|
Post by jimcripwell on May 23, 2009 15:05:02 GMT
steve writes "This doesn't link amounts of CO2 to temperature, "
Precisely. I am not denying that AGW is a perfectly plausible hypothesis, which deserves a place in a discussion of physics. It has all sorts of things going for it. But my point is, and always will be, that without actual experimental data which directly shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels, causes global temperatures to rise, AGW remains, and always will remain, just that; a hypothesis. There is no experimental basis for any of the doom and gloom perdictions warmaholics love to make to scare the pants off a gullible public, and make senior politicians, like President Obama, want to spend enormous amounts of money trying to solve what I consider to be a non-existent problem. That is the message that I want to get to the mainstream media. We will probably always disagree, but when these sorts of discussions occur anywhere, I will continue to point out that the is no basis in physics for believing that AGW has been proved, to any extent whatsoever, to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 15:11:57 GMT
No by "'tuned' to reproduce the observed processes" they mean patterns in precipitation, magnitude of seasonal cycle, etc. Without any forcing applied the models show a flat temperature trend. There is no global warming built into the models. No forcing applied? Indeed I can build such a model in Excel that shows no warming until forcing is "applied". Forcing is a parameter. I understand what they did. They have said many times what they did. They discounted all potential external forcings because they had no way of putting their finger on what the physical process was that was producing the observed warming. ( I think you are on record with that argument Socold). They parameterized the CO2 forcing to reproduce the slope of the most recent decade of warming prior to 2000 explaining why the IPCC average projection matched the slope of that decade precisely. And like I said while they did that a decade ago they will not do that today because that would be tantamount to an admission the models are crap. (thats not to say they didn't get some of the climate responses right in them, just that the results failed miserably to even predict the next decade) So they are reduced to suggesting that we are not actually able to measure the current heat gain ("its hiding somewhere"). Thats really ridiculous because they then can't explain how they were able to measure it correctly a decade ago when they parameterized their models. Its actually hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 23, 2009 15:13:42 GMT
socold writes "Without any forcing applied the models show a flat temperature trend."
Again, precisely. None of the AGW models show that global temperatures will fall. That is why warmaholics will always refuse to acknowledge that global temperatures are actually falling, which they are. As I have pointed out before, future temperature trends are a Sword of Damaclese hanging over the AGW camp. When it becomes so absolutely clear that global temperatures are actually falling, there will be a mass exodus of scientists from the AGW camp, and AGW will collapse like the house of cards that it is.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 23, 2009 16:38:23 GMT
steve writes "This doesn't link amounts of CO2 to temperature, " Precisely. I am not denying that AGW is a perfectly plausible hypothesis, which deserves a place in a discussion of physics. It has all sorts of things going for it. But my point is, and always will be, that without actual experimental data which directly shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels, causes global temperatures to rise, AGW remains, and always will remain, just that; a hypothesis. There is no experimental basis for any of the doom and gloom perdictions warmaholics love to make to scare the pants off a gullible public, and make senior politicians, like President Obama, want to spend enormous amounts of money trying to solve what I consider to be a non-existent problem. That is the message that I want to get to the mainstream media. We will probably always disagree, but when these sorts of discussions occur anywhere, I will continue to point out that the is no basis in physics for believing that AGW has been proved, to any extent whatsoever, to be correct. So a direct experiment that shows that adding CO2 into the atmosphere results in less radiation coming out is not good enough for you, and, further, you are saying that such direct evidence does not qualify for even shifting your "there is no basis in physics" position. If we found a such a direct experiment, then you would simply say. Yes, that may be so, but that does not prove that the warming will always continue/be catastrophic/etc. I now (finally) fully understand your position.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 23, 2009 16:43:33 GMT
No by "'tuned' to reproduce the observed processes" they mean patterns in precipitation, magnitude of seasonal cycle, etc. Without any forcing applied the models show a flat temperature trend. There is no global warming built into the models. No forcing applied? Indeed I can build such a model in Excel that shows no warming until forcing is "applied". Forcing is a parameter. I understand what they did. They have said many times what they did. They discounted all potential external forcings because they had no way of putting their finger on what the physical process was that was producing the observed warming. ( I think you are on record with that argument Socold). They parameterized the CO2 forcing to reproduce the slope of the most recent decade of warming prior to 2000 explaining why the IPCC average projection matched the slope of that decade precisely. No, this is wrong. The CO2 forcing is fine because it is relatively simple to calculate. The indirect forcing from and amounts of aerosols is the problem and is probably over parametrized.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 17:11:27 GMT
Well I have yet to see a calculation of the amount of heat carried by evaporation of water at the surface and its convection from the surface to the upper layers of the troposphere. Also the effect on convection of changes of state and the various latent heats. As your response shows there is only accounting for radiation and absorption. Ah the "I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist" argument. The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. Socold advancing an argument for the bobbleheaded approach to the pig in a poke.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 23, 2009 17:19:39 GMT
steve writes "If we found a such a direct experiment, then you would simply say. Yes, that may be so, but that does not prove that the warming will always continue/be catastrophic/etc."
