|
Post by magellan on Apr 30, 2009 16:23:46 GMT
Two threads were created given as requests for those promoting CO2 AGW to provide evidence for specifically targeted subjects. .
In both cases, certain individuals claimed the thread as their own and ignore pleas from the OP author to remain on topic. If the OP author does not contest going off topic, I suppose its fine to become a free-for-all.
In my most recent thread, ‘A direct challenge to warmers #2’ I had hoped it would be clear to all what the subject was to be focusing on. Once again, steve decided to hijack the thread.
Rather than provide evidence, he goes off on a tangent about Myhre et al 1998. Since he has ignored my replies twice to analyze Mikolczi’s hypothesis, it should be obvious he has no interest in a constructive discussion, but is a troll.
Myhre 1998 is about forcings. It is not about feedbacks. Nor does it address water vapor. Steve would have us believe earth’s climate system is as simple as adding a bit of this gas, take away a little of another, mix it up real good and viola!
Sorry steve, it’s not that simple and the earth is more than about radiative forcings. If you can’t provide evidence as requested, just be a man and admit it or don't pollute the thread with your carbon footprint. When the OP author requests posters to stay OT, at least be courteous enough to comply. It may not be the policy of the moderators, but at some point there should be a channel to address trolls who hijack threads.
My 2c
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 30, 2009 16:43:51 GMT
1) Provide evidence that Greenland and the Arctic are influenced by increases or decreases in atmospheric CO2
Steve answered:
"As shown in previous threads, a number of lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 is very likely to lead to warming of at least 1.5C. Evidence from the last interglacial is that it was about this much warmer then, and then they had sea levels of 6 metres higher. This was due to a reduced-size Greenland and/or West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
Ie he's saying that the evidence for arctic and greenland are influenced by a rise in co2 is the same evidence for co2 rise causing warming coupled with evidence of a warmer world having a higher sea level.
2) More specifically, provide evidence that the 2007 "record" ice loss was due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
Steve answered this one:
"The record loss was on account of a number of things. Not just the warming due to CO2."
How the thread got "hijacked" (I don't think it was though) is that in the next post Jtom contested Steve's point that "a number of lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 is very likely to lead to warming of at least 1.5C", so the discussion naturally turned towards co2 as a driver of global temperature.
Afterall if co2 is a driver of global temperature, it will influence greenland and the arctic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 30, 2009 16:58:35 GMT
1) Provide evidence that Greenland and the Arctic are influenced by increases or decreases in atmospheric CO2Steve answered: "As shown in previous threads, a number of lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 is very likely to lead to warming of at least 1.5C. Evidence from the last interglacial is that it was about this much warmer then, and then they had sea levels of 6 metres higher. This was due to a reduced-size Greenland and/or West Antarctic Ice Sheet." Ie he's saying that the evidence for arctic and greenland are influenced by a rise in co2 is the same evidence for co2 rise causing warming coupled with evidence of a warmer world having a higher sea level. 2) More specifically, provide evidence that the 2007 "record" ice loss was due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2.Steve answered this one: "The record loss was on account of a number of things. Not just the warming due to CO2." How the thread got "hijacked" (I don't think it was though) is that in the next post Jtom contested Steve's point that "a number of lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 is very likely to lead to warming of at least 1.5C", so the discussion naturally turned towards co2 as a driver of global temperature. Afterall if co2 is a driver of global temperature, it will influence greenland and the arctic anyway. I am not interested in his or your opinion. I specifically asked for evidence. If you need a definition, that can be arranged.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 30, 2009 17:11:41 GMT
Magellan,
I tried my best to answer your questions, and then responded to questions about my response.
I note you've mentioned Miskolczi above. I have spent very many hours debunking Miskolczi on this forum.
Specifically: equations 5 and 6 in his paper are obviously wrong. The figure where he believes he justifies the simplification required to derive equations 5 and 6 is based on two errors. One, that the temperature of the surface is not the same as the temperature at 1.5 metres. Two, that the experimental error is too large to be able to measure the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 1, 2009 1:24:57 GMT
Magellan, I tried my best to answer your questions, and then responded to questions about my response. I note you've mentioned Miskolczi above. I have spent very many hours debunking Miskolczi on this forum. Specifically: equations 5 and 6 in his paper are obviously wrong. The figure where he believes he justifies the simplification required to derive equations 5 and 6 is based on two errors. One, that the temperature of the surface is not the same as the temperature at 1.5 metres. Two, that the experimental error is too large to be able to measure the greenhouse effect. The fact is, you have failed to provide one shred of data to support one single AGW argument listed in my challenges. If you think Miskolczi is in error, then get a paper published and stop pretending you know the first thing about his theory. He has issued a challenge, so go for it. There are forums to post it. Eli Rabbet tried and got his ears pinned back, but obviously you are much smarter than Miskolczi and the bunny combined.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 1, 2009 2:15:57 GMT
magellan, I fear this is the fate of any such challenge threads, because there is no verifiable evidence (as one would define such WRT the scientific method) of AGW.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 1, 2009 2:50:34 GMT
Socold are you implying that we can not contest a claim of evidence without hijacking the thread?
