|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 15, 2009 23:01:18 GMT
"What scientists, politicians (and I) would say is something along the lines that it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate, and that the evidence points to future warming from CO2 posing significant risks."
It's only beyond dispute within your own little group of blinkered warmists. Tens of thousands of scientists (and I) would say that CO2 will warm the climate a teeny bit but not enough to affect what mother nature has just thrown at us. The evidence points to future cooling and that CO2 was an irrelevant pointless misdirection aimed at the populace by blinkered scientists and greedy politicians.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Apr 16, 2009 0:13:23 GMT
"What scientists, politicians (and I) would say is something along the lines that it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate, and that the evidence points to future warming from CO2 posing significant risks."
So you believe research indicating that solar activity, cosmic radiation, and oceanic temperature cycles - individually or collectively - will produce cooling overwhelming the CO2 warming effects are unreasonable disputes, as well as people who believe the amount of warming from CO2 would prove mainly beneficial? We won't even talk about research indicating that the recent warming was solely due to a strong El Nino.
And that is different from saying the science is settled, how?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 16, 2009 5:57:29 GMT
Yes...and according to the IPCC's models, what are the odds that we would have gone 11 (soon to be 12) years without a new record warm year? Less than 5%. I don't know that the IPCC ever claimed that every single year in a row was going to be a new record. What is significant is that last year wasn't outside the top 10. How is that significant, but the fact that we haven't seen warming for 8-12 years NOT significant? No, the IPCC never claimed every year would be a new record...but the models they base their predictions on indicate a very high likelihood of a new record at least every 3-5 years. After all, that is what was happening the 1980s and 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 16, 2009 12:40:54 GMT
Me? Avoid the real issue? You mean the high likelihood that our grandkids are going to be *extremely* pissed off with us that we've greedily stolen all the oil, burnt it up on consumer crap and stupidly inefficient cars, and passed on a world where they can forget about the space programme, the search for the Higgs boson, building fusion reactors, the pursuit of art, history and archaeology, and living in a clean and healthy environment, because they'll be too busy fighting for food, water and a place to live in an over-heated, energy deprived world. Please find me a quote from a climate scientist that says "The science is settled[full stop]" First paragraph is pure alarmism, nothing new there, nothing worth responding to. Second, they don't have to say just those words and leave it at that to indicate the science is settled. Calling skeptics "denialists" is just one way that many AGW proponents have acted as if there is no room for debate on the issue. That is basically the same as saying the science is settled. The difference is merely semantics. I haven't called anyone here a denialist, so I'd like you to withdraw the implication. You might not have directly said that I have done, but that is just "semantics", because you sure as hell meant it. If you paraphrase someones quote as "basically the same as saying the science is settled", and then go on to claim that since the science is never settled the person who made the quote must be wrong is most certainly *not* semantics! It's twisting people's words to fit your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 16, 2009 12:52:41 GMT
"What scientists, politicians (and I) would say is something along the lines that it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate, and that the evidence points to future warming from CO2 posing significant risks." So you believe research indicating that solar activity, cosmic radiation, and oceanic temperature cycles - individually or collectively - will produce cooling overwhelming the CO2 warming effects are unreasonable disputes, as well as people who believe the amount of warming from CO2 would prove mainly beneficial? We won't even talk about research indicating that the recent warming was solely due to a strong El Nino. There is more research that indicates solar activity has not markedly changed sufficiently to induce the last 50 years warming. The link to oceanic temperature cycles is numerological correlation (ie. massaging the indices to reach a prior conclusion). Where is the research that indicates that "the recent warming was solely due to a strong El Nino."? The chain of research from the cosmic ray hypothesis, through correlations of cloud amounts, causation, and effect on climate is extremely tenuous. I've told you why - because it is a rhetorical trick. You have provided reasons for why you think that the science isn't *sufficiently* settled and that is fine. But what others do is to twist what people say into something that obviously is never true, and then criticising them for saying something that obviously isn't true even though they said something else!
