlation in a much more precise manner.
Look deeper into those studies. You will find they are not definitive, as it is hard to separate where the spectra is originating from.

Aren't they averaged from an accuracy of 5 C?

When the inaccuracy of a measurement is so high because of noise levels, how do you rally compensate enough to get accuracy?

These satellite measurements are accurate when seeing outgoing radiation. However, only clear sky shows somewhat accurate ground reading. there is still greenhouse gasses to account for.

How much of the earth is covered by clouds at any given time, and varying altitudes?

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 03:33 PM

You guys just don't understand his intent

:lol
LOL...

I do...

The intent of the AGW crowd, especially the political body called the IPCC, is to scare people into destroying first would nations.

If the global community really believes this crap, why hasn't China been taken to task? They exceeded our emissions some years back.

ElNono

09-01-2011, 03:43 PM

I do...

:lol no you don't

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 03:49 PM

Not entirely, but NASA/GISS would disagree with if you say it has no increased effect.

We've discussed this also.

Which is more effective in heating the ocean?

The direct solar energy absorption because of the emissivity of the oceans, or the weak ability the change in atmospheric temperature has in changing fluid heat?

Even look at the heat content calculations, of changing a fluid temperature with a gas?

Again, which is more efficient. The direct application of heat (solar) or advection between the atmosphere and sea water with it's high salt concentration?

Of course the ocean is absorbing more radiation. NO one every says that its heating because of the atmosphere. It is absorbing more radiation that is directed downwards due to GHG. The melt is occuring for many reasons but the dominant factor in this large reduction is oceanic heat content and not soot.

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 04:05 PM

Of course the ocean is absorbing more radiation. NO one every says that its heating because of the atmosphere. It is absorbing more radiation that is directed downwards due to GHG. The melt is occuring for many reasons but the dominant factor in this large reduction is oceanic heat content and not soot.
Hmmmm....

We started seeing the ice melting at faster rates once Asia industrialized.

We don't see an equal effect at the southern ice shelves.

The ocean currents take decades to move heat from the warmer and more direct regions to the norther pole, and about 800-1100 years to complete a loop. But then, I forget... You are a "Lag denier."

I agree the GHG idea has merit, but requires assuming CH2, CH4, and N2O have as much radiative forcing as attributed to them.

Again, when you remove the known solar energy changes in the system, using the AR4 which states radiative forcing increased by 1.6 total, 1.66 in CO2... Total GHG of 2.64...

Which way are they ignoring the solar aspect? Do we add the 0.81 for a total of 2.45 which would reduce the sensitivity of GhGs, or do we remove this from the stated greenhouse effect changes, giving GHG's a increase of 1.83?

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 04:14 PM

Look deeper into those studies. You will find they are not definitive, as it is hard to separate where the spectra is originating from.

Aren't they averaged from an accuracy of 5 C?

When the inaccuracy of a measurement is so high because of noise levels, how do you rally compensate enough to get accuracy?

These satellite measurements are accurate when seeing outgoing radiation. However, only clear sky shows somewhat accurate ground reading. there is still greenhouse gasses to account for.

How much of the earth is covered by clouds at any given time, and varying altitudes?

:lol

Yeah. Thats kinda the point. When spectroscopy of outgoing radiation shows reductions in the bands associated with GHG it says something fairly clearly.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 04:15 PM

No one is ignoring solar content. It isn't enough of an change to induce the change in ocean heat content.

Wild Cobra

09-01-2011, 04:33 PM

No one is ignoring solar content. It isn't enough of an change to induce the change in ocean heat content.
From 1750 to present day it is.

Now you also have to take a hard look at the spectra. The radiation emitted by the ocean is the same a water. Only a very small amount resonates with CO2. With the ocean being 2/3rds the earth, solar changes make a huge difference.

Yes, the satellites see the CO2. But how well do they distinguish the altitude that is prominent?

I have seen the difficulties in spectral analysis before. Without being able to account for all variables but 2 or 3, you cannot make any definitive assessment when they interfere with each other. My experience was with a a piece of equipment that did thin film measurements. We could literally see through the layers of a silicon wafer, and determine the thicknesses. However, it had limitations, just like our satellites do.

Agloco

09-01-2011, 05:27 PM

I explained it when I presented the diagram I added numbers to.

You're speaking of another matter. I was referring to this:

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html

Give me a reason why their modeling assumptions are invalid. They speak about the suns effect on cloud formation or lack thereof. This is not directly related to your indirect forcing vs CO2 forcing argument.

I explained it when I presented the diagram I added numbers to.

The 0.12 W/sq meter of direct energy in the atmosphere is only about 28.5% of the solar energy not reflected. The remaining approximate 7.15% heats the surface of the earth, and this is where the IPCC conveniently losses it. They don't attribute the added energy into more latent heat, convection, and input to what the greenhouse gasses absorb. There is another 0.81 W/sq meter generated by the greenhouse effect by this increased input. Instead, it appears nowhere in the IPCC, and I can only conclude they included these extra values into the greenhouse gas increases that they attribute to increases greenhouse gas concentrations.

Careful here. I'd ask the IPCC exactly why that irradiance is where it is. Until you get one, it's friendly speculation on both sides of the fence.

Just because we see can measure by proxy, more end result forcing by the greenhouse gasses, it does not mean it was the cause of greenhouse gasses.

Does it necessarily mean it wasn't?

If I take two equal pans of water, one from the hot tap, the other from the cold tap, and add equal heat to them, which is hotter when I remove the heat?

They may well have the same temperature afterwards if I make the proper assumptions. Herein lies my argument with your "assumptions". It's not a black and white situation as you make it out to be. You need more information, as I did for your example. Go to the source.

See, if I were able to do the cold water pan in 1750, and the hot water pan in modern day, the IPCC may as well say the change in end heat was because of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or, if you set them up with my parameters, they might conclude that there was no corelation between the two.

They are too complex for me to give the modeling any merit, especially when the simple factors are obviously left out of the modeling.

Models do what you program them to do. Without being "all knowing," scientists program their models to react to their preconceived notions where the missing knowledge is at.

Name me anything that's "all knowing"......include experimental examples here too. You seem to be stuck on models "as a substitute for experimentation". At no time will anyone advocate that. They point you in the right direction, they dont provide evidence.

Preconcieved notions? :lol You model when experiementation isnt possible or practical. And yes, it does usually elucidate where the missing knowledge is at. In the hands of an honest researcher, it can help experimental design quite a bit.

They are too complex for me to give the modeling any merit, especially when the simple factors are obviously left out of the modeling.

Since they're so simple, perhaps you should contact various groups and ask them why they're not included.

No I haven't.

I may have to take the time sometime.

You seem to have fairly deep convictions about it. One has to wonder why you haven't bothered yet.

DarrinS

09-01-2011, 06:11 PM

Algoco,

Why do you keep posting this link that has absolutely zero specifics about their model?

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html

RandomGuy

09-01-2011, 07:30 PM

Agloco

09-01-2011, 07:34 PM

Algoco,

Why do you keep posting this link that has absolutely zero specifics about their model?

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html

Well, namely because its the one provided. You see, research involves....well research. Look for a complete version of their work. It does give the journal they published in doesn't it? If I'm not mistaken you also have the month of publication and both authors names.

Do you need another hint?

Agloco

09-01-2011, 07:42 PM

Gotta love it. An actual scientist and meterology student arguing with a factory technician and computer programmer about climate science in a thread written by an accountant on a basketball forum.

God bless the internet.

Lol

Diversity at its finest Id say.

EDIT: Manny the Meteorologist? That's screaming for a you tube page.

DarrinS

09-01-2011, 07:43 PM

Well, namely because its the one provided. You see, research involves....well research. Look for a complete version of their work. It does give the journal they published in doesn't it?

Do you need another hint?

It sounded like you had actually read their paper and had a direct link. My mistake.

Agloco

09-01-2011, 08:00 PM

It sounded like you had actually read their paper and had a direct link. My mistake.

I could take a subtle jab at you just as you just attempted to do here. However, I realize that you're not a researcher or someone who has read scientific literature at length, so ill take the high road and explain the process.

You see, journal subscriptions cost money. There's no free access (well mostly). This journal is no exception. Being faculty, I have access to these archives for free.

This is where I lol, as do the rest of the people reading this thread.

So in response to your query, I have indeed read the article. I also know for a fact that neither you or WC have. If you're serious about this, I would be glad to provide you with a PDF of it. Simply give me your email in a PM.

Your bluff has been called. Is there any more bullshit you care to fling my way?

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 08:37 PM

Lol

Diversity at its finest Id say.

EDIT: Manny the Meteorologist? That's screaming for a you tube page.

not quite yet and it may very sell end up being Manny the hydrologist/Geography Information Scientist/Climatologist. GIS and remote sensing are really catching my fancy. Mainly in their applications in meteorology and climate/environmental sciences though.

DarrinS

09-01-2011, 09:19 PM

Agloco

09-01-2011, 09:46 PM

Sorry you took it that way.

I'm quite certain the only regret you have is being called out on your bullshit.

Id appreciate it if neither of you bugged me about modelling until you've bothered to actually familiarize yourselves with one.

I'll be waiting for that PM, albeit without holding my breath.

DarrinS

09-01-2011, 10:01 PM

I'm quite certain the only regret you have is being called out on your bullshit.

Id appreciate it if neither of you bugged me about modelling until you've bothered to actually familiarize yourselves with one.

I'll be waiting for that PM, albeit without holding my breath.

No regrets here. And I develop computer models for a living, so I do know a thing or two about them. I did go to the websites of both authors mentioned in the article, just to see if they had a link to a PDF file.

WC would probably have more interest in it than I do. He seems a bit more passionate about the subject.

Wild Cobra

09-02-2011, 02:48 AM

You're speaking of another matter. I was referring to this:

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html
Give me a reason why their modeling assumptions are invalid. They speak about the suns effect on cloud formation or lack thereof. This is not directly related to your indirect forcing vs CO2 forcing argument.

OK, we have a miscommunication. I have no conviction either way on the cosmic ray idea, and never held it as a prominent means of climate change. I am referring to changes in total solar power striking the earth. I haven't looked at any of their cosmic theory modeling. That area is probably above me as well.

Careful here. I'd ask the IPCC exactly why that irradiance is where it is. Until you get one, it's friendly speculation on both sides of the fence.

Sorry, I have no friendly feeling about how those people treat those who disagree with them. Good scientists careers have been damaged by not agreeing with their dogma.

Their "speculation" is used by world forces to do harm to our economy. Maybe it's not intentional, but it has happened.

CO2 is now classed a pollutant!

Does it necessarily mean it wasn't?

Until the extra starting energy is removed, the change is irrelevant.

If the solar radiance added 1.2 watts (again, I will shorten watts/square meter to watts) to the CO2 radiative effect, and the change is 1.6 watts, then something other than the sun added the 0.4 watts.

It is assumed by the IPCC that CO2 forcing increased by 1.66 watts from 1750 to present day. This might be an accurate assessment. How much of that increase is from the increased solar energy in the system? If the 0.18% is a correct number, then this by itself is adding 0.93 watts to the atmosphere. If it's evenly distributed among the greenhouse gasses, then the 0.93 watts it adds to the atmosphere appears as 0.58 watts of the CO2 increase. This would make the actual CO2 increase only 1.08 watts.

