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

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 04:14 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.

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. Thank you DarrinS

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
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

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy

(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/evolution-climate-deniers-the-redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 04:15 PM

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
DING DING DING!! 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

PopTech:

One case of refusing to answer a fair question. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844790&postcount=3487)
Failure to provide evidence when asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844814&postcount=3489
Strawman logical fallacy, proved:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848823&postcount=3541

boutons_deux

10-10-2010, 04:53 PM

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 05:05 PM

It's always useful to shift up a level and try to see the big picture.

As with the VRWC and politics, the deniers have successfully fogged up the science with the bullshit and lies.

We know that the people vested in carbon energy have $Bs in profits to buy scientists, think tanks, papers, bogus studies, and they've been paying the whores for decades, including capturing regulatory agencies. eg, fracking fluids are exempted, I think uniquely, from EPA water quality rules as defined under the dubya/dickhead/Repug/carbon-loving WH. The carbon energy industry knows their 100s of $Bs are in play if they can't keep suppressing the world's attempts to switch away from carbon energy.

On the other side, it's really hard to imagine that scientists from all over the world have been conspiring for decades, as the deniers accuse, to fake climate/geological data. The giveaway is that these scientists don't have 100s of $Bs to lose or gain from their research being used a guide to anti-warming/anti-pollution policies.

If you actually follow this link:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

One of the main hallmarks of pseudoscience is that there is a Big Conspiracy. As outlined rather plainly by many deniers here and elsewhere, the conspiracy is of climate scientists who want more grant money to study climate.

Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies

One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third parties not involved in the original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out before fellow scientists with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research.
While the social dynamics of peer review are not foolproof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience want to avoid peer review like a plague.

"Denier" science is suppressed because it threatens that.

Of course, when you press deniers on what percentage of the thousands of climate scientists who are acting in bad faith, you get a big load of "ignore".

Yonivore

10-10-2010, 07:08 PM

And then, just when you thought it safe to start calling people "deniers" again, you have things like this that undermine your position...

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society (http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html)

Global warming is the pseudo-science. Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

Not one.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 07:39 PM

I normally don't post for long in the political forum because people have a tendency not to listen to each other, but I'll throw in my two cents because I think I'm a reasonable person who is witnessing mass insanity. I'll be interested to see the responses.

Since some of the most prominent people, scientists and otherwise, involved have been outed for faking data, since a number of prominent and respected scientists have removed themselves from the process you mentioned, and since the vast majority of the peers in the review process have a vested interest in the outcome to keep the huge amounts of grant money coming in (which is how universities get funding), I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that people are skeptical. Seems like you'd spend more time trying to convice people of your position rather than making a thread with the exact same accusations that have been lobbed at the man-made global warming crowd for years. There are trillions of dollars at stake, there are emerging markets, governments, the UN are all coming up with ways to fund this issue. This is the gold rush of the twenty-first century, and it's all going to anybody that claims to be an environmental scientist, and with all those people involved, the one thing that would end the debate and secure their position, hard evidence, still hasn't been found.

By the way, if you ask "deniers" what percentage of scientists are acting in bad faith, you don't really expect an answer, do you? How does one answer a question like that? Is an exact percentage even relevant? Sounds like something you ask someone because you don't actually want to have a debate. You should know as well as anyone else that the frauds follow the money. If you really believe in your position it seems like you'd want those people removed from the conversation.

I know you think this transferrence tactic is really clever, if not original, but how about making a case? Obviously if it's so simple that humans are causing the temperature of the planet to increase, there should be loads and loads of very simple evidence to support that. You might spend the effort trying to explain the position. CO2 levels have mirrored global temperatures for thousands of years, yet it seems awfully hard to make the case of humankind's impact on global temperature. There is an increase in CO2 levels, about 2 parts per million per year. The case for the link between the relatively tiny changes in global temperature and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit seems much easier to make and explain, and the theory that CO2 levels are the result of global temperature change rather than the cause seems to fit with that as well.

Michael Mann cited climate change's "near-certain link to human activity" in the Washington Post this week, meaning after all the money and time and effort spent trying to find a link, it still doesn't exist. Mann is busy writing political op-eds to prevent politicians from investigating the fraud he helped perpetrate. If he didn't do anything wrong, why would he care? He mentioned the psuedo science questioning the link between smoking and cancer, not realizing that in the analogy he cited, he's the tobacco company with the financial stake in preventing the truth from coming out.

And again, let's make sure we've got our terminology correct. I'm all for punishing companies that pollute and for trying not to be wasteful. I'm all for recycling, alternative energy sources and working to end reliance on foreign oil. Hell, I still think Obama was correct when he pointed out how much gas people would save if they'd just make sure their tire pressure was correct. But when people make up lies about how dire the future is or just spend time and effort shouting down the opposition, all that does is causes people to tune it out, and turning off Americans to the idea isn't going to help get control of China as they emerge further and further into the industrialized world.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 07:51 PM

Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

Not one.

The very first example of logical fallacy in the thread.

No single human being has ever accomplished powered heavier than air flight.

Not one.

No single human being has ever walked on the moon.

Not one.

Human history is littered with such statements.

As noted in my OP:

[The pseudo-scientist] believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

the global warming scam

Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics

This is not science; other forces are at work.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims

you have formed still another secret and stacked committee

Yoni, does that letter of resignation imply that the author believes there is a conspiracy against his idea, and/or a persecution of him personally?

baseline bum

10-10-2010, 07:53 PM

Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

Not one.

1938
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg/407px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg

1981
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg/429px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg

1998
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg/405px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg

2005
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg/441px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg

2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg/446px-Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 07:56 PM

By the way, if you ask "deniers" what percentage of scientists are acting in bad faith, you don't really expect an answer, do you? How does one answer a question like that? Is an exact percentage even relevant? Sounds like something you ask someone because you don't actually want to have a debate.

The point of the question was to get a general idea as to how many people would have to collude to "fake" the data involved. It was not to get at any real exact figure.

The problem with accusing tens of thousands of people of committing a purposeful conspiracy, such as climate scientists are generally accused of being guilty of, is that it is hard to keep such a vast conspiracy secret. Someone usually steps forward to admit "yeah, I faked data" or some such.

If the answer to that question is "100% of them" then, I know I am dealing with someone with whom I probably can't really have a meaningful conversation.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 08:04 PM

1938
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg/407px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg

1981
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg/429px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg

1998
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg/405px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg

2005
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg/441px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg

2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg/446px-Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg

Sorry, but I don't really know what we're looking at here. Could you put a big red circle around the predicted doom?

baseline bum

10-10-2010, 08:07 PM

Sorry, but I don't really know what we're looking at here. Could you put a big red circle around the predicted doom?

Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:08 PM

I know you think this transferrence tactic is really clever, if not original, but how about making a case? Obviously if it's so simple that humans are causing the temperature of the planet to increase, there should be loads and loads of very simple evidence to support that. You might spend the effort trying to explain the position. CO2 levels have mirrored global temperatures for thousands of years, yet it seems awfully hard to make the case of humankind's impact on global temperature. There is an increase in CO2 levels, about 2 parts per million per year. The case for the link between the relatively tiny changes in global temperature and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit seems much easier to make and explain, and the theory that CO2 levels are the result of global temperature change rather than the cause seems to fit with that as well.

There are plenty of threads for making cases for against the theory. This isn't one of them. I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".

I find the tone of most "denier" websites to be pseudo-scientific. I will point out how most deniers tend to fall into that catagory. Indeed we have been given a rather good example in Yoni's first post.

The gentleman's letter showed the individual in question obviously had made his mind up. He was convinced that the big money conspiracy was the entire reason that his society endorsed the "global warming scam".

Hardly the stuff of science, from where I sit.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:19 PM

Michael Mann cited climate change's "near-certain link to human activity" in the Washington Post this week, meaning after all the money and time and effort spent trying to find a link, it still doesn't exist.

Interesting statement. Let's see if we can examine "nearly certain" and "the link doesn't exist".

I am nearly certain you are a human being, not a clever computer program.

If I use your implied logic, i.e. being "nearly certain" means that it is incorrect or non-existant" does that mean that you are a computer program?

Or is the fact that you are a human being independent of whether I am nearly certain about it?

In science, is one ever 100% certain about anything?

You stated rather clearly that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

Is there a chance you are wrong about that?

Is it possible to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete information?

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 08:23 PM

Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.

If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture. If that's all the more scientific standard you require for evidence, it's no wonder people question those on your side of the debate. You're welcome to write me off as "snarky" but you might, at some point, start to make the connection between responses like yours and people questioning your motives.

I'm not on the "nothing is happening" boat, but it would be nice if you included some explanation of what it is. Glaciers come and go, and always have. There's certainly not any prediction that it confirms. In the 1970s the prediction was of an approaching ice age. Again, if there's actually a melting glacier in that series of photos, it fits with the global temperature change, which conforms with the CO2 fluctuations, which conforms with the cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

boutons_deux

10-10-2010, 08:28 PM

Yoni needs to list all the predictions that were wrong. Certainly some expensive carbon-industry-financed "researchers" have made such a list. It will be a big lie, but let's see it anyway.

definition: wrong prediction means "white was predicted, but black happened"

"white was predicted, but almost white, and white with some off-white happened" isn't "wrong". It's inaccurate, and is simply the way science goes, esp something as complex as climate science.

Demanding absolute accuracy from climate scientists is a bad-faith tactic by the denier business. Extremely vague predictions of oil and gas reserves (those that aren't kept secret) is acceptable.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:28 PM

Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.

He made a fair point. Your post was simply regarding the shrinking snowcap in one place, but that did not address a prediction of "doom and gloom".

Good science makes predictions.

Most of the predictions about climate change concern rises in ocean level, and things like "hurricanes will become both more numerous and powerful".

To adequately address his statement you would have to supply something where a prediction had actually come to fruition.

I would point out that our understanding of the earth's climate has advanced by huge strides in the last 40 years.

2010 is not 1970.

The problem with such statements as his, is that our understanding of the system gets better each year, and if the sum of that understanding leads to fairly conclusive statements, even if not certain, then current statements would have a bit more validity than something said of the earth's probable future climate in 1970, such as the "big freeze" trotted out often.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:30 PM

If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture. If that's all the more scientific standard you require for evidence, it's no wonder people question those on your side of the debate. You're welcome to write me off as "snarky" but you might, at some point, start to make the connection between responses like yours and people questioning your motives.

I'm not on the "nothing is happening" boat, but it would be nice if you included some explanation of what it is. Glaciers come and go, and always have. There's certainly not any prediction that it confirms. In the 1970s the prediction was of an approaching ice age. Again, if there's actually a melting glacier in that series of photos, it fits with the global temperature change, which conforms with the CO2 fluctuations, which conforms with the cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

Correlation and causality.

Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:34 PM

boutons_deux

10-10-2010, 08:37 PM

RG, flattery will get you nowhere, and you're gonna mess up my reputation. GFY

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:40 PM

If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture.

Fair points. One would have to ensure that each picture was taken on the same day of the year to allow for variability in seasons, although one could use the pictures to generally show that area is warming over a long period of time if the glacier shrunk enough to eliminate seasonal variability.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:42 PM

RG, flattery will get you nowhere, and you're gonna mess up my reputation. GFY

:lol

What I really meant was:

"Horrible post, you illogical dickhead."

Better? :p:

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 08:46 PM

Interesting statement. Let's see if we can examine "nearly certain" and "the link doesn't exist".

I am nearly certain you are a human being, not a clever computer program.

If I use your implied logic, i.e. being "nearly certain" means that it is incorrect or non-existant" does that mean that you are a computer program?

You are exactly right. Your statement is 100 percent as scientific as the one made by one of the leading climategate scientists. "Nearly certain" is not a scientific term. Thank you for pointing that out for me. Are you wondering why someone claiming to be a scientist would use a term like that? If not, why aren't you?

Or is the fact that you are a human being independent of whether I am nearly certain about it?
So by implication, someone can believe that it is a fact that global warming is caused by human activities even though nobody is certain of it and act on that information. The word for that is "faith", which is religion, not science. If you'd like to start an environmentalist religion and begin prosthelytizing I will certainly do my best not to stand in the way of your beliefs.

In science, is one ever 100% certain about anything?

You stated rather clearly that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

Is there a chance you are wrong about that?

Actually, I stated rather clearly that a link still hasn't been found, which is not saying there is no link. If you're going to characterize what I say, I'd appreciate if you'd do it properly. And no, I'm not incorrect about that, of that I am 100 percent certain. The link still hasn't been found. If it had, people wouldn't have to resort to "nearly certain".

Is it possible to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete information?
If the environmental movement is any indication? No, it isn't possible. I think, by definition, it has more in common with religion than science.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:54 PM

"Nearly certain" is not a scientific term.

Actually it is.

Real scientists use phrases like "it is more probable than not" all the time.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 08:54 PM

Fair points. One would have to ensure that each picture was taken on the same day of the year to allow for variability in seasons, although one could use the pictures to generally show that area is warming over a long period of time if the glacier shrunk enough to eliminate seasonal variability.

I'm more than willing to stipulate that the climate changes, it always has and always will. There are a number of temperature cycles that the planet goes through. Without looking it up, I'm able to accept the reality that global temperature has changed in the last one hundred years. All that, in and of itself, amounts to irrelevant information and is often improperly used to muddy up a debate.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 08:56 PM

MannyIsGod

10-10-2010, 08:56 PM

Very interested in Climate Science, Not at all interested in debating climate science. The political situation with climate science is nothing like the scientific situation and most people are only familiar with the political version.

