|
Post by icefisher on Mar 29, 2010 23:05:00 GMT
So what would your definition of "direct evidence of AGW" entail? How about a 150 year model run that correlates with observations? What has been offered is a model created at year 120 with observations on the cusp of being outside the error bars within 10 years. In 2000 the models were paraded out with much hoopla about how all the warming we have been seeing was completely unnatural, not even one year goes by and the models are off track to which folks now say that natural cooling may have been underestimated. I would say "Yeah!" and ask what evidence you have that the natural warming component wasn't also similarly underestimated? Since it is obvious you can't answer that question then how about checking back in about 30 years with new comparisons of observations to the model runs?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 30, 2010 0:43:29 GMT
Creationists often use a little debate trick where they demand evidence of transitional fossils. When you present them with such examples, at great time expense to yourself, they swiftly deny each in turn is a transitional fossil. After a while they announce that their "challenge" hasn't been met and therefore evolution is evidenceless. The trick I eventually learned was not to provide them with any evidence up front, they simply deny it. What you do instead is to force them to be more specific. Just ask them: What would a transitional fossil look like? It would be a wonderful analogy if you weren't on the side that can't be falsified and never even established what the ACTUAL forcing is. Since the water cycle involves a substantial amount of energy (most of it, actually) and it is readily admitted that this aspect is poorly understood...it is impossible to know what the forcing of CO2 is in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Mar 30, 2010 21:25:33 GMT
It appears both you and John Cook don't know what direct evidence means. Nothing that he has posted has ever met the qualification. Creationists often use a little debate trick where they demand evidence of transitional fossils. When you present them with such examples, at great time expense to yourself, they swiftly deny each in turn is a transitional fossil. After a while they announce that their "challenge" hasn't been met and therefore evolution is evidenceless. The trick I eventually learned was not to provide them with any evidence up front, they simply deny it. What you do instead is to force them to be more specific. Just ask them: What would a transitional fossil look like? And you know what? most of them bail out. They mumble some excuses and go running. Because they know if they provide a definition, they risk such an example being provided which they can hardly then deny is transitional. Their other alternative is to strive to make an absurdly extreme definition that can't possibly be met. But to do that they expose their ploy because absurd definitions expose the mockery of their challenge. So it strikes me that to save myself time I can just use a similar method here, you know just to be on the safe side. I mean maybe you are asking for "direct evidence" because you want to find it, or maybe it's just one of those "challenges". Either way it makes sense for me to ask you to explain what kind of direct evidence would satisfy you. So what would your definition of "direct evidence of AGW" entail? socold, From reading your post it appears that you believe strongly in the theory of evolution and would discount any role for “creation” or intelligent design concepts in explaining life, existence, the universe, etc. (FWIW – I tend to agree, esp as it relates to strict creationists assertions but I leave the door open for some intelligent design concepts. It’s too bad that this field of inquiry is as politicized and controlled, by evolutionists, as the climate inquiry is controlled by the AGWers. But I digress.) What I find interesting, from a metaphysical perspective, is that on the one hand you appear to believe that life, in all of its complexity and diversity “evolved” in a decidedly stochastic system from a series of random events, a “random walk” if you will, in the absence of any intelligent cause or creation. Yet when it comes to climate you believe that recently observed minor changes, over a very short time period must be caused by mans’ incremental addition of a naturally occurring, essential for life, always been here compound and totally reject the idea that the observed changes are merely the result of random events in a highly complex system. It’s probably just me but these seem to be quite contradictory lines of belief. Perhaps others can help answer your question about “direct evidence of AGW”, I’m drawing a blank – maybe because there isn’t any to point to as an example ( ;D sorry I couldn’t help myself). Back on topic … I have a couple of toss-up questions that have been bugging me, any opinions, references to studies or such that you or others have would be appreciated. 1.) What is the nature of latent heat of condensation and solidification of water? I assume that it takes the form of long-wave radiation and that it’s spectrum would be consistent with H-O bond vibration/rotation and/or hydrogen bonding, but I’ve been unable to find any info on this in my internet searches. 2.) Given CO2 solubility in water, what impact if any do rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere have on the formation of aqueous aerosols or cloud formation?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2010 22:16:03 GMT
