|
|
Post by spaceman on Oct 3, 2009 1:32:49 GMT
I have doubts about a model that shows climate change when we can't even predict hurricanes. A few years ago they were predicting an above average hurricane season with several hitting the US. What wasn't in the models at the time was the dust blowing off the coast of Africa causing the water in the eastern Atlantic to cool. I saw that on seawiss. (I lost the exact website. It shows dust, smoke from fires and volcanoes) The picture of Al Gore standing in front of hurricane Katrina implied that there were more hurricanes in the making and more powerful ones to come... so far this season? Last season? The problem with the model of co2 warming is that it has made too many assumptions that there are no other variables. That there are no other effects from the sun other than irradence, and that is constant. This country isn't the only country that has forest fires.
Are you sure that you haven't missed anything?
And here's why: We can throw resource at a problem that may not be a problem, when there is another problem that we are ignoring. In economics it's called guns or butter. We can put all of our resources in to making guns, then we don't have anything to eat. If we make all butter, then we eat, but can't defend ourselves. We are going to throw all these resoureces at global warming, when ... WHAT IF you are wrong? We should be looking at weather change in general and prepare for either event. And I really think that the weather will turn colder because my model says so. My weather model is based on three things: the feedback system of balance in the earth's heat budget. When it gets warmer, there is more rain and a loss of heat through the physical action. 2. The sun quiets down and doesn't dump as much energy into the upper atmosphere and 3. Combination of where the earth is in orbit the time of year and the amount of wobble . So based on those 3 things it could get real cold. There is an overlap between the earth losing heat through rain and the sun quieting down . The earth continues to loose heat as the sun switches off, making the drop more dramatic.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 3, 2009 3:28:37 GMT
The climate models show that doubling co2 causes a significant amount of warming. The lack of model results to the contrary underlines the fact that this isn't simply an assumption that someone has programmed into the models or else someone could just as easily program a model to show no warming from co2. No the lack of model results to the contrary show that the co2 warming from models is not an assumption, but an inescapable consequence of human understanding of climate. No, it shows the models work as models. They churn out what they are designed to churn out. And since we know the models are not perfect, complete, or accurate, perhaps the best defense of AGW, if one is trying to be evidence based, would be to use..evidence. Models are not evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 3, 2009 3:52:06 GMT
The climate models show that doubling co2 causes a significant amount of warming. The lack of model results to the contrary underlines the fact that this isn't simply an assumption that someone has programmed into the models or else someone could just as easily program a model to show no warming from co2. No the lack of model results to the contrary show that the co2 warming from models is not an assumption, but an inescapable consequence of human understanding of climate. They built the models around the assumption that the bulk of all observed warming was from CO2. Garbage in, garbage out. How you can be so ignorant of this fact boggles the mind. BECAUSE their assumption is that CO2 is the primary climate driver they will always show warming with higher CO2. If you assume that higher numbers of CPUs in the world causes global warming and build models to explore this...higher numbers of CPUs will always lead to more warming. It doesn't matter how diligently you work to wrap your model around the observational data (even if you successfully get it to follow past climate trends)...it's still a load of crap and all the models will still show whatever range of sensitivities the idiot researchers decided to assign them. Your excuse "well all the models all show high sensitivity" holds about as much scientific credibility as a dowser, someone reading tea leaves, psychics advertising pay per minute phone numbers or monkeys flinging their feces against a wall. Your line of reasoning here is WRONG. Even if climate sensitivity actually was high...YOU ARE STILL WRONG! Your logic is invalid. Your reasoning flawed. Look at those great financial models we were using a couple years ago...WRONG! Look at that great solar cycle model that they had hind casting correctly and predicting SC24 would be 20% more powerful than SC23...WRONG! |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 3, 2009 11:55:15 GMT