As far as the politics are concerned the deniers have won. Why? Because its easy as hell to muddy the waters as opposed to actually addressing the situation. Yonivore can make claims that no predictions have come true (which is outlandish as it gets) and people read them and take it as fact. Obstructed view can make a claim that there has been a falsified information and data and people accept it as fact.

They've won, thee is not going to be any political action taken regarding climate change.

The military, however, seems to be taken climate change very seriously. Pretty ionic, actually.

Enjoy the thread.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 08:58 PM

Or is the fact that you are a human being independent of whether I am nearly certain about it?

So by implication, someone can believe that it is a fact that global warming is caused by human activities even though nobody is certain of it and act on that information. The word for that is "faith", which is religion, not science. If you'd like to start an environmentalist religion and begin prosthelytizing I will certainly do my best not to stand in the way of your beliefs.

That is not an answer to my question.

The answer to the question as asked is:

The truth is independent of my belief.

That is not a good faith attempt to answer my question.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:02 PM

You stated rather clearly that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

Is there a chance you are wrong about that?

Actually, I stated rather clearly that a link still hasn't been found, which is not saying there is no link. If you're going to characterize what I say, I'd appreciate if you'd do it properly. And no, I'm not incorrect about that, of that I am 100 percent certain. The link still hasn't been found. If it had, people wouldn't have to resort to "nearly certain".

Fair enough. You stated the link has "not been found." My charactorization of your post was in error.

What would qualify, in your view, finding that link?

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:05 PM

Is it possible to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete information?

If the environmental movement is any indication? No, it isn't possible. I think, by definition, it has more in common with religion than science.

The answer is:

Yes, it is possible to make decisions based on incomplete information.

I would offer decisions by CEOs and military leaders every day as evidence.

That was not a good faith answer to my question.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 09:08 PM

That is not an answer to my question.

The answer to the question as asked is:

The truth is independent of my belief.

That is not a good faith attempt to answer my question.

Actually , it was completely a good faith attempt to answer your question.

You suggest that there's an underlying fact that exists whether or not you, as the scientist, can prove it. The implication seems quite clear to me that you want to accept a fact even though science can't prove it.

Looking at it scientifically, in your analogy, I could be a clever computer program. You don't know, and cannot state with any degree of certainty either way, but you picked what is most likely to you, that I am a human being, and have married yourself to that position. There is nothing scientific about that. The fact that you know that I am actually a human being in real life is completely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, you have not been able to prove anything. You just assumed that one of your choices is correct and have convinced yourself that you were scientific about it.

Obstructed_View

10-10-2010, 09:11 PM

The answer is:

Yes, it is possible to make decisions based on incomplete information.

I would offer decisions by CEOs and military leaders every day as evidence.

That was not a good faith answer to my question.

I thought we were talking about science. CEOs and military leaders aren't scientists.

This is the second time you've implied that I'm somehow being dishonest in my answers. It's funny that I came in here trying to give you exactly what you want but you seem to be more interested in playing word games and changing the rules as you go. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Have fun with your debate.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:12 PM

Correlation and causality.

Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?

I have no theory. Correlation has been adequately proven, causality has not.

Fair answer.

Is it possible then, to make the following statement about causation:

Cause must proceed effect.

???

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:19 PM

Actually , it was completely a good faith attempt to answer your question.

You suggest that there's an underlying fact that exists whether or not you, as the scientist, can prove it. The implication seems quite clear to me that you want to accept a fact even though science can't prove it.

Looking at it scientifically, in your analogy, I could be a clever computer program. You don't know, and cannot state with any degree of certainty either way, but you picked what is most likely to you, that I am a human being, and have married yourself to that position. There is nothing scientific about that. The fact that you know that I am actually a human being in real life is completely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, you have not been able to prove anything. You just assumed that one of your choices is correct and have convinced yourself that you were scientific about it.

My questions have been rather simple.

They have definite answers, and I seek no explanations beyond a simple attempt to get to mutually agreed precepts. If I ask what color the sky is, there is only one real answer to that question.

I have not attempted to "prove" anything, merely restate the logical argument you seemed to be attempting to make, in order to see if it is logical.

If I can think of an instance in which the same logical form is false then it is safe to discard it.

baseline bum

10-10-2010, 09:19 PM

If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

Is it really hard to figure out a series of pictures of a melting glacier refers to predictions of glaciers melting due to global warming?

There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture. If that's all the more scientific standard you require for evidence, it's no wonder people question those on your side of the debate. You're welcome to write me off as "snarky" but you might, at some point, start to make the connection between responses like yours and people questioning your motives.

In what world is there more ice in the 2009 picture? You can't be serious here. Stick with the insults I guess.

I'm not on the "nothing is happening" boat, but it would be nice if you included some explanation of what it is. Glaciers come and go, and always have. There's certainly not any prediction that it confirms. In the 1970s the prediction was of an approaching ice age. Again, if there's actually a melting glacier in that series of photos, it fits with the global temperature change, which conforms with the CO2 fluctuations, which conforms with the cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

You're moving the goalposts. Yonivore specifically said none of the doom and gloom predictions have come true, even though the continued melting of glaciers all over the northern hemisphere is exactly what has been predicted and observed all over the Rockies, in California, and in Greenland.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:22 PM

Looking at it scientifically, in your analogy, I could be a clever computer program. You don't know, and cannot state with any degree of certainty either way, but you picked what is most likely to you, that I am a human being, and have married yourself to that position. There is nothing scientific about that. The fact that you know that I am actually a human being in real life is completely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, you have not been able to prove anything. You just assumed that one of your choices is correct and have convinced yourself that you were scientific about it.

You are correct. I cannot really know for certain you are not a program.

I can though, decide to act on the "nearly certain" assumption that you are human enough to bother talking to. I base this on nothing more than my knowledge that computer programs currently do not have the sophistication to produce the kinds of answers you have given so far.

In this case, I can act on incomplete information. I do no have to know for certain you exist to respond to your posts.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:26 PM

I thought we were talking about science. CEOs and military leaders aren't scientists.

This is the second time you've implied that I'm somehow being dishonest in my answers. It's funny that I came in here trying to give you exactly what you want but you seem to be more interested in playing word games and changing the rules as you go. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Have fun with your debate.

The question was not:

"Is it possible for scientists to make decisions based on incomplete information?"

You answered the question you wanted to, not the question I asked. That is a rather standard evasive tactic used by people who do not like the implications of questions posed to them.

baseline bum

10-10-2010, 09:29 PM

He made a fair point. Your post was simply regarding the shrinking snowcap in one place, but that did not address a prediction of "doom and gloom".

'Doom and gloom' is the sarcastic reaction from Yonivore to anything negative that goes against his political religion. And one place? I could post pictures of Lyell Glacier in the Sierras, the Grasshopper Glaciers in the Beartooths, Schoolroom Glacier in Grand Teton, and tons of others, but I figured showing a series of pics of Grinnell Glacier's massive retreat was a pretty simple reminder of the general fact that our glaciers are retreating (and quickly) as a result of global warming.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:37 PM

I have no theory.

Obviously if it's so simple that humans are causing the temperature of the planet to increase, there should be loads and loads of very simple evidence to support that. You might spend the effort trying to explain the position. CO2 levels have mirrored global temperatures for thousands of years, yet it seems awfully hard to make the case of humankind's impact on global temperature. There is an increase in CO2 levels, about 2 parts per million per year. The case for the link between the relatively tiny changes in global temperature and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit seems much easier to make and explain, and the theory that CO2 levels are the result of global temperature change rather than the cause seems to fit with that as well.

Seems like you do.

johnsmith

10-10-2010, 09:40 PM

I want to predict the rest of this thread:

Whoopsies

You lie, repugs, fuckable

Why would you lie

Why would you lie

Youtube

I have employees

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:41 PM

'Doom and gloom' is the sarcastic reaction from Yonivore to anything negative that goes against his political religion. And one place? I could post pictures of Lyell Glacier in the Sierras, the Grasshopper Glaciers in the Beartooths, Schoolroom Glacier in Grand Teton, and tons of others, but I figured showing a series of pics of Grinnell Glacier's massive retreat was a pretty simple reminder of the general fact that our glaciers are retreating (and quickly) as a result of global warming.

Such evidence does indeed point to warming trends. I find that people who tend to claim "there is no warming, not nohow, no way" tend to be the ones who adhere most closely to the "Denier" dogma.

Ceding any point of contention for a dogmatic is tantamount, in their minds, to ceding the entire debate.

That is why Yoni et al. tend to ignore my questions.

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:41 PM

I want to predict the rest of this thread:

:lmao

Touche.

Well played, sir. :toast

RandomGuy

10-10-2010, 09:47 PM

I want to predict the rest of this thread:

Don't forget the inevitable reference to Hitler.

Hitler and the nazis

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

FuzzyLumpkins

10-10-2010, 10:15 PM

You are exactly right. Your statement is 100 percent as scientific as the one made by one of the leading climategate scientists. "Nearly certain" is not a scientific term. Thank you for pointing that out for me. Are you wondering why someone claiming to be a scientist would use a term like that? If not, why aren't you?

Actually it is very much indeed scientific. A good scientist is going to be skeptic and is not going to make statements of certainty when it comes to causation.

If there is a very strong correlation of data to observations then a good scientist is going to say that things are nearly certain and be right.

ElNono

10-11-2010, 12:42 AM

If there is a very strong correlation of data to observations then a good scientist is going to say that things are nearly certain and be right.

Actually, a scientist would, at that point, pose a theory, which then would be scrutinized by his/her peers.

But onto the topic at hand, I think it's very important to understand the scope of the problem domain. We're obviously talking mostly statistics and probability at this time when it comes to this topic simply because the problem domain is incredibly large (I would say it's realistically intractable with the current dataset, the quality of it and what we really know and don't know that affects climate).

I personally don't discard a connection to man, as I wouldn't discard some explanation from a burst of gamma rays from two stars colliding 200 years ago, far far away.

I just don't think we've enough information to make informed decisions about this topic yet. I think as we go along, and more scientists pose more theories on the subject, and back it up with more data, and some other scientists debunk those theories and pose their own, and we get a better understanding of the problem domain, we're going to eventually reach some workable, usable information.

To me, the worst part is to see the natural scientific process being bastardized with political mud (from both ends), instead of letting it evolve as it should. It actually hinders advancement in this very interesting field.

LnGrrrR

10-11-2010, 01:54 AM

boutons_deux

10-11-2010, 05:51 AM

For the Repugs, it's all about obeying their carbon-industry paymasters.

How Did an Entire Political Party Decide to Reject Climate Change Science

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/10/how-did-an-entire-political-party-decide-to-reject-climate-change-science/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet#

So a key tactic of the carbon-industry and Repugs is to fog up the discussion, by saying it's the science, which is really a red herring, when in fact the "discussion" is really about protecting and increasing the carbon industry's profits.

Texas' Valero and Tesoro are pouring $Ms into CA to defeat environmental regs, because of the "science". :lol

And their campaign $Ms are a tiny percentage of their current and future profits. As with buying cheap Congresscritters, defeating environmental regs provides a huge return on investment.

The oil industry debates climate science? GMAFB

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:22 AM

However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method. That is the AGW scientists right there.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:22 AM

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

Questions asked of Yonivore

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

I'm feel left out. Where's the questions asked of me?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:30 AM

1938
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg/407px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg

1981
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg/429px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg

1998
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg/405px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg

2005
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg/441px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg

2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg/446px-Grinnell_Glacier_2009.jpg
Looks like to me the soot, or what ever airborne aerosol has make the snow black is collecting sunlight and downward IR from the greenhouse effect, melting the snow and ice faster than if it were clean. Clean ice reflects most of the spectra, while dirty snow and ice absorbs something like 5+ times more of this heat.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:33 AM

The point of the question was to get a general idea as to how many people would have to collude to "fake" the data involved. It was not to get at any real exact figure.
Not many. How many people have access to the raw data?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:38 AM

There are plenty of threads for making cases for against the theory. This isn't one of them. I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".

That is not the argument. The argument is that humans are only a small part of the problem, and not the primary problem. I see soot on snow and ice being the second largest problem when dealing with global warming.

I find the tone of most "denier" websites to be pseudo-scientific. I will point out how most deniers tend to fall into that catagory. Indeed we have been given a rather good example in Yoni's first post.

Most AGW sites do the same thing. Few people actually understand what they are saying, but repeat what they are taught.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:40 AM

Correlation and causality.

Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?
This is what the ice core records bear out.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:58 AM

Is it really hard to figure out a series of pictures of a melting glacier refers to predictions of glaciers melting due to global warming?
Glaciers are always moving and melting. The question is over the long term, if they melt and mover more than the snowfall the replenishes them.

By your argument, when are all the rivers of the world going to stop running? You act as if precipitation isn't a factor.

In what world is there more ice in the 2009 picture? You can't be serious here. Stick with the insults I guess.When the 2009 picture appears to have more ice than the 2005 picture...

Aren't you counting the ice in the water also? You know that about 90% of the ice is below the surface, right?

Funny how the oldest picture having the most ice, also has a great deal of snow on the mountains in the background. For this to be a true measure, all other things must be equal.