The research he cited could not / did not show whether temp drove CO2, CO2 drove temp, or something else was driving both, and it no way presented evidence of global warming.
If that indeed is the best evidence Steve can muster, then perhaps the troll charge is valid. He's just wasting bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 1, 2009 9:50:20 GMT
Magellan, I tried my best to answer your questions, and then responded to questions about my response. I note you've mentioned Miskolczi above. I have spent very many hours debunking Miskolczi on this forum. Specifically: equations 5 and 6 in his paper are obviously wrong. The figure where he believes he justifies the simplification required to derive equations 5 and 6 is based on two errors. One, that the temperature of the surface is not the same as the temperature at 1.5 metres. Two, that the experimental error is too large to be able to measure the greenhouse effect. The fact is, you have failed to provide one shred of data to support one single AGW argument listed in my challenges. If you think Miskolczi is in error, then get a paper published and stop pretending you know the first thing about his theory. He has issued a challenge, so go for it. There are forums to post it. Eli Rabbet tried and got his ears pinned back, but obviously you are much smarter than Miskolczi and the bunny combined. What did Eli Rabbet say (I don't read his blog)? I posted my thoughts on Miskolczi's paper on the climateAudit forums in the "What do people think of this new paper?" thread in March 2008, and Miskolczi pm'd me. After a bit of tooing and froing he sent me the review comments from a journal he called JQSRT who had rejected his paper. Basically the comments were the similar to mine: So if I'm pretending to know more than Miskolczi, what is fundamentally wrong with my initial comment:
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on May 1, 2009 10:47:21 GMT
See this is simply saying that 'someone said...' without actually pointing at any evidence. There appears to be no evidence out in the world (ie. at beaches etc.) that sea level is actually rising. When a computer model says sea level is rising, one should go out & check, but any number of sites around the world will show it simply isn't happening. there are a couple of places where land is subsiding or being eroded but that has nothing to do with agw or sea level rising.
Now if steve had actually pointed to some such real world evidence you might have a point in defending him but to respond to a specific request to produce data with a 'someone over there said something' response is an 'Evidence = FAIL' situation.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 1, 2009 13:05:30 GMT
Socold are you implying that we can not contest a claim of evidence without hijacking the thread? The research he cited could not / did not show whether temp drove CO2, CO2 drove temp, or something else was driving both, and it no way presented evidence of global warming. If that indeed is the best evidence Steve can muster, then perhaps the troll charge is valid. He's just wasting bandwidth. No, Magellan is the one claiming that you cannot contest a claim of evidence without hijacking a thread. The problem with Magellan's questions and jtom's comment above is an apparent failure to understand that you cannot "prove" anthropogenic warming, or indeed most scientific findings including evolution, general relativity, quantum theory, in one post or one paper. While I still think you (jtom) have misunderstood the paper you're referring to, it is but one paper that deals with one issue - namely that there is a good relationship between CO2 and temperature. As there is a physical mechanism that means CO2 drives temperature, then it's a useful test of that relationship. If you can show that temperature drives CO2 over long periods, then do so; there are some candidate explanations that can be explored.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 1, 2009 13:38:01 GMT
See this is simply saying that 'someone said...' without actually pointing at any evidence. There appears to be no evidence out in the world (ie. at beaches etc.) that sea level is actually rising. When a computer model says sea level is rising, one should go out & check, but any number of sites around the world will show it simply isn't happening. there are a couple of places where land is subsiding or being eroded but that has nothing to do with agw or sea level rising. Now if steve had actually pointed to some such real world evidence you might have a point in defending him but to respond to a specific request to produce data with a 'someone over there said something' response is an 'Evidence = FAIL' situation. In his question Magellan has failed to reflect a number of discussions that have gone on very recently that cover his question. I know people here do their own research for things that back their position because I follow up a lot of the links (such as G+T, Miskolczi, Lindzen, Spencer, Bob Carter, Bill Gray, Pielke Jr, Svensmark, solar cycle impacts and so forth). Am I wrong in expecting Magellan to understand the chain of thoughts behind the CO2 case.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 1, 2009 17:49:36 GMT
