|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 11:38:43 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 11:38:43 GMT
Wiggle watching again, huh? More on the oceans are cooling argument: www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htmBTW, if you take a look at the surface temperatures (e.g. climate4you.com/ , they have been falling and rising several times, but do show a general upward trend. (The downward trend has recently significantly reversed.) And Steve Sez: "There is no statistically significant loss of heat from the ocean. I have not seen a model diagnostic for ocean heat content, but a stable atmospheric temperature even for 10 years is in line with the performance of many models which show similar stable periods *despite* being forced by increasing CO2 and not including any other unknown forcings that might be influencing the real earth." Both of you are ignoring the obvious. The obvious is that there is no requirement for ocean cooling. The skeptic issue of missing heat isn't a claim the oceans have cooled. . . .instead its a claim the oceans have not warmed. . . .and if the oceans have not warmed then the IPCC AGW hypothesis is falsified. The heat that is missing apparently never existed. . . .unless of course you can point to it. After all according to the simple version of the AGW theory the sun shines on the good old earth and CO2 keeps it here. Arguing no statistically significant cooling is an argument for the status quo, not an argument for AGW or Schneider's last big panic an anthropogenic ice age. You guys though persist in intellectual dishonesty regarding the issue. There is no intellectual dishonesty, because it has been well explained how the results are obtained. You may agree with that method or not. It you have a better one, publish it. It has more to do with your limited understanding of AGW, I'm afraid. The exact magnitude and variations of the energy fluxes INSIDE the earth's system are however still poorly understood (this has lead to Trenberth's famous "it's a travisty" comment). This is why we are still having problems forecasting the internal variability of the earth (which is far more complex than a global average energy budget). It might take a very long time (if ever) for us to understand and predict them. A great puzzle indeed. Scientists should take care not to contribute too much certainty to forecasts of short term (decadal) and local climate variations. Without too much uncertainty it can only be said that the earth will likely warm the next century, and that the warming will be largest near the poles (especially the Arctic). If we become more specific than that, it will become rather tricky and uncertain.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 11:45:03 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 17, 2010 11:45:03 GMT
aj, If one removes the intellectual dishonesty of the AGW social movement, one would not have an AGW social movement. Actually, the results are not well explained. We do know that fraud and data abuse and cherry picking is involved. We do know that suppressing those who disagree with AGW's catastrophic idiocy is involved. We do know that true believers in AGW have no interest or apparent ability to critically think about AGW. But to call that well explained is to beg the question.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 12:01:39 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2010 12:01:39 GMT
Icefisher
What was that about intellectual dishonesty when you are saying a 2008 paper is out of date without providing a plot of your own!
Ignoring most of your witterings:
You've been going on about hidden reservoirs of heat. That shows you don't actually understand the proposition or don't care if you misstate the proposition. If you don't understand it then how can you call it hogwash? If you are deliberately misstating it then you are not honest.
If you ignore data you don't like. If you exaggerage some of the rises and falls in the data. If you forget that physics has anything to do with driving the climate then you might come to such a conclusion.
So a theory fails *even if* the models that are supposed to encapsulate the theory show something very similar to what has been observed?
It would be, *if* the lack of warming/cooling were not during the hottest decade in the obs record for definitely 600 years and, not improbably, 120,000 years.