The IPCC AR4 uses 1.66 watts for CO2, 0.48 for CH4, 0.16 for N2O, and 0.34 for halocarbons. Total greenhouse effect increase of 2.64 watts. If we subtract the missing solar energy from the GHG total, then then have a 1.83 watt increase from greenhouse gasses instead of 2.64 watts. This is 69.32%, and this 62.32% of 1.66 (CO2) would become 1.15 watts.

Ever time I have tried checking, the solar increases are dismissed. I have no choice but to conclude they are hiding in some other warming component in their modeling.

It cannot only be 0.12 watts total in a correct model. It must be somewhere around 1 watt. With the feedback multipliers, it would make the change from 1750 to modern day so small, everyone would agree it's wrong who studies solar activity.

They may well have the same temperature afterwards if I make the proper assumptions. Herein lies my argument with your "assumptions". It's not a black and white situation as you make it out to be. You need more information, as I did for your example. Go to the source.

I'm sorry. The bottom line is with increased solar heat, the starting temperature before the greenhouse effect is already higher. The end result will, no doubt, be higher.

Or, if you set them up with my parameters, they might conclude that there was no corelation between the two.

Well, simple science tells us if you add equal heat to two different temperatures of the same mass and type of material, the one that started to be hotter will also be hotter in the end.

That is of course as long as we aren't at some state change.

Name me anything that's "all knowing"......include experimental examples here too. You seem to be stuck on models "as a substitute for experimentation". At no time will anyone advocate that. They point you in the right direction, they dont provide evidence.

Preconcieved notions? :lol You model when experiementation isnt possible or practical. And yes, it does usually elucidate where the missing knowledge is at. In the hands of an honest researcher, it can help experimental design quite a bit.

In climate science, they rely on the models too much and state the conclusions as fact.

That's what gets me. This science is so far away from being well know, yet they claim the science is settled.

Bullshit!

I have no use for the meteorologists who take an extra class or two to become a climatologist. How often are meteorologists right? They cannot predict the weather a week out, why should they be so arrogant to think they are right?

Since they're so simple, perhaps you should contact various groups and ask them why they're not included.

Ever know a climatologist willing to debate a denier?

You seem to have fairly deep convictions about it. One has to wonder why you haven't bothered yet.

I have too many other things going on in my life. I figure it's a waste of time because of the likely lack of response. Maybe it's not.

Wild Cobra

09-02-2011, 02:52 AM

Gotta love it. An actual scientist and meterology student arguing with a factory technician and computer programmer about climate science in a thread written by an accountant on a basketball forum.

God bless the internet.
Someone at work has a cool sticker. I meant to transcribe it, and post it with minor editing.

"No physical training required. This forum has enough running off of the mouth....."

I think you get the point. I'll stop there instead of risk screwing it up.

boutons_deux

09-02-2011, 01:47 PM

Science Stunner: Editor of Journal that Published Flawed Denier Bunk Apologizes, Resigns, Slams Spencer for Exaggerations

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/02/310889/editor-denier-bunk-resigns-spencer/

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 02:08 PM

Wow.

Borat Sagyidev

09-02-2011, 02:38 PM

I could take a subtle jab at you just as you just attempted to do here. However, I realize that you're not a researcher or someone who has read scientific literature at length, so ill take the high road and explain the process.

You see, journal subscriptions cost money. There's no free access (well mostly). This journal is no exception. Being faculty, I have access to these archives for free.

This is where I lol, as do the rest of the people reading this thread.

So in response to your query, I have indeed read the article. I also know for a fact that neither you or WC have. If you're serious about this, I would be glad to provide you with a PDF of it. Simply give me your email in a PM.

Your bluff has been called. Is there any more bullshit you care to fling my way?

Faculty. I am about 80% positive I know who you are coming form similar background and I gotta say you fit in good as faculty since you have the patience to to argue with idiots.

Why don't you get to the point of all these straw man arguments?
Do any of these studies discredit Co2 as a greenhouse gas?

Because what these fools are essentially arguing that Co2 in a lab under the same temp, partial pressure and density conditions won't act the same when it's out in the environment. It's almost as they believe the some mystical power is changing what is pretty well vetted science.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 03:35 PM

Why don't you get to the point of all these straw man arguments?
Do any of these studies discredit Co2 as a greenhouse gas?.

You DO realize that no one is arguing that, right?

There are three central pillars to AGW:

1. The warming of the past century is somehow remarkable, unusual, unprecedented, etc.

2. Said warming is mostly caused by increased CO2 emitted by humans

3. If CO2 emissions aren't substantially curbed, we will hit so-called "tipping points", which result in rises in sea level, flooding Manhattan, etc

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 03:38 PM

:lol

Could you be anymore wrong?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 03:38 PM

No, no you can't. Holy shit, Darrin. If you're not trolling then I have no idea how you got your degree, how you keep your job, and how you even function with such low levels of understanding.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 03:43 PM

No, no you can't. Holy shit, Darrin. If you're not trolling then I have no idea how you got your degree, how you keep your job, and how you even function with such low levels of understanding.

Do I need to post the executive summaries of IPCC's reports? Are those not the central points of Gore's scifi docudrama?

Why don't you elaborate?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 03:45 PM

Please, post them. I wasn't aware that Gore was a scientist whom was integral to developing theory. But please, post those IPCC summaries.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 03:49 PM

Please, post them. I wasn't aware that Gore was a scientist whom was integral to developing theory. But please, post those IPCC summaries.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 03:50 PM

When you post them, be sure to specifically point out where they say its unprecedented and where they mention tipping points.

Thanks!

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 03:51 PM

Please, post them. I wasn't aware that Gore was a scientist whom was integral to developing theory. But please, post those IPCC summaries.

Why'd they give that Nobel prize to Gore and IPCC in 2007?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 03:53 PM

The IPCC doesn't hand out Nobel prizes. People get things they don't deserve all the time. You have an engineering degree, right?

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 03:59 PM

The IPCC doesn't hand out Nobel prizes. People get things they don't deserve all the time. You have an engineering degree, right?

Why does your side get so pissy and resort to lame insults?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 04:06 PM

My side? I speak only for me. Why do I resort to lame insults? Because thats all you deserve. Look at you trolling with absolute crap and never taking an intelligent look at things but rather just run by ankle biting. You then wonder why you get insults? You cannot possibly think you ever engage anyone on this forum in a way that merits more than this? This is coming from the same person who posted the following:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5394792&postcount=1274
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5392266&postcount=1207

And thats just from the past two pages in this thread.

I've rarely seen people as patient as RG and Agloco get as frustrated with other posters the way they get frustrated with you. I give up FAR more quickly than that and resort to what entertains me but those two will keep pounding at it for a long time and you have somehow managed to alienate them.

If you were honestly asking the above question then I suggest you become more introspective and ask what it is about you that prohibits an actual debate. I'm not holding my breath.

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 04:08 PM

Why does your side get so pissy and resort to lame insults?

Next we need a post from Hitler asking why no one likes him.

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 04:10 PM

BTW, still waiting for you to point out 2 of your 3 pillars in that IPCC report. I'm sure you've actually read it, right?

ElNono

09-02-2011, 04:54 PM

Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper

"Remote Sensing Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned earlier today (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf) (PDF) over a global warming study published in his journal that was said to cast doubt (http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/New-NASA-Data-Casts-Doubt-On-Global-Warming-Models) on global warming models but was later found to be flawed (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/). Wagner stated that the paper most likely contained fundamental methodological errors and false claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper). He further expressed dismay over how 'the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.' The author of the paper, Dr. Roy Spencer, has responded to the resignation (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/)."

ElNono

09-02-2011, 04:54 PM

tbh, Dr Roy Spencer sounds just like Wild Cobra... coincidence? :lol

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 05:24 PM

surprise, Darin tucked tail yet again.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 05:34 PM

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 05:53 PM

Resigning over a single paper like that is highly unusual.

Peer reviewed journals strive to reach the highest levels of rigor and adherence to scientific principles.

If you read the linked pdf, his oversight in selecting the reviewers, a direct choice on his part, who did not apply appropriate levels of skepticism or review.

Peer-review's strength lies in the fact that is it perceived as tough, but fair. Any hint that it is not, and you call into question the overall integrity of the process at your publication.

So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.

He picked three reviewers who were far too friendly to the paper, and who, apparently did a shitty job at the one thing they were supposed to do, i.e. catch errors and omissions.

This supports the OP of this thread rather well.

ElNono

09-02-2011, 05:54 PM

Resigning over a single paper like that is highly unusual.

Frankly, I have no idea.

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:01 PM

surprise, Darin tucked tail yet again.

The only thing that keeps that post from being his thirteenth logical fallacy (strawman) is that he didn't bother to deride AGW.

As it is, it was simply inaccurate. Let's see if he can actually get it right, if I ask.

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:07 PM

You DO realize that no one is arguing that, right?

There are three central pillars to AGW:

1. The warming of the past century is somehow remarkable, unusual, unprecedented, etc.

2. Said warming is mostly caused by increased CO2 emitted by humans

3. If CO2 emissions aren't substantially curbed, we will hit so-called "tipping points", which result in rises in sea level, flooding Manhattan, etc

Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:13 PM

Peer reviewed journals strive to reach the highest levels of rigor and adherence to scientific principles.

You give the "peer review" process WAAAY too much credit. Early in my career, I published a few technical papers that were presented at the SAE World Congress. Every year, you'd see the same dozen or so presenters, and their papers would be reviewed, mostly, by the same handful of guys who were all well known in that particular discipline. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that all those guys knew each other and were pretty friendly with each other, or at least cordial. I very rarely saw a heavy-handed review.

If you read the linked pdf, his oversight in selecting the reviewers, a direct choice on his part, who did not apply appropriate levels of skepticism or review.

So, you're a fan of skepticism now?

Peer-review's strength lies in the fact that is it perceived as tough, but fair. Any hint that it is not, and you call into question the overall integrity of the process at your publication.

You're right. It is PERCEIVED as tough, but, in many cases, it's anything but.

By the way, the worst case I've ever seen of direct manipulation of the peer-review process is the climategate emails.

Phil Jones
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Michael Mann
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Phil Jones
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor."

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:14 PM

The only thing that keeps that post from being his thirteenth logical fallacy (strawman) is that he didn't bother to deride AGW.

As it is, it was simply inaccurate. Let's see if he can actually get it right, if I ask.

Your entire thread starts with an ad hominem attack on skeptics. Way to go!

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:30 PM

Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.

Video shown on first day of Copenhagen climate summit.

aKtjwvTFAv8

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:30 PM

Your entire thread starts with an ad hominem attack on skeptics. Way to go!

Please demonstrate how exactly the OP fits into the ad hominem logical fallacy form as given below:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

(edit)
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases)[emphasis mine] have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:35 PM

One should not dismiss outright the claims of people who are skeptical of the body of work supporting the theory of global warming.

But given the quality of arguments, and the overall lack of any demonstrable critical thinking skills, one should be VERY skeptical of accepting any of the "denier" claims as a given without fact checking it first.