You're moving the goalposts. Yonivore specifically said none of the doom and gloom predictions have come true, even though the continued melting of glaciers all over the northern hemisphere is exactly what has been predicted and observed all over the Rockies, in California, and in Greenland.
Define "doom and gloom," or how you perceive it. Maybe how he perceives it. What "doom and gloom" has come to pass? If there has been, will you tell us?

Really. What "doom and gloom prediction" has come to pass?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:04 AM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:20 AM

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 would suggest you take to heart that the peer review process is only valid, when those who oppose your position agree your methodology and science are valid. It appears to me all you have is like minded people slapping each other on the back. They have ruined the intent of the peer review process.

Tell me. How many peer reviewed papers dealing with AGW have been reviewed by skeptics, and have them agreeing the science is sound?

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:25 AM

I think we can all agree that science does not mean something has to be known, 100%. This is nearly impossible when you're dealing with activities that can have a wide variety of factors, or occurred over a long span of time.

I mean, if I say I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's based off known evidence, historical data, etc etc. Just because I won't know for certain if the sun will rise until I actually see it tomorrow does not mean that my guess is based off faith alone, as OV implies.

Actually, science strives to advance so we can know 100%, and if the Sun is not to rise tomorrow, the causes of why it won't with 100% certainty.

Doesn't mean we don't use theories if they have a high degree of plausibility even if they're not verifiable at this time (Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind). However, science doesn't stop poking holes at it and doesn't stop trying to verify as we advance the sciences. For example, we now know that some of the relativity rules seem not to apply on the quantum domain.

I think in this arena, due to the sheer volume of data and possible interactions, working at the micro level will help a lot to eventually expand to the macro level. It's difficult enough to build a predictive model nowadays that can tell you what the climate is going to be like 7 days from now at a given place with any high degree of accuracy. It's probably much better than it was 20 years ago. And it most likely will be more accurate 20 years from now. But I think advances in this micro level is what eventually will provide a better understanding of the macro level.

BlairForceDejuan

10-11-2010, 09:09 AM

"Denier Movement"

:rollin

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 09:45 AM

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 09:48 AM

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?
It makes us sound unreasonable. It implies that we deny global warming and science, when all we deny is their conclusions of cause over global warming. They have yet to show me someone who denies natural warming.

Oh wait... That would be them... They deny that nature can be so powerful!

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 10:08 AM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 10:13 AM

That was an interesting read. I wonder if RG thinks this guy is a pseudoscientist?
I think RG has actually come to the middle road on this issue, but doesn't admit it. He will still speak of risk mitigation, but that doesn't mean he buys the AGW bull as much as most people do. He is using precaution.

baseline bum

10-11-2010, 11:31 AM

Looks like to me the soot, or what ever airborne aerosol has make the snow black is collecting sunlight and downward IR from the greenhouse effect, melting the snow and ice faster than if it were clean. Clean ice reflects most of the spectra, while dirty snow and ice absorbs something like 5+ times more of this heat.

Black soot? :lmao It's fucking dirt that makes the ice dirty in the lower areas where the ice isn't as thick. You do know that glaciers aren't static piles of ice right? They flow, and when they do, they take shit with them. Any glacier in the world looks like that near its moraine if/after seasonal snow has melted off. Thanks for the laugh though.

baseline bum

10-11-2010, 11:33 AM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 11:42 AM

Black soot? :lmao It's fucking dirt that makes the ice dirty in the lower areas where the ice isn't as thick. You do know that glaciers aren't static piles of ice right? They flow, and when they do, they take shit with them. Any glacier in the world looks like that near its moraine if/after seasonal snow has melted off. Thanks for the laugh though.
That's no flowing glacier either. It's a pack of snow and ice, where the wind patterns have blown whatever coloration is dark there.

Still, there are glaciers that do have dark top surfaces from aerosols rather than the rocks they plow through. Have you missed the times I showed scientific findings on the topic?

baseline bum

10-11-2010, 11:44 AM

Glaciers are always moving and melting. The question is over the long term, if they melt and mover more than the snowfall the replenishes them.

OK captain obvious.

By your argument, when are all the rivers of the world going to stop running? You act as if precipitation isn't a factor.

OK captain jackass. Don't know where you're going here.

When the 2009 picture appears to have more ice than the 2005 picture...

Aren't you counting the ice in the water also? You know that about 90% of the ice is below the surface, right?

So your contention is there's more ice after tons of the glacier has melted into a proglacial lake that's now constantly above freezing temperatures the entire time of its existence except on its very surface in the winter (when it's frozen over)?

Funny how the oldest picture having the most ice, also has a great deal of snow on the mountains in the background. For this to be a true measure, all other things must be equal.

Great deal of snow? I see what looks like one big 'permanent' snowfield in the background that seems to have melted completely now.

Define "doom and gloom," or how you perceive it. Maybe how he perceives it. What "doom and gloom" has come to pass? If there has been, will you tell us?

Really. What "doom and gloom prediction" has come to pass?

I already defined 'doom and gloom' by Yonivore's standards: a sarcastic response to any single result of global warming. He typifies the jackass denier who makes a sarcastic thread when it snows in Minnesota in February.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 11:45 AM

It's hilarious to think you actually believe scientists don't live to shoot each other down.
It's hilarious that you always take the angle that disagrees with me, rather than maintaining an open mind.

baseline bum

10-11-2010, 11:53 AM

It's hilarious that you always take the angle that disagrees with me, rather than maintaining an open mind.

A global conspiracy of scientists is as ridiculous an idea as the 9/11 crap Galileo constantly spews here. I don't pay his fantasies much mind either.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 12:13 PM

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 01:21 PM

A global conspiracy of scientists is as ridiculous an idea as the 9/11 crap Galileo constantly spews here. I don't pay his fantasies much mind either.

Other than conspiring to hide data, skirt freedom of information laws, and alter the peer review process, there's no conspiracy.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 01:46 PM

Other than conspiring to hide data, skirt freedom of information laws, and alter the peer review process, there's no conspiracy.
Don't forget destroying raw data after they extrapolate what they want from it. Who knows what they may have altered, and lied about.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:03 PM

Why are AGW cultists so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "denier", obviously a reference to Holocaust deniers?

"cultists"?

You make it easy for the reverse question to be asked:

Why are AGW deniers so insecure that they have to come up with a term like "cultists"?

The answer to your question is that it assumes the unproven premise that "AGW cultists [are] insecure".

This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

It is my term, as it seems appropriate for someone who chooses to deny the weight of scientific evidence, much like creationists do.

To forestall the inevitable statement: Evolution is a lot more settled than AGW/AGCC/AGWhatever.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:12 PM

I think RG has actually come to the middle road on this issue, but doesn't admit it. He will still speak of risk mitigation, but that doesn't mean he buys the AGW bull as much as most people do. He is using precaution.

No, I have not.

I am of the opinion, based on what a rather large majority of scientists who study the issue say, that it is more likely than not that we are affecting our climate though emissions of greenhouse gases, with CO2 principal among them.

I hold this opinion, because the experts in the field hold this opinion. Not having a PhD in climate science, I defer to their expertise.

Further, when I have actually looked into the claims of many skeptics, I have found flawed science, bad logic, and, to the point of the OP, a lot of red flags that indicate to me that the entire movement to discredit this theory is being driven by what I think of as pseudo-science.

I must weigh evidence, claims, and credibility. The balance of that favors AGW, it seems.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 02:18 PM

No, I have not.

I am of the opinion, based on what a rather large majority of scientists who study the issue say, that it is more likely than not that we are affecting our climate though emissions of greenhouse gases, with CO2 principal among them.

I hold this opinion, because the experts in the field hold this opinion. Not having a PhD in climate science, I defer to their expertise.

Further, when I have actually looked into the claims of many skeptics, I have found flawed science, bad logic, and, to the point of the OP, a lot of red flags that indicate to me that the entire movement to discredit this theory is being driven by what I think of as pseudo-science.

I must weigh evidence, claims, and credibility. The balance of that favors AGW, it seems.

If you want to understand the science a bit better I recommend David Archer's books. The Long Thaw is very basic and although I've yet to read his latest work I believe it is equally accessible. I doubt you need something super accessible but since you like to torture yourself and argue this on this forum you may like some of the plain English explanations.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 02:18 PM

Edit: LOL meant for an email.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:20 PM

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:22 PM

What did you want to do for dinner?

Eat whatever the wife has time to cook, the usual.

??

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 02:22 PM

:lmao

I meant to type that into my email to Jekka. Gmail fail.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:25 PM

If you want to understand the science a bit better I recommend David Archer's books. The Long Thaw is very basic and although I've yet to read his latest work I believe it is equally accessible. I doubt you need something super accessible but since you like to torture yourself and argue this on this forum you may like some of the plain English explanations.

Noted and bookmarked.

I will add it to my book que.

By the by, if you ever get into an evolution debate there is an equally good book I just finished, "Why Evolution is True (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532)" by Jerry Coyne.

Equally good plain language bit on a different topic.

I do understand the science fairly well, but prefer not to get bogged down in arguing the minutae, when the real issues don't require it.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:40 PM

Actually, a scientist would, at that point, pose a theory, which then would be scrutinized by his/her peers.

But onto the topic at hand, I think it's very important to understand the scope of the problem domain. We're obviously talking mostly statistics and probability at this time when it comes to this topic simply because the problem domain is incredibly large (I would say it's realistically intractable with the current dataset, the quality of it and what we really know and don't know that affects climate).

I personally don't discard a connection to man, as I wouldn't discard some explanation from a burst of gamma rays from two stars colliding 200 years ago, far far away.

I just don't think we've enough information to make informed decisions about this topic yet. I think as we go along, and more scientists pose more theories on the subject, and back it up with more data, and some other scientists debunk those theories and pose their own, and we get a better understanding of the problem domain, we're going to eventually reach some workable, usable information.

To me, the worst part is to see the natural scientific process being bastardized with political mud (from both ends), instead of letting it evolve as it should. It actually hinders advancement in this very interesting field.

I would generally agree with this, but it seems that the people who study it most seem to be generally a bit more sure about the probability that we are affecting our climate.

The only thing we are really unsure of, is the ultimate effect of that. There is a chance that it could be really, really bad.

We have enough information to formulate some reasonable courses of action to forstall the worst of the potential outcomes.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:43 PM

I would suggest you take to heart that the peer review process is only valid, when those who oppose your position agree your methodology and science are valid. It appears to me all you have is like minded people slapping each other on the back. They have ruined the intent of the peer review process.

Tell me. How many peer reviewed papers dealing with AGW have been reviewed by skeptics, and have them agreeing the science is sound?

The defintion of "peer-review" is to submit something to a group of people who apply some modicum of skepticism to the paper in order to vet any potentially fatal flaws, and to see if the conclusion is reasonably supported by the evidence suggested.

The answer would therefore be: "all of them".

Where we will disagree though, is in the definition of "skeptic". You want a process as stilted towards your viewpoint, as you perceive the current process to be stilted against it. That is not, to me, science.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:44 PM

That was an interesting read. I wonder if RG thinks this guy is a pseudoscientist?

I pointed out that the gentleman seems to bear some of the charactoristics.

Perhaps you would be willing to answer the question posed of Yoni.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 02:49 PM

Not many. How many people have access to the raw data?

I do not know the answer to that question.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 02:52 PM

No, I have not.

I am of the opinion, based on what a rather large majority of scientists who study the issue say, that it is more likely than not that we are affecting our climate though emissions of greenhouse gases, with CO2 principal among them.

Yes, we are affecting our planet with CO2. Nobody denies that. The denial is to the level that the AGW crowd claims. For me, and what I do understand of the sciences, black carbon on ice has cause more warming than CO2 has. I rate the forces as:

1) Solar variations

2) Soot

3) CO2

I hold this opinion, because the experts in the field hold this opinion. Not having a PhD in climate science, I defer to their expertise.

And there are planty with PHD's in Climatology that disagree with them.

Further, when I have actually looked into the claims of many skeptics, I have found flawed science, bad logic, and, to the point of the OP, a lot of red flags that indicate to me that the entire movement to discredit this theory is being driven by what I think of as pseudo-science.

Yet you ignore the same flaws in AGW sciences.

I must weigh evidence, claims, and credibility. The balance of that favors AGW, it seems.

We disagree.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 03:00 PM

I would point out that our understanding of the earth's climate has advanced by huge strides in the last 40 years.

2010 is not 1970.

Well, there was a 30 year cooling trend from the 1940's to 1970's. Do we understand that better than they did in 1970?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 03:07 PM

Problems with peer review (http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/problems-with-peer-review/)

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 03:17 PM

He made a fair point. Your post was simply regarding the shrinking snowcap in one place, but that did not address a prediction of "doom and gloom".

Good science makes predictions.

Most of the predictions about climate change concern rises in ocean level, and things like "hurricanes will become both more numerous and powerful".

To adequately address his statement you would have to supply something where a prediction had actually come to fruition.

I would point out that our understanding of the earth's climate has advanced by huge strides in the last 40 years.

2010 is not 1970.

The problem with such statements as his, is that our understanding of the system gets better each year, and if the sum of that understanding leads to fairly conclusive statements, even if not certain, then current statements would have a bit more validity than something said of the earth's probable future climate in 1970, such as the "big freeze" trotted out often.