Your problem is that you are dogmatically assuming you are right. All I'm trying to do is to persuade you to accept that you may be wrong. I will quite happily accept the possibility of low sensitivity. I just don't think it is worth the risk to *assume* it because low sensitivity is probably incorrect.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 15:20:06 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 17, 2010 15:20:06 GMT
And Steve Sez: "There is no statistically significant loss of heat from the ocean. I have not seen a model diagnostic for ocean heat content, but a stable atmospheric temperature even for 10 years is in line with the performance of many models which show similar stable periods *despite* being forced by increasing CO2 and not including any other unknown forcings that might be influencing the real earth." Both of you are ignoring the obvious. The obvious is that there is no requirement for ocean cooling. The skeptic issue of missing heat isn't a claim the oceans have cooled. . . .instead its a claim the oceans have not warmed. . . .and if the oceans have not warmed then the IPCC AGW hypothesis is falsified. The heat that is missing apparently never existed. . . .unless of course you can point to it. After all according to the simple version of the AGW theory the sun shines on the good old earth and CO2 keeps it here. Arguing no statistically significant cooling is an argument for the status quo, not an argument for AGW or Schneider's last big panic an anthropogenic ice age. You guys though persist in intellectual dishonesty regarding the issue. There is no intellectual dishonesty, because it has been well explained how the results are obtained. You may agree with that method or not. It you have a better one, publish it. It has more to do with your limited understanding of AGW, I'm afraid. The exact magnitude and variations of the energy fluxes INSIDE the earth's system are however still poorly understood (this has lead to Trenberth's famous "it's a travisty" comment). This is why we are still having problems forecasting the internal variability of the earth (which is far more complex than a global average energy budget). It might take a very long time (if ever) for us to understand and predict them. A great puzzle indeed. Scientists should take care not to contribute too much certainty to forecasts of short term (decadal) and local climate variations. Without too much uncertainty it can only be said that the earth will likely warm the next century, and that the warming will be largest near the poles (especially the Arctic). If we become more specific than that, it will become rather tricky and uncertain. That is complete rubbish Steve you did not even reply to the charge of intellectual dishonesty creating another intellectually dishonest reply in the process. I agree you know little about climate but would challenge you to provide any evidence that your climate ignorance is confined to "internal variability". According to the so-called simple theory the earth should be gaining heat every day, yet you cannot point to where it resides. For all you know it blew right past that CO2 back into space falsifying your belief. Or at least that is what all our monitoring suggests. There is no evidence it still is internal; thus there is no evidence your detailed explanation of how the results were obtained is anything but you bloviating. So you are left with a theory without a shred of empirical evidence it it is correct. You reply I should build my own theory. That's hilarious. I suppose like you I should find a wood soap box so I can extoll its virtues in the public park as well. LOL! About all I can agree with is it is likely it will get warmer. But Akasofu, Easterbrook, and just about everybody you try to refute agrees with that Steve. That is not a unique position relevant to this debate. Inductive logic postulates that the future will be like the past and since it has been getting warmer for a few hundred years its a good bet it will continue to do so until it changes direction again. . . .whenever.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 16:07:54 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2010 16:07:54 GMT
Icefisher,
That was aj1983, not me.
According to the theory, the earth warms if it receive more energy than it radiates to space. The amount of energy it receives is dependent on the strength of the Sun and on the amount of energy that is reflected by the earth (albedo). The amount of energy it radiates depends on the temperature of the surface and atmosphere, and on the make up of the surface and the atmosphere.
Variability causes the radiation to go below or above the average for long periods even in absence of changes in the atmospheric constituents. Probably, the longer term (decadal) variability is driven by ocean currents affecting clouds, winds, humiditiy, atmospheric temperatures that in turn affect outgoing radiation and albedo.
CO2 is one of the components that make up the atmosphere. If that goes up, it increases the likelihood of the radiation going below the average.
So it is incorrect to say that the theory predicts monotonical build-up of energy in the earth's system.
It is also incorrect to say that there is no empirical evidence, given that the planet has on the whole warmed since we started pumping out CO2.
My issue with Akasofu is that the plot he uses to illustrate his position is clearly junk.
The empirical evidence for PDO driving temperature seems decidedly weak given that it just keeps warming and never seems to cool much (unless you believe the Akasofu plot that is, which I don't).
