|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 24, 2009 3:50:33 GMT
Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced. BTW, this is both logically and with respect to the scientific method...wrong. What you need to do is demonstrate this high sensitivity because you're the one claiming it. Since the temperature hasn't risen at a rate sufficient to meet even the proposed increases from CO2 absorption...the climate (so far) shows all the signs of having some sort of negative feedback and/or low sensitivity. Unless temperatures go up fast...you are the one that needs to support the claim of high sensitivity and so do all those "AGW consensus" scientists. Until then you're just a bunch of panicky, chicken littles with unsubstantiated opinions. There is no need for us to prove you wrong because the world shows no signs of you being right.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 24, 2009 5:06:01 GMT
Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced. BTW, this is both logically and with respect to the scientific method...wrong. What you need to do is demonstrate this high sensitivity because you're the one claiming it. Since the temperature hasn't risen at a rate sufficient to meet even the proposed increases from CO2 absorption...the climate (so far) shows all the signs of having some sort of negative feedback and/or low sensitivity. Unless temperatures go up fast...you are the one that needs to support the claim of high sensitivity and so do all those "AGW consensus" scientists. Until then you're just a bunch of panicky, chicken littles with unsubstantiated opinions. There is no need for us to prove you wrong because the world shows no signs of you being right. Absolutely!! It is amazing how the standards of the scientific method have been stood on their head by agenda-driven "scientists". If their brand of methodology becomes acceptable in other scientific disciplines, it does not portend well for future of expanding human knowledge. Unfortunately, the perversion that has become acceptable in climatology has already started invading other related disciplines as researchers, eager for easy funding, bastardize themselves and their sciences to join the acceptable company of the "consensus".
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 24, 2009 12:37:24 GMT
Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced. BTW, this is both logically and with respect to the scientific method...wrong. What you need to do is demonstrate this high sensitivity because you're the one claiming it. Since the temperature hasn't risen at a rate sufficient to meet even the proposed increases from CO2 absorption...the climate (so far) shows all the signs of having some sort of negative feedback and/or low sensitivity. Unless temperatures go up fast...you are the one that needs to support the claim of high sensitivity and so do all those "AGW consensus" scientists. Until then you're just a bunch of panicky, chicken littles with unsubstantiated opinions. There is no need for us to prove you wrong because the world shows no signs of you being right. You AGW true believers demonstrate the fallacy perfectly. You take a perfectly OK idea, like CO2 selectively filters certain wave lengths of light, then pile on stacks of assumptions about positive feedbacks, then model what you wanted the to show about how it works, confabulate a trend out of random, noisy, unreliable data, and then demand everyone else in the world bow down to your claims.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 24, 2009 19:10:53 GMT
Most scientific studies have found net feedback to be positive and climate sensitivity to be high. So if this boils down to an appeal to authority I think I am on the right side. And yet temperatures haven't even gone up by enough for their feedbacks to be correct. The instrumental record is not sufficient to constrain climate sensitivity sufficiently. It neither supports nor rules out a high or low climate sensitivity.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 24, 2009 19:14:07 GMT
Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced. BTW, this is both logically and with respect to the scientific method...wrong. What you need to do is demonstrate this high sensitivity because you're the one claiming it. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. It has risen sufficiently to meet the proposed increases. Climate response time is the big question here as well as what the actual forcing over the instrumental record has been. Both of those are enough to prevent a good constraint of climate sensitivity from the instrumental record period.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2009 20:23:19 GMT
BTW, this is both logically and with respect to the scientific method...wrong. What you need to do is demonstrate this high sensitivity because you're the one claiming it. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. Thats not true Socold. Poitsplace is not suggesting we do anything about non-AGW. The burden of proof is on those who want to force people to do something about it. Its always incumbent on the proposer to provide the proof; you are confusing esoteric propositions with propositions of substance. Esoteric propositions never need to be proved.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2009 21:59:05 GMT
I think that the problem is that AGW looks at linear trends and extrapolation of those trends to extremes. Whereas the climate system is chaotic and short term linear trends cannot be extrapolated in such systems. This is accepted in all meteorology and has been since Lorenz. But linear trends are easy to sell to politicians.