Steve, Not speaking for magellan, but I find that when I am speaking with AGW true beleivers, and ask them what would it take for their theory to be falsified, I either get blank stares or am told that it would require for someone to discover new physical laws. The theory offers some quite clear projections of the future. If those projections don't pan out (which takes time to assertain with confidence) then the underlying theory is falsified. I would look to ocean heat content as a key means of potential falsification. A kind of sudden falsification could occur if good resolution paleodata was found that was incompatible with high climate sensitivity (eg finding a large co2 spike but no temperature, of course that's hard because co2 rarely suddenly spikes of it's own accord)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2010 22:29:52 GMT
What I find interesting, from a metaphysical perspective, is that on the one hand you appear to believe that life, in all of its complexity and diversity “evolved” in a decidedly stochastic system from a series of random events, a “random walk” if you will, in the absence of any intelligent cause or creation. Yet when it comes to climate you believe that recently observed minor changes, over a very short time period must be caused by mans’ incremental addition of a naturally occurring, essential for life, always been here compound and totally reject the idea that the observed changes are merely the result of random events in a highly complex system. It’s probably just me but these seem to be quite contradictory lines of belief. I don't believe either cases are random. I think the changes can be explained as cause and effect. If we had no knowledge of past or recent climate changes then they would indeed appear indistinguishable. Just as the emergence of dozens of dog breeds looks indistinguishable to natural selection. But we could still distinguish different causes behind all these seperate events despite the events being very similar. It's in trying to determine the causes of recent warming science is leaning heavily towards human involvement explaining much of it in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 31, 2010 0:34:36 GMT
Steve, Not speaking for magellan, but I find that when I am speaking with AGW true beleivers, and ask them what would it take for their theory to be falsified, I either get blank stares or am told that it would require for someone to discover new physical laws. The theory offers some quite clear projections of the future. If those projections don't pan out (which takes time to assertain with confidence) then the underlying theory is falsified. I would look to ocean heat content as a key means of potential falsification. A kind of sudden falsification could occur if good resolution paleodata was found that was incompatible with high climate sensitivity (eg finding a large co2 spike but no temperature, of course that's hard because co2 rarely suddenly spikes of it's own accord) Thank you for reasonable answers. Which projections do you find particularly important, and what time frames do you believe are involved?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 1, 2010 8:46:27 GMT
Now this is likely an effect that's hit my region specifically due to the change in the currents but...I've noticed that night time temperatures here are almost always lower than the weather.com stated lows. On many occasions it's even sufficient to drop temperatures below freezing. Before the PDO change the temperatures were generally correct...with the only deviation I noticed being the local environment stubbornly avoiding most drops below freezing.
A question occurs to me. What if impact of GCRs on clouds...is more neutral. What if it promotes cloud formation on the sunlit side...where there is abundant energy to replace the precipitating moisture) and depletion of atmospheric water levels (and therefore a slight lowering of cloud cover/latent heat) on the dark side of the earth?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 1, 2010 13:05:37 GMT
What I find interesting, from a metaphysical perspective, is that on the one hand you appear to believe that life, in all of its complexity and diversity “evolved” in a decidedly stochastic system from a series of random events, a “random walk” if you will, in the absence of any intelligent cause or creation. Yet when it comes to climate you believe that recently observed minor changes, over a very short time period must be caused by mans’ incremental addition of a naturally occurring, essential for life, always been here compound and totally reject the idea that the observed changes are merely the result of random events in a highly complex system. It’s probably just me but these seem to be quite contradictory lines of belief. I don't believe either cases are random. I think the changes can be explained as cause and effect. If we had no knowledge of past or recent climate changes then they would indeed appear indistinguishable. Just as the emergence of dozens of dog breeds looks indistinguishable to natural selection. But we could still distinguish different causes behind all these separate events despite the events being very similar. It's in trying to determine the causes of recent warming science is leaning heavily towards human involvement explaining much of it in my opinion. Quick question- do you think cause and effect precludes random or chaotic?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 5, 2010 11:59:56 GMT
"Science" doesn't lean heavily. That is nonsense. That is using "Science" as if it is some absolute. The word is just "knowledge".