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 17, 2010 23:28:29 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 17, 2010 23:28:29 GMT
There is no intellectual dishonesty, because it has been well explained how the results are obtained. You may agree with that method or not. It you have a better one, publish it. It has more to do with your limited understanding of AGW, I'm afraid. The exact magnitude and variations of the energy fluxes INSIDE the earth's system are however still poorly understood (this has lead to Trenberth's famous "it's a travisty" comment). This is why we are still having problems forecasting the internal variability of the earth (which is far more complex than a global average energy budget). It might take a very long time (if ever) for us to understand and predict them. A great puzzle indeed. Scientists should take care not to contribute too much certainty to forecasts of short term (decadal) and local climate variations. Without too much uncertainty it can only be said that the earth will likely warm the next century, and that the warming will be largest near the poles (especially the Arctic). If we become more specific than that, it will become rather tricky and uncertain. That is complete rubbish Steve you did not even reply to the charge of intellectual dishonesty creating another intellectually dishonest reply in the process. I agree you know little about climate but would challenge you to provide any evidence that your climate ignorance is confined to "internal variability". According to the so-called simple theory the earth should be gaining heat every day, yet you cannot point to where it resides. For all you know it blew right past that CO2 back into space falsifying your belief. Or at least that is what all our monitoring suggests. There is no evidence it still is internal; thus there is no evidence your detailed explanation of how the results were obtained is anything but you bloviating. So you are left with a theory without a shred of empirical evidence it it is correct. You reply I should build my own theory. That's hilarious. I suppose like you I should find a wood soap box so I can extoll its virtues in the public park as well. LOL! About all I can agree with is it is likely it will get warmer. But Akasofu, Easterbrook, and just about everybody you try to refute agrees with that Steve. That is not a unique position relevant to this debate. Inductive logic postulates that the future will be like the past and since it has been getting warmer for a few hundred years its a good bet it will continue to do so until it changes direction again. . . .whenever. icefisher: It is interesting that you accuse an atmospheric scientist of being ignorant of atmospheric science. I find it saddening and worrisome that you think I am being dishonest . BTW, my opinion of "little knowledge" applies to all fields of science. It is quite useless to discuss the science with you, because from your post it is quite clear that you do not seem to understand the basics. Else you would have understood that it is easier to make a physical model of a complete system, than of it's interactions between parts. Actually, many interactions are known, but we can not monitor all the energy flows in the earth-atmosphere system. The inductive logic is interesting. We've had several centuries of warming, so the warming should continue. Until it reverses of course. I find it more likely that if a balance exists, if we have a prolongued period of warming it becomes increasingly likely that it will cool soon . AGW tells us that it will not reverse any soon, if averaged over several decades. I'm surprised that you think the warming will continue (if I understand it correctly), because I can imagine why people who discard AGW think we will see cooling, currently and in the coming decades. Many skeptics think it will become colder next decades, so again I'm surprised you state that most people think the warming will continue. Anyway, they are on the right track then . If the warming stops or reverses for many decades, then AGW is in trouble. If you don't agree with that, you should improve your knowledge of AGW. It might be interesting for you to know and understand what it is that you don't agree with. A general upward trend with lots of wobbles (caused by internal variability and external (solar/space) forcings) is to be expected from our current knowledge. Anyway, there are always scientists who disagree with any theory you can find. Who will use different date sets or parts of data sets to point out their views. They might be right (not likely though), usually time will tell.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 18, 2010 0:08:53 GMT
Post by magellan on Mar 18, 2010 0:08:53 GMT
That is complete rubbish Steve you did not even reply to the charge of intellectual dishonesty creating another intellectually dishonest reply in the process. I agree you know little about climate but would challenge you to provide any evidence that your climate ignorance is confined to "internal variability". According to the so-called simple theory the earth should be gaining heat every day, yet you cannot point to where it resides. For all you know it blew right past that CO2 back into space falsifying your belief. Or at least that is what all our monitoring suggests. There is no evidence it still is internal; thus there is no evidence your detailed explanation of how the results were obtained is anything but you bloviating. So you are left with a theory without a shred of empirical evidence it it is correct. You reply I should build my own theory. That's hilarious. I suppose like you I should find a wood soap box so I can extoll its virtues in the public park as well. LOL! About all I can agree with is it is likely it will get warmer. But Akasofu, Easterbrook, and just about everybody you try to refute agrees with that Steve. That is not a unique position relevant to this debate. Inductive logic postulates that the future will be like the past and since it has been getting warmer for a few hundred years its a good bet it will continue to do so until it changes direction again. . . .whenever. icefisher: It is interesting that you accuse an atmospheric scientist of being ignorant of atmospheric science. I find it saddening and worrisome that you think I am being dishonest . BTW, my opinion of "little knowledge" applies to all fields of science. It is quite