Socold are you implying that we can not contest a claim of evidence without hijacking the thread? The research he cited could not / did not show whether temp drove CO2, CO2 drove temp, or something else was driving both, and it no way presented evidence of global warming. If that indeed is the best evidence Steve can muster, then perhaps the troll charge is valid. He's just wasting bandwidth. No, Magellan is the one claiming that you cannot contest a claim of evidence without hijacking a thread. The problem with Magellan's questions and jtom's comment above is an apparent failure to understand that you cannot "prove" anthropogenic warming, or indeed most scientific findings including evolution, general relativity, quantum theory, in one post or one paper. While I still think you (jtom) have misunderstood the paper you're referring to, it is but one paper that deals with one issue - namely that there is a good relationship between CO2 and temperature. As there is a physical mechanism that means CO2 drives temperature, then it's a useful test of that relationship. If you can show that temperature drives CO2 over long periods, then do so; there are some candidate explanations that can be explored. Using your own examples, Evolution, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics (not "Quantum Theory", as you stated) are all models that at various times in history were proposed to explain certain physical phenomena or processes. The models were created, and if they were good models we would be able to measure certain phenomena/processes that the models predicted. In the case of these three models, the observations in the real world were consistent with the predictions of the models, within the limitations of the models. That is why they are generally accepted today. There is still scientific debate about these and other models, even though they are very good at predicting most of what we can observe. Einstein himself was not satisfied with General Relativity and knew it was incomplete and failed in some areas. In the case of the AGW model, none of the predictions of the model have come to pass. Sea levels are not rising as predicted. Temperatures are not rising as predicted. The polar ice cap has not vanished. There has not been an increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, or massive storms. There have not been unprecedented droughts or floods. None of the doom and gloom predicted has come to pass, and despite CO2 levels that continue to rise, the ocean heat content and the average global temperature are falling. A reasonable person who understands science would accept the fact that the AGW model is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 1, 2009 17:50:30 GMT
I have some sympathy with this thread. There is no doubt that the trace of CO 2 in the atmosphere will absorb then scatter, re-emit or collide to pass on the energy from less than 10% of the IR spectrum if a photon finds a CO 2 molecule to hit. There is also no doubt that heat leaves the surface of the planet by convection and carried by water vapor rather than radiation although by at least the tropopause (where convection stops) it will have become radiation to continue outbound to space. However, the AGW hypothesis appears to be that heat ONLY leaves the surface by radiation and ONLY passes through the troposphere by radiation. Thus the AGW hypothesis only uses radiation formulae to calculate the heat 'trapped' by CO 2 as the equivalent number of watts per square meter. It is then stated that yes 'clouds and convection are in some of the models but they are not fully understood'. In all the threads here the resort is always to Stefan Boltzmann and Beers laws - I have not seen one single mathematical approach to the carriage of heat to the tropopause by convection. Having arrived at this construct it was built into the models as a solid assumption. The models were then adjusted by addition of assumptions on other variables, such as water vapor 'feed-back' aerosol 'forcing' values 'plucked out of the air' (Hansen) - the variables being altered until the output of the models matched the observed atmosphere at the time. These models were then iterated forward to [[use a word that is not forecast ]] project a trend (?) for the future climate. The justifications for people building such models is then to argue about basic CO 2 physics or the formulae in the models, or the initial match of the models to the observed climate. Rather than whether they match now. So we are now in the position that none of the models appear to be tracking actual climate. (Enter another argument about climate and weather), and hence the requests like Magellan's to show that actual observations of the atmosphere - evidence- matches the AGW hypothesis. In most cases it appears that the evidence from observations doesn't match the forecasts of the models. SST are flat or dropping, there is no hot-spot in the tropical troposphere as forecast, the poles are not behaving in the way forecast etc. The response from AGW proponents has been to obfuscate the forecasts projected trends and anything/everything is as the models said it would be - antarctic staying cold - that was forecast - antarctic warming - that was forecast too -and there is more. Normally in science we have a QED approach. A firm testable statement of what is required to be proved and how it will be shown to be proved/falsified. Then observations and metrics to identify and quantify the variables to be tested and they are compared to the hypothesized values. IF they do not match - the hypothesis has been falsified. This does not appear to be happening with the AGW hypothesis; or at least the focus is continually altered to those variables that appear to support AGW until they too fail, and for some reason the focus is often on the non-AGW formulae - with the argument that if the opposing ideas can be shown to have problems then that justifies the falsified AGW hypothesis in some way. Why not adopt the standard scientific approach of honourable scepticism - and if a hypothesis is falsified re-examine it to see where it has a fault? So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show. Steve/Socold/KenF can then provide links to that evidence showing that the AGW hypothesis is supported This is a standard 'defence' of a hypothesis. It _should_ be simple to do.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 1, 2009 19:09:34 GMT