What you (I assume mean) is that mankind's accumulated knowledge "leans" heavily. That is also nonsense.
Our collected knowledge is nothing more than (and nothing less than) data and a multiplicity of competing theories collected over many centuries. In every area of science there are competing ideas and theories - often over the details, but competing nevertheless. That is how science progresses - by the competition of different ideas. In some cases, the arguments are extremely heated over the tiniest details, but such is the way of it.
Those that prove useful, i.e. have some semblance to reality, may be accepted by many for a time.
It has always been true that the new ideas are often excluded until enough evidence of usefulness overwhelms the nay-sayers.
But "Science" doesn't lean, or carry out any other bodily function either.
Finally, we all have to accept that most of what is commonly called "Science" is simply plain wrong, and those in the future will look back at us and shake their heads in disbelief, as will the generations that follow them in turn!!
Example: For most of the 19th & 20th Century, so-called "Vestigial" organs were though useless and often removed surgically even without need. More recent science has shown these organs are very useful. Also take the replacement of breastfeeding by formula in the early 20thCentury, when the "Science" thought that such was superior to breast milk. (Thus leading to millions suffering diabetes, leukemia and other problems as a result of "Science")
I could go on.
As a Scientist myself, I know that scientists are human, and thus, many suffer from mental conditions, use drugs, are emotionally unstable, and may or may not, have strong political biases. Not that Scientists are more, or less affected by our modern ailments, but I sure know that many of my fellow PhD candidates were users.
Where they may collectively "lean" doesn't give me any confidence at all.! ;D
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 5, 2010 17:26:17 GMT
Where they may collectively "lean" doesn't give me any confidence at all.! ;D Almost all people in this world are economic beings. They lean whereever their best economic chances are. Being around a lot of grantmaking in recent years by far the best way to get a grant is say your study is relevant to global warming. As a result of that economic fact is where science is going to lean as a general rule and there will always be ardent apologists for the main establishment that simply take it all in at face value because they are simply followers of the general rule. These people for example defend current peer review practices even in the face of tons of evidence it is antiquidated and no longer relevant. Form is elevated over substance. Authority is elevated. Questioning is a sign of stupidity. The sides of the box becomes the outerbounds of thought. And it is all accepted comfortably knowing that if you recite the correct mantra the checks will keep coming and the rent will be paid. Thats why you tend to see a lot of "retired" scientists who are skeptics. They are no longer dependent upon reciting the mantra for the check to arrive. They are also usually a bit wiser but maybe a little less up to date, but all in all though the big factor in freeing thought is that weekly, bimonthly, or monthly check is not heavily dependent upon being a member of the "club". Then there is the drug addled hippy. He believes he is fighting the establishment and is yet to learn he has become the establishment. Indeed thats how science leans.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 5, 2010 23:20:21 GMT
I would completely agree and add that if you read many studies coming out, they give the science behind their study then add the speculative homage to AGW. The MSM picks up on the homage lines though and run with it.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 5, 2010 23:24:10 GMT
As a Scientist myself, I know that scientists are human, and thus, many suffer from mental conditions, use drugs, are emotionally unstable, and may or may not, have strong political biases. Crikey Kiwi! Now you've got me really worried ....
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 6, 2010 3:37:03 GMT
As a Scientist myself, I know that scientists are human, and thus, many suffer from mental conditions, use drugs, are emotionally unstable, and may or may not, have strong political biases. Crikey Kiwi! Now you've got me really worried .... You've never worked in a research lab? hehe. It was the 70's! My point is that "Scientists" are human, are subject to all the problems of humanity! They are not an honourable elite! Individuals may indeed be men or women of worth, but, they share, in general, the faults of mankind. Knowing the "quality" of my peers at the time, I wouldn't personally have confidence in "Scientists" as such.
|
|