useless to discuss the science with you, because from your post it is quite clear that you do not seem to understand the basics. Else you would have understood that it is easier to make a physical model of a complete system, than of it's interactions between parts. Actually, many interactions are known, but we can not monitor all the energy flows in the earth-atmosphere system. The inductive logic is interesting. We've had several centuries of warming, so the warming should continue. Until it reverses of course. I find it more likely that if a balance exists, if we have a prolongued period of warming it becomes increasingly likely that it will cool soon . AGW tells us that it will not reverse any soon, if averaged over several decades. I'm surprised that you think the warming will continue (if I understand it correctly), because I can imagine why people who discard AGW think we will see cooling, currently and in the coming decades. Many skeptics think it will become colder next decades, so again I'm surprised you state that most people think the warming will continue. Anyway, they are on the right track then . If the warming stops or reverses for many decades, then AGW is in trouble. If you don't agree with that, you should improve your knowledge of AGW. It might be interesting for you to know and understand what it is that you don't agree with. A general upward trend with lots of wobbles (caused by internal variability and external (solar/space) forcings) is to be expected from our current knowledge. Anyway, there are always scientists who disagree with any theory you can find. Who will use different date sets or parts of data sets to point out their views. They might be right (not likely though), usually time will tell. steve says 10 years is not long enough to evaluate "climate change", yet Hansen 2005 specifically states OHC is the true metric to measure radiative imbalance and the effects of AGW for that matter and that 10 years was plenty long enough. So does Pielke and most others. IPCC AR4 relied heavily on that 2005 paper. Isn't it obvious the atmosphere plays second fiddle to the oceans with respect to heat content, which is really what this is all about? Look closely, its hard to miss. What do you think of this statement by Josh Willis: “The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming. If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.” Once again. I've yet to see a satisfactory response to what the data shows since 2003. Steve's arms are waiving so fast they are a blur. If the "lull" is caused by natural variation, then it must be quantified. Saying things like nobody said there were be a monotonic rise in OHC is a copout. Clearly Hansen et al were way off. What is the reason? Now as we observe this El Nino release immense quantities of heat, what do you think the net result will be in OHC? What is different now than in 1998? Look to the oceans. No matter what happens, AGW promoters always have an excuse to protect their irrefutable hypothesis.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 18, 2010 2:02:26 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 18, 2010 2:02:26 GMT
Magellan, you are quite right. If we can accurately measure OHC we would have the largest reservoir of energy on earth. It is unlikely that the TOTAL OHC shows very strong oscillations without the earth-atmosphere system loosing or gaining heat. However, the OHC as measured does show wobbles (e.g. from El Nino & volcanoes) possibly because we are not measuring the total OHC, or because of measuring errors. Much of it might also be real, a large variation in ocean surface temperatures changes the outgoing LW radiation. Several scientists and I do not agree with you that the OHC has been decreasing, especially not on the long term. For example, check www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htmor more specifically www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 18, 2010 2:22:57 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2010 2:22:57 GMT
Icefisher, That was aj1983, not me. According to the theory, the earth warms if it receive more energy than it radiates to space. The amount of energy it receives is dependent on the strength of the Sun and on the amount of energy that is reflected by the earth (albedo). The amount of energy it radiates depends on the temperature of the surface and atmosphere, and on the make up of the surface and the atmosphere. Variability causes the radiation to go below or above the average for long periods even in absence of changes in the atmospheric constituents. Probably, the longer term (decadal) variability is driven by ocean currents affecting clouds, winds, humiditiy, atmospheric temperatures that in turn affect outgoing radiation and albedo. CO2 is one of the components that make up the atmosphere. If that goes up, it increases the likelihood of the radiation going below the average. So it is incorrect to say that the theory predicts monotonical build-up of energy in the earth's system. It is also incorrect to say that there is no empirical evidence, given that the planet has on the whole warmed since we started pumping out CO2. My issue with Akasofu is that the plot he uses to illustrate his position is clearly junk. The empirical evidence for PDO driving temperature seems decidedly weak given that it just keeps warming and never seems to cool much (unless you believe the Akasofu plot that is, which I don't). "The empirical evidence for PDO driving temperature seems decidedly weak given that it just keeps warming and never seems to cool much (unless you believe the Akasofu plot that is, which I don't)"Who ever said the PDO drives all the temperature change? It seems it is your side that makes those kinds of outlandish claims that one factor is going to override a thousand other factors. Akasofu did not attempt to make a list of all the possibilities but neither did he implicate just one. "Variability causes the radiation to go below or above the average for long periods even in absence of changes in the atmospheric constituents."No doubt you can point to the passages in the IPCC documents that outlines this Steve. . . .huh? I don't see much in the way of ranges in Trenberth's piece of trash. "Probably, the longer term (decadal) variability is driven by ocean currents affecting clouds, winds, humiditiy, atmospheric temperatures that in turn affect outgoing radiation and albedo."