Agloco

09-02-2011, 06:35 PM

Ever know a climatologist willing to debate a denier?I have too many other things going on in my life. I figure it's a waste of time because of the likely lack of response. Maybe it's not.

Sorry, I have no friendly feeling about how those people treat those who disagree with them. Good scientists careers have been damaged by not agreeing with their dogma.

Their "speculation" is used by world forces to do harm to our economy. Maybe it's not intentional, but it has happened.

Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper

"Remote Sensing Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned earlier today (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf) (PDF) over a global warming study published in his journal that was said to cast doubt (http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/New-NASA-Data-Casts-Doubt-On-Global-Warming-Models) on global warming models but was later found to be flawed (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/). Wagner stated that the paper most likely contained fundamental methodological errors and false claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper). He further expressed dismay over how 'the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.' The author of the paper, Dr. Roy Spencer, has responded to the resignation (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/)."

Indeed. So strong is their position that they feel the need to cook up bogus papers.

:lol

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:36 PM

Please demonstrate how exactly the OP fits into the ad hominem logical fallacy form as given below:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1]

Agloco

09-02-2011, 06:38 PM

Resigning over a single paper like that is highly unusual.

It is? Since you know so much about journal access and peer review, please share your insight.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:39 PM

It is? Since you know so much about journal access and peer review, please share your insight.

I already did a few posts back.

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:40 PM

Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.

Video shown on first day of Copenhagen climate summit.
[ youtube video ]

:rolleyes

Thanks mouse.

Agloco

09-02-2011, 06:40 PM

Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.

Video shown on first day of Copenhagen climate summit.

aKtjwvTFAv8

That's a you-tube video Darrin.

DarrinS

09-02-2011, 06:41 PM

Why didn't the editor of Nature resign after Michael Mann's "hockey stick" paper?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 06:42 PM

Video shown on first day of Copenhagen climate summit.

aKtjwvTFAv8

you once again made a false claim. You do that often, liar.

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:44 PM

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1]

... and what negative charcteristic am I pointing out Darrin?

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 06:45 PM

Why didn't the editor of Nature resign after Michael Mann's "hockey stick" paper?

why are you incapable of addressing items you get called on? Lol Darrin the victim.

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 06:46 PM

wait so addressing relevant negative characteristics is ad hominem? Lololololololol

Agloco

09-02-2011, 06:47 PM

I already did a few posts back.

Missed it. My bad.

Reviewers and editors dont want to be associated with any article or paper which might have been cooked. They will do their due dilligence in determining whats fit for publication or not. Reviews may or may not be "heavy handed", but that hardly determines if a paper gets seleced for publication.

RandomGuy

09-02-2011, 06:48 PM

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.

The "attack" is that much of what passes for "science" in the denier camp, isn't actually science.

Deniers aren't wrong because they are idiots. If I said that, it would be ad hominem.

They are wrong because their science is very poor. (i.e. the quality of their arguments and data are so bad)

MannyIsGod

09-02-2011, 06:49 PM

I think you're a bad basketball player because you can't shoot, dribble, and pass.

ad hominen!

Agloco

09-02-2011, 06:51 PM

Why don't you get to the point of all these straw man arguments?
Do any of these studies discredit Co2 as a greenhouse gas?

Because what these fools are essentially arguing that Co2 in a lab under the same temp, partial pressure and density conditions won't act the same when it's out in the environment. It's almost as they believe the some mystical power is changing what is pretty well vetted science.

To answer your question, no. The paper I dissected a few pages back made an attempt to do that but used the wrong set of assumptions.

We also need to be careful about translating what we see in a lab to what we see "out there". Unfortunately for climate science, the physics is not scale invariant. Hence we necessarily see a preponderance of modelling to supplement experimentation.

Wild Cobra

09-02-2011, 06:52 PM

Why didn't the editor of Nature resign after Michael Mann's "hockey stick" paper?
The stick only hits one way.

Wild Cobra

09-02-2011, 06:54 PM

I'm surprised an incorrect paper is such news. For years, the IPCC and their scientists have been making false claims. Every time they come out with a new assessment report, deniers point out the shortcomings, and the next report is revised.

Mistakes happen.

Why is it when the AGW crowd does it, it's OK, but when a scientific skeptic does so, he's chastised?

Now I didn't see his paper to make a sound judgement on, but I'll bet there is no intention mistakes in it.

ElNono

09-02-2011, 07:25 PM

The paper isn't what's news. The resignation is.

Agloco

09-02-2011, 08:07 PM

Why didn't the editor of Nature resign after Michael Mann's "hockey stick" paper?

There was obviously something more festering under the surface here. Guess we will need to wait it out.

I have no use for the meteorologists who take an extra class or two to become a climatologist. How often are meteorologists right? They cannot predict the weather a week out, why should they be so arrogant to think they are right?

:lol

Terrible comparison. Climatology deals with weather averaged out over long periods. Short term wheather patterns are much more chaotic and unpredictibale.

It's like the difference in trying to predict the result of a single coin flip versus predicting the statistical result of many flips.

Agloco

09-02-2011, 09:54 PM

not quite yet and it may very sell end up being Manny the hydrologist/Geography Information Scientist/Climatologist. GIS and remote sensing are really catching my fancy. Mainly in their applications in meteorology and climate/environmental sciences though.

:tu

There was always something about geography that enticed me. Perhaps it was my love for travel.

Playing with any satellite technology will involve plenty of physics though.

Wild Cobra

09-09-2011, 07:03 PM

MannyIsGod

09-09-2011, 08:15 PM

Yeah if only they opened up those papers to criticism from everyone. You really shouldn't trust the peer review process until the studies are made public, IMO.

DarrinS

09-10-2011, 01:36 PM

RandomGuy

09-12-2011, 01:49 PM

I think you're a bad basketball player because you can't shoot, dribble, and pass.

ad hominen!

Pretty much sums up what the D-meister is trying to say.

It is sorta cute the way he finally tries to look for logical fallacies, but gets it so horribly wrong.

RandomGuy

09-12-2011, 01:54 PM

Here is an interesting one to watch:

Jcp40a6IYdY

I have complained before these believers are reviewing each others work, and there is no "open" peer review process. It is all a closed system, and a total sham.

Does that actually get to a point?

About all it did was attempt to equate sceintists who beleived in AGW to Nazis.

I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.

I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.

Yet more fodder for the assertion in the OP. Thanks.

DarrinS

09-12-2011, 03:20 PM

Does that actually get to a point?

About all it did was attempt to equate sceintists who beleived in AGW to Nazis.

I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.

I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.

Yet more fodder for the assertion in the OP. Thanks.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

RandomGuy

09-12-2011, 03:27 PM

[Link that I dont' feel like really reading.--RG]

:sleep

Let me know when you can summarize it.

or

Does that article compare climate scientists to Nazis too?

Wild Cobra

09-12-2011, 03:27 PM

Does that actually get to a point?

About all it did was attempt to equate sceintists who beleived in AGW to Nazis.

I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.

I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.

Yet more fodder for the assertion in the OP. Thanks.
You ended it too soon. There is example after example of lies and deceptions. Move the slider to 1:32, or just before. The rest is discussing the deceptions.

RandomGuy

09-12-2011, 03:30 PM

You ended it too soon. There is example after example of lies and deceptions.

Do you realize how much that video, and you, sound like a 9-11 truther just about now?

You aren't helping your case.

DarrinS

09-12-2011, 03:42 PM

:sleep

Let me know when you can summarize it.

or

Does that article compare climate scientists to Nazis too?

Summary: Eugenics

DarrinS

09-12-2011, 03:44 PM

Do you realize how much that video, and you, sound like a 9-11 truther just about now?

You aren't helping your case.

Ad hominem

Wild Cobra

09-12-2011, 03:58 PM

Do you realize how much that video, and you, sound like a 9-11 truther just about now?

You aren't helping your case.
Summarizing it would be difficult as it goes from one example to another to another spending only several seconds on each. It starts with how the FAR (IPCC First Assessment Report) was honest and shows the medieval warming period and by SAR (Second Assessment Report) they removed it. There's a clip of a guy testifying they had to remove the warming period. They talk about how the Hockey Stick is false. The hockey stick is actually talked about for a bit, almost the 5 minute mark.

This video probably has at least three dozen examples of false AGW items.

Starting at 6:09, they talk about how the temperature recording stations were removed. Removing colder stations and using them with a lesser number of the warmer stations left. This skews the data when over time, your colder data is removed. it shows a false warming.

At 7:05 they talk about several examples how incorrect Peer Review processes are used, including someone admitting he didn't let people who disagree with them review the work, because they might find fault.

This is a good video. A must see.

Wild Cobra

09-12-2011, 04:05 PM

Random...

Just open it in another window, and listen as you do something else.

RandomGuy

09-12-2011, 05:07 PM

Ad hominem

:lol

You're so cute trying to use that word. (pinches cheeks)

(edit)

Let's be clear:

The videos points stand on their own merits, not on any vacuous, dishonest, and shitty comparisons of climate scientists to Nazis.

I just don't want to waste my time to finish watching it because I found it more than a little insulting.

In most cases one should not dismiss the truth of things because of the person saying it.

BUT

In the cases where one is presented with a specific interpretation of facts and evidence by someone with so obvious and extreme of a bias, one should be EXTREMELY skeptical of the analysis or conclusions.

I will not throw away the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists and researchers based on the cherry-picked data on a youtube video.

That may be the level of proof required by twoofers and creationists, but I require just a *bit* more convincing before the scale tips, IMO.

DarrinS

09-12-2011, 05:53 PM

:lol

You're so cute trying to use that word. (pinches cheeks)

Gee thanks. How gay of you.

I just don't want to waste my time to finish watching it because I found it more than a little insulting.

Why do you find it insulting?

In most cases one should not dismiss the truth of things because of the person saying it.

BUT

In the cases where one is presented with a specific interpretation of facts and evidence by someone with so obvious and extreme of a bias, one should be EXTREMELY skeptical of the analysis or conclusions.

That may be the level of proof required by twoofers and creationists, but I require just a *bit* more convincing before the scale tips, IMO.

And then you go on the insult offensive.

I will not throw away the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists and researchers based on the cherry-picked data on a youtube video.

lol @ "tens of thousands" of scientists.

By the way, this line of reasoning is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

RandomGuy

09-13-2011, 12:56 AM

lol @ "tens of thousands" of scientists.

By the way, this line of reasoning is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

:pimpslap

Either you are a fucking idiot and/or dishonest as all hell, I can't figure out which. :wtf

Climate scientists generally are, by definition, experts on climate, you moron.

While one cannot put what they say as an absolute truth with no room for error, one can certainly assign a base probability that they might know something about their field of expertise at higher level than, say, your average brain-damaged comptuer programmer or the nutritionists who sign petitions about climate science.

Wild Cobra

09-13-2011, 02:02 AM

I will not throw away the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists and researchers based on the cherry-picked data on a youtube video.

LOL...

There aren't that many who have studied and agree with all this AGW stuff. I think the number is 26.

Wild Cobra

09-13-2011, 02:04 AM

Climate scientists generally are, by definition, experts on climate, you moron.

And as many or more disagree with the AGW scare.