I have some sympathy with this thread. There is no doubt that the trace of CO 2 in the atmosphere will absorb then scatter, re-emit or collide to pass on the energy from less than 10% of the IR spectrum if a photon finds a CO 2 molecule to hit. There is also no doubt that heat leaves the surface of the planet by convection and carried by water vapor rather than radiation although by at least the tropopause (where convection stops) it will have become radiation to continue outbound to space. However, the AGW hypothesis appears to be that heat ONLY leaves the surface by radiation and ONLY passes through the troposphere by radiation. Thus the AGW hypothesis only uses radiation formulae to calculate the heat 'trapped' by CO 2 as the equivalent number of watts per square meter. It is then stated that yes 'clouds and convection are in some of the models but they are not fully understood'. In all the threads here the resort is always to Stefan Boltzmann and Beers laws - I have not seen one single mathematical approach to the carriage of heat to the tropopause by convection. Having arrived at this construct it was built into the models as a solid assumption. The models were then adjusted by addition of assumptions on other variables, such as water vapor 'feed-back' aerosol 'forcing' values 'plucked out of the air' (Hansen) - the variables being altered until the output of the models matched the observed atmosphere at the time. These models were then iterated forward to [[use a word that is not forecast ]] project a trend (?) for the future climate. The justifications for people building such models is then to argue about basic CO 2 physics or the formulae in the models, or the initial match of the models to the observed climate. Rather than whether they match now. So we are now in the position that none of the models appear to be tracking actual climate. (Enter another argument about climate and weather), and hence the requests like Magellan's to show that actual observations of the atmosphere - evidence- matches the AGW hypothesis. In most cases it appears that the evidence from observations doesn't match the forecasts of the models. SST are flat or dropping, there is no hot-spot in the tropical troposphere as forecast, the poles are not behaving in the way forecast etc. The response from AGW proponents has been to obfuscate the forecasts projected trends and anything/everything is as the models said it would be - antarctic staying cold - that was forecast - antarctic warming - that was forecast too -and there is more. Normally in science we have a QED approach. A firm testable statement of what is required to be proved and how it will be shown to be proved/falsified. Then observations and metrics to identify and quantify the variables to be tested and they are compared to the hypothesized values. IF they do not match - the hypothesis has been falsified. This does not appear to be happening with the AGW hypothesis; or at least the focus is continually altered to those variables that appear to support AGW until they too fail, and for some reason the focus is often on the non-AGW formulae - with the argument that if the opposing ideas can be shown to have problems then that justifies the falsified AGW hypothesis in some way. Why not adopt the standard scientific approach of honourable scepticism - and if a hypothesis is falsified re-examine it to see where it has a fault? So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show. Steve/Socold/KenF can then provide links to that evidence showing that the AGW hypothesis is supported This is a standard 'defence' of a hypothesis. It _should_ be simple to do. So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show. That was done in challenge #1 1) tropical tropospheric warming more than the surface i.e. the ubiquitous "hot spot" per IPCC AR4, ref. Santer et al 2005. 2) radiative imbalance of .85 w/m 2[/sup in the oceans per Hansen et al 2005 (referenced in IPCC AR4). This is the supposed "proof" of CO2 AGW.
On 1, warmologists now claim they really didn't mean that. On 2, there was no response.
Challenge #2 is to force the issue on Arctic ice melt, the latest poster child for CO2 AGW. Two years ago we were bombarded with "scientists say" press releases assuring the public the end was near for the Arctic and it was due to CO2 AGW. The evidence does not support that assumption.
We've been told over and over how much evidence there is, so these threads are warmer's opportunity to present it. At some point observational evidence must be the final determination in testing a hypothesis. Instead, the discussion always reverts to logical fallacy.
They are attempting to formulate an irrefutable hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 1, 2009 22:34:41 GMT
There you go - its simple
Now all we need is references from the AGW proponents proving their hypothesis
|
|