Hmmm, you seem in agreement with Akasofu on that one Steve. Why don't you acknowledge him being one of the early ones putting it in print? "It is also incorrect to say that there is no empirical evidence, given that the planet has on the whole warmed since we started pumping out CO2."You haven't produced an iota of empirical evidence that the underlying warming of .5degC per century started with anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Its hardly empirical evidence when warming has been occurring throughout the temperature record at a rather steady rate while CO2 emission rates have accelerated a at least a couple of factors of magnitude. I subscribe to the idea that about 1/2 of the next century prediction was made up of the accelerated warming of the last 2 decades coming from ocean oscillations. What is left amounts to the steady .5CdegC/century multi-centennial warming (which you seem to variously agree with and deny) What one might scrape out of all that is maybe an extra couple tenths of a degree in accelerated warming over the past century. Since in the data is largely controlled by dyed-in-the-wool snake oil salesmen profiting greatly on all this the source of any accelerated warming is a tossup between being caused by the Piltdown Man Society, a Solar Grand Maximum, UHI, and increases in CO2. I would wager each gets a piece of that, but I am not weighing in with a distribution until more work is done. Did you know that 70% of all businesses fail? Most in the first couple of years. Its not that they are run by idiots its just that running a business is far more complicated than it initially appears to be. I have seen your type all my life. Can't understand what went wrong after having such a great idea and working so hard and investing so much money. Usually it was a good idea they just missed something like sufficient and timely cashflow. You take a bunch of college professors, especially those in the big wide fields like ecology, sociology, climate, economics and the only complicated thing they ever did was spoon fed to them. Mostly they are overwhelmed with the breadth of the issues in front of them. . . .then something miraculous happens somebody introduces them to a computer. Finally a way to process and manage huge amounts of data. Heck we even built a financial system on it. But the problem is nobody has conceptually solved the riddle. Its mass GIGO!!! Oh yeah, CO2 has to account for something! And clearly it does. . . .some would call it progress.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 18, 2010 11:40:37 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 18, 2010 11:40:37 GMT
magellan
It's interesting that you seek to dwell on just one paper by Hansen. I think your position is lost if you take into account the full message in this and other papers on this subject. The key point is that the heat build up in the oceans has been ongoing for very many more than 10 years. If you recalculate Hansen's figure for a more "significant" period of, say, 30 years, the numbers are maybe 30% lower. But the numbers still give you the same message that there is a large increase in ocean heat content that is in line with model predictions.
Obviously you are happy to just look at the data that supports your view - ie. the last 6 years.
It is quite untrue that the IPCC AR4 report "relied heavily" on the Hansen paper. Absolute and utter bilge.
Again you are focussing over-much on the one metric that suits your position. It's one earth system. I absolutely agree that it seems unlikely that sustained atmospheric global warming can continue without OHC rising. But a 6-7 year period is not enough. I want to see *significant* reductions.
The "lull" is not quantified very well! The decadal forecast that was run in 2005 suggested that the lull would have been over a year or so ago. The same decadal forecast run recently says that is effectively over now and we should look forward to a resurgence in warming. I'm very interested to see what follows the current El Niño. My arms aren't waving. My chin is thoughtfully placed between my fingers and thumb.
Significant ocean cooling (say back to 2000 levels) would be a test for the theory, I suspect. So would a continuation of the lull in absence of a really really good explanation.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 18, 2010 11:54:06 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 18, 2010 11:54:06 GMT
Icefisher,
I don't need the IPCC to tell me this. It's obvious from looking at the data and applying a bit of basic physics common sense.
You've qualified your requirement for evidence so tightly because you know you are wrong. There is absolutely loads of empirical evidence that shows CO2 being a cause of warming. A prediction of warming followed by warming *is* empirical evidence especially when a lot of the early model predictions were made when it was thought that the climate had recently cooled (in the late 60's and 70's). Read Weart's Discovery of Global Warming to get a better picture.