RandomGuy

09-14-2011, 07:31 AM

LOL...

There aren't that many who have studied and agree with all this AGW stuff. I think the number is 26.

I think you are dishonest.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things, and there is generally a fairly large gulf between them.

The few studies that have been done, have shown the as the level of knowledge and education, and specifically the more one studies climate systems, the more convinced they are of AGW.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

In the study, the authors wrote: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."

There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

RandomGuy

09-14-2011, 07:35 AM

And as many or more disagree with the AGW scare.

Link?

Wild Cobra

09-14-2011, 02:34 PM

RandomGuy

09-15-2011, 08:55 AM

Random...

Guess what. we have been over that 97% number before. Two questions were asked. If forget exactly how they were worded, but I would be part of that 97% if asked those questions. They were effectively asking if global warming was real, and if man had any pert of it. Not if AGW was primary. Not if man was the cause.

As for my number of 26...

That is the sum total of the scientists involved in peer review authoring and reviewing associated with Anthropogenic Global Warming. They are all on the same sheet of music and review each others works. It is not an open peer review process. Then when a "skeptic" tears apart their work, they get together and peer review something to discredit real science.

I challenge you to show me more names than that involved with the AGW peer review process.

Guess what, the new study (you know, the one I linked and you obviously didn't read) that confirms the ealier one didn't ask questions.

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC.
We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing
with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods).

We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods).
Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to
their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in
calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

It appears as though the authors didn't ask any questions and used some pretty unambiguous indicators of opinion, and this study confirms the first set of data that you are tryign to ignore.

More education + more research into climate = more convinced of the actual evidence for ACC

less educastion + less research into climate = less convinced of the actual evidence for ACC

This dovetails with the OP, by the way.

RandomGuy

09-15-2011, 08:58 AM

RandomGuy

09-15-2011, 09:03 AM

Fair enough, there is indeed a potential for group think, and I would be less than intellectually honest if I were not to accede as much.

Give me your list of 26 names first.

Did I just get suckered into trying to prove a negative? :bang

I challenge you to prove that it is only 26 to a reasonable degree.

MannyIsGod

09-15-2011, 11:14 AM

Sea ice melt in the Arctic is likely done for the season. Depending on the data source, 2011 will have reached the 2nd lowest min or set a new record for the lowest extent.

DarrinS

09-15-2011, 01:03 PM

Sea ice melt in the Arctic is likely done for the season. Depending on the data source, 2011 will have reached the 2nd lowest min or set a new record for the lowest extent.

When ice retreats and various plants, tools, and artifacts are found, what does that mean?

http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010/09/pre-viking-artifacts-exposed-by.html

"It's like a time machine-the ice has not been this small for many, many centuries," said Lars Piloe, a Danish scientist heading a team of "snow patch archaeologists" on newly bare ground 1,850 meters (6,070 ft) above sea level in mid-Norway.

Specialized hunting sticks, bows and arrows and even a 3,400-year-old leather shoe have been among finds since 2006 from a melt in the Jotunheimen mountains, the home of the "Ice Giants" of Norse mythology.

As water streams off the Juvfonna ice field, Piloe and two other archaeologists -- working in a science opening up due to climate change -- collect "scare sticks" they reckon were set up 1,500 years ago in rows to drive reindeer toward archers.

But time is short as the Ice Giants' stronghold shrinks.

"Our main focus is the rescue part," Piloe said on newly exposed rocks by the ice. "There are many ice patches. We can only cover a few...We know we are losing artefacts everywhere."

Freed from an ancient freeze, wood rots in a few years. And rarer feathers used on arrows, wool or leather crumble to dust in days unless taken to a laboratory and stored in a freezer.

Jotunheimen is unusual because so many finds are turning up at the same time -- 600 artefacts at Juvfonna alone.

Other finds have been made in glaciers or permafrost from Alaska to Siberia. Italy's iceman "Otzi," killed by an arrow wound 5,000 years ago, was found in an Alpine glacier in 1991. "Ice Mummies" have been discovered in the Andes.

Patrick Hunt, of Stanford University in California who is trying to discover where Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BC with an army and elephants, said there was an "alarming rate" of thaw in the Alps.

"This is the first summer since 1994 when we began our Alpine field excavations above 8,000 ft that we have not been inundated by even one day of rain, sleet and snow flurries," he said.

"I expect we will see more 'ice patch archaeology discoveries'," he said. Hannibal found snow on the Alpine pass he crossed in autumn, according to ancient writers.

Glaciers are in retreat from the Andes to the Alps, as a likely side-effect of global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.N. panel of climate experts says.

The panel's credibility has suffered since its 2007 report exaggerated a thaw by saying Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. It has stuck to its main conclusion that it is "very likely" that human activities are to blame for global warming.

"Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat," said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said "the main driver is global warming."

In Norway, "some ice fields are at their minimum for at least 3,000 years," said Rune Strand Oedegaard, a glacier and permafrost expert from Norway's Gjoevik University College.

The front edge of Jovfunna has retreated about 18 meters (60 ft) over the past year, exposing a band of artefacts probably from the Iron Age 1,500 years ago, according to radiocarbon dating. Others may be from Viking times 1,000 years ago.

Juvfonna, about 1 km across on the flank of Norway's highest peak, Galdhoepiggen, at 2,469 meters, also went through a less drastic shrinking period in the 1930s, Oedegaard said.

Inside the Juvfonna ice, experts have carved a cave to expose layers of ice dating back 6,000 years. Some dark patches turned out to be ancient reindeer droppings -- giving off a pungent smell when thawed out.

Ice fields like Juvfonna differ from glaciers in that they do not slide much downhill. That means artefacts may be where they were left, giving an insight into hunting techniques.

On Juvfonna, most finds are "scare sticks" about a meter long. Each has a separate, flapping piece of wood some 30 cm long that was originally tied at the top. The connecting thread is rarely found since it disintegrates within days of exposure.

"It's a strange feeling to be tying a string around this stick just as someone else did maybe 1,500 years ago," said Elling Utvik Wammer, a archaeologist on Piloe's team knotting a tag to a stick before storing it in a box for later study.

All the finds are also logged with a GPS satellite marker before being taken to the lab for examination.

The archaeologists reckon they were set up about two meters apart to drive reindeer toward hunters. In summer, reindeer often go onto snow patches to escape parasitic flies.

Such a hunt would require 15 to 20 people, Piloe said, indicating that Norway had an organized society around the start of the Dark Ages, 1,500 years ago. Hunters probably needed to get within 20 meters of a reindeer to use an iron-tipped arrow.

"You can nearly feel the hunter here," Piloe said, standing by a makeshift wall of rocks exposed in recent weeks and probably built by an ancient archer as a hideaway.

MannyIsGod

09-15-2011, 01:11 PM

I'm curious as to how many artifacts are being found in the arctic when sea ice retreats.....

DarrinS

09-15-2011, 01:18 PM

I'm curious as to how many artifacts are being found in the arctic when sea ice retreats.....

That goes without saying, but this doesn't answer my question.

RandomGuy

09-15-2011, 01:34 PM

When ice retreats and various plants, tools, and artifacts are found, what does that mean?

http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010/09/pre-viking-artifacts-exposed-by.html

That you are trying to make the same failed strawman argument again?

RandomGuy

09-15-2011, 01:43 PM

That goes without saying, but this doesn't answer my question.

The answer to your question is that if artifacts are found under the ice then at some time in the past, there was no ice.

You will then go on to say that all changes in climate, including what we are experiencing now are natural, and that scientists who ignore the fact that we are currently within historical limits of our climate are ingoring this.

This is a strawman logical fallacy, because the scientists who study our climate don't dispute that temperatures we are experiencing are that far out of historical extremes.

It is the rate of change that the scientists are pointing out as having human causes not that current climates have never occured historically.

Since you pushed it, this then becomes your, what? 14th logical fallacy?

MannyIsGod

09-15-2011, 01:44 PM

That goes without saying, but this doesn't answer my question.

It sucks when people just dance around your question, doesn't it?

DarrinS

09-15-2011, 03:18 PM

The answer to your question is that if artifacts are found under the ice then at some time in the past, there was no ice.

You will then go on to say that all changes in climate, including what we are experiencing now are natural, and that scientists who ignore the fact that we are currently within historical limits of our climate are ingoring this.

This is a strawman logical fallacy, because the scientists who study our climate don't dispute that temperatures we are experiencing are that far out of historical extremes.

It is the rate of change that the scientists are pointing out as having human causes not that current climates have never occured historically.

Since you pushed it, this then becomes your, what? 14th logical fallacy?

Do you have a link to a paper(s) that show the current rate of change is unusual?

MannyIsGod

09-15-2011, 04:00 PM

Do you have a link to a paper(s) that show the current rate of change is unusual?

I do.

MannyIsGod

09-15-2011, 04:00 PM

I have a lot of them actually.

DarrinS

09-15-2011, 07:09 PM

I have a lot of them actually.

Care to share?

Yonivore

09-15-2011, 09:11 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

Wild Cobra

09-16-2011, 03:08 AM

OK random, that is a different study than I was thinking of. It goes back to regurgitating what you are taught, even when wrong.

At one time, most people thought the world was flat. That's what they were taught.

admiralsnackbar

09-16-2011, 08:03 AM

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 08:07 AM

Let's look at the last frame of that animated gif

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/420k%20year%20temp%20graph%20Money%20Shot.JPG

If you look at the cycle -- and, yes, there is a clear cycle -- we're due for some glaciation.

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 09:13 AM

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 02:19 PM

Care to share?

With who?

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 02:20 PM

With who?
With all of us.

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 02:31 PM

With all of us.

No.

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 03:34 PM

No.
Okay, but I'm having a pretty involved discussion with ElNono, over in another thread about how unreasonable it is to make assertions without supporting them.

Sure you want to be on his list?

And there's plenty of people I disagree with here on a number of topics that I find quite reasonable. Manny, RandomGuy, vy65, winehole... probably more.
Right now, you're still on his list of Reasonables.

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 03:46 PM

El Nono can take me off his list if he feels it necessary. It doesn't change the fact that I have no desire to provide you with the links to studies.

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 03:48 PM

El Nono can take me off his list if he feels it necessary. It doesn't change the fact that I have no desire to provide you with the links to studies.
:tu on deciding to be irrelevant. Kudoes. That's a brave decision.

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 04:04 PM

On deciding to be irrelevant to you, Yonivore. It may bruise your ego to learn that is not a big step in either direction for me. :tu

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 04:11 PM

On deciding to be irrelevant to you, Yonivore. It may bruise your ego to learn that is not a big step in either direction for me. :tu
Got it.

So, other than me, you're confident the rest of the forum -- both those for whom you deign relevance and those, like me, whom you do not -- will just take your assertion at face value?

No, no bruised ego.

ElNono

09-16-2011, 04:36 PM

Funny, too, because this is one topic where I don't agree with Manny.

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 04:37 PM

Funny, too, because this is one topic where I don't agree with Manny.
But, do you think it's reasonable he won't support his assertions with sources?

ElNono

09-16-2011, 04:42 PM

But, do you think it's reasonable he won't support his assertions with sources?

He wasn't unreasonable with me when we discusses this.