No, it shows the models work as models. They churn out what they are designed to churn out. I already debunked that argument. If models simply churn out what they are designed to churn out then someone could easily design one to show no warming from co2 and churn that out. It's the fact that noone has done this that suggests such a possibility is not compatible with the physics. There's a contradiction between arguing models are putty which can be molded by fraudulent scientists to show anything and the argument that models cannot model climate. This is like a recent discussion I had here joannenova.com.au/2009/01/reply-to-deltoid/comment-page-1/#comment-12363In which I asked "Why haven’t they tuned the hot-spot out the models?" and the reply was: "Easy. It wipes out 2/3rds of the warming." To which my reply was: "Which is good evidence that the models cannot be manipulated or tuned to show any result. Or else they could be tuned to show all the warming and also no hotspot." |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 3, 2009 12:20:04 GMT
The climate models show that doubling co2 causes a significant amount of warming. The lack of model results to the contrary underlines the fact that this isn't simply an assumption that someone has programmed into the models or else someone could just as easily program a model to show no warming from co2. No the lack of model results to the contrary show that the co2 warming from models is not an assumption, but an inescapable consequence of human understanding of climate. They built the models around the assumption that the bulk of all observed warming was from CO2. Garbage in, garbage out. How you can be so ignorant of this fact boggles the mind. BECAUSE their assumption is that CO2 is the primary climate driver they will always show warming with higher CO2. Your argument suffers from the fatal flaw I mention in my above post. You claim that the warming from co2 the models show is simply "built" into them, but that implies it would be easy to "build" no warming from co2 into a model. Or even cooling from co2. That would be the argument against AGW, yet we are to believe noone has bothered doing it? Additionally scientists build the models to try to reproduce the behavior of the climate as accurately as possible. If someone could better reproduce the behavior of the climate in a way that showed no warming from co2, it would be done. Such a model would show CPUs don't provide sufficient energy to cause global warming. Different teams might try building such models too and those also would show CPUs don't provide sufficient energy to cause global warming. Noone would be able to produce a model showing global warming from CPUs because such a result is not compatible with physics. If they are all "idiot researchers" and the models are so malleable why haven't they removed the hotspot? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 3, 2009 13:05:21 GMT
World #1 - How I see it
With over over a century of theories and laws based on lab, atmospheric and space based experiments and observations, scientists build GCMs to see how well that current understanding can reproduce the behavior of the observed climate - thousands of properties from seasonal cycles, to rainfall patterns.
As this understanding is not perfect neither are GCMs, but likewise this understanding does heavily constrain possible results meaning that "anything" is not possible.
GCMs are built by many teams from many different countries. The GCMs are all found to show strong warming from rising co2. This result strongly suggests that from what we know about climate rising co2 causes strong warming.
At the same time there are inconsistencies between the models and observations, such as the model prediction of a tropical tropospheric hotspot that appears inconsistent with observations.
World #2 - How some skeptics see it
With over over a century of theories and laws based on lab, atmospheric and space based experiments and observations, scientists aren't interested to see how well this understanding can reproduce the behavior of the observed climate. Curiosity just doesn't stretch that far. For some reason.
Even AGW skeptics aren't interested in doing this. For some reason.
In fact an international conspiracy of scientists actively prevents anyone from trying to do this. Somehow.
Scientists are so hellbent on showing that rising co2 causes significant warming that they build GCMs. This is easy because GCMs can be built to show anything. garbage in garbage out.
They deliberately build a hotspot into the models which is inconsistent with observations. For some reason.
Skeptics don't bother demonstrating GCMs can be built to show anything by tweaking one to show no warming from co2. For some reason.