To be quite frank, Climate science hasn't change all that much. The first predictions of what rising CO2 levels would do are over 100 years old. The fundamentals of climate science has been in place for quite some time and they are not really debatable.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 03:19 PM

Well, there was a 30 year cooling trend from the 1940's to 1970's. Do we understand that better than they did in 1970?

Yes.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 03:33 PM

Yes.

How do we understand it better?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 03:36 PM

Well, scientists do this thing called science where they investigate and figure things out. The temperature of the 1940-70s have a very simple and logical explanation.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 03:43 PM

Well, scientists do this thing called science where they investigate and figure things out. The temperature of the 1940-70s have a very simple and logical explanation.

What would that be? CO2 rose dramatically during that period.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 03:47 PM

Well, there was a 30 year cooling trend from the 1940's to 1970's. Do we understand that better than they did in 1970?

Yes, I believe we do understand our climate better than we did in 1970.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 03:50 PM

What would that be? CO2 rose dramatically during that period.

I would assign the main swing as being from normal variance in climate, caused by a variety of factors and their interaction.

The more pertinent question:

How would that period have been different, had we not been emitting geometrically increasing amounts of GHG?

That is the real question. Most climate scientists would posit:

Mildly different, probably slightly cooler.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 03:52 PM

What would that be? CO2 rose dramatically during that period.

Well, in actuality CO2 didn't rise nearly as dramatically during that time period as it has since. It went from 310ppm to 320ppm over those 30 years for an increase of roughly 10ppm. To give you perspective, in the 40 years since its risen roughly 60ppm to 380.

So, right off the bat you can see that CO2 concentrations still did not rise as dramatically as they have.

Now, that being said, all things being equal you should obviously still see an increase in temp. The operating factor here is that all things were not equal. We saw an increase in airborne aerosols from 2 sources: Industry and volcanism. Industrial aerosols have since been regulated due to their effects on our environment and volcanic aerosols are not at the level they once were. Reduction in these aerosols has lessened their ability to cool the planet.

Understand?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 03:56 PM

Also, a way to verify this theory is to take a look at average minimum temperature. While aerosol blocking of sunlight affected the average high temperature showing a cooling affect, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere managed to have still warm the temperature at night and during that cooling period the average minimum temperature still showed an increase.

While the aerosols limited the amount of sun light and thus maximum heating the CO2 still managed to trap more infrared energy than before that period which led to the increase in average minimum temperature through the same period.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 03:57 PM

Problems with peer review (http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/problems-with-peer-review/)

Whatever the peer-review process' flaws are, it is still how science is conducted.

From rational wiki's website.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies

One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third parties not involved in the original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out before fellow scientists with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research. While the social dynamics of peer review are not foolproof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience want to avoid peer review like a plague.

If an idea has not been published in a single peer review journal, it is safe to say it is not science. Most people have at least a passing knowledge of the peer review system and so pseudoscience promoters often have to offer hand-wavy explanations for why their ideas have not been published anywhere.

In medicine it is common to blame Big Pharma for wanting to hide the fact that some natural product cures all known illnesses because it will hurt their profits - despite the fact that such a thing would generate more profit, and Big Pharma would be dying to get their hands on it!

In biology creationists often claim that evolution is propped up by a vast atheist and materialist conspiracy, as if every PhD student ended their final viva with their supervisor taking them to one side for "a little chat". This "big conspiracy" is perhaps the most common tactic, but more imaginative excuses do exist; such as Jason Lisle claiming that his theory on how to solve the starlight problem doesn't need to pass through the peer review system of major science journals because you wouldn't expect evolutionist papers to pass through creationist journals.

When pseudosciences are published, they are often published in pseudo-journals, those that have "peer review" but are less rigorous than one would expect of the scientific mainstream. Pseudoscience promoters will sometimes start their own journals that are "reviewed", of course, by fellow promoters.

These journals are often easily identified by their poor standards for inclusion, or their lack of inclusion in scholarly indexes such as ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. One of the most obvious characteristics of pseudo-peer review is a total lack of interest in replicating or verifying the "work" of others in the field.

I have rather directly viewed the source journals for a number of your quoted sources.

All of them tend to have rather uncritical reviews of material that I was able to discern. They seemed to fit the pattern here fairly well.

As I said before, I don't think you would be satisfied with any peer-review, unless it was outright stilted towards your established beliefs. That does not strike me as science.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 04:04 PM

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 04:10 PM

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 04:12 PM

I would also like to point out Soot and CO2 emissions have the same sources.

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 04:20 PM

Soot on snow and ice definitely has a higher forcing than CO2 all things being equal. All things are not equal, however, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere gives it a much larger effect.

I'll put it to you this way: I have 2 types of fire. One burns at 100 degrees and the other at 150. However, I have 10 times as many fires of the 100 degree variety.

The numbers used in my analogy are arbitrary and only meant to convey the principle.

Oddly enough, I have been reviewing rationalwiki on a number of areas.

Seems like my coinage of "denier" has already been taken.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism

Looks like I am not alone in reaching my conclusions about this. Hmm.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 04:29 PM

Oddly enough, I have been reviewing rationalwiki on a number of areas.

Seems like my coinage of "denier" has already been taken.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism

Looks like I am not alone in reaching my conclusions about this. Hmm.

That website is extremely biased and you would do well not to site it.

Check out their entry on "ClimateGate".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Climategate is the most common term that the media and blogosphere gave to to a controversy that followed the November 2009 release of thousands of illegally-obtained e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Global warming denialists immediately pounced on the story, claiming that much of the data supporting the existence of global warming were fabricated. The media quoted many of the e-mails[1] out of context.[2] (A big scientific project causes people to curse, disagree and sigh. Who knew?)

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 04:44 PM

So, no reply to what I posted above Darrin? How did your out of context bit of information hold up?

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 04:50 PM

That website is extremely biased and you would do well not to site it.

Check out their entry on "ClimateGate".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

We have to have some working definition of pseudoscience.

That you are uncomfortable having one of your more cherished beliefs rightfully lumped in with "moon landing hoax" believers or creationists is not my concern.

I am here to draw parallels, and it is becoming an easier case to make as time goes by.

baseline bum

10-11-2010, 04:52 PM

So, no reply to what I posted above Darrin? How did your out of context bit of information hold up?

Duh, we need to start polluting the shit out of the air with particulate matter again so we can accelerate global dimming (and the destruction of the ozone layer over the polar ice caps).

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 04:55 PM

Duh, we need to start polluting the shit out of the air with particulate matter again so we can accelerate global dimming (and the destruction of the ozone layer over the polar ice caps).

Probably wouldn't even matter at this point. CO2's concentration is growing so fast now that it would likely overcome the same type of negative forcing those aerosols caused 70 years ago.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 04:55 PM

I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread and I just couldn't help it :(

RandomGuy

10-11-2010, 05:07 PM

I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread and I just couldn't help it :(

S'all good. If it weren't this thread, it would have been one of WC's...

I rather like the title of this one better. :lol

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 05:23 PM

Whatever the peer-review process' flaws are, it is still how science is conducted.

From rational wiki's website.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

When pseudosciences are published, they are often published in pseudo-journals, those that have "peer review" but are less rigorous than one would expect of the scientific mainstream. Pseudoscience promoters will sometimes start their own journals that are "reviewed", of course, by fellow promoters.
This is exactly what AGW crowd does. Only those who already agree with them are doing the peer reviewing.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 05:24 PM

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:33 PM

You should stop pulling shit of of a donkey's ass.

Feel free to prove that soot on ice and snow has a larger forcing effect than CO2 overall.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:38 PM

The main piece of scientific literature regarding soot's climate forcing is the study done by Hansen in 2004.

Here is his abstract:

Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ∼2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost. If, as we suggest, melting ice and sea level rise define the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, then reducing soot emissions, thus restoring snow albedos to pristine high values, would have the double benefit of reducing global warming and raising the global temperature level at which dangerous anthropogenic interference occurs. However, soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future.

You can find the study through JSTOR by searching for it by name: Soot Climate Forcing via Snow and Ice Albedos

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:43 PM

Whereas forest fires contribute to the problem—the effect noticeably worsens in years with widespread boreal wildfires—roughly 80 percent of polar soot can be traced to human burning, adding as much as 0.054 watt of energy per square meter of Arctic land, according to the research published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven-snow

Now, that article mentions the W/M2 of this particular forcing at 0.054. CO2 Forcing is at about 2 W/M2.

Its not even close.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 05:47 PM

Feel free to prove that soot on ice and snow has a larger forcing effect than CO2 overall.
The IPCC has recently acknowledged that black carbon forcing is about 4 times what it was previously thought to be, after revising the estimate upward two more times since the AR4. I cannot prove that CO2 is less than what they say, but what forcing would you reduce to balance the end results of their equation? Solar forcing is obviously higher than they say also. They correctly assign it a 0.12 (+/- small error) for "direct" forcing. They however never address the indirect forcing that gets amplified in the greenhouse effect. Instead, they allow it to be counted as greenhouse gas forcing. Therefore, we can reduce greenhouse effect forcing by at least another 0.4 watts/sq meter. The calculated numbers using the NASA greenhouse effect model come to an additional 0.81 watts seen in the greenhouse gas effect at a 0.18% solar increase, for a total of a 0.93 increase for the solar variation alone.

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

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:50 PM

I cannot prove that CO2 is less than what they say, but what forcing would you reduce to balance the end results of their equation? Solar forcing is obviously higher than they say also.

:lol

Who's pulling what out of what?

You can't prove what you say - admittedly so - yet we're supposed to take it as fact. It seems to be a trend with what you post.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 05:50 PM

The main piece of scientific literature regarding soot's climate forcing is the study done by Hansen in 2004.

Here is his abstract:

You can find the study through JSTOR by searching for it by name: Soot Climate Forcing via Snow and Ice Albedos
Yes, i have read various works on the topic. Some time ago, I did link an article that showed revised IPCC estimates. This is work that supersedes Hanson's conclusions. That said, I never trust Hanson's research anyway.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:53 PM

Yes, i have read various works on the topic. Some time ago, I did link an article that showed revised IPCC estimates. This is work that supersedes Hanson's conclusions. That said, I never trust Hanson's research anyway.

Good because I'm talking about Hansen's research. Would you care to elaborate on why you do not trust him?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 05:59 PM

To go back to my fire analogy, if the Temp of the one fire was 160 instead of 150 but you still had 10 fires burning at 100 degrees the end equation doesn't need to be adjusted very much. Thats the point. Although they've adjusted the soot upwards quite a bit it makes up such a small percentage of the overall forcing that it isn't a huge factor.

So, unless you can prove what you're trying to say maybe you shouldn't accuse me of pulling anything out of any asses.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:00 PM

Here is an article that is a sample of why the IPCC revised black carbon upward from 0.1 w/sq m:

Interactive comment on “Quantifying immediate radiative forcing by black carbon and organic matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse” by T. C. Bond et al. (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/C6227/2010/acpd-10-C6227-2010-print.pdf)

Part of the article:

B2010,s estimate is based on the NCAR general circulation model (GCM) (version CAM3). They have revised the model and obtained a BC forcing of 0.51 Wm−2 for 2000 BC level (we denote this by BCT for BC total); from which they derive an anthropogenic (since 1750) BC forcing (denoted as BCA for BC anthropogenic) of 0.43 Wm−2 by subtracting an assumed forcing of 0.08 Wm−2 for the pre-industrial forcing. The estimate for BCA includes 0.38 Wm−2 due to atmospheric solar absorption and 0.05 Wm−2 due to increased absorption by the cryosphere (resulting from darkening of snow and ice by BC).

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:01 PM

Also, even if Soot were a greater factor, as I pointed out above, it comes from the same processes that generate CO2.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:04 PM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:05 PM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:06 PM

Good because I'm talking about Hansen's research. Would you care to elaborate on why you do not trust him?
Hanson has been proven wrong several times and chastised by NASA for using altered data.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:07 PM

Yet, the global numbers you provide do not come close to exceeding CO2 even though BC soot has a higher forcing value than CO2. Why do you think that is, WC? Because my analogy applies.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:07 PM

Hanson has been proven wrong several times and chastised by NASA for using altered data.

Links?

BTW, you should attack the paper if you have problems with it and not the scientist. If he's performing bad science it should be readily apparent.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:13 PM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:17 PM

Yet, the global numbers you provide do not come close to exceeding CO2 even though BC soot has a higher forcing value than CO2. Why do you think that is, WC? Because my analogy applies.
Well, assume we remove both the revised solar forcing from the assumed primary greenhouse gas levels. We have an additional 0.81 watts of solar an an additional 0.33 watts of soot, for a total of 1.24 watts. We have to remove this from some other item that causes forcing. Few people disagree that total forcing by the IPCC estimates are wrong. This estimate is 1.6 watts, with CO2 at 1.66 watts, and 0.98 watts for the other three listed. This is a total of 2.64 watts. Removing 1.24 watts makes this 1.4 watts. This figure is only 53% of the original estimates. 53% of the CO2 would be 0.88 watts. Now I do disagree with this figure, but that is how this math example pans out.

Point is, no matter how you slice it, the IPCC numbers for greenhouse gasses are highly suspect.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:18 PM

I don't get you. You claim Soot has the highest global forcing yet you readily admit that you can't prove the CO2 forcing levels are wrong.