I do think he's being unreasonable with you, but that's his choice. Much like when you choose the be unreasonable.

Yonivore

09-16-2011, 04:45 PM

He wasn't unreasonable with me when we discusses this.

I do think he's being unreasonable with you, but that's his choice. Much like when you choose the be unreasonable.
So, for you, reasonableness is personality driven.

ElNono

09-16-2011, 04:57 PM

So, for you, reasonableness is personality driven.

How so?

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 05:21 PM

Got it.

So, other than me, you're confident the rest of the forum -- both those for whom you deign relevance and those, like me, whom you do not -- will just take your assertion at face value?

No, no bruised ego.

Oh if certain people were to want to discuss it I would be more than happy to provide the proof to back up what I say. You're not certain people.

DarrinS

09-16-2011, 05:21 PM

Recent "rates of change" are unremarkable.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 05:23 PM

Recent rates of change for climate change will start to become negative, TBH. Winter is coming.

DarrinS

09-16-2011, 05:29 PM

Recent rates of change for climate change will start to become negative, TBH. Winter is coming.

Recent, meaning the last 100 years.

MannyIsGod

09-16-2011, 05:36 PM

Oh well then in that case I would say you're wrong.

ElNono

09-16-2011, 06:31 PM

How so?

RandomGuy

09-19-2011, 10:58 AM

The Gore-a-thon on WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/the-gore-a-thon-on-wuwt/)

Wish I had time to post all the panels because I know, not many of the alarmists in here will bother; but, the cartoonist created a panel for each hour of the "Gore-a-thon" and, it's hilarious...

Funny stuff.

I guess, if you think cherry-picked data, logical fallacies, and poor reasoning funny.

That link is simply more fodder for the OP. I counted about eight logical fallacies and a bunch of cherry-picked, misleading data.

It is a re-hash of all the types of things that makes me say that people like you are guilty of politically-driven pseudoscience.

Yet another emotionally appealing group of arguments that eschew logic and honest representations of data to make a case.

RandomGuy

09-19-2011, 11:00 AM

But, do you think it's reasonable he won't support his assertions with sources?

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

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668313&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668327&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668374&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668384&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668380&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

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
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820172&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822005&postcount=713

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

Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784642&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789303&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819971&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820716&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5354367&postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4968018&postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964720&postcount=1075
First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5405129&postcount=1335

Tyson Chandler:

Strawman logical fallacy:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5393669&postcount=1231

uh-huh.

(edit)
or if you prefer:

But, do you think it's reasonable he won't support his assertions with sources?

And as many or more [scientists] disagree with the AGW scare.

Link?

(crickets)

------------------------

Couldn't quite decide which to go with.

To be fair, the burden is on Manny, and he is being unreasonable.

At some point though, when you play games with people who essentially cheat, it becomes more than a little frustrating to stick to the rules. Can't say I blame him for giving y'all the finger.

RandomGuy

09-19-2011, 11:04 AM

Do you have a link to a paper(s) that show the current rate of change is unusual?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml

Knock yourself out.

RandomGuy

09-19-2011, 11:14 AM

Recent "rates of change" are unremarkable.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/

Interesting link.

It is obvious you didn't read the comments. The guy got pwned on his own blog. :lol

I found the analysis somewhat spurious because of the way it joined older data with newer as if they were really comparable. They aren't, and that flawed starting assumption makes the conclusions drawn from it suspect.

Par for the course from skeptics, it seems.

(edit 1)
Was going to put this in a seperate post, but let's put it here.

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post.

Again, par for the course.

edit 2:

lol @ "tens of thousands" of scientists.

By the way, this line of reasoning is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

:pimpslap

DarrinS

09-19-2011, 12:55 PM

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics
"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL

You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

DarrinS

09-19-2011, 12:57 PM

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml

Knock yourself out.

Pretty generic RG. Which one is relevant to "rate of change"?

Yonivore

09-19-2011, 04:30 PM

At some point though, when you play games with people who essentially cheat, it becomes more than a little frustrating to stick to the rules.
No shit!

I've encountered the same thing over all the Bush Hating.

Well put.

Now, back to Manny and the latest rebuttal to the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.

It's not that we don't play by the rules, it's that Manny won't even acknowledge there is a reasonable counter to his "consensus" that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. This is but one.

The other, longer running counterpoint is that Al Gore refuses to live like there's a crisis while he continues to tell us there is one.

And, speaking of unanswered questions. Exactly what is the the optimal temperature for earth?

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 04:30 PM

Its tough to say. Perhaps you could try a bit of reading?

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 04:34 PM

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 04:39 PM

Actuallly, more on the subject of warming oceans, the behavior of the Arctic this summer gives a good indicator of just how much more energy the oceans are beginning to hold. In 2007 when we had the lowest extent of sea ice, there was a confluence of conditions that only happen on average once every 2 decades or so. This year, when we for all intents and purposes tied that extent level we had no such conditions and we were losing ice even at times when the air temp was substantially cool to at the least prevent melt from occurring. The reason for this was the fact that the melt was occurring from the bottom due to oceanic heat content that was very high.

Although we did not reach the lowest extent of sea ice on record outside of one measuring system, we most certainly did - once again - set the record for lowest volume of sea ice which is the better measurement since we definitely do not live in a two dimensional world.

Yonivore

09-19-2011, 04:49 PM

Yoni, the belief that the deep oceans are holding a lot of heat is not new in the least. You're analysis of that article is one of ignorance and shows your lack of familiarity on the subject. Perhaps you and Darrin could try reading up on the subject a bit more as opposed to cherry picking what you want?
If it's not new, why are the scientists just now figuring out it could be the reason their global warming predictions were wrong?

It's not a hard question, Manny.

From the article...first paragraph;

The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.

Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly. …
Mystery? Wonder? Yeah, sounds like they've been onto this for quite awhile, Manny.

AlGore acolytes are embarrassed the earth isn't heating up like their models predicted it would. Usually, in the world of science, empirical evidence contradicting a theory tends to refute it. Not so with the religion of Global Warming. Empirical evidence that contradicts their articles of faith just cause them to tinker with theory so as to make it harder to falsify.

This is just another hypothesis to provide another faulty assumption to plug into their already failed models.

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 06:02 PM

Wild Cobra

09-19-2011, 08:33 PM

I guess, if you think cherry-picked data, logical fallacies, and poor reasoning funny.

That link is simply more fodder for the OP. I counted about eight logical fallacies and a bunch of cherry-picked, misleading data.

It is a re-hash of all the types of things that makes me say that people like you are guilty of politically-driven pseudoscience.

Yet another emotionally appealing group of arguments that eschew logic and honest representations of data to make a case.
The specialists at Cherry Picking data are the alarmists.

Did you watch the video I posted? Here it is again:

Jcp40a6IYdY

10 days ago was the first I saw of it, but it highlights many points we 'deniers' have said over and over, and the excuses saying we were wrong are all very lame.

Yonivore

09-19-2011, 08:35 PM

I'm sorry since when do the scientists work for Reuters and write bylines? If you and others were smart enough to tell the difference between a scientific study and a news article it might do you some good.

Tell you what. Show me the place in the referenced study either of those 2 things are declared.

Thanks in advance!!!!
You should be so lucky that people would quit reporting on the global warming fraud.

"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the study, said in a statement. "The heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."
I'm guessing the Reuters reporter based the story on this NCAR study by Kevin Trenberth.

And, seeing as how the study relies on data through 2010, I can't imagine this was something that was figured into the early models.

If they've known this for some time, why wasn't it figured into the models earlier?

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 09:10 PM

I've got a question for you, Yoni. Why do you think Trenberth decided to study the possibility of heat being stored deep in the oceans? Perhaps because he suspected that was the case? Just maybe?

You should look for older quotes from Trenberth. Let me know what you find.

You continue to display a fundamentally flawed idea of how science is carried out. Its a little more thorough than your chosen method of analysis. I know that you love to run off and invade countries based on bad evidence, but science prefers to confirm suspicions before leaping. I pretty much just answered the above question for you - maybe this way you'll figure it out.

Notice, I didn't say that it was "known". I said the belief has been around for quite some time and this is part of the process of finding out whether that suspicion is right or if there are other or scenarios. The ocean has ALWAYS been at the center of understanding global warming and anyone who understands mass, volume, and specific heat will be able to explain why quite easily.

Wild Cobra

09-19-2011, 09:15 PM

I've got a question for you, Yoni. Why do you think Trenberth decided to study the possibility of heat being stored deep in the oceans? Perhaps because he suspected that was the case? Just maybe?

You should look for older quotes from Trenberth. Let me know what you find.

You continue to display a fundamentally flawed idea of how science is carried out. Its a little more thorough than your chosen method of analysis. I know that you love to run off and invade countries based on bad evidence, but science prefers to confirm suspicions before leaping. I pretty much just answered the above question for you - maybe this way you'll figure it out.
Manny...

Aren't you one of the deniers that the ocean stores heat, and we see tha lag of that latent heat?

Ignignokt

09-19-2011, 09:16 PM

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 09:18 PM

Manny...

Aren't you one of the deniers that the ocean stores heat, and we see tha lag of that latent heat?

Deny that it stores heat? Of course the ocean stores heat and it stores far more heat than the atmosphere. Where have I ever denied this?

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

This is fundamental chemistry/physics and is not very hard to understand. Were the ocean cooling we would not be seeing what we are seeing.

Wild Cobra

09-19-2011, 09:20 PM

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

Yep...

You are the denier.

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 09:22 PM

It doesn't really matter if climate change is occuring. That's not the real issue. It's only an issue because somehow one side is alleging this can be fixed if we radically change the economic structure and institute command economies, keep third world countries from developing and decreasing our quality of life.

So can anyone tell me if we're just arguing for symbolic gestures to make ourselves feel good, or are we actually believing that any bullshit action we take now is gonna thwart a day of reckoning?

Well, the political boat has sailed. Personally, I study the situation because I've got a deep curiosity as to how these systems function and what the results are. I think that we could have made some not too difficult changes and I think that in the next 100 years climate change will impact us and hurt more than any small measures we could undertake now would have. You don't have to send the economy into a tailspin to change some fundamentals and have a huge impact but with the denial of the science being at the level its at it simply isn't realistic at all.

I don't really concern myself with the situation politically and worst case scenario it will provide me employment opportunities well into the future.

I don't by any means think the survival of the human race is at stake. I do think it will have serious impacts that will cost a lot of money in the coming century.

Ignignokt

09-19-2011, 09:23 PM

Deny that it stores heat? Of course the ocean stores heat and it stores far more heat than the atmosphere. Where have I ever denied this?

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

This is fundamental chemistry/physics and is not very hard to understand. Were the ocean cooling we would not be seeing what we are seeing.

Bro, you're just a weatherman. Lick my balls.

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 09:24 PM

:lol

Do I need to cook and wear a pencil skirt?

Ignignokt

09-19-2011, 09:25 PM

Well, the political boat has sailed. Personally, I study the situation because I've got a deep curiosity as to how these systems function and what the results are. I think that we could have made some not too difficult changes and I think that in the next 100 years climate change will impact us and hurt more than any small measures we could undertake now would have. You don't have to send the economy into a tailspin to change some fundamentals and have a huge impact but with the denial of the science being at the level its at it simply isn't realistic at all.