This world makes no sense. For some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 3, 2009 14:38:40 GMT
Your argument suffers from the fatal flaw I mention in my above post. You claim that the warming from co2 the models show is simply "built" into them, but that implies it would be easy to "build" no warming from co2 into a model. Or even cooling from co2. That would be the argument against AGW, yet we are to believe noone has bothered doing it? If they are all "idiot researchers" and the models are so malleable why haven't they removed the hotspot? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! While it was exasperating reading the first part of your message that last bit made it all worth while. To borrow a word from Dubya, I "misunderestimated" you. Perhaps instead of challenging others you should ask yourself why you defended the models' basic assumptions by pointing out that a phenomenon that is REQUIRED to demonstrate those basic assumptions...is absent from the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 3, 2009 14:45:13 GMT
socold writes "World #1 - How I see it"
Let me add the world as Jim Cripwell sees it.
There is no experimental evidence to show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels causes global temperaturss to rise.
Changes that have been measured in all aspects of world weather and climate can easily be explained by causes other than a warming signal from increased levels of CO2.
The output of non-validated computer programs has a place in scientific research. However, this place does no include the alleged "proof" that AGW has any validity in science.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 3, 2009 15:43:33 GMT
No, it shows the models work as models. They churn out what they are designed to churn out. I already debunked that argument. If models simply churn out what they are designed to churn out then someone could easily design one to show no warming from co2 and churn that out. It's the fact that noone has done this that suggests such a possibility is not compatible with the physics. There's a contradiction between arguing models are putty which can be molded by fraudulent scientists to show anything and the argument that models cannot model climate. This is like a recent discussion I had here joannenova.com.au/2009/01/reply-to-deltoid/comment-page-1/#comment-12363In which I asked "Why haven’t they tuned the hot-spot out the models?" and the reply was: "Easy. It wipes out 2/3rds of the warming." To which my reply was: "Which is good evidence that the models cannot be manipulated or tuned to show any result. Or else they could be tuned to show all the warming and also no hotspot." Its no such thing - it is evidence the model is set up that warming equals hotspot - and that no hotspot equals no warming. Meanwhile in the REAL world we have the real case of WARMING and NO HOTSPOT Therefore the model is falsified. You can crow about how well falsified the model is - but it does not appear to support your case that the model shows the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 3, 2009 16:27:38 GMT
World #1 - How I see itWith over over a century of theories and laws based on lab, atmospheric and space based experiments and observations, scientists build GCMs to see how well that current understanding can reproduce the behavior of the observed climate - thousands of properties from seasonal cycles, to rainfall patterns. As this understanding is not perfect neither are GCMs, but likewise this understanding does heavily constrain possible results meaning that "anything" is not possible. GCMs are built by many teams from many different countries. The GCMs are all found to show strong warming from rising co2. This result strongly suggests that from what we know about climate rising co2 causes strong warming. At the same time there are inconsistencies between the models and observations, such as the model prediction of a tropical tropospheric hotspot that appears inconsistent with observations. World #2 - How some skeptics see itWith over over a century of theories and laws based on lab, atmospheric and space based experiments and observations, scientists aren't interested to see how well this understanding can reproduce the behavior of the observed climate. Curiosity just doesn't stretch that far. For some reason. Even AGW skeptics aren't interested in doing this. For some reason. In fact an international conspiracy of scientists actively prevents anyone from trying to do this. Somehow. Scientists are so hellbent on showing that rising co2 causes significant warming that they build GCMs. This is easy because GCMs can be built to show anything. garbage in garbage out. They deliberately build a hotspot into the models which is inconsistent with observations. For some reason. Skeptics don't bother demonstrating GCMs can be built to show anything by tweaking one to show no warming from co2. For some reason. This world makes no sense. For some reason. You missed out the third option SoCold The world as professionals see it. Models are useful - they can triage ideas - so they are built with all the physical laws and knowledge accumulated in the past. They are then baselined against known observations to validate the models and their output. As soon as a validation failure is found the professional ceases to use the model for ANYTHING important and immediately informs all users of the model that their decisions MUST be rechecked by other means as the model has a fault. Then the professional attempts to find out what unexpected event caused the failure - an algorithm in the model? an assumption? or something totally unexpected in the real world? This is not only curiosity driven but if that model has been used to justify designs it MUST be checked. This is a completely egoless procedure. If a fault is found that is common to other models