I haven't seen anything go wrong yet except for a few PR disasters which will go away if as is likely the warming continues. As you say, many businesses *are* good ideas. But many fail because some rival businesses told better lies and bought more politicians.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 7:13:27 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 20, 2010 7:13:27 GMT
Icefisher, I don't need the IPCC to tell me this. It's obvious from looking at the data and applying a bit of basic physics common sense. You've qualified your requirement for evidence so tightly because you know you are wrong. There is absolutely loads of empirical evidence that shows CO2 being a cause of warming. A prediction of warming followed by warming *is* empirical evidence especially when a lot of the early model predictions were made when it was thought that the climate had recently cooled (in the late 60's and 70's). Read Weart's Discovery of Global Warming to get a better picture. I haven't seen anything go wrong yet except for a few PR disasters which will go away if as is likely the warming continues. As you say, many businesses *are* good ideas. But many fail because some rival businesses told better lies and bought more politicians. "You've qualified your requirement for evidence so tightly because you know you are wrong. There is absolutely loads of empirical evidence that shows CO2 being a cause of warming. A prediction of warming followed by warming *is* empirical evidence especially when a lot of the early model predictions were made when it was thought that the climate had recently cooled (in the late 60's and 70's). Read Weart's Discovery of Global Warming to get a better picture."I cannot let you get away with that Steve. Your experimental design is too simplistic as in -------------- Experiment A light bulb gets hot when power is applied I predict that the light coming on in this oven will heat this cup of water. Click - 30 seconds - click - see the water is warmer - QED A light bulb gets hot when power is applied Putting a ighbulb on inside a small metal box heats water Questioned Nezdnil a 'denier microwave fanatic' had to admit that bulbs did get hot and yes the bulb would transfer some heat to the cup of water. Therefore there is total scientific consensus that 25Watt light bulbs can be used to cook food in seconds. ---------------
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 16:37:11 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2010 16:37:11 GMT
AJ: "icefisher: It is interesting that you accuse an atmospheric scientist of being ignorant of atmospheric science."A college education isn't what it once was. Today there is a proliferation of "big picture" sciences, mostly designed for the less adept student that has problems with the true physical and biological sciences due to the chemistry, math, and physics requirements. I guess that is something that comes along with a society that thinks everybody should go to college. A nice analogy would be "agricultural science". Indeed agricultural scientists add a heckuva a lot to our ability to produce food. But is a college educated agricultural scientist the best candidate (thinking of Trofim Lysenko model here) for running farms? The answer is unequivocally NO! A farmer who is outdoor everyday running a farm is the best qualified guy to make the choices how the farm should be run. Now if a college educated guy wants to put in a 10 year apprenticeship running a farm. . . .well yeah that works. . . .but there is no question which part of his education is the most important and indeed both parts may contribute. So what does farm modeling get us? What it gets us is one thing. It gets us a bunch of ivory tower scientists telling farmers how to run their farms. But hey there are bigger fish to fry than farms. Thats especially true when all you are likely to get from above is some farmer lifting his middle finger at you. But hey there are politicians. Now there is an avenue. The only thing dumber about farms than a scientist is a politician. Enough on that. I find it saddening and worrisome that you think I am being dishonest .
The dishonesty is in the argument that my model must be right because you don't have a model. And oh I have a degree so you should respect my model. Sorry but I like to see models actually fly before I buy them and using "nauts" analogy. . . .simply because their is a light on in the microwave doesn't prove its the lightbulb that is heating the water. BTW, my opinion of "little knowledge" applies to all fields of science. It is quite useless to discuss the science with you, because from your post it is quite clear that you do not seem to understand the basics. Else you would have understood that it is easier to make a physical model of a complete system, than of it's interactions between parts. Actually, many interactions are known, but we can not monitor all the energy flows in the earth-atmosphere system. LOL! And most likely in such models. . . .when you launch it off the peak of the barn it hits the ground at the velocity generated by gravity. As the Wright Bros showed it was the 3rd control of controlling yaw that was needed while so many were just controlling pitch and roll. Can you imagine that! All those scientists building flying machines and never really carefully observing how flying objects actually rotate through air! Indeed the constituent parts are crucial. The inductive logic is interesting. We've had several centuries of warming, so the warming should continue. Until it reverses of course. I find it more likely that if a balance exists, if we have a prolongued period of warming it becomes increasingly likely that it will cool soon . Indeed but our ability to predict earthquakes is not significantly improved despite that knowledge. AGW tells us that it will not reverse any soon, if averaged over several decades. I'm surprised that you