I don't really concern myself with the situation politically and worst case scenario it will provide me employment opportunities well into the future.

I don't by any means think the survival of the human race is at stake. I do think it will have serious impacts that will cost a lot of money in the coming century.

Ok, that's an honest assesment of the issue there.

The point is tho, we're gonna need more carbon fuels not less to combat the side effects/causes of climate change for which we really have no control.

Look at the death rate of the third world compared to civilized societies who are able to provide rescue items faster..

Ignignokt

09-19-2011, 09:26 PM

:lol

Do I need to cook and wear a pencil skirt?

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

MannyIsGod

09-19-2011, 09:29 PM

Wild Cobra

09-19-2011, 09:36 PM

jTFDHlRQ2RA

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:02 PM

It doesn't really matter if climate change is occuring. That's not the real issue. It's only an issue because somehow one side is alleging this can be fixed if we radically change the economic structure and institute command economies, keep third world countries from developing and decreasing our quality of life.

So can anyone tell me if we're just arguing for symbolic gestures to make ourselves feel good, or are we actually believing that any bullshit action we take now is gonna thwart a day of reckoning?

Yet another flawed assumption:

Moving to a less CO2 intensive energy mix will decrease our way of life. It won't. Transitioning to renewables and non-fossil fuel sources will help the economy and increase standards of living. Neither does doing so require a full transition to a "command economy".

From what I understand it is quite possible to make fairly substantive and meaningful changes to our energy mix to achieve some real mitigation of the worst outcomes of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:05 PM

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.

Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:13 PM

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL

You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?

Ignignokt

09-20-2011, 12:13 PM

That is assuming that the third world wouldn't assimilate any renewable energy gains that we make in the first world (were we to actually make a stronger effort to achieve them). Carbon fuels were cheap for the United States' industrial revolution but they certainly won't be cheap for the modern day third world. The exponentially increasing efficiency of solar combined with decreasing reserves and increasing price of fossil fuels don't bode well for any 3rd world country expecting to build up on the cheap WITH fossil fuels.

The countries that invest heavily in those technologies and reap the rewards are going to have a hell of a cash cow going forward but it will benefit the entire world to a large degree.

Why not? Carbon fuels are cheaper than solar and wind.

Even if you were to win the climate science battle vs Wild Cobra, you lose to him in convincing fashion to him in physics and economics.

Gasoline is energy dense, wind and solar is not, it's only a small fraction of what oil is. Nucleur on the other hand is immensely dense.

Carbon fuels are way cheaper than green technology.

If you were to push forward a society to any real meaningful green technology, you'd have a decrease in a standard of living, you'd be more prone to black outs, you'd have less energy for which enriches our lives.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:15 PM

Pretty generic RG. Which one is relevant to "rate of change"?

I would imagine the last, most comprehensive IPCC report.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:21 PM

Why not? Carbon fuels are cheaper than solar and wind.

Even if you were to win the climate science battle vs Wild Cobra, you lose to him in convincing fashion to him in physics and economics.

Gasoline is energy dense, wind and solar is not, it's only a small fraction of what oil is. Nucleur on the other hand is immensely dense.

Carbon fuels are way cheaper than green technology.

If you were to push forward a society to any real meaningful green technology, you'd have a decrease in a standard of living, you'd be more prone to black outs, you'd have less energy for which enriches our lives.

Incompete analysis.

Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.

The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.

If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.

Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.

What is left is increasingly hard to get to.

It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.

Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.

Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.

Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.

That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.

That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.

(edit)

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/hirsch/hirsch031705A.gif

The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:25 PM

And, speaking of unanswered questions. Exactly what is the the optimal temperature for earth?

The answer is:

There is no optimal temperature.

Are you trying for a red herring fallacy? I can add that to your score, if you wish.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 12:34 PM

FWIW,

Here is a good place to start developing ones understanding of energy sources and their relative efficiencies:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.php

energy return on energy invested, or EROEI:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#eroei

That site also interlinks energy with economic topics needed to consider the issue rationally.

Ignignokt

09-20-2011, 02:33 PM

Incompete analysis.

Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.

The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.

If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.

Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.

What is left is increasingly hard to get to.

It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.

Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.

Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.

Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.

That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.

That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.

(edit)

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/hirsch/hirsch031705A.gif

The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.

can you show me how much wind and solar are to oil compared to density and cost?

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 02:53 PM

can you show me how much wind and solar are to oil compared to density and cost?

You can start by reading the post immediately before that.

Let me know when you have at least looked at the EROIE table.

Once you get the underlying physics, the underlying economics usually follow.

Ignignokt

09-20-2011, 02:56 PM

You can start by reading the post immediately before that.

Let me know when you have at least looked at the EROIE table.

Once you get the underlying physics, the underlying economics usually follow.

I'm not good at physics. My understanding is that Oil is way more energy dense than wind and solar.

Am i wrong?

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 03:09 PM

I'm not good at physics. My understanding is that Oil is way more energy dense than wind and solar.

Am i wrong?

Oil is much more energy dense than wind or solar, as noted above.

Energy density is also next to irrelevant when considering energy sources and where to invest efforts/money, without other concepts.

If I told you I had stock in a company with $146Bn US annual revenue, would you be able to determine the price or value of the stock?

vy65

09-20-2011, 03:26 PM

Incompete analysis.

Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.

The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.

If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.

Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.

What is left is increasingly hard to get to.

It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.

Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.

Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.

Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.

That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.

That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.

(edit)

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/hirsch/hirsch031705A.gif

The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.

You're leaving out the part that scarcer oil reserves incentivizes research and production because the price of oil increases. You'd be right if the price per barrel remained the same forever. That's not the way this works.

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 03:35 PM

You're leaving out the part that scarcer oil reserves incentivizes research and production because the price of oil increases. You'd be right if the price per barrel remained the same forever. That's not the way this works.

I never claimed that the market will not respond to the price of oil.

Best/reasonable estimates are that improvements in technology will increase what is economically recoverable. The Hubbert curve will not, therefore, be symmetrical, but have a much longer, flatter tail.

BUT

Technology or no, getting heavy crude out of the ground, and the extra refining required to convert that heavy crude to usable forms are energy intensive processes.

Energy = money

You can't cheat physics.

vy65

09-20-2011, 03:39 PM

I never claimed that the market will not respond to the price of oil.

Best/reasonable estimates are that improvements in technology will increase what is economically recoverable. The Hubbert curve will not, therefore, be symmetrical, but have a much longer, flatter tail.

BUT

Technology or no, getting heavy crude out of the ground, and the extra refining required to convert that heavy crude to usable forms are energy intensive processes.

Energy = money

You can't cheat physics.

You expend more energy, sure. You were speaking to efficiencies though. Do you not think that profits from a barrel 10 years down the line will or won't economically justify the extra effort, if any, used in extracting oil?

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 03:52 PM

You are right to point out though, this is a very dynamic process.

If the price of oil does go up, so will production and research into finding/exploiting new sources of oil.

At the same time, however, this will make oil, relative to other energy sources less cost competitive in the short run.

More money will flow into alternatives, such as natural gas, coal, renewables etc.

gas and coal will suffer the same depletion factors over the longer term though.

Long term, wind won't change too much due to technology, but efficiencies of scale in manufacturing/installing turbines and supporting infrastructure mean that the costs will come down. Same thing goes for solar, with its many different competing technologies.

Renewables will not be facing depletion factors and will, over time become more cost and energy efficient in terms of invested energy.

Fossil fuels will be facing depletion factors that will decrease any gains in our ability to economically produce/use it.

The problem is, that once you commit to building say, a coal power plant, or a fleet of gasoline cars, you can't easily convert that coal power plant/fleet if prices rise. You are stuck with your existing infrastructure.

I may not be able to predict exact prices in 20 years, but I would be willing to bet my retirement savings that renewables will become more cost competitive, relative to oil, than they are now.

This will happen purely through market action, without any real intervention by governments.

BUT

What happens if a country decides to get ahead of this inexorable trend while energy is fairly cheap? Will it be more, or less competitive than one who has locked themselves into sources of energy that experience sustained price hikes?

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 03:59 PM

You expend more energy, sure. You were speaking to efficiencies though. Do you not think that profits from a barrel 10 years down the line will or won't economically justify the extra effort, if any, used in extracting oil?

The market will "price" the cost of energy used to get the barrel out of oil, and companies will be able to see what fields can be economically and profitably extracted.

The answer is yes, yes they will.

That is, however, the wrong question to ask, as I just pointed out.

It isn't absolute costs, but relative costs that are important to considering an overall country/civilization's energy mix in production/usage.

There may be a lot of profit in producing $200/barrel oil, but if the same amount of energy can be had from an amount of solar panels for $150, then a decision on getting the most energy per $ gets a lot easier. That is simplifying things with unrealistic/unsupported figures, by the way. Reality is always murkier, but the underlying principle of relative costs determining ultimate product/source mixes is a very sound, and proven economic concept.

vy65

09-20-2011, 04:11 PM

At the same time, however, this will make oil, relative to other energy sources less cost competitive in the short run.

No. Less supply means increased price. Especially in the short run where the economic and technological infrastructure of society doesn't support renewable usage. Oil will be cost-competitive in the short run.

DarrinS

09-20-2011, 04:39 PM

http://www.earthtrack.net/files/u10/Solyndra-logo.png

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 08:29 AM

No. Less supply means increased price.

Incorrect/incomplete. I can think of instances where drops in supply can be accompanied by decreases in price.

Better:

Less supply means increased price, demand held constant.

Anyhoo,

Especially in the short run where the economic and technological infrastructure of society doesn't support renewable usage. Oil will be cost-competitive in the short run.

At the same time, however, this will make oil, relative to other energy sources less cost competitive, relative to other sources than it is currently, in the short run.

I did not say oil would become less costly per unit of energy than renewables, but rather that the gap between the two costs would narrow.

As that gap narrows, the opportunity costs for switching narrow.

Oil, and gas/coal for that matter, in the ground will be a significant source of energy for our civilization for the remainder of my lifetime, and likely that of my children.

The % of all energy used/produced that oil represents, will, however, shrink. Again, that is a mathmatical certainty.

(edit)

For the lawyer, a fun latin phrase economists are fond of:

ceteris paribus :D

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 08:33 AM

http://www.earthtrack.net/files/u10/Solyndra-logo.png

You already have a thread for that topic. It bears little relevance to this one.

Now run along.

(edit)

Unless you want to answer my question:

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL

You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 10:14 AM

Recent "rates of change" are unremarkable.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/

This by the way is most definitely an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as the author, a semi-conductor engineer with no published papers or formal education on climate science, is not an "expert".

That is your 15th? 16th? logical fallacy. I have lost count of how many instances of bad reasoning you have exhibited.

I have asked you before, but at what point will you realize that your thinking on this subject is so seriously, obviously, provably flawed?

What does that say about your beliefs on this subject?

What would a reasonable conclusion be to you about your critical thinking abilities, based on this?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 10:15 AM

Speaking of unanswered questions...

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.

Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 10:17 AM

Why not? Carbon fuels are cheaper than solar and wind.