That is some amazing conformation bias if I've ever seen it. When you are changing parts do you continue to slam a square part into a round hole?
At least I admit it. When you hear someone say they can prove AGW is real and they can prove greenhouse gasses are the major cause, you should doubt them.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:30 PM

Well, assume we remove both the revised solar forcing from the assumed primary greenhouse gas levels. We have an additional 0.81 watts of solar an an additional 0.33 watts of soot, for a total of 1.24 watts. We have to remove this from some other item that causes forcing. Few people disagree that total forcing by the IPCC estimates are wrong. This estimate is 1.6 watts, with CO2 at 1.66 watts, and 0.98 watts for the other three listed. This is a total of 2.64 watts. Removing 1.24 watts makes this 1.4 watts. This figure is only 53% of the original estimates. 53% of the CO2 would be 0.88 watts. Now I do disagree with this figure, but that is how this math example pans out.

Point is, no matter how you slice it, the IPCC numbers for greenhouse gasses are highly suspect.

Well, they're estimates. They're going to have some measure of inaccuracy that is accepted. Thats not really a big issue. Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:31 PM

At least I admit it. When you hear someone say they can prove AGW is real and they can prove greenhouse gasses are the major cause, you should doubt them.

Because YOU say so?

:lmao

PROOF!

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 06:37 PM

The main problem with downplaying CO2 forcing is that its well know and has been well established for some time. When it comes to the earth's climate the variability comes from the feedback and negative forcing increased CO2 may or may not cause but not from the actual CO2 forcing.

In view of the OP, taking up a view with no proof is about as pseudoscience as it gets. WC can't prove a damn thing yet believes something anyway.

Wind stopping, Carbon forcing. Its all the same. If WC doesn't believe it then facts don't matter.

ElNono

10-11-2010, 06:45 PM

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

Oooooohhhh... pretty graphics!!! Look how colorful!!! :lol

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 06:57 PM

Oooooohhhh... pretty graphics!!! Look how colorful!!! :lol
Have anything productive to add, or you just going to be a jester?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:00 PM

Well, they're estimates. They're going to have some measure of inaccuracy that is accepted. Thats not really a big issue. Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.
No shit, and I'm not forgetting them. Are you implying that the cooling from aerosols is more then, to account for the extra heat? they are already higher than I think is realistic. I think the alarmists do that so they can make greenhouse gasses out to be more bad than they really are.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:02 PM

ElNono

10-11-2010, 07:10 PM

Have anything productive to add, or you just going to be a jester?

I already added what I needed to add to this thread... so I'm definitely going to be a jester until I change my mind.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:19 PM

No shit, and I'm not forgetting them. Are you implying that the cooling from aerosols is more then, to account for the extra heat? they are already higher than I think is realistic. I think the alarmists do that so they can make greenhouse gasses out to be more bad than they really are.

I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you can prove which in this thread (and everywhere else for that matter) is zero.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:20 PM

Whatever.

Why don't you call all of global warming science pseudo science?

Because they actually prove things and don't just post pictures and toss around jargon.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:20 PM

I already added what I needed to add to this thread... so I'm definitely going to be a jester until I change my mind.

Wise choice.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:21 PM

Because they actually prove things and don't just post pictures and toss around jargon.
They have not. If you believe it, show me the research.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:22 PM

You want me to link you the thousands of climate science papers that have been verified?

ElNono

10-11-2010, 07:24 PM

They have not. If you believe it, show me the research.

Why would anybody do that legwork when you seem unable to understand it anyways? If you have interest, you will seek such research, inform yourself, then come back and present your case. That's how it normally works when you want to prove somebody wrong.

Ok, back to jester mode.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:27 PM

I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you can prove which in this thread (and everywhere else for that matter) is zero.
I have proved that solar forcing is greater than what alarmists assign it. I have proved research out there gives soot about four times what it was assigned. There have been other reputable works out there. One out there shows that NASA/GISS (Hansen) only accepts about 1500 weather stations from over 6,000. Cherry picking data...

Greenhouse gasses are far less understood than the IPCC claims. Solar is very will understood, yet they rate greenhouse gasses as having a high scientific level of understanding, and solar low. They simply flat out lie, or are unqualified to make such assessments.

I have some links that I looked up these lase several minutes. I was going to post them again. What's the point though. You will dismiss them again, as you did before.

How about telling me what I am missing when you said:

Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:30 PM

I have proved that solar forcing is greater than what alarmists assign it. I have proved research out there gives soot about four times what it was assigned. There have been other reputable works out there. One out there shows that NASA/GISS (Hansen) only accepts about 1500 weather stations from over 6,000. Cherry picking data...

Greenhouse gasses are far less understood than the IPCC claims. Solar is very will understood, yet they rate greenhouse gasses as having a high scientific level of understanding, and solar low. They simply flat out lie, or are unqualified to make such assessments.

I have some links that I looked up these lase several minutes. I was going to post them again. What's the point though. You will dismiss them again, as you did before.

How about telling me what I am missing when you said:

:lmao

You proved all that huh? Well fuck, I must have missed it. Can you show me where you proved that?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:30 PM

Why would anybody do that legwork when you seem unable to understand it anyways? If you have interest, you will seek such research, inform yourself, then come back and present your case. That's how it normally works when you want to prove somebody wrong.

Ok, back to jester mode.
That's just it. There is no proof that the greenhouse effect is as strong as the AGW crowd says. Every time I ask for proof, nobody can point me the right direction. It is left as having to believe someone else. If everyone is so certain it is as potent as it is, where is the proof?

You are asking me to prove a negative.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:31 PM

:lmao

You proved all that huh? Well fuck, I must have missed it. Can you show me where you proved that?
What don't you understand?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:33 PM

Its amazing that as great as solar forcing is we've warmed while total solar output has decreased in the past 40 years. I wonder how that jives with what WC proved.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:34 PM

What don't you understand?

I don't understand where or how you proved this but I would like a link to that post or posts. I must have just missed them. I'm sure if you provide me a link I'll see what everyone has been missing.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:35 PM

Its amazing that as great as solar forcing is we've warmed while total solar output has decreased in the past 40 years. I wonder how that jives with what WC proved.
You guys keep asking the same things over and over. I respond over and over, yet you conveniently forget, or say I am wrong.

There are latent heat lags because of the way our oceans flow.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 07:37 PM

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:37 PM

Oh, so all of the extra heat is stored in the oceans and is now being released. Can you prove this?

ElNono

10-11-2010, 07:37 PM

That's just it. There is no proof that the greenhouse effect is as strong as the AGW crowd says. Every time I ask for proof, nobody can point me the right direction. It is left as having to believe someone else. If everyone is so certain it is as potent as it is, where is the proof?

You are asking me to prove a negative.

Why would you disagree with the data/figures if seemingly none of those figures were presented to you?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't agree with the proof presented?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:38 PM

You know what? Fuck it. I don't even care about the "denier" label any more. The AGW ship has been sinking for some time now and its advocates are scurrying around like drowning rats trying to save it. Time and observations will disprove this pseudoscience, just like it disproved other shitty theories from the 1970's.

The shitty theories that called for warming and have been verified?

Before you go to your obvious "they called for cooling" rebuttal, the overwhelming majority of climate forecasts in the 70s called for warming due to CO2. Pretty sure those have been verified.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:44 PM

If oceans are now releasing stored energy at such a fast rate why aren't they cooling?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:44 PM

I don't understand where or how you proved this but I would like a link to that post or posts. I must have just missed them. I'm sure if you provide me a link I'll see what everyone has been missing.
Solar heat is a simple math function. Units of power don't magically change. We know that solar forcing has increase since the maunder Minima, till about 1950. the total change during the period addressed by the AR4, using the 11 year average, is 0.18%, if you use the studies by Lean et. al. As I pointed out with the percentage changes on the simple NASA graphic, that 0.18% increase accounts for 0.12 watts of direct forcing increase, and the IPCC acknowledges this. As simple as the graph is, there are no complicating issues, except when other factors change. watts in, watts out. With no change in greenhouse gas composition, the heat pump is also increased by 0.18%. Being amplified by the greenhouse gas effect, the number gets rather large.

As for looking up posts. Sorry, just go back and read my previous posts. If I link then, you're just going to dismiss them anyway.

Now forget about saying the solar heat is reduced by ^1/4. This is true for the actual surface heat, but when it is radiated back as IR, it radiates back upward with ^4. I had this argument with someone solid in the sciences in the past, and he conceded to my point.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:46 PM

If oceans are now releasing stored energy at such a fast rate why aren't they cooling?
You need to understand ocean circulation better. It's a long process. However, through the centuries it takes for the oceans to circulate, the heat isn't magically lost.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:47 PM

You need to understand ocean circulation better. It's a long process. However, through the centuries it takes for the oceans to circulate, the heat isn't magically lost.

LOL this is how you prove it?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 07:48 PM

Solar heat is a simple math function. Units of power don't magically change. We know that solar forcing has increase since the maunder Minima, till about 1950. the total change during the period addressed by the AR4, using the 11 year average, is 0.18%, if you use the studies by Lean et. al. As I pointed out with the percentage changes on the simple NASA graphic, that 0.18% increase accounts for 0.12 watts of direct forcing increase, and the IPCC acknowledges this. As simple as the graph is, there are no complicating issues, except when other factors change. watts in, watts out. With no change in greenhouse gas composition, the heat pump is also increased by 0.18%. Being amplified by the greenhouse gas effect, the number gets rather large.

As for looking up posts. Sorry, just go back and read my previous posts. If I link then, you're just going to dismiss them anyway.

Now forget about saying the solar heat is reduced by ^1/4. This is true for the actual surface heat, but when it is radiated back as IR, it radiates back upward with ^4. I had this argument with someone solid in the sciences in the past, and he conceded to my point.

So you're saying that greenhouse gases - notably CO2 are the primary cause for warming.

Thanks.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:48 PM

Why would you disagree with the data/figures if seemingly none of those figures were presented to you?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't agree with the proof presented?
Show me the proofs then. Maybe we are using different terminology, but show me the studies so we ca peer review them.

Oh that's right. The AGW crowd destroys the data, and uses close peer review processing. they are secretive, and never have an open peer review process.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 07:49 PM

The shitty theories that called for warming and have been verified?

Before you go to your obvious "they called for cooling" rebuttal, the overwhelming majority of climate forecasts in the 70s called for warming due to CO2. Pretty sure those have been verified.

Much of AGW theory is based on computer models. Being a computer modeler myself, I've looked at a lot of the source code and I don't have a lot of confidence in it.

Especially when there are comments in the code like:

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

"APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"

etc. etc.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:49 PM

So you're saying that greenhouse gases - notably CO2 are the primary cause for warming.

Thanks.
Not at all. The primary greenhouse gas is H2O.

Must think your smart trying to tack that on.

Next, you're going to tell me that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:50 PM

Much of AGW theory is based on computer models. Being a computer modeler myself, I've looked at a lot of the source code and I don't have a lot of confidence in it.

Especially when there are comments in the code like:

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

"APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"

etc. etc.
Computer models operate like this:

garbage in, garbage out.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 07:51 PM

Not at all. The primary greenhouse gas is H2O.

Must think your smart trying to tack that on.

And climate models don't even account for clouds, at least not correctly. LOL.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:52 PM

And climate models don't even account for clouds, at least not correctly. LOL.
No kidding. Even with added heat in the global system, we simply have more high altitude clouds acting as a thermostat.

DarrinS

10-11-2010, 07:53 PM

ElNono

10-11-2010, 07:56 PM

Show me the proofs then. Maybe we are using different terminology, but show me the studies so we ca peer review them.

First of all, you're no scientist peer, at least in this field (me neither, BTW)
But please tell me what IPCC numbers you're quoting if you've never seen them?

Oh that's right. The AGW crowd destroys the data, and uses close peer review processing. they are secretive, and never have an open peer review process.

If Manny can find the studies, I doubt you can't.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:56 PM

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 07:59 PM

First of all, you're no scientist peer, at least in this field (me neither, BTW)
But please tell me what IPCC numbers you're quoting if you've never seen them?

If you are refering to the 1.6, 1.66, 0.12, etc:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/IPCCTSpg31-32.jpg

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:00 PM

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:02 PM

If you are refering to the 1.6, 1.66, 0.12, etc:

So you have the research, you just don't agree with it.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:15 PM

So you have the proof, you just don't agree with it.
The IPCC isn't proof, and their conjectures don't add up. They are a political body dabbling in science.

Do you mean the greenhouse model I provided? All I did was mark up an existing NASA model. See:

wiki: Greenhouse Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:26 PM

The IPCC isn't proof, and their conjectures don't add up. They are a political body dabbling in science.

I meant research. That's what you were asking for, wasn't it?

What you want is somebody to convince you. That's not science.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:31 PM

I meant research. That's what you were asking for, wasn't it?

What you want is somebody to convince you. That's not science.
You are almost right aboput my point. My point is that science is not being done by the AGW crowd. My asking for the evidence, and no one being able to provide it, should show just that.

While we are at it, what do you think of ice core proxy data showing CO2 lagging warmth, and no additional warming when CO2 increases:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000ye.jpg

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:36 PM

You are almost right aboput my point. My point is that science is not being done by the AGW crowd. My asking for the evidence, and no one being able to provide it, should show just that.