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 16, 2009 21:50:26 GMT
"I haven't called anyone here a denialist, so I'd like you to withdraw the implication. "
The word denialist is likely to take on a whole new meaning in the next year or two and will become/has become so vague that it will need clarification. Are you a CO2 denialist or a Solar denialist? Are you a Warming denialist or a cooling denialist?
So don't withdraw your implication, just confirm to everyone, which denialist you are trying to insult as denialist just doesn't cut it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 17, 2009 2:30:37 GMT
This is for Steve since he complained of us hijacking another thread: I am not interested in links to more theoretical research papers, peer reviewed or otherwise. There is no shortage of those. I am interested in direct evidence that supports the basic tenets of CO2 AGW. The list is on the first page. Please, no more lectures and links to old papers. Most of us are familiar with the hypotheses, so it is not necessary to regurgitate. Thus far each and every "fingerprint" of AGW has turned out to be a bust. No more climate models, crystal balls or suggestions to read IPCC, just the hard facts that support your POV. I can't imagine why it is so difficult to provide current observational evidence and experimental data if the physics is supposedly so cut-and-dry. Observations trump theory. If I were able to limit my opponents right to use only the evidence I considered acceptable, I'd probably win all my arguments as well. Here's observations for 1. though: Letters to Nature Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges Since you're reaching back in time: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4438/1462The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration SHERWOOD B. IDSO 1 1979 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment V. RAMANATHAN 1, R. D. CESS 2, E. F. HARRISON 3, P. MINNIS 3, B. R. BARKSTROM 3, E. AHMAD 4, and D. HARTMANN 5 1988 Then, as 1998 and 2001 were your latest: www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N14/EDIT.phpChen, J., Carlson, B.E. and Del Genio, A.D. 2002. Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science 295: 838-841. Hartmann, D.L. 2002. Tropical surprises. Science 295: 811-812. McPhaden, M.J. and Zhang, D. 2002. Slowdown of the meridional overturning circulation in the upper Pacific Ocean. Nature 415: 603-608. Wielicki, B.A., Wong, T., Allan, R.P., Slingo, A., Kiehl, J.T., Soden, B.J., Gordon, C.T., Miller, A.J., Yang, S.-K., Randall, D.A., Robertson, F., Susskind, J. and Jacobowitz, H. 2002. Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science 295: 841-844. We can play this tit-for-tat game for hours, but apparently I wasn't clear enough in my challenge? The OP gave four subjects that are pillars of CO2 AGW. You have failed to address any of them with current observational or experimental data. Don't feel bad; this is not the first forum I've posed similar challenges. I'm banned at RC, so asking "real" scientists is not possible Isn't it intriguing the largest unknown in many articles, when discussed, are clouds. This is one subject that if well understood would answer a lot. It is not difficult to understand that small changes in cloud cover have huge effects on weather and climate. There are very few actually doing serious research on clouds, and despite all the attacks by AGW prognosticators, probably the one who has the most in recent years is Roy Spencer. His research clearly contradicts the "consensus" and cannot be ignored forever. What I've noticed in every forum is warmers at some point will always end up changing the subject, obfuscate and go off on tangents or give long lectures. Failing that, ad hominem is their next favorite tool of debate. For the most part, this forum is blessed with at least a mostly civil discourse. If you have evidence to present, present it. If not, either concede or don't post. However, please cease with irrelevant gibberish, it is not impressing anyone. So I will ask again: 1) Provide direct evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 levels result in a net increase in atmospheric temperature, or accumulation of heat in Earth's energy budget if you will. 2) Provide direct evidence to support the claim of an enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 levels, that being "tipping points" i.e. strong positive water vapor feedback whereby no negative feedback could stabilize. 3) Explain why Hansen et al 2005 which IPCC AR4 is heavily weighted on, has failed. Or if you think it hasn't, give evidence for that. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/14314) Give evidence for "heat in the pipeline" (see #3).