think the warming will continue (if I understand it correctly), because I can imagine why people who discard AGW think we will see cooling, currently and in the coming decades. Many skeptics think it will become colder next decades, so again I'm surprised you state that most people think the warming will continue. Anyway, they are on the right track then .I don't know what scientists you are talking about. I don't see predictions of significant cooling coming from Akasofu, Easterbrook, or Spencer. If the warming stops or reverses for many decades, then AGW is in trouble. If you don't agree with that, you should improve your knowledge of AGW. It might be interesting for you to know and understand what it is that you don't agree with. A general upward trend with lots of wobbles (caused by internal variability and external (solar/space) forcings) is to be expected from our current knowledge.You mean you have a theory and even if it is spinning like a top and accelerating towards earth under full power you aren't going to bail out as such stuff is to be expected since its a new theory that hasn't been fully tested? All the more power to you brother! Anyway, there are always scientists who disagree with any theory you can find. Who will use different date sets or parts of data sets to point out their views. They might be right (not likely though), usually time will tell.And a whole bunch of folks at the middle of all this that think the best course of action is to "hide the decline" in the evidence they are using to promote their theory since they obviously have no understanding of the decline.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 16:47:20 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 20, 2010 16:47:20 GMT
Icefisher, I don't need the IPCC to tell me this. It's obvious from looking at the data and applying a bit of basic physics common sense. You've qualified your requirement for evidence so tightly because you know you are wrong. There is absolutely loads of empirical evidence that shows CO2 being a cause of warming. A prediction of warming followed by warming *is* empirical evidence especially when a lot of the early model predictions were made when it was thought that the climate had recently cooled (in the late 60's and 70's). Read Weart's Discovery of Global Warming to get a better picture. I haven't seen anything go wrong yet except for a few PR disasters which will go away if as is likely the warming continues. As you say, many businesses *are* good ideas. But many fail because some rival businesses told better lies and bought more politicians. "You've qualified your requirement for evidence so tightly because you know you are wrong. There is absolutely loads of empirical evidence that shows CO2 being a cause of warming. A prediction of warming followed by warming *is* empirical evidence especially when a lot of the early model predictions were made when it was thought that the climate had recently cooled (in the late 60's and 70's). Read Weart's Discovery of Global Warming to get a better picture."I cannot let you get away with that Steve. Your experimental design is too simplistic as in -------------- Experiment A light bulb gets hot when power is applied I predict that the light coming on in this oven will heat this cup of water. Click - 30 seconds - click - see the water is warmer - QED A light bulb gets hot when power is applied Putting a ighbulb on inside a small metal box heats water Questioned Nezdnil a 'denier microwave fanatic' had to admit that bulbs did get hot and yes the bulb would transfer some heat to the cup of water. Therefore there is total scientific consensus that 25Watt light bulbs can be used to cook food in seconds. --------------- Magellan talks about me waving *my* arms. While I see veritable Mexican wave from you, Icefisher and Magellan. If I point out the empirical evidence, you complain that empirical evidence can be evidence for stupid beliefs. If I point out the physical evidence, you complain that there is no good *empirical* evidence. Meanwhile, any alternative belief that has neither empirical evidence nor physical evidence is considered acceptable.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 20, 2010 17:17:17 GMT
Post by aj1983 on Mar 20, 2010 17:17:17 GMT
AJ: "icefisher: It is interesting that you accuse an atmospheric scientist of being ignorant of atmospheric science."A college education isn't what it once was. Today there is a proliferation of "big picture" sciences, mostly designed for the less adept student that has problems with the true physical and biological sciences due to the chemistry, math, and physics requirements. I guess that is something that comes along with a society that thinks everybody should go to college. A nice analogy would be "agricultural science". Indeed agricultural scientists add a heckuva a lot to our ability to produce food. But is a college educated agricultural scientist the best candidate (thinking of Trofim Lysenko model here) for running farms? The answer is unequivocally NO! A farmer who is outdoor everyday running a farm is the best qualified guy to make the choices how the farm should be run. Now if a college educated guy wants to put in a 10 year apprenticeship running a farm. . . .well yeah that works. . . .but there is no question which part of his education is the most important and indeed both parts may contribute. So what does farm modeling get us? What it gets us is one thing. It gets us a bunch of ivory tower scientists telling farmers how to run their farms. But hey there are bigger fish to fry than farms. Thats especially true when all you are likely to get from above is some farmer lifting his middle finger at you. But hey there are politicians. Now there is an avenue. The only thing dumber about farms than a scientist is a politician. Enough on that. I find it saddening and worrisome that you think I am being dishonest .