No, this is not correct. If there were hard, measured, independently replicated experimental data to show that a doubling of CO2 would cause a significant and catastrophic increase in global temperatures, then I would be a firm advocate of AGW. My point, in case you missed it, is that it is impossible, with current technology, to ever carry out such an experiment. This was obvious to me when I first started looking into AGW some 6 years ago. So it must have been crystal clear to people with names like Hansen, Watson, Houghton and Mann that it would be impossible, from basic physics, to ever prove that CO2 was the cause of global warming. Yet they persisted in perpetuating a hoax on people, and potentially costing taxpayers trillions of dollars. When you understand this aspect of my views on AGW, then, and only then, will you understand my position.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 18:34:11 GMT
No forcing applied? Indeed I can build such a model in Excel that shows no warming until forcing is "applied". Forcing is a parameter. I understand what they did. They have said many times what they did. They discounted all potential external forcings because they had no way of putting their finger on what the physical process was that was producing the observed warming. ( I think you are on record with that argument Socold). They parameterized the CO2 forcing to reproduce the slope of the most recent decade of warming prior to 2000 explaining why the IPCC average projection matched the slope of that decade precisely. No, this is wrong. The CO2 forcing is fine because it is relatively simple to calculate. The indirect forcing from and amounts of aerosols is the problem and is probably over parametrized. LOL! Thanks for admitting the models were wrong. We are getting somewhere. The trick of course is to get your model to reasonably predict a decade or so of climate change. This modeling exercise isn't much different than building a flying machine. Progress is dependent upon folks jumping off the peak of the barn.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 23, 2009 18:44:11 GMT
No, this is wrong. The CO2 forcing is fine because it is relatively simple to calculate. The indirect forcing from and amounts of aerosols is the problem and is probably over parametrized. LOL! Thanks for admitting the models were wrong. We are getting somewhere. If you think that is a significant admission then, no, we are probably not getting anywhere
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 18:47:51 GMT
No by "'tuned' to reproduce the observed processes" they mean patterns in precipitation, magnitude of seasonal cycle, etc. Without any forcing applied the models show a flat temperature trend. There is no global warming built into the models. No forcing applied? Indeed I can build such a model in Excel that shows no warming until forcing is "applied". Forcing is a parameter. I understand what they did. They have said many times what they did. They discounted all potential external forcings because they had no way of putting their finger on what the physical process was that was producing the observed warming. ( I think you are on record with that argument Socold). They parameterized the CO2 forcing to reproduce the slope of the most recent decade of warming prior to 2000 explaining why the IPCC average projection matched the slope of that decade precisely. You don't seem to understand it at all. They haven't "parameterized the CO2 forcing to reproduce the slope of the most recent decade of warming". That's just complete nonsense. Once again we have skeptics making up arguments out of thin air to attack models. Nevermind if it's true, I guess the idea is just to hopefully sneak a through past us. This one was too obvious though.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 23, 2009 18:51:14 GMT
steve writes "If we found a such a direct experiment, then you would simply say. Yes, that may be so, but that does not prove that the warming will always continue/be catastrophic/etc." No, this is not correct. If there were hard, measured, independently replicated experimental data to show that a doubling of CO2 would cause a significant and catastrophic increase in global temperatures, then I would be a firm advocate of AGW. My point, in case you missed it, is that it is impossible, with current technology, to ever carry out such an experiment. This was obvious to me when I first started looking into AGW some 6 years ago. So it must have been crystal clear to people with names like Hansen, Watson, Houghton and Mann that it would be impossible, from basic physics, to ever prove that CO2 was the cause of global warming. Yet they persisted in perpetuating a hoax on people, and potentially costing taxpayers trillions of dollars. When you understand this aspect of my views on AGW, then, and only then, will you understand my position. I understand it. You're wrong and they are right. You're wrong that they are attempting to perpetrate a hoax. It is crystal clear to me that your claim about trillions of dollars is an unprovable hoax perpetuated by the likes of CEI, Marshall Institute, NRSP, Heartland,...
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 18:51:56 GMT
socold writes "Without any forcing applied the models show a flat temperature trend." Again, precisely. None of the AGW models show that global temperatures will fall. Yes they do. Wrong, "warmoholics" accept noise in climate. There's no use inventing strawman arguments. My arguments about the cooling since 2003 have been made clear many times on this forum. I don't know why you think you can just strawman me. I've made it clear that the cooling since 2003 is primarily due to solar cycle and declining ENSO. 2003 had a strong el nino and was affected by solar maximum. 2008 had a strong la nina and was affected by solar minimum. Then temperatures continue rising the skeptic camp will fall into nothingness because you guys have backed well into the cooling corner now. I wonder what will happen when skeptics suddenly realize the models were right - will they excuse themselves that it is just coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 23, 2009 18:55:31 GMT
Then temperatures continue rising the skeptic camp will fall into nothingness because you guys have backed well into the cooling corner now. Here here! Already the old threads on this board are making interesting reading - "gettingchilly" has made his move for the doors already
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 18:56:40 GMT
Maybe Watts will "spring clean" some of his old blog posts in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 23, 2009 19:02:53 GMT
Then temperatures continue rising the skeptic camp will fall into nothingness because you guys have backed well into the cooling corner now.
I have tried to warn them. Unfortunately, rather than concentrating on the uncertainties and, what I believe are flaws, in the AGW case, they've chosen to pin their hopes on speculative solar theories and similar nonsense.
80% of the sceptic arguments are going to get blown away over the next 5 years.
|
|