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 17, 2009 3:48:57 GMT
First paragraph is pure alarmism, nothing new there, nothing worth responding to. Second, they don't have to say just those words and leave it at that to indicate the science is settled. Calling skeptics "denialists" is just one way that many AGW proponents have acted as if there is no room for debate on the issue. That is basically the same as saying the science is settled. The difference is merely semantics. I haven't called anyone here a denialist, so I'd like you to withdraw the implication. You might not have directly said that I have done, but that is just "semantics", because you sure as hell meant it. If you paraphrase someones quote as "basically the same as saying the science is settled", and then go on to claim that since the science is never settled the person who made the quote must be wrong is most certainly *not* semantics! It's twisting people's words to fit your agenda. I never said you called anyone a denialist, and I didn't mean to imply it. I clearly said "many AGW proponents"...people like Hansen, Schmidt, etc. Don't take things that weren't directed at you so personally. And you cannot deny that these statements from leaders of the AGW movement are clearly implying that the science is settled...in other words, to dispute AGW as they see it is ignorant or "in denial".
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Apr 17, 2009 5:03:43 GMT
And I repeat, you said, "it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate." That attitude shuts the door on serious debate because any dispute of YOUR conclusions would be, by your definition, unreasonable. Only when 'the science is settled' can such debate end, and you, sir, have ended it. www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html - El Nino a cause of global warming. This was written by Billy Kessler, Oceanographer Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory / NOAA: "The reason you won't find much information connecting El Niño and global warming is that we (meaning the mainstream scientific community) don't really have too much useful to say about it at this point........So rather than speculate about such a politically-charged subject, we usually keep our mouths shut." That is what happens when people like you decide that your science is beyond reasonable dispute. Speculation is the seed for discovery, and by your politicizing science you have disrupted the process.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2009 9:49:12 GMT
Magellan, You said: I said: Letters to Nature Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges which is a relatively recent paper showing *observational* evidence of the radiative forcing of CO2 that is in line with the calculations done by people such as Myrhe. This is about as direct evidence as you can get! Here is a similar, more recent one that looks at Ozone. www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/full/ngeo182.htmlNature Geoscience 1, 305 - 308 (2008) Satellite measurements of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone Helen M. Worden et al Providing a few links that show that the effects in the tropics can be variable etc. doesn't take away from the above papers. Briefly looking at the titles in your list of papers, I suspect I won't have issues with most of them except Idso. This really is an old paper that has been usurped by the likes of Myrhe 1998. Many of your papers appear to be about the climate variability on top of the greenhouse gas forcing that will sometimes lead to cooling and sometimes to extra warming. A counter to the above requires Direct evidence that the warming induced by CO2 is countered by an equal and opposite feedback. I will referee that question if I may.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 18, 2009 16:34:33 GMT
Magellan, You said: I said: Letters to Nature Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges which is a relatively recent paper showing *observational* evidence of the radiative forcing of CO2 that is in line with the calculations done by people such as Myrhe. This is about as direct evidence as you can get! Here is a similar, more recent one that looks at Ozone. www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/full/ngeo182.htmlNature Geoscience 1, 305 - 308 (2008) Satellite measurements of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone Helen M. Worden et al Providing a few links that show that the effects in the tropics can be variable etc. doesn't take away from the above papers. Briefly looking at the titles in your list of papers, I suspect I won't have issues with most of them except Idso. This really is an old paper that has been usurped by the likes of Myrhe 1998. Many of your papers appear to be about the climate variability on top of the greenhouse gas forcing that will sometimes lead to cooling and sometimes to extra warming. A counter to the above requires Direct evidence that the warming induced by CO2 is countered by an equal and opposite feedback. I will referee that question if I may. So 2001 is recent? Hansen et al 2005 is more recent and claimed their data from 1993-2003 was “proof” (“the science is settled”) , confirmation, of AGW, yet the question still is “where is the missing heat”. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025Providing a few links that show that the effects in the tropics can be variable etc. doesn't take away from the above papers. Oh really? It's nice how you can pull things out of thin air as you move along and is understandable why you wish to downplay the tropics, but that is where the action is....at least where it's supposed to be. Per Santer et al (Gavin Schmidt) 2005 (more recent than 2001) www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.pdfSpencer agrees with that and so does IPCC. I’ll patiently wait for the standard warmologist backpedaling weasel words. Quick now, mine for the latest scripted response. Since you say T2 is “contaminated”, let’s look at T2LT. Nah, it doesn’t matter, move along right? Or do you have another metric to confirm ("proof") the AGW “fingerprint” in the tropical troposphere? Winds perhaps? Where is the CO2 warming signal in the tropics? Remember, per the basic physics it all starts at the equator, you know, where that incandescent light bulb in the sky has no discernible effect on climate change or weather. As predicted: Here is a similar, more recent one that looks at Ozone.