Even if you were to win the climate science battle vs Wild Cobra, you lose to him in convincing fashion to him in physics and economics.

Gasoline is energy dense, wind and solar is not, it's only a small fraction of what oil is. Nucleur on the other hand is immensely dense.

Carbon fuels are way cheaper than green technology.

If you were to push forward a society to any real meaningful green technology, you'd have a decrease in a standard of living, you'd be more prone to black outs, you'd have less energy for which enriches our lives.

Carbon fuels are currently cheaper than solar and wind energy with the exception of certain places due to special circumstances. Thats why I made it a point to focus on the increasing efficiency of solar/wind (especially solar) and the increasing cost of fossil fuels.

The efficiency of solar energy is increasing exponentially. Within 10 years it will NOT be more expensive than oil.

I'm not good at physics. My understanding is that Oil is way more energy dense than wind and solar.

Am i wrong?

Why does energy density matter so much? What percentage of the earth is no longer available to development for energy purposes? An incredibly small percentage. Considering the variety of available space in land already used for human purposes for Solar density is not a big issue at all and yet people still seem to bring it up all the time.

We don't need to turn all of Southern California into a solar farm. We have enough available real estate on our roofs. Decentralized solar is going to undergo an incredible revolution in the next 20 years.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 10:25 AM

Why does energy density matter so much?

"density" is one of those spurious, "sciency" sounding memes that has been read about by enough people with low scientific literacy to be repeated in debates like this.

There is an originating article, I think Darrin posted it at some point, that talks about it.

People predisposed to the pseudoscience of AGW skepticism read that article without really understanding it then, regurgitate it in places like this, or pass it on in ever vaguer, more distant forms in forums to others, in a version of the telephone game.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 10:34 AM

We don't need to turn all of Southern California into a solar farm. We have enough available real estate on our roofs. Decentralized solar is going to undergo an incredible revolution in the next 20 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Gleisdorf.Solarbaum.jpg/450px-Gleisdorf.Solarbaum.jpg

I think so as well.

While I would not go so far as to say the cost per joule will fall below that of oil for solar, the decreases in costs per unit of energy from PV in particular do indicate a very good probability that those costs will continue falling, as the technology develops.

Other forms of solar, like the thermal solar that provides 24/7 power with much more predictable/smooth outputs for utility scale plants, show a lot of potential as well. That technology is moving out of test phases into production, so I would be willing to bet that costs for it will go down as the technology matures as well.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 10:54 AM

The fascinating aspect of this is a development from third world to first world where things start off decentralized. That will be interesting to see how it plays out.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/10/sub-saharan-renewables-poised-for-exponential-growth

boutons_deux

09-21-2011, 11:12 AM

Even Aggie bubbas dispute Jimmy Ricky's climate change fantasies:

Aggie scientists take issue with Perry's global warming skepticism

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_columnists/scott_stroud/article/Aggie-scientists-take-issue-with-Perry-s-global-2180835.php

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 11:19 AM

A&M has the best atmospheric sciences program in TX and one of the best in the nation. Smart people work at that school.

DarrinS

09-21-2011, 12:40 PM

Only the best and brightest super sciency scientists work for the IPCC.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/22/an-even-younger-senior-author/

An Even Younger Senior Author

October 22, 2010

Yesterday I wrote about Richard Klein, a Dutch geography professor currently working in Sweden, who began writing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the tender age of 25.

That was nine full years prior to earning his PhD, and part of a larger pattern. Sari Kovats also became an IPCC author 15 years prior to completing her doctorate, Lisa Alexander became an IPCC author a decade prior to getting hers, and Laurens Bouwer hadn’t even finished his Masters when he first served as a lead author. The IPCC has a history, therefore, of pretending that grad students are the equivalent of the world’s top scientists.

Klein’s personal website claims that he:

…remains the youngest ever coordinating lead author in the history of the IPCC, a mark he set when first appointed coordinating lead author in 1997. [bold added]

This claim is repeated on page five of his CV. However, Klein appears to be mistaken. Another Dutchman – economist Richard Tol – got there first.

Nothing about the IPCC is straightforward, and this matter is no exception. In addition to the large assessment reports published in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007, several smaller IPCC reports on specialized topics have also been produced.

Klein’s claim to being the youngest coordinating lead author (the most senior of the IPCC’s three classes of author) relates to one of these special reports. It was titled Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer and was published in 2000. Klein served as the sole coordinating lead author for Chapter 15 – a task he began at age 28.

Tol, however, was one of two senior people responsible for Chapter 5 in an IPCC special report titled The Regional Impacts of Climate Change. An online version of that report is dated 1997 – three years prior to the report in which Klein participated. It was published on paper in 1998.

Given that Tol and Klein were born a few months apart in 1969, and the report in which Tol was involved came first, it would seem that it is Tol who holds the dubious distinction of being the youngest ever person to oversee an IPCC chapter.

Tol earned his PhD in 1997 – around the time his report was released. In that respect, his case is less egregious than the others cited above. But this still means the IPCC assigned him the most senior of author roles when he was a 20-something grad student.

If climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity, why have kids filled key IPCC positions for the past 15 years?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 01:13 PM

Only the best and brightest super sciency scientists work for the IPCC.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/22/an-even-younger-senior-author/

That doesn't answer my question. Let's see if the third time is the charm.

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics
"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL

You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 01:17 PM

Only the best and brightest super sciency scientists work for the IPCC.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/22/an-even-younger-senior-author/

Also, another neglected question or two:

Recent "rates of change" are unremarkable.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/

This by the way is most definitely an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as the author, a semi-conductor engineer with no published papers or formal education on climate science, is not an "expert".

That is your 15th? 16th? logical fallacy. I have lost count of how many instances of bad reasoning you have exhibited.

I have asked you before, but at what point will you realize that your thinking on this subject is so seriously, obviously, provably flawed?

What does that say about your beliefs on this subject?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 01:26 PM

Thank-You for making our point Random.

These were the IPCC experts!

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 02:10 PM

Thank-You for making our point Random.

These were the IPCC experts!

Perhaps you would like to answer Darrin's question for him?

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics
"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL

You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

Dr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 02:15 PM

Thank-You for making our point Random.

Thank you for helping make mine.

Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than 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.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877

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 (stopped counting)
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

vy65

09-21-2011, 02:24 PM

The fact that you keep a tally on other poster's "logical fallacies" is fucking ridiculous.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 02:30 PM

:lol

RG definitely has dedication. No one can take that from him.

One could say it might be misplaced, however.

DarrinS

09-21-2011, 02:41 PM

The fact that you keep a tally on other poster's "logical fallacies" is fucking ridiculous.

He's an accountant. I don't think he can help himself. Those people are anal retentive and have obsessive-compulsive disorders. He probably washes his hands a lot and is afraid to pee in a public restroom.

vy65

09-21-2011, 02:49 PM

It's like the lamest attempt to mimic the NKVD.

Watch how you reason, comrade ...

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 02:58 PM

Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?
That's not what matters.

When the skeptics of climate change pointed out the missing energy was in the oceans, everyone in Climatology laughed. Now they want to use it for their side in an incorrect way. Since the ocean has a very long cycle, it makes equilibrium take decades to be close to equal, and over 800 years to complete.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:02 PM

Perhaps you would like to answer Darrin's question for him?

Dr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?
I won't dispute the possible economic damage if the outlandish claims the climate will endure were not that of science fiction.
Now I've been doing so many other things today and came back, and lost track of some things. The woman in the video I posted didn't have the experience or degree of an expert, yet was an expert for the IPCCC.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:02 PM

LOL...

IPCCC... I like that, no need to change it!

CCCP!

DarrinS

09-21-2011, 03:07 PM

I think climate change needs their own AttackWatch.com

Maybe RG could set that up?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:07 PM

I've started to enter some IPCCC data they list from ISMAM models and Bern-CC models. One thing I noted is disturbing to begin with. On the data used for CO2 abundance using the ISAM model, every reference of A1B to ISA92a used the same concentrations for 1970, 1980, and 1990. However, the IPCC used higher numbers!

Manny...

Why is this fraud there? Did they have to make something they didn't understand fit?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:25 PM

The fact that you keep a tally on other poster's "logical fallacies" is fucking ridiculous.

The OP rather clearly stated the purpose was for me to make my case regarding the nature of climate change skeptics, and the skepticism of the theory of human-caused climate change in general.

I don't find making information clear, easily understood, and presented in a meaningful way to be ridiculous at all.

You are just pissy because the skeptics, whom I suspect you sympathize with, are so shitty at logical/critical thinking.

Am I wrong?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:26 PM

:lol

RG definitely has dedication. No one can take that from him.

One could say it might be misplaced, however.

Et tu, brutus? :lol

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:28 PM

The OP rather clearly stated the purpose was for me to make my case regarding the nature of climate change skeptics, and the skepticism of the theory of human-caused climate change in general.

I don't find making information clear, easily understood, and presented in a meaningful way to be ridiculous at all.

You are just pissy because the skeptics, whom I suspect you sympathize with, are so shitty at logical/critical thinking.

Am I wrong?

I dunno why you'd suspect I was skeptical of climate change or would sympathize with the deniers.

You're making a fucking list of people along with their "demerits." You know, the nazis also had lists too. Do you want a little gold star to appear next to their avatars?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:29 PM

RG... If you are going to attack logical fallacies, then how about looking into the AGW side and into their faults as well?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:31 PM

It's like the lamest attempt to mimic the NKVD.

Watch how you reason, comrade ...

Meh.

You got any better, feel free to step up to the plate, counselor.

Science is about logic, data, and a fair hearing of competing ideas. In that it shares something in common with a courtroom, IMO.

If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:33 PM

RG... If you are going to attack logical fallacies, then how about looking into the AGW side and into their faults as well?

Feel free to point them out. I have tried to be as fair and intellectually honest as possible.

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:36 PM

Meh.

You got any better, feel free to step up to the plate, counselor.

Science is about logic, data, and a fair hearing of competing ideas. In that it shares something in common with a courtroom, IMO.

If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?

Is science about keeping lists too?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:37 PM

I dunno why you'd suspect I was skeptical of climate change or would sympathize with the deniers.

You're making a fucking list of people along with their "demerits." You know, the nazis also had lists too. Do you want a little gold star to appear next to their avatars?

:lmao

"You are wearing shoes. You know who else had shoes? Nazis."

Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

You're funny. I like you.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:38 PM

Is science about keeping lists too?

You didn't answer my question.

If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:38 PM

Feel free to point them out. I have tried to be as fair and intellectually honest as possible.
All you ever do when fallacies are pointed out is agree its not a fallacy because there is a peer review paper out there.

Did you watch that Peer Review deception video?

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:40 PM

You didn't answer my question.

If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?

Glad you appreciate my humor.

I don't really care about the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure those who deny global warming are pretty fucking retarded, so I don't spend time indulging their lunacy.

You still haven't given a good reason why keeping tally on the village idiots around here isn't pretty fucking ridiculous. If you're unable to answer this honestly or address it in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of your list?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:41 PM

Is science about keeping lists too?

You're using sarcasm. You know who else had sarcasm? Nazis.

