|
Post by magellan on Mar 19, 2009 16:59:29 GMT
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). Stick to those 4 points. Let us pretend this is a refereed debate and logical fallacies will be pointed out and scored against. There are no trick or loaded questions here.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 19, 2009 21:37:18 GMT
define "direct evidence"
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 20, 2009 0:13:45 GMT
Then these questions are loaded.
You both know very well that co2 warming is not based on directly observing a rise in co2 causing warming. It's based on theory which is built upon laws and data that were formed from underlying measurements that (IR absorbance of co2 in the lab and atmosphere, physical laws)
This is a bit like creationists demanding "direct evidence" of evolution before they will accept it and when you pin them down it turns out what they are asking for is they want an example of a cow turning into a whale in a labratory.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 20, 2009 1:14:30 GMT
These questions are not loaded. The answers would be called empirical evidence being it is yet a theory. Can you answer one of the questions socold?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2009 1:52:51 GMT
This is a bit like creationists demanding "direct evidence" of evolution before they will accept it and when you pin them down it turns out what they are asking for is they want an example of a cow turning into a whale in a labratory. Converting a glass greenhouse into an atmospheric model is indeed a bit like turning a cow into a whale.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 20, 2009 5:29:48 GMT
Then these questions are loaded. You both know very well that co2 warming is not based on directly observing a rise in co2 causing warming. It's based on theory which is built upon laws and data that were formed from underlying measurements that (IR absorbance of co2 in the lab and atmosphere, physical laws) This is a bit like creationists demanding "direct evidence" of evolution before they will accept it and when you pin them down it turns out what they are asking for is they want an example of a cow turning into a whale in a labratory. Well the problem with the creationists is that the amount of evidence is overwhelming and is in many cases direct. Evolutionary theory actually predicts that fast reproducing organisms will evolve the fastest and this is EXACTLY what we see. Fast reproducing organisms have already been observed changing into what would be considered an entirely new species (bacteria). Substantial changes in the genome of slower reproducing organisms like insects is observed. Using the traits of organisms we find that organisms APPEAR to have evolved and that system of classification was originally put forth by a christian creationist. Embryology supports these ties, each organism seeming to have started with a similar blueprint that was later modified, embryonic development diverging at the point when one would expect based on that relationship. At the same time, modern genetics seem to verify this divergence from the top down. Fossil evidence indicates it as well and perfectly explains the FACT that species that seem to have been separated as the continents split show all signs of having diverged from that common ancestor. ...and then we've got the theory of (substantial) anthropogenic global warming in which we have to ignore the re-emission of absorbed energy to even get a small 1.2C rise with a doubling of CO2 (note, we're already in denial just to get that). We have ice cores showing a correlation but that correlation is clearly that CO2 is just along for the ride, not the driver. We're left with a temperature increase that's not significantly larger than the previous temperature increase (during a time with essentially no increase in CO2) It's hardly a good comparison. We have correlations coming in from numerous directions that all point to evolution being the ONLY explanation (outside of the explanation being that it was designed down to the subatomic level by some entity with the INTENTION of deceiving us into believing in evolution) ...and we've got some rough correlations that show CO2's normally driven by temperature, additional absorption that merely delays earth's IR output by mere MINUTES (talk about a small gradient). and that the temperature has gone up when we're pretty sure it probably was going to go up some anyway. I don't know, I don't think it's a good comparison. Certainly, in both cases the people with no real evidence want to change society...but the supposed "consensus" positions are transposed. Of course, I'm sure once we cool off for a while that "consensus" will turn out to be about the same as the global cooling "consensus. There's a HUGE difference between a majority of scientists saying "Yeah, I suppose that could be a problem" and a majority saying "This exact, worst case scenario is obviously what's happening." There's simply no indication that temperatures will rise more than about .5C over the 1998 maximum by 2100 and since the solar minimum will probably last almost that long, it's unlikely we'll even hit that.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Mar 20, 2009 6:37:45 GMT
Then these questions are loaded. "It's based on theory " Yes you are correct there But the AGW theory has never been proven And the theory is invalidated by scientific observation So I guess the theory is wrong and needs to be discarded rather than clung to hoping the cow will become a whale
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 20, 2009 7:49:35 GMT
Then these questions are loaded. You both know very well that co2 warming is not based on directly observing a rise in co2 causing warming. It's based on theory which is built upon laws and data that were formed from underlying measurements that (IR absorbance of co2 in the lab and atmosphere, physical laws) This is a bit like creationists demanding "direct evidence" of evolution before they will accept it and when you pin them down it turns out what they are asking for is they want an example of a cow turning into a whale in a labratory. Can you say STRAW MAN? Good god, enough with the creationists comparisons, stick to the actual questions and science.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 20, 2009 10:48:53 GMT
socold writes "You both know very well that co2 warming is not based on directly observing a rise in co2 causing warming. It's based on theory which is built upon laws and data that were formed from underlying measurements that (IR absorbance of co2 in the lab and atmosphere, physical laws)"
I agree with you, and I agree magellan's questions are biased. However, when we had our recent general election, I went to a meeting of the Green Party, and a science professor stood up and said of AGW "The science is settled". We have Dr. Pachauri going to Poznan last year and saying the same thing. The IPCC in SPM to AR4 says that it is "very likely", meaning 90% probability, that AGW is real. What is the basis of these statements? And will you agree that far from the science being settled, it is not very likely that CO2 causes "global warming", "climate change", or whatever the flavor of the month is for what it is called.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 20, 2009 12:57:01 GMT
These questions are not loaded. The answers would be called empirical evidence being it is yet a theory. Can you answer one of the questions socold? ARGH! In scientific discussions "Theory" means "Fact", not "Guess".