So now we are wandering off into discussions of ozone, complete with a pal reviewed essay assuming water vapor will result in a “super” greenhouse effect i.e. runaway GHE (as referenced in your link), the only way for the AGW fairytale to come to fruition. How much more warming should there be then if now we have both CO2 and Ozone driving temperatures? Which one should we be afraid of more? It doesn't matter when a paper was published, 2001, 2005, 1906 or 2009. If it's wrong it's wrong, period. Do you have observational evidence to demonstrate the atmosphere is "heating up" or not?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2009 17:00:19 GMT
Magellan, I don't understand what your pictures are! They look like the sort of thing Bob Carter used to put about till he had to admit that "accidentally" the wrong image had been used. I'll show the two that Watts up With That had up last year, neither of which looks a bit like yours: UAH T2LT: RSS: So they both show warming. There's a surprise! Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Apr 19, 2009 18:40:46 GMT
Magellan's charts - mid Troposphere. Steve's charts - lower Troposphere.
Steve, how about showing a mid Trop chart to compare apples to apples, or argue why mid and lower Trop temp anomalies should be the same.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 19, 2009 18:47:27 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, AGW is still in hypothesis stage. Really its a political hypothesis. So this must make AGW the same as political science. From Wikipedia: A hypothesis (from Greek ὑðüèåóéò /i´poèesis/) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur. In early usage, scholars often referred to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations as a hypothesis; when used this way, the word did not necessarily have any specific meaning. Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of the older sense of the word in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis. In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic. It would be nice if the AGW ideas were treated as a hypothesis unfortunately they have now become a 'Postulate' "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AxiomPostulate = = "Its settled science"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 19, 2009 19:15:24 GMT
Give me a break. Another example of going in a completely different direction to avoid the real issue: ANY STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THE "SCIENCE IS SETTLED" IS COMPLETELY FALSE ANS MISLEADING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Many AGW alarmists have made such statements, in attempts to bolster their fear-mongering. Me? Avoid the real issue? You mean the high likelihood that our grandkids are going to be *extremely* pissed off with us that we've greedily stolen all the oil, burnt it up on consumer crap and stupidly inefficient cars, and passed on a world where they can forget about the space programme, the search for the Higgs boson, building fusion reactors, the pursuit of art, history and archaeology, and living in a clean and healthy environment, because they'll be too busy fighting for food, water and a place to live in an over-heated, energy deprived world. Please find me a quote from a climate scientist that says "The science is settled[full stop]" The aphorism was coined by everyone's favorite politician and carbon trader Al Gore when talking to Congress in 2007. "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere. Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue." www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642This has been followed by the 'denialists' being said to be guilty of crimes against humanity (Hansen) www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechangewww.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdfHansen was, when I last checked calling himself a Climate scientist - and if someone who disagrees with the AGW hypothesis is de-facto committing a crime against humanity - one would think that Hansen believes the ' science is settled'. Perhaps you think Hansen routinely believes people criminal if they are scientifically sceptical? As I have said, whether the meeker climatologists like it or not, the AGW hypothesis has become a political postulate. This is a tiger I would not like to be riding.
|
|