The dishonesty is in the argument that my model must be right because you don't have a model. And oh I have a degree so you should respect my model. Sorry but I like to see models actually fly before I buy them and using "nauts" analogy. . . .simply because their is a light on in the microwave doesn't prove its the lightbulb that is heating the water. BTW, my opinion of "little knowledge" applies to all fields of science. It is quite useless to discuss the science with you, because from your post it is quite clear that you do not seem to understand the basics. Else you would have understood that it is easier to make a physical model of a complete system, than of it's interactions between parts. Actually, many interactions are known, but we can not monitor all the energy flows in the earth-atmosphere system. LOL! And most likely in such models. . . .when you launch it off the peak of the barn it hits the ground at the velocity generated by gravity. As the Wright Bros showed it was the 3rd control of controlling yaw that was needed while so many were just controlling pitch and roll. Can you imagine that! All those scientists building flying machines and never really carefully observing how flying objects actually rotate through air! Indeed the constituent parts are crucial. The inductive logic is interesting. We've had several centuries of warming, so the warming should continue. Until it reverses of course. I find it more likely that if a balance exists, if we have a prolongued period of warming it becomes increasingly likely that it will cool soon . Indeed but our ability to predict earthquakes is not significantly improved despite that knowledge. AGW tells us that it will not reverse any soon, if averaged over several decades. I'm surprised that you think the warming will continue (if I understand it correctly), because I can imagine why people who discard AGW think we will see cooling, currently and in the coming decades. Many skeptics think it will become colder next decades, so again I'm surprised you state that most people think the warming will continue. Anyway, they are on the right track then .I don't know what scientists you are talking about. I don't see predictions of significant cooling coming from Akasofu, Easterbrook, or Spencer. If the warming stops or reverses for many decades, then AGW is in trouble. If you don't agree with that, you should improve your knowledge of AGW. It might be interesting for you to know and understand what it is that you don't agree with. A general upward trend with lots of wobbles (caused by internal variability and external (solar/space) forcings) is to be expected from our current knowledge.You mean you have a theory and even if it is spinning like a top and accelerating towards earth under full power you aren't going to bail out as such stuff is to be expected since its a new theory that hasn't been fully tested? All the more power to you brother! Anyway, there are always scientists who disagree with any theory you can find. Who will use different date sets or parts of data sets to point out their views. They might be right (not likely though), usually time will tell.And a whole bunch of folks at the middle of all this that think the best course of action is to "hide the decline" in the evidence they are using to promote their theory since they obviously have no understanding of the decline. Wow, you seem to be judging people based on very little or no information... What exactly do you know about what I have studied and the quality of it? Nothing. If you have any more arguments based on nothing, let us known in advance, that would be more honest. BTW you need a degree in physics or math to do a master in atmospheric physics here. That's a nice spin to it (that I'm dishonest, because I have a model (I do not) and you don't, and I have a degree in physics (actually, not yet) so I must be right. Where did I say something like that? And does that have to do with other climate scientists in general? I did say that I find it interesting that you accuse an atmospheric physicist of being ignorant of atmospheric physics. I still do. It seems like you don't know the basics of AGW, because the way you describe your "simple model" (whatever that may be) has nothing to do with AGW. And, to go on with your reasoning, we don't know the exact internal variability, so we also don't know the general energy balance. That's like saying we don't know the details, so we have no idea of the general picture... Your statement that you believe that there is no empirical evidence for AGW reinforces my belief that you don't know the basics of AGW. I do not understand why you come up the the current inpredictability of earthquakes. There are many other things that are inpredictable in nature. BTW farming is quite different than climate physics, in case you haven't noticed. I was not talking about scientists, but about skeptics. Read any skeptical blog (this one is a good example) and you'll find a lot of people talking about global cooling, which just isn't happening. I'm not going to respond to any of the other statements you made (and probably will not do that in the future, or we'll only spoil time discussing nothing), because they have completely nothing to do with science or with what I have been stating. If you want to discuss the science of AGW, please let me know. If you do so, please study the theory somewhat, so that you know what you are disagreeing with.
|
|