I would suggest a quiet read of some basic primers on chaos theory for the AGW proponents.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 25, 2009 1:27:34 GMT
You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. Again, a striking lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. It makes no difference if I claim global warming is caused by the flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof for my assertion is on me, the burden of proof for yours is on you. I claim sensitivity is low (less warming than suggested by raw CO2 math) and this is supported by the observational data. You claim it's high and there is as yet no evidence of this. "It hasn't been disproved" isn't a viable position either. There are probably an infinite number of concepts that cannot be proven right now...many of them mutually exclusive. They can't all be right and as there's only one reality...most are likely wrong. It has risen sufficiently to meet the proposed increases. Climate response time is the big question here as well as what the actual forcing over the instrumental record has been. Both of those are enough to prevent a good constraint of climate sensitivity from the instrumental record period.[/quote] No socold, it has not risen sufficiently. The standard attempt at evasion you used here of climate response time (AKA, heat in the pipe) is also fundamentally flawed. If thats your claim you're now ENTIRELY without evidence. You can't even count the recent warming period. Also because the proposed forcing mechanism (CO2 levels) is constantly increasing, the rate should be steadily increasing. We shouldn't have had temperatures level off, much less drop. The fact that the temperatures can level off at all implies that the previous warming period MUST have had a substantial natural warming component. We simply have no actual evidence of sensitivity sufficient to even reach CO2's proposed forcing. Your claims of high sensitivity are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 25, 2009 2:17:48 GMT
I think that the problem is that AGW looks at linear trends and extrapolation of those trends to extremes. Whereas the climate system is chaotic and short term linear trends cannot be extrapolated in such systems. This is accepted in all meteorology and has been since Lorenz. But linear trends are easy to sell to politicians. I would suggest a quiet read of some basic primers on chaos theory for the AGW proponents. Actually the problem is that AGW DOES NOT look at linear trends. If they went with linear trends the expected anomaly would fall between about 2C, assuming no ocean currents affects and that 100% of all warming during the 80's and 90's was from CO2 and 1C, using the trend from the 1940's-2000's warm period plateaus.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2009 13:02:22 GMT
I think that the problem is that AGW looks at linear trends and extrapolation of those trends to extremes. Whereas the climate system is chaotic and short term linear trends cannot be extrapolated in such systems. This is accepted in all meteorology and has been since Lorenz. But linear trends are easy to sell to politicians. I would suggest a quiet read of some basic primers on chaos theory for the AGW proponents. Actually the problem is that AGW DOES NOT look at linear trends. If they went with linear trends the expected anomaly would fall between about 2C, assuming no ocean currents affects and that 100% of all warming during the 80's and 90's was from CO2 and 1C, using the trend from the 1940's-2000's warm period plateaus. Oh but they _do_ look at linear trends - hence the continued arguments on where the trends start and end - cherry picking dates etc. The argument is always - if this continues then... a linear argument.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 26, 2009 19:15:47 GMT
Again, a striking lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. It makes no difference if I claim global warming is caused by the flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof for my assertion is on me, the burden of proof for yours is on you. This reveals your lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. As is high climate sensitivity. High climate sensitivity is also supported by theory too. This is why I think it more likely, and clearly the climate field, those dastardly scientists, tend to agree. So until skeptics pull something out of the bag and show some theory for how low climate sensitivity can work and how past climate variations can be explained in spite of it, I remain unconvinced and I guess so do the scientists. There is more evidence it's high than low. So you think if the planet was to warm up 3C it would do so instantly? What about the huge thermal inertia of the oceans? Actually the background rate could be steadily increasing. With noise over the top of any trend it is hard to determine just what the background warming rate is. That would reduce the cooling in the 70s and reduce the warming in the early 20th century. If anything that would increase the correlation between global temperature and rising ghgs in the past 100 years. Well apart from derivations from the physics and derivations from paleoclimate that all show climate sensitivity is high... ...no we have no evidence if we simply dismiss all those studies.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2009 20:35:34 GMT
I hate to interfere in this discussion by being a little pedantic - but SoCold (or someone else) please define what you mean by 'climate sensitivity' and what the expected symptoms are of 'HIGH' climate sensitivity and LOW climate sensitivity. It would appear that some parts of the climate may react rapidly and strongly to perturbations whereas the entire climate may not. So please define the terms that you are using and their applicability - otherwise we could be having a heated agreement
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 27, 2009 7:24:07 GMT