While we are at it, what do you think of ice core proxy data showing CO2 lagging warmth, and no additional warming when CO2 increases:

I think you should follow the scientific model, write a paper debunking the IPCC conjectures, fill it up with all the nice colored pictures, and publish it so it can be peer reviewed.

Then the scientific community can review it and react accordingly....

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/40oz_laugh_in_tub.gif

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:39 PM

I think you should follow the scientific model, write a paper debunking the IPCC conjectures, fill it up with all the nice colored pictures, and publish it so it can be peer reviewed.

Then the scientific community can review it and react accordingly....

Debunking has been done by people already.

Seriously, what do you think of the data from the ice cores?

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 08:40 PM

:lmao

This thread is so good at proving the OP.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:45 PM

:lmao

This thread is so good at proving the OP.
How about showing me what I ask for. Proof that the AGW crowd is correct. Otherwise, you should consider it pseudo science.

Try following along with this:

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS (http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html#more)

ElNono

10-11-2010, 08:48 PM

Debunking has been done by people already.

You seem to be quite a eminence in the topic though. Including a vast collection of pretty graphs, with a bunch of arrows in them.
You should consider sharing what you know with the world.

Seriously, what do you think of the data from the ice cores?

I think it's inconclusive as far as establishing if climate change is man made or not.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2010, 08:55 PM

WC you obviously ignore proof and believe what you want so why would I bother any longer?

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:57 PM

Something to consider:

Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963)

In following the discussion of global warming and related issues in the press and the blogosphere, I have been struck repeatedly by the assumption or expression of certain beliefs that strike me as highly problematical. Many writers who are not scientists themselves are trading on the prestige of science and the authority of scientists. Reference to “peer-reviewed research” and to an alleged “scientific consensus” are regarded as veritable knock-out blows by many commentators. Yet many of those who make such references appear to me to be more or less ignorant of how science as a form of knowledge-seeking and scientists as individual professionals operate, especially nowadays, when national governments―most notably the U.S. government―play such an overwhelming role in financing scientific research and hence in determining which scientists rise to the top and which fall by the wayside.

I do not pretend to have expertise in climatology or any of the related physical sciences, so nothing I might say about strictly climatological or related physical-scientific matters deserves any weight. However, I have thirty-nine years of professional experience―twenty-six as a university professor, including fifteen at a major research university, and then thirteen as a researcher, writer, and editor―in close contact with scientists of various sorts, including some in the biological and physical sciences and many in the social sciences and demography. I have served as a peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and a number of large private foundations. I was the principal investigator of a major NSF-funded research project in the field of demography. So, I think I know something about how the system works.

It does not work as outsiders seem to think.

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another. In some sciences these mistakes are largely weeded out in the course of time; in others they persist for extended periods; and in some sciences, such as economics, actual scientific retrogression may continue for generations under the misguided (but self-serving) belief that it is really progress.

At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases―until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea’s bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong. Most important, as a rule, in science as elsewhere, to get along, you must go along.

Research worlds, in their upper reaches, are pretty small. Leading researchers know all the major players and what everybody else is doing. They attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, send their grad students to be postdocs in the other people’s labs, review one another’s work for the NSF, NIH, or other government funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it will prove very, very difficult for you to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific-conference panel discussion, or to place your grad students in decent positions. The whole setup is tremendously incestuous; the interconnections are numerous, tight, and close.

In this context, a bright young person needs to display cleverness in applying the prevailing orthodoxy, but it behooves him not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute the review committees for the NSF, NIH, and other funding organizations. Modern biological and physical science is, overwhelmingly, government-funded science. If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding.

When your research implies a “need” for drastic government action to avert a looming disaster or to allay some dire existing problem, government bureaucrats and legislators (can you say “earmarks”?) are more likely to approve it. If the managers at the NSF, NIH, and other government funding agencies gave great amounts of money to scientists whose research implies that no disaster looms or no dire problem now exists or even that although a problem exists, no currently feasible government policy can do anything to solve it without creating greater problems in the process, members of Congress would be much less inclined to throw money at the agency, with all the consequences that an appropriations cutback implies for bureaucratic thriving. No one has to explain all these things to the parties involved; they are not idiots, and they understand how the wheels are greased in their tight little worlds.

Finally, we need to develop a much keener sense of what a scientist is qualified to talk about and what he is not qualified to talk about. Climatologists, for example, are qualified to talk about the science of climatology (though subject to all the intrusions upon pure science I have already mentioned). They are not qualified to say, however, that “we must act now” by imposing government “solutions” of some imagined sort. They are not professionally knowledgeable about what degree of risk is better or worse for people to take; only the individuals who bear the risk can make that decision, because it’s a matter of personal preference, not a matter of science. Climatologists know nothing about cost/benefit considerations; indeed, most mainstream economists themselves are fundamentally misguided about such matters (adopting, for example, procedures and assumptions about the aggregation of individual valuations that lack a sound scientific basis). Climate scientists are the best qualified people to talk about climate science, but they have no qualifications to talk about public policy, law, or individual values, rates of time preference, and degrees of risk aversion. In talking about desirable government action, they give the impression that they are either fools or charlatans, but they keep talking―worst of all, talking to doomsday-seeking journalists―nevertheless.

In this connection, we might well bear in mind that the United Nations (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees) is no more a scientifc organization than the U.S. Congress (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees). When decisions and pronouncements come forth from these political organizations, it makes sense to treat them as essentially political in origin and purpose. Politicians aren’t dumb, either―vicious, yes, but not dumb. One thing they know above everything else is how to stampede masses of people into approving or accepting ill-advised government actions that cost the people dearly in both their standard of living and their liberties in the long run.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 08:59 PM

I think it's inconclusive as far as establishing if climate change is man made or not.
Don't you agree that is shows there is no measurable increase in temperature caused by CO2?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-11-2010, 09:27 PM

Show me the proofs then. Maybe we are using different terminology, but show me the studies so we ca peer review them.

Oh that's right. The AGW crowd destroys the data, and uses close peer review processing. they are secretive, and never have an open peer review process.

You would not know how to read the data tables no matter how long you looked them up on wikipedia.

I realize you are a dimwit but the calculations required for climate modeling especially when it involves turbulence are humongous. They do not fit on a wiki page for you to read and then let someone else interpret for you.

How about some proof of all those accusations you just laid out.

You are not a peer of these scientists. You are a parts changer who uses wikipedia to think you know what you are talking about. That is the biggest complaint dimwits like yourself use. Sure they are elitist but quite frankly most people are stupid which you are a testament to.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-11-2010, 09:35 PM

How about showing me what I ask for. Proof that the AGW crowd is correct. Otherwise, you should consider it pseudo science.

Try following along with this:

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS (http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html#more)

The article is on a pretty bad premise. When he starts in part one criticizing the model because it uses nonlinear systems, I realized very quickly that he does not know what is what.

All turbulence equations are nonperiodic. They do not reach equilibrium. Its pretty much the basis of what was known a decade ago as chaos theory or interpretation of nonperiodic systems.

From that point he nitpicks precision in gradients and plain makes up bullshit although he presents it as fact especially with that prehistoric atmospheric composition as its based on the ocean.

Its typical bullshit that one can expect wild partschanger to blindly accept.

ElNono

10-11-2010, 09:36 PM

Don't you agree that is shows there is no measurable increase in temperature caused by CO2?

It certainly shows that we emit much more CO2 than ever before.

Do you know for a fact that there's no certain threshold at which CO2 might have an impact on temperature?
If there is such a threshold, what overall impact does it have compared to other factors that might affect climate?
Do we even know all possible other factors?

As I have stated earlier in the thread, I can't discard that man has a hand in climate changes, as I can't discard other known or unknown factors.
So, as far as that graph goes, it doesn't really tells me much of anything as far as anything conclusive or something that we can extract usable information from as far as answering all those questions.

As Darrin indicated, there's a bunch of shortcuts that need to be taken because we really either don't have enough data, or we don't have enough capacity to truly mix in all the potential variables. Now, that doesn't prove or disproves anything. It merely asks for more research.

ElNono

10-11-2010, 09:39 PM

The article is on a pretty bad premise. When he starts in part one criticizing the model because it uses nonlinear systems, I realized very quickly that he does not know what is what.

All turbulence equations are nonperiodic. They do not reach equilibrium. Its pretty much the basis of what was known a decade ago as chaos theory or interpretation of nonperiodic systems.

From that point he nitpicks precision in gradients and plain makes up bullshit although he presents it as fact especially with that prehistoric atmospheric composition as its based on the ocean.

Its typical bullshit that one can expect wild partschanger to blindly accept.

But the pretty graphs!!! Many arrows!!!

FuzzyLumpkins

10-11-2010, 09:51 PM

But the pretty graphs!!! Many arrows!!!

I imagine he is looking up nonperiodic systems right now on wikipedia.

ElNono

10-11-2010, 10:00 PM

Here's a pretty chart with a big arrow!

http://www.larryhendrick.com/motivate/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chart-arrow.jpg

Wild Cobra

10-11-2010, 10:46 PM

It certainly shows that we emit much more CO2 than ever before.

Sure, when mankind was coming out of the ice age, we emitted almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. Now we emit about 2% of the sourced CO2.

The CO2 in the ice core records end about 2,200 years ago. It does take a sharp rise starting about 8,000 years ago, the approximate time frame we humans started population the world in high numbers. However, since we also came out of the ice age about 11,000 years ago in numbers, so did all oxygen breathing species that emit CO2.

Do you know for a fact that there's no certain threshold at which CO2 might have an impact on temperature?
If there is such a threshold, what overall impact does it have compared to other factors that might affect climate?
Do we even know all possible other factors?

Oh, CO2 does have an effect. There are differing theories out there. If you look at any long term temperature trend though, you see that the warming we have over the last few hundred years isn't unique. As for a limit? the logarithmic nature makes it nearly impossible for it to climb very much in forcing value. I'm not going to attempt to quantify the other questions at all. To attribute warming all to mankind with all the accepted facts out there in proxy data is ludicrous. We know that the ocean contains more than 50 times the CO2 than the atmosphere does. We know that man made sourcing of CO2 is about 2% of the sources CO2. With Henry's law controlling the equilibrium between the two, it should be obvious how much ocean temperature plays a roll in CO2 atmospheric levels. Even if we didn't emit that 2%, considering greater than a 50:1 equilibrium, we would be increasing in CO2 levels. Back to the other graph. We didn't have any type of industrialization 12,000 years ago to increase the CO2 levels then.

As I have stated earlier in the thread, I can't discard that man has a hand in climate changes, as I can't discard other known or unknown factors.

We definitely have impact. It is mostly in the form of soot, in my opinion. Solar forcing is the largest factor in climate change. We can argue about the level of greenhouse gasses, but no matter how you look at it, when you see everything, it is still less than solar. When you consider the carbon cycle, the CO2 isn't dissipating as fast as it used to. When you apply Henry's Law with temperature increases, increased CO2 will obviously follow the ocean's surface temperature changes. As the earth warms, the oceans absorb less CO2 as a sink and emit more CO2 as a source. This is why any graph you find from proxy data will show CO2 lagging temperature.

So, as far as that graph goes, it doesn't really tells me much of anything as far as anything conclusive or something that we can extract usable information from as far as answering all those questions.

Well, it is limited. Temperature samples are an average of about 43 years apart. CO2 samples are an average of 1460 years apart. The chances of missing real spikes in CO2 are rather large. It does show that CO2 followed temperature as we came out of the ice age. It does show that increased CO2 did not attribute to increased temperature as it sharply rose.

As Darrin indicated, there's a bunch of shortcuts that need to be taken because we really either don't have enough data, or we don't have enough capacity to truly mix in all the potential variables. Now, that doesn't prove or disproves anything. It merely asks for more research.

He's talking about making a good model isn't he? Not looking at a single aspect. Sure, it's difficult to make sure other factors aren't clouding the information. Some things are easily ascertained, others are not.

We do know that greenhouse gasses follow a logarithmic curve when plotting level vs. radiative forcing. We do know that water is the strongest of the top several, CO2 follows, then N2O and CH4. Nobody in the scientific community disputes these, because they are facts that are readily demonstrated. What is in dispute is the forcing of each in a complex system. On top of that there is some overlap in the spectral absorption between them.

Lets consider the worse case scenario that CO2 is assumed to play as a percentage of the greenhouse effect. This would be 26%. Now I believe that number to be around 10% or less, but I'll humor the 26%, and the 9% to 26% range is consensus. We also know that the greenhouse effect is about 33 degrees. If we take 26% of 33, we get a radiative forcing of 8.58 degrees. Now if we assume that to be true at a level of 380 ppm, what do we get? If we use James Hansen's algorithm for CO2, for his calculations to equal 8.58 degrees at 380 ppm, the constant value "α" needs to be 1.2026 for temperature. The 3.35 value is for radiative forcing in watts per square meter. A doubling of CO2 then by his formula yields a 1.42 degree increase. A bit short of the IPCC's 1.5 to 3 degree for doubling. Scientists give the low end of CO2 percentage as 9%. If we do the same thing, with Hansen's formula, 9% of 33 is only 2.97 degrees. We get an "α" value of 0.4163 and a doubling value of 0.49 degrees. If we accept Hansen's formula and the 9% to 26% rage, the truth must lie somewhere between. These ranges correspond to a 0.22 degree increase at 9% and a 0.64 degree increase at 26%, for a change from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.