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 20, 2009 14:22:38 GMT
I thought fact and proof meant fact, and theory meant an idea believed to be true but not proven and held onto as a matter of religion or a theology.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 20, 2009 14:28:18 GMT
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. This has been done to death on the recently active CO2 threads. The question is misposed. What do you mean by "no negative feedback could stabilize". Do you mean "stabilize" or "cancel out". Also "could" imbalances the question a bit as many things "could" happen in response to warming and some will add to warming and some will reduce it. The evidence of a positive feedback from water vapour comes from predictions of behaviour following Pinatubo, a gap in the explanation for the ice age cycles, measurements of relative humidity and models. Definitely unbalanced. Provide the evidence it has failed first. Provide the evidence that IPCC is "heavily weighted" on it. Since IPCC AR4 is substantially the same as AR3 which came out before 2005, I doubt it. No Look forward to you sticking to the point on the G+T discussion by providing me with an explanation of pages 80-90.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 20, 2009 16:04:13 GMT
Hi Steve.
You write: "Look forward to you sticking to the point on the G+T discussion by providing me with an explanation of pages 80-90."
While you pester people with obfuscating questions and refuse to answer the simple challenge posed by Magellan, perhaps you could take a minute to answer a couple of questions of mine?
1. Do you see evidence of negative forcing in the record snow and cold in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Norway, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, etc. in the past 2 years, plus positive glacial-mass in Alaska last summer? Or do you put all of this down to internal variation?
2. Do you predict increased or decreased Arctic sea ice at minimum this fall compared to last year? And why?
3. Do you predict increased or decreased Arctic sea ice at minimum in 2013 (when Al Gore predicts an ice-free Arctic) compared to 2008? And why?
4. Does the co2 greenhouse theory do a good job or a poor job of explaining the global sea ice anomaly as of today of zero (0)?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 20, 2009 18:34:25 GMT
Hi Steve. You write: "Look forward to you sticking to the point on the G+T discussion by providing me with an explanation of pages 80-90." While you pester people with obfuscating questions and refuse to answer the simple challenge posed by Magellan, perhaps you could take a minute to answer a couple of questions of mine? Double standards! If you clear up the G+T obfuscation I wouldn't need to ask.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 21, 2009 0:31:23 GMT
I thought fact and proof meant fact, and theory meant an idea believed to be true but not proven and held onto as a matter of religion or a theology. In the domain of "Science" a "theory" is a "fact" (in the non-science-minded-person) which has been determined according to the "scientific method". When it comes to "AGW Theory", the basic requirements for being on the same footing as "Theory of Evolution", "Big Bang Theory", "Theory of Relativity", etc, have all long since been met. AGW, as a theory, is widely misunderstood to predict ever increasing high temperatures, without regard to transient changes in natural events which affect shorter term "weather". The best science I'm familiar with puts natural solar variability at some 30% of "Climate", which means that a regression of some 30% of AGW related warming is perfectly normal, and predictable even, given the presently deepening solar minimum (the "Gore Minimum"). Thus the problem, as it relates to "explain the current ice anomaly" is caused by a failure of AGW to predict long-term climate changes (it has done an excellent job to date), but rather by a failure of AGW deniers and AGW fanatics to understand what a "theory" is on the one hand, and what that big ball of fire being 30% of climate on the other.
|
|