:p:

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:44 PM

I'm pretty sure those who deny global warming are pretty fucking retarded, so I don't spend time indulging their lunacy.

Please at least separate those who deny into two categories.

Those who deny warming, and those who deny man is the major cause of warming. Almost all of us agree there has been and may still be warming. What we deny is that man is the major influence. Most of us "deniers" say most of the warming is natural.

I agree, those who deny warming itself, are retarded.

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:45 PM

Please at least separate those who deny into two categories.

Those who deny warming, and those who deny man is the major cause of warming. Almost all of us agree there has been and may still be warming. What we deny is that man is the major influence. Most of us "deniers" say most of the warming is natural.

I agree, those who deny warming itself, are retarded.

No.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:46 PM

No.
Then you are the retarded one.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 03:50 PM

Glad you appreciate my humor.

I don't really care about the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure those who deny global warming are pretty fucking retarded, so I don't spend time indulging their lunacy.

You still haven't given a good reason why keeping tally on the village idiots around here isn't pretty fucking ridiculous. If you're unable to answer this honestly or address it in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of your list?

The answer to your questions:

No, science is not about keeping lists. Pissing contests on the internet are all about that, though. :p:

I don't pretend is means anything, other than some mild anecdotal value.

I got tired of thread after thread after thread after thread on the subject and thought one larger clearinghouse might be useful.

Is keeping a list silly? Yeah, I would say so. Am I going to keep at it? nah, I got kinda bored with it a while back.

I have however gotten into some interesting discussions here. As an exercise, I have gotten to read some actual scientific papers, and learned a great deal that I didn't know before. Hell, I even exchanged email with one of the scientific papers' authors, and that was cool, after having read about the paper in the news, and the paper itself.

Underlying all my discussions, is that love of learning, silly list or no. I like streching myself a bit, and have learned a good deal, even from Darrin, when he can bring himself to post something worthwhile.

DarrinS

09-21-2011, 03:50 PM

Glad you appreciate my humor.

I don't really care about the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure those who deny global warming are pretty fucking retarded, so I don't spend time indulging their lunacy.

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:51 PM

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:52 PM

Then you are the retarded one.

:tu

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:53 PM

The answer to your questions:

No, science is not about keeping lists. Pissing contests on the internet are all about that, though. :p:

I don't pretend is means anything, other than some mild anecdotal value.

I got tired of thread after thread after thread after thread on the subject and thought one larger clearinghouse might be useful.

Is keeping a list silly? Yeah, I would say so. Am I going to keep at it? nah, I got kinda bored with it a while back.

I have however gotten into some interesting discussions here. As an exercise, I have gotten to read some actual scientific papers, and learned a great deal that I didn't know before. Hell, I even exchanged email with one of the scientific papers' authors, and that was cool, after having read about the paper in the news, and the paper itself.

Underlying all my discussions, is that love of learning, silly list or no. I like streching myself a bit, and have learned a good deal, even from Darrin, when he can bring himself to post something worthwhile.

Ok. Just making sure.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:54 PM

I don't care.
I see...

You are just a troll.

vy65

09-21-2011, 03:58 PM

I see...

You are just a troll.

Why?

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 04:00 PM

No.

FWIW, a fairly reasonable look at the whole mess of silly debate:

mF_anaVcCXg

There is also a rather good lecture on resources, and exponential growth, split into 8 parts by a (mathmatics?) professor if memory serves.

F-QA2rkpBSY

From a risk management perspective, it works rather well at outlining the debate. The guy who made it did a LOT of work on that and follow up material. Far more than even I care to sift through.

Not sure if you want to spend time on it, but if you do, it is probably one of the more rational, accessible, approaches to the issue I have seen.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 04:05 PM

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

You forgot:

Will cutting CO2 emissions have a catastrophic effect on our economy/civilization?

That particular one is probably the one that makes the issue of whether the science says what moot in terms of public policy.

I am pretty sure the answer that is "no, there is a good indication that it will help it in the long run".

DarrinS

09-21-2011, 04:05 PM

FWIW, a fairly reasonable look at the whole mess of silly debate:

mF_anaVcCXg

Viking boy again? No thanks.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 04:24 PM

At least that post from Darrin attempts to outline the argument. However, the categorization leaves much to be desired.

The context of global warming in history inevitability is irrelevant. I definitely understand that many aspects of the warming planet, are indeed, new and present a change that has not been seen before. That is not to stay it has never been warmer ever before in the planets history. That isn't questioned or up for debate but it is largely unimportant as well.

What is important is how it will affect humans and whether or not we're the cause. Well, what is causing the warming is observable and is understood. Spectroscopy is the most direct observation available and it definitely shows that CO2 is causing the warming. Indirect observations confirm this as well.

Quite frankly, there is little wiggle room for CO2 as a cause for the warming.

At this point, the main question of what is important is indeed how humans will react to future warming and its effects. Those effects will likely be substantial as an increase of 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century will have HUGE impacts on humanity. As I've said before, that doesn't necessarily mean catastrophic because that word is very very very subjective (there is no catastrophic index that we measure events against to determine if they've crossed some magic catastrophic threshold, AFAIK). What matters is determining whether or not the events are significant enough to causes loss in terms of life and economic factors. That is almost certainly a yes.

Wild Cobra

09-22-2011, 02:50 AM

What is important is how it will affect humans and whether or not we're the cause. Well, what is causing the warming is observable and is understood. Spectroscopy is the most direct observation available and it definitely shows that CO2 is causing the warming. Indirect observations confirm this as well.

LOL...

Really now, neither works for the atmosphere as a whole. Satellite observation is not being done in a stereoscopic form so you cannot tell what is really happening. Even if you can, with other variables, it's still guesswork. Indirect observation has too many more variables yet to really know.

Quite frankly, there is little wiggle room for CO2 as a cause for the warming.

At this point, the main question of what is important is indeed how humans will react to future warming and its effects. Those effects will likely be substantial as an increase of 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century will have HUGE impacts on humanity. As I've said before, that doesn't necessarily mean catastrophic because that word is very very very subjective (there is no catastrophic index that we measure events against to determine if they've crossed some magic catastrophic threshold, AFAIK). What matters is determining whether or not the events are significant enough to causes loss in terms of life and economic factors. That is almost certainly a yes.

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]

MannyIsGod

09-22-2011, 09:24 AM

Of course you can't do it on the atmosphere as a whole. Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. Still not quite as dumb as saying the atmosphere is creating heat. :lol Close, though.

MannyIsGod

09-22-2011, 09:25 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/greenland-meltdown/

Excellent example of how scientists fight against false "hype".

Surprised Darrin wasn't all over the initial atlas.

MannyIsGod

09-22-2011, 09:43 AM

RandomGuy

09-22-2011, 10:38 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/greenland-meltdown/

Excellent example of how scientists fight against false "hype".

Surprised Darrin wasn't all over the initial atlas.

I would imagine because it wasn't found in the blog of some skeptic that he has read, yet.

RandomGuy

09-22-2011, 10:41 AM

Viking boy again? No thanks.

It wasn't addressed to you. I already know it won't get through your ideological blinders.

LOL your attempts to dismiss it when you watched it the first time.

Yonivore

09-22-2011, 03:45 PM

Al Gore's five loaves and two fishes (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100106264/al-gores-five-loaves-and-two-fishes/)

:lmao 17,000 people watched the Algorathon. :lmao

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/09/al-gore-isms-funny-al-gore-quotes-quotation-387x288.jpg
Hey, did Algore get re-married or is this an old photo?

DarrinS

09-22-2011, 04:39 PM

The climate change "movement" has just done this:

MDthMGtZKa4

Wild Cobra

09-22-2011, 04:40 PM

Of course you can't do it on the atmosphere as a whole. Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. Still not quite as dumb as saying the atmosphere is creating heat. :lol Close, though.

I never said the atmosphere creates heat.

Where do you think I, or anyone, said that?

Link please.

Wild Cobra

09-22-2011, 04:46 PM

WC, if you have a problem with specific studies of outgoing LWR and downward LWR feel free to enlighten us as to why the numerous papers on the subject that all come to the same conclusion are wrong.

Thanks.
It's simple. The science is still not well enough understood, and the percentages of error are greater than the results they produce in the papers.

Any spectra emitted from any type of molecule is reabsorbed and re-emitted, and it's impossible to tell to what degree this is occurring in the atmosphere, especially when the gasses interact with each other as well. You have thermal conduction, convection, and radiation. I'm sorry, but there are too many variable to pin down with any accuracy.

Just seeing the incoming and outgoing LW is not enough. That is not a measure in the internal workings of heat transfer on the atmosphere. Only the end result.

Wild Cobra

09-22-2011, 04:49 PM

The climate change "movement" has just done this:

MDthMGtZKa4
LOL...

I used to watch that show, but must have missed that episode.

Yonivore

09-22-2011, 05:04 PM

LOL...

I used to watch that show, but must have missed that episode.
It's classic! It's where the term "jumping the shark" came from.

Wild Cobra

09-22-2011, 05:10 PM

It's classic! It's where the term "jumping the shark" came from.
I may have seen it, but just not remembered.

Let's see...

Where was I 9/20/77?

Must have been with a hot date.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2011, 11:38 AM

It's simple. The science is still not well enough understood, and the percentages of error are greater than the results they produce in the papers.

Any spectra emitted from any type of molecule is reabsorbed and re-emitted, and it's impossible to tell to what degree this is occurring in the atmosphere, especially when the gasses interact with each other as well. You have thermal conduction, convection, and radiation. I'm sorry, but there are too many variable to pin down with any accuracy.

Just seeing the incoming and outgoing LW is not enough. That is not a measure in the internal workings of heat transfer on the atmosphere. Only the end result.

It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2011, 11:43 AM

I never said the atmosphere creates heat.

Where do you think I, or anyone, said that?

Link please.

Of course you did. How quickly you try to forget. Not that I blame you considering how dumb it was.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5382170&postcount=84

With the way the greenhouse effect traps heat, it becomes more heat than the sun provides.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5382187&postcount=86

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

Wild Cobra

09-23-2011, 02:04 PM

It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system.

The difference between energy entering the system and leaving it determines if we are warming or cooling.

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

Yep... Typical M.O.

Anything that you can claim CO2 is warming. I know, and you admitted it. You don't care what's true, you only care for a way to say you are correct.

So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.

No it isn't. All it proves is that the CO2 in the upper most atmosphere is cooling.

Wild Cobra

09-23-2011, 02:09 PM

Of course you did. How quickly you try to forget. Not that I blame you considering how dumb it was.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5382170&postcount=84

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5382187&postcount=86
Idiot...

Look up the word "create." I am not claiming something is coming into existence that doesn't already exist. The heat is already there.

As for "having more heat value than supplied by the sun" still doesn't mean heat is created. My words definitely should have been better. Remember, there is lag, latent heat, and other factors. I was speaking of how the feedback works. The heat is trapped, and as long as the radiation budget is not in balance, the earth will increase in heat value or decrease until it is in equilibrium.

I followed it up with this example:

No, but if I put $100 a week in the bank, and don't take $100 a week out until four weeks later, then I have $400 sitting in the bank.
If that is still over your head, then you should just drop out of this conversation.

Did I create $400 from $100?