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

Hansen's formula includes assumed positive feedback, I think. It might be overlap with H2O, or both.

Just for you ElNono....

Two more arrows!

FuzzyLumpkins

10-11-2010, 11:16 PM

Its awesome how you read wildpartschangers posts and read how he is paraphrasing someone else's reports that he agrees with the premise of.

Its also funny that dimwit is citing grida.no which is part of the UN environmental group.

Here are some of their published materials which all use the peer review process.

Best Practices in Environmental Information Management in Africa: The Uganda Case Study
www.grida.no/publications/the-uganda-case-study

Blue Carbon Fund: The Ocean Equivalent of REDD for
Carbon Sequestration in Coastal States
www.grida.no/_res/site/file/publications/blue-carbon/
BCflyer.pdf

Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding
Carbon
www.grida.no/publications/rr/blue-carbon

A Case for Climate Neutrality: Case Studies of Moving
Towards a Low Carbon Economy
www.grida.no/news/default/4082.aspx

The Changing Himalayas: Impact of Climate Change on
Water and Livelihoods in the Greater Himalayas
www.grida.no/publications/himalaya/ebook2.aspx

Climate in Peril: A Popular Guide to the Latest IPCC
Reports
www.grida.no/publications/climate-in-peril

Continental Shelf: The Last Maritime Zone
www.grida.no/publications/shelf-last-zone

The Environmental Food Crisis: The Environment’s Role
in Averting Future Food Crises
www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis

Environment & Poverty Times, Issue 6
www.grida.no/publications/et/ep6/

Environment and Security Issues in the Southern Mediterranean
Region
www.grida.no/publications/list/3951.aspx

An Integrated Ecosystem Management Approach to
Conserve Biodiversity
www.grida.no/publications/list/3716.aspx

Khaidarkan Mercury - Addressing primary mercury mining
in Kyrgyzstan
www.grida.no/publications/rr/mercury

Local Responses to Too Much and Too Little Water in
the Greater Himalayan Region
www.grida.no/publications/himalaya/ebook3.aspx

Many Strong Voices - turning vulnerability into strength
www.grida.no/publications/msv_tvis

Reindeer Husbandry and Barents 2030
www.grida.no/publications/list/4324.aspx

The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate
Mitigation
www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix

Towards Sustainable Energy Services for Households
and Small Businesses – Barriers and Recommendations
www.grida.no/publications/list/4164.aspx

Uganda: Atlas of our Changing Environment
www.grida.no/news/default/3747.aspx

They use the methodology he spent most of this thread criticizing and then he cites them. Its awesome.

ElNono

10-12-2010, 07:43 AM

Just for you ElNono....

Two more arrows!

Might sound like a broken record, but I've chosen not to draw conclusions on merely one subset of the many possible factors that could affect climate change. I think there's merit, and is encouraged, to study every known factor at the micro level, so they can be eventually used to create a richer, better model to analyze as many interactions possible between as many factors as possible and eventually draw usable information.

RandomGuy

10-12-2010, 07:57 AM

For me, and what I do understand of the sciences, black carbon on ice has cause more warming than CO2 has.

If that were the case, then the northern polar region would eperience a drastically warmer climate change than the southern one, simply due to the pattern of our burning of carbon.

Is that the case?

I never did get this question answered. I honestly don't know the answer.

If soot is so much more of a warming element, then the pole exposed to more soot by far, the north pole, would have lost MUCH more ice and experienced much more warming than the south pole.

That is a fairly testable hypothesis. Anyone?

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 09:00 AM

Hell, the computer models didn't even predict the last decade and we're supposed to trust their results for 50-100 years out. Such bullshit. Even Manny knows that weather models (I know they're not the same, don't even go there) don't predict very far out.

If you know they're not the same then what the hell is the point of bringing them up? Weather is far more chaotic than than climate and climate is actually easier to model because of this. It just makes absolutely no sense to bring this up to make your point if you know they are the same.

The fact that clouds are parameterized as opposed to realistically produced is simple a matter of computing power. This doesn't change the fact that these models you disregard can hindcast previous climate. If X happens when Y is at B then you can use that to model the situation and not the actual formation.

I don't know what you mean by the models not accounting for the previous decade but thats simply incorrect. You either have no idea how to interpret the output or you have no idea what happened to the climate over the past decade.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 09:00 AM

No kidding. Even with added heat in the global system, we simply have more high altitude clouds acting as a thermostat.

Explain?

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 09:06 AM

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 09:20 AM

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 09:27 AM

Also, lol @ WC trying to solve Hansen's formula and wondering why he can't get the right numbers. You're making the same mistake you made earlier and ignoring the negatives. 26% of net heating is not the same as 26% of gross heating.

Ill give you an example of how you erred, parts changer. A worker makes 10 dollars an hour and works a 40 hour week. He also has 100 deducted from his paycheck for net pay of 300. Well, that doesn't mean he makes 7.50 an hour.

I wish you would tell me where you got the idea to work it back like that so I could go laugh at the webpage/blog or whatever. Drrrr why doesn't my algebra work drrrr.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:24 AM

I never did get this question answered. I honestly don't know the answer.

If soot is so much more of a warming element, then the pole exposed to more soot by far, the north pole, would have lost MUCH more ice and experienced much more warming than the south pole.

That is a fairly testable hypothesis. Anyone?
But that is the case isn't it? Look at Cryophere (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) if you want to see sea ice changes. I have read some time back that Antarctica is not losing net glacier ice, but I don't have those references handy. Comparing the sea ice should be good enough.

Long term trend, 1979 to 2008:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Short term trend, last two years:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:30 AM

Explain?
Look it up.This is a more complex topic than what meteorologists learn, and I'm not going to look it up for you.

Consider, added warmth increases the water absorbed into the atmosphere. This leads to increased clouds as the air cools. Increased cloud cover increases albedo. many of those clouds are of the higher altitude ones. That part doesn't so much matter, what matters in the net change in albedo.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:32 AM

Why do you think the IPCC underestimated the arctic ice melting?
I an pretty certain through materials I have read over the years that they dismiss facts that do not support their agenda.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:33 AM

:lmao

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:33 AM

I'd like to see WC counteract spectroscopic evidence that CO2 is indeed trapping a larger amount of heat than he attributes. Also, can he explain how he comes to his conclusions and supports his percentages as opposed to the ones used by the IPCC?
I would ask that the same proof be shown of those claiming the amount they claim first. Why isn't this ever been shown in the public domain for open source peer review?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:40 AM

Also, lol @ WC trying to solve Hansen's formula and wondering why he can't get the right numbers. You're making the same mistake you made earlier and ignoring the negatives. 26% of net heating is not the same as 26% of gross heating.
Please explain, and do you think I'm using the gross or the net?

I know this much, your assumptions are wrong, but just in case, please explain my error.

Ill give you an example of how you erred, parts changer. A worker makes 10 dollars an hour and works a 40 hour week. He also has 100 deducted from his paycheck for net pay of 300. Well, that doesn't mean he makes 7.50 an hour.
Nonsequiter

I wish you would tell me where you got the idea to work it back like that so I could go laugh at the webpage/blog or whatever. Drrrr why doesn't my algebra work drrrr.

I fail to follow your assumed find of error. The constant is easily replace to change the percentage of the outcome. The formula I used is James Hansen's and I pointed out his assumed constant is 5.35 for producing the CO2 effect in watts/sq meter. Physical heat is linear to power input. This isn't a black body radiative formula. What i did what backward engineer what others are claim to show their claim is in error.

If you think I did that wrong, show me your results in backward engineering the stated results.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:41 AM

Are you kidding me?

:lmao

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:42 AM

:lmao
Hey, ease up on that NOS...

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:43 AM

Your error isn't in Hansen's formula, its before.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:43 AM

Are you kidding me?

:lmao
If you think I did that wrong, show me your results in backward engineering the stated results.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:43 AM

Hey, ease up on that NOS...

Your posts are quite comedic.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:43 AM

Your error isn't in Hansen's formula, its before.
If you aren't going to explain, then go away.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:46 AM

If you think I did that wrong, show me your results in backward engineering the stated results.

You want me to show you how you backward engineering is wrong by backward engineering? You're an imbecile, thats basically restating what plenty of scientists have already come up with to establish CO2 forcing. Why do I need to copy and paste their work to prove you wrong?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 10:46 AM

You have time to pull your head out your ass and look up the facts. I'll be gone for 1/2 or so.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:47 AM

If you aren't going to explain, then go away.

I already explained in my initial post on the matter. You don't account for negative forcing. I gave you an example of your error in a different situation and you didn't understand so you called it a non sequitor.

I cant teach someone who clearly can't walk on their own to run.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:47 AM

You have time to pull your head out your ass and look up the facts. I'll be gone for 1/2 or so.

:lmao

Oh, OK.

I guess that means 1/2 hour until laughfest resumes.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 10:49 AM

No but really - the idea that spectroscopic information is somehow a secret not in the public domain is hillarious.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 11:34 AM

I already explained in my initial post on the matter. You don't account for negative forcing. I gave you an example of your error in a different situation and you didn't understand so you called it a non sequitor.

I cant teach someone who clearly can't walk on their own to run.
And negative forcing also increases with the positive, in a near linear relationship. You can disagree if you like, but it's part of the 9% to 26% consideration, since it is a percentage of the greenhouse effect. If anything, the negative forcing increases even more.

How about this. Show me an example of what you mean. I offered the AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt by showing the extreme end at the 26%. Do you seriously expect a feedback to increase that percentage even higher?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 11:36 AM

You want me to show you how you backward engineering is wrong by backward engineering? You're an imbecile, thats basically restating what plenty of scientists have already come up with to establish CO2 forcing. Why do I need to copy and paste their work to prove you wrong?
At least to show that you have a clue of what you speak of.

besides, how many times have I said, I don't trust them. If you have information I have never seen, then you should show me. Otherwise, I will consider you are lying.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 11:40 AM

Copy and pasting arguments shows that I know what I'm talking about?

:lmao

Parts Changer. Its so fitting.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 11:40 AM

No but really - the idea that spectroscopic information is somehow a secret not in the public domain is hillarious.
It's not. Quite frankly, you are being to general in a very complex topic. You leave me with guessing what you mean. How about some specificity. Here is a graph I did some time ago plotting the individual spectra:

Linear:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SpectralCalcCO2lines10to20micron-1.jpg

Log:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SpectralCalcCO2lines10to20microns1x.jpg

Is the what you are speaking of?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 11:45 AM

No but really - the idea that spectroscopic information is somehow a secret not in the public domain is hillarious.
information is there. How about the methodology used by the alarmists. You know, what data they use, and how they use it. I never meant that "all" data is destroyed after use. I was referring to those "climatgate" incidents where they have peer reviews papers, but cannot back anything up because they destroyed their data. Even other peer reviewed processes, why was it not an open peer review process? Too much deception can go on in the processes, especially when grant money and political pressures are involved. Don't you want to have confidence that the sciences you advocate are honest? Well I sure do.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 11:47 AM

Copy and pasting arguments shows that I know what I'm talking about?

:lmao

Parts Changer. Its so fitting.
No, but you could explain what it means. At least give me some reference so I can make up my mind.

Parts changer... At least I have a good paying job. Do you?

I don't care if you copy and past, or explain it yourself. However, you claim the information that proves me wrong is out there, so I'm asking to see it. If you are unwilling or incapable of showing me the errors of my ways, then don't expect me to take your word for it.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 11:49 AM

information is there. How about the methodology used by the alarmists. You know, what data they use, and how they use it. I never meant that "all" data is destroyed after use. I was referring to those "climatgate" incidents where they have peer reviews papers, but cannot back anything up because they destroyed their data. Even other peer reviewed processes, why was it not an open peer review process? Too much deception can go on in the processes, especially when grant money and political pressures are involved. Don't you want to have confidence that the sciences you advocate are honest? Well I sure do.

:lol

Now you're questioning the validity of studies you've never even seen?

So good.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 11:52 AM

No, but you could explain what it means. At least give me some reference so I can make up my mind.

Parts changer... At least I have a good paying job. Do you?

I don't care if you copy and past, or explain it yourself. However, you claim the information that proves me wrong is out there, so I'm asking to see it. If you are unwilling or incapable of showing me the errors of my ways, then don't expect me to take your word for it.

You think you haven't made up your mind? You look for ways to validate what you believe even if you don't understand what the hell you're saying. Anyone here can see this. Well except for Darrin but thats a :lol all on its own.

:lmao @ you saying you're not going to take my word for it. I've never once asked you to take my word for it. You on the other hand (wind stoppage LOL) do it all the time.

BTW, I both attend school and have a well paying job. Thanks for your concern, parts changer.

Damn Fuzzy, best nickname ever. I feel I owe you royalties everytime I use it.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 11:53 AM

Spectroscopic proof of CO2 forcing wasn't specific enough for you? :lol

Who do you think you're fooling, WC?