This reveals your lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. Can you even read? I just said that and pointed out that the low rise in temperatures is a pretty good indication of low sensitivity as is the plateau of the 2000's. Ok, (1) it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. (2) you basically just claimed that a hypothesis supported its self. See, we can only use REALITY to work out if something is real or not. Nope, sorry. You and the AGW scientists you praise obviously have almost no ability at all to perceive the basic concepts of science. Low climate sensitivity is SUPPORTED by the evidence. The AGW proponents have a HYPOTHESIS that feedbacks and overall sensitivity are high. That hypothesis is simply...not ENTIRELY ruled out. The difference between "supported" and "not entirely ruled out" is not subtle at all. Its like the difference between an employee with a emergency room paperwork as an excuse and one with an overly elaborate excuse with numerous, obvious flaws as an explanation of why they missed work. Its amusing yet sad that you somehow fall into the self-delusional way of thinking...that natural variation is ONLY cooling. Oh sure, I know you SAY you don't believe that but the problem is for every bit of cooling you say is covering the warming...there was likely warming making it look worse elsewhere. If you claim it was the sun...you remove the early part of the century's warming. If you claim it's the PDO, AMO and/or NAO...you imply the warming of the 80's and 90's was exaggerated. NOTHING points to high sensitivity but alarmists like yourself...along with their elaborate web of excuses as to why the climate refuses to cooperate with their outlandish projections. Basically for climate sensitivity to be as high as you suggest the thermal mass of the oceans would have to buffer out temperature increases over such an incredibly long period of time that we could NEVER feel the full affects. We'd have used all the fossil fuels and within the 50 years it would take to feel the affects, CO2 levels would have plumeted (because CO2 uptake rates are going up exponentially) LOL, the paleoclimate record only shows a correlation for the period of time leading to the current bistable state of glacial/interglacial periods. Before that it shows TERRIBLE correlations including a snowball event when the earth had 10-20x more CO2 and a time when there were similar CO2 levels but temperature was well over 10C higher. As for the "physics"...go ask anyone that works on cutting edge technologies and they'll tell you all about the physics that they learned in school that doesn't work in the real world. In fact all of our modern physics is built on the burned out remains of the less accurate physics that came before. If you're talking about a diffuse gas in the (essentially) vacuum of space, man those emission/absorption laws work like a champ. Put them in a dynamic atmosphere and nothing works at all. Saying the emission/absorption math applies to the earth's lower atmosphere is essentially like saying that changing the color of the marbles in a home made column still...will dramatically affect the temperature.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 27, 2009 10:47:26 GMT
This reveals your lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high. Can you even read? I just said that You started your reply to my earlier post with "Again, a striking lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works." and then just reworded what I had said. So I sat there for a while wondering how on Earth you could disagree with what I said yet repeat it. Does this mean poitsplace disagrees with himself, I wondered? Here's the full flow of the conversation. See if you can make any sense of it: Socold: You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high.Now comes your reply in which you start by accusing me of not knowing how the scientific method works, followed by just rewording what I had said above: poitsplace: Again, a striking lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. It makes no difference if I claim global warming is caused by the flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof for my assertion is on me, the burden of proof for yours is on you. I claim sensitivity is low (less warming than suggested by raw CO2 math) and this is supported by the observational data.So I decided to repeat your own accusation against you followed by just repeating exactly what I wrote in my last post, you know the post you previously disagreed with. Socold: This reveals your lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works. You are claiming climate sensitivity is low. You are not claiming "I don't know" or "it could be anything", you are making a positive claim that it's low. Therefore you also have just as much a "burden of proof" as someone who claims it is high.And you fell for it, pointing out that my post was identical in meaning to yours and that you had already said it. poitsplace: Can you even read? I just said thatSo why did you disagree with it the first time? This is what happens when you just post in a knee-jerk contrarian manner trying to simply disagree with whatever "socold says"
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Sept 27, 2009 16:57:19 GMT
I read most of the post on here and added a few myself. My overwhelming concern is whether the AWG people are right. They actions that they want to take could amplfly a feedback system when the weather turns cold. The assertivines of their correctness makes me wonder. I can not possibly win the techinal issues. Those things can be debated forever. ie whether the insturments are reading things properly, ect, ect,. However, if we divide the issue based on techinal analysis and fundemental analysis, then I think I have a very good chance of coming to a conculsion that is more sound. The AWG crowd has not convinced me that their conculsions are correct. There is some truth in but overall, no. Denying that the temperatures have been different than in the past strikes at a stance that denies the fundematal . There is quite a bit of fundematal data that supports natural climate change. The AWG crowd does have to prove that co2 levels are the current cause AND what caused climate change in the past. Without that, their arguments are meaningless. The AWG crowd has to address those issues. And if, by some happenstance temperatures level off or even fall then the feedback sytem of co2 warming the earth fails. Simply put we are adding more co2 to the atmosphere each year. So if co2 has the effect that they claim, it can not be. We haven't taken any co2 out of the air. And I am using the 1000 year model that they claim. Will suddenly they change their minds and say' oh, it is only 5 years'. Nothing about this makes sense. On a scale of 1 - 10 I'd have to say co2 is responsible for global warming about 2 and that may be too much. Remember wooly mammounths froze to death eating. I don't think we have a clue. Short term though, if the sun remains quite, I do think the earth will cool. Longer term, the earth wobbles on its axis and at some point the north or south pole will be pointed away from the sun for a number years producing tropics in one hemisphere and an ice age in the other. If socld has access to a super computer, the math will prove this out. It could even give us an idea of when this will happen
What has this to do with ocean heat? The motion from the wobble causes the water to slosh around more than just the spin of the earth causes. I suppose I am not telling you anything that you don't already know, I didn't see anything posted here about it.
|
|