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 11:58 AM

Lets consider the worse case scenario that CO2 is assumed to play as a percentage of the greenhouse effect. This would be 26%. Now I believe that number to be around 10% or less, but I'll humor the 26%, and the 9% to 26% range is consensus. We also know that the greenhouse effect is about 33 degrees. If we take 26% of 33, we get a radiative forcing of 8.58 degrees. Now if we assume that to be true at a level of 380 ppm, what do we get? If we use James Hansen's algorithm for CO2, for his calculations to equal 8.58 degrees at 380 ppm, the constant value "α" needs to be 1.2026 for temperature. The 3.35 value is for radiative forcing in watts per square meter. A doubling of CO2 then by his formula yields a 1.42 degree increase. A bit short of the IPCC's 1.5 to 3 degree for doubling. Scientists give the low end of CO2 percentage as 9%. If we do the same thing, with Hansen's formula, 9% of 33 is only 2.97 degrees. We get an "α" value of 0.4163 and a doubling value of 0.49 degrees. If we accept Hansen's formula and the 9% to 26% rage, the truth must lie somewhere between. These ranges correspond to a 0.22 degree increase at 9% and a 0.64 degree increase at 26%, for a change from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.

K, lets start here. Give me sources for your figures please.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 12:01 PM

Spectroscopic proof of CO2 forcing wasn't specific enough for you? :lol

Who do you think you're fooling, WC?
It's not quantified. I have never said CO2 does not cause warming, or that increased CO2 does not increase warming. I disagree with the claims of how much warming it causes, and nobody ever, I mean ever, has been able to direct me to such proof. Yes, I have also looked. So if you have proof, please show me.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 12:03 PM

K, lets start here. Give me sources for your figures please.OK, may take several minutes too look them up.

I expect you to look up the information you claim exists too.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 12:11 PM

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 12:19 PM

Things such as this, WC.

Sure, when mankind was coming out of the ice age, we emitted almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. Now we emit about 2% of the sourced CO2.

Sure - we emit 2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, but what is important is how much of it REMAINS in the atmosphere unlike the vast majority of natural emissions which are removed.

You say we only add 2% yet later on in the same fucking post you add this:

These ranges correspond to a 0.22 degree increase at 9% and a 0.64 degree increase at 26%, for a change from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.

So - we only add 2% yet we've seen a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? Hmm, I wonder where all that extra CO2 came from!

LnGrrrR

10-12-2010, 12:49 PM

Actually, science strives to advance so we can know 100%, and if the Sun is not to rise tomorrow, the causes of why it won't with 100% certainty.

Doesn't mean we don't use theories if they have a high degree of plausibility even if they're not verifiable at this time (Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind). However, science doesn't stop poking holes at it and doesn't stop trying to verify as we advance the sciences. For example, we now know that some of the relativity rules seem not to apply on the quantum domain.

I think in this arena, due to the sheer volume of data and possible interactions, working at the micro level will help a lot to eventually expand to the macro level. It's difficult enough to build a predictive model nowadays that can tell you what the climate is going to be like 7 days from now at a given place with any high degree of accuracy. It's probably much better than it was 20 years ago. And it most likely will be more accurate 20 years from now. But I think advances in this micro level is what eventually will provide a better understanding of the macro level.

ElNoNo, I think you're pretty much describing exactly what I was trying to say. But for some things, we'll never have 100% certainty, for instance, the rise of life on this planet. Even if recreated the conditions that we believed to be primal earth, and created life ourselves, it doesn't 100% mean that's how WE were created. The same goes with large scale arenas like you talk about, where there are so many factors that it's nigh impossible to say X action caused Y event. That's what I was getting at about science not always having/needing 100% certainty.

LnGrrrR

10-12-2010, 12:56 PM

Other than conspiring to hide data, skirt freedom of information laws, and alter the peer review process, there's no conspiracy.

I didn't realize that all scientists were involved in the same scheme to hide the same data, skirt the same FOIA laws, and alter the peer review process. I guess that's easy to do when you lump all scientists together.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 12:58 PM

Here are some references:

Hansen's formula that I showed in graphics for is from the IPCC TAR. The link is at the bottom of the graphic. It is on page 358, in Chapter 6.

Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budge (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.831&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

On page 203, you will find the clear skies effect of H2O at 60%, CO2 at 26%, O3 at 8%, and CH4 + N2O at 6%. This material has other useful information.

Even in RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/), they cite the 9% to 26%.figure.

Wiki: Greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#cite_note-kiehl197-12) uses the 9% to 26% numbers:

* water vapor, 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, 9–26%
* methane, 4–9%
* ozone, 3–7%

Wiki actually has a decent amount of basic information on the topic, but far from complete. The 14 to 15 and 32 to 33 degree rage for average temperature and warming effect is universally accepted. Notice, I used the higher 15/33 degree to favor the AGW contention.

The calculations are Hansen's formula placed into Excel. The constant "α" value changed to suit the results.

These numbers are found in various literature's, I don't understand why you ask where they come from. If you know the topic as you claim, you have seen them repeatedly.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 01:00 PM

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 01:13 PM

I honestly don't give a shit what you expect. The spectroscopic information is a one JSTOR search away for you. Have fun. I'm not interested in proving anything to you any longer as its blatantly clear that you're not going to believe any of it.

However, I do have an entertainment interest in completely shredding the bullshit you spew.
Liar. You are just incapable of expressing your viewpoint with any valid data.

JSTOR searches are difficult at best to find a specific topic. A simple search often reveals 15,000+ results. I got a search down to 120 results. Think I'm going to take the time to go through 120 documents?

Which are you. An ignorant idiot, or a devilish asshole?

If you know what you say to be true, you should be able to find it. After-all, it's me dealing in pseudo science, and not you, right?

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 01:15 PM

I've looked at the documents many times today. Very easy to find. If you can't find them then I find it laughable especially considering who the source of the discontent over this is.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 01:17 PM

Things such as this, WC.

Sure - we emit 2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, but what is important is how much of it REMAINS in the atmosphere unlike the vast majority of natural emissions which are removed.

You say we only add 2% yet later on in the same fucking post you add this:

-my quote-

So - we only add 2% yet we've seen a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? Hmm, I wonder where all that extra CO2 came from!
Please don't tell me you're that dumb. If so why am I wasting my time on you?

We see an added level of CO2 each year because the total sources are more than the total sinks.

Is that simple enough?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 01:17 PM

I've looked at the documents many times today. Very easy to find. If you can't find them then I find it laughable especially considering who the source of the discontent over this is.
Then if you were just there, show me a link.

I guess you haven't found anything to disprove my points, else you would be fast to link it.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Manny...

You do have a history function on your browser don't you?

I guess the Dog is running away with his tail tucked...

RandomGuy

10-12-2010, 02:09 PM

But that is the case isn't it? Look at Cryophere (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) if you want to see sea ice changes. I have read some time back that Antarctica is not losing net glacier ice, but I don't have those references handy. Comparing the sea ice should be good enough.

Long term trend, 1979 to 2008:
[images omitted for brevity's sake. they do indicate a greater loss of sea ice from northern areas than southern pole-RG]

That is the first step towards proving the hypothesis concerning soot.

One then would have to take some measurements of soot and then show a correlating increase.

That is the first step, in supporting the hypothesis.

Do you have that data then?

RandomGuy

10-12-2010, 02:13 PM

DarrinS

10-12-2010, 02:28 PM

This is TRUE science

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”

“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

“I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"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 !"

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that."

FuzzyLumpkins

10-12-2010, 02:35 PM

Your posts are quite comedic.

No shit he makes a claim and then when you want him to qualify it he tells you to back up his claim. Its a joke really.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 02:44 PM

That is the first step towards proving the hypothesis concerning soot.

One then would have to take some measurements of soot and then show a correlating increase.

That is the first step, in supporting the hypothesis.

Do you have that data then?
NASA has a whole series of articles on the topic. So do other scientific outlets.

Try this; Google: black carbon on ice (http://www.google.com/search?q=Bolshevist+Communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,17315,22881,23628,23670,23945,2 5532,25646,25834,26328,26746,26761,26849&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=black+carbon+on+ice&cp=19&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=black+carbon+on+ice&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Here's one of interest:

Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/4559/2010/acp-10-4559-2010.pdf)

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 02:47 PM

Also, concerning soot as opposed to CO2 and other gases:

If CO2 levels continue to climb, while soot does not, we would expect, if CO2 were a larger driver than soot, to see continuing steady increases in ice melts.

The heating effects of the soot would, I imagine, disappear once the ice melts, and the soot is absorbed by the oceans.

nes pa?
Except that CO2 gets very little long wave radiative forcing from cold ice, to remit as heat. Black carbon differs in that it directly absorbs heat from the sun rather than reflecting it, and is a nearly perfect black body radiator vs. ice, a very poor black body radiator. Clean ice and high CO2 isn't a match for carbon covered ice and low CO2. The amount of soot doesn't even need to be readily visible.

Even in the dark, the added carbon, as a black-body radiator, sends far more heat upward into the greenhouse effect as clean ice does.

Ever study how black body radiators work? The emissivity of ice and black carbon are dramatically different.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-12-2010, 02:50 PM

NASA has a whole series of articles on the topic. So do other scientific outlets.

Try this; Google: black carbon on ice (http://www.google.com/search?q=Bolshevist+Communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,17315,22881,23628,23670,23945,2 5532,25646,25834,26328,26746,26761,26849&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=black+carbon+on+ice&cp=19&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=black+carbon+on+ice&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Here's one of interest:

Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/4559/2010/acp-10-4559-2010.pdf)

Once again you are supposed to support partschanger's argument for him. I looked at few of those links and I saw a bunch of theoretical mechanics and very little data.

RandomGuy

10-12-2010, 02:53 PM

NASA has a whole series of articles on the topic.

NASA is an authority to be cited with great caution.

:lol

That was too good to pass up.

RandomGuy

10-12-2010, 02:58 PM

NASA has a whole series of articles on the topic. So do other scientific outlets.

Try this; Google: black carbon on ice (http://www.google.com/search?q=Bolshevist+Communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,17315,22881,23628,23670,23945,2 5532,25646,25834,26328,26746,26761,26849&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=black+carbon+on+ice&cp=19&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=black+carbon+on+ice&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9f2370386c77b788)

Here's one of interest:

Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/4559/2010/acp-10-4559-2010.pdf)

None of which provides me with data on soot levels at the poles.

(note "third polar ice cap" refers to the Himalayas)

One would also want to measure the albedo of the ice.

Do you have that data or not?

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 03:49 PM

None of which provides me with data on soot levels at the poles.

(note "third polar ice cap" refers to the Himalayas)

One would also want to measure the albedo of the ice.

Do you have that data or not?
I don't have quantified data. I am not making claims as to the extent other than research I already provided. What are you attempting to do? I already provided data from links in past threads.

And yes, I know the "third pole reference." I read that article already in the past. If you recall, the Himalayas is one of the AGW scare tactics, but they claim CO2 rather than BC.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2010, 04:00 PM

Manny...

You do have a history function on your browser don't you?

I guess the Dog is running away with his tail tucked...

Sorry I can't be here to laugh at you 24/7 but I had a calc exam and a envi sci exam.

However, now that I'm back Ill resuming laughing.

LOL @ you citing NASA data when you want and dismissing it when it doesn't agree with what you want it to.

I'd call you WildConformationBias if Part Changer wasn't so good.

Wild Cobra

10-12-2010, 04:31 PM

None of which provides me with data on soot levels at the poles.

(note "third polar ice cap" refers to the Himalayas)

One would also want to measure the albedo of the ice.

Do you have that data or not?
I'm not going to keep looking stuff up. You can probably find the data as easily as I can. I actually got the emissivity wrong for ice and snow. it is actually very high, which makes sense. This means it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily. that along with it's high albedo, ice can persist for a long time.

Emissivity

Ice 0.966 to 0.985

snow 0.96 to 1.00

water 0.95 to 0.963

black carbon 0.954 to 0.956

Wiki has this under Albedo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Albedo-e_hg.svg/500px-Albedo-e_hg.svg.png

I failed to find the albedo for BC in the time I gave myself. Another Hansen reference (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_10/) says it only takes a few billion parts per billion to decrease snow's albedo by 1%. It went on to give some approximates.

A soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) is needed to reduce snow albedo by 1%. We estimate that soot reduces snow albedos about 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas, 1.5% in the Arctic, and 0.6% in Greenland. Climate simulations show that this modest albedo effect would cause a global warming (see Fig. 3) that is more than a quarter of the warming observed in the past century (Fig. 4).

minor tangent...

I found this, and James Hansen surprises me. I have stated before, that left alone, he will spin what he finds, but here, he must have had others checking his work. I give you A BRIGHTER FUTURE
A Response to Don Wuebbles (Climatic Change, vol. 52, no. 4, 2002)
JAMES E. HANSEN
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, U.S.A. (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_1.pdf)

Black Carbon (BC). One of our assertions is that BC (soot) plays a greater role in climate change than has been appreciated. We believe that the forcing due to BC is of the order of 1 W/m2, rather than of the order of 0.1 W/m2, as assumed by IPCC (1996).

My present estimate for global climate forcings caused by BC is: (1) 0.4 ± 0.2 W/m2 direct effect, (2) 0.3 ± 0.3 W/m2 semi-direct effect (reduction of lowlevel clouds due to BC heating; Hansen et al., 1997), (3) 0.1 ± 0.05 W/m2 ‘dirty clouds’ due to BC droplet nuclei, (4) 0.2 ± 0.1 W/m2 snow and ice darkening due to BC deposition. These estimates will be discussed in a paper in preparation. The uncertainty estimates are subjective. The net BC forcing implied is 1 ± 0.5 W/m2.