then the fault is published to all users of those models as they must also stop using their models and advise their users accordingly. You see professionals use models not as a crutch to their academic arguments but to do real things correctly safely and with continual quality assurance. Professionals use models all the time - but NEVER fully trust them. Professionals test their models against the real world, and are ready to prevent their use if any errors are found. Aerodynamic models have been around for many years as have CAD and mechanical stress models but aircraft are still _cautiously_ test flown fully instrumented to obtain metrics on stress and performance and put in rigs that simulate severe weather and continual use for many thousands of flight hours, all at huge cost because professionals do not totally trust models. If we look at weather models - say WARP or WRF each forecast is subject to verification and validation - entire research groups work to score the accuracy of these weather models and their forecasts and corrections are fed back to the modelers and even correction algorithms developed to self correct the models. Yet the output from these models are still always given Bayesian confidence levels by the forecasters for their output. Compare this to a climatologist using a model .... even though it is accepted that the model 'is not perfect in several areas' like modeling clouds and their effects AND that the model is modeling a chaotic system where minor errors propagate in totally unexpected ways: The model CONTINUES IN USE and is used to advise politicians on effects in a century's time and no 'self doubt'' is expressed whatsoever. Indeed any inaccuracies found are fobbed off as 'only weather' those highlighting the inaccuracies are called 'deniers' and told they are hazarding their children's lives. We already know that you are not in the professional category but tell me - are climatologists acting professionally? |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 3, 2009 17:06:43 GMT
As I recall, the issue is not whether CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere. In general, it does, and it does it logarithmically. In the lab and in theory, doubling CO2 concentration is estimated to increase temperatures 1 to 1.5 oC. This is about the same order as moving from Massachusetts to Virginia. People do this a lot, although taxes, not temperature, may be the primary driver.
The "Catastrophes" are an artifact of the IPCC scenarios, in which Feedbacks and Climate System Couplings are estimated.
“Ch 07: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 499 - 587. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf. “Ch 08: Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 589 - 662. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf. “Ch 08-SM: Supplementary Materials; Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 73. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/docs/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch08-SM.pdf.
"Definition of Climate Change in the IPCC: Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use." "Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines 'climate change' as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.' The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between 'climate change' attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and 'climate variability' attributable to natural causes." “IPCC Anniversary Brochure,” December 2004. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf. Page 4. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 3, 2009 17:45:04 GMT
As I recall, the issue is not whether CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere. In general, it does, and it does it logarithmically. In the lab and in theory, doubling CO2 concentration is estimated to increase temperatures 1 to 1.5 oC. This is about the same order as moving from Massachusetts to Virginia. People do this a lot, although taxes, not temperature, may be the primary driver.
The "Catastrophes" are an artifact of the IPCC scenarios, in which Feedbacks and Climate System Couplings are estimated.
“Ch 07: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 499 - 587. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf. “Ch 08: Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 589 - 662. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf. “Ch 08-SM: Supplementary Materials; Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 73. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/docs/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch08-SM.pdf.
"Definition of Climate Change in the IPCC: Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use." "Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines 'climate change' as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.' The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between 'climate change' attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and 'climate variability' attributable to natural causes." “IPCC Anniversary Brochure,” December 2004. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf. Page 4. Actually this IS the issue. As the full effects of the atmosphere cannot be replicated in the laboratory, the warming effect of CO 2 scattering 8% of the outgoing infra-red radiation in a dynamic atmosphere cannot be assumed as a simple mathematical equation based purely on radiation through a gas column. Firstly you have to provide a figure for how much heat energy goes past the CO 2 in the denser part of the atmosphere to the tropopause by convection and as latent heat of state change of water. This has not been quantified so it is not known how much of the energy leaving the tropopause to space bypassed CO 2. Remember all the radiative forcing figures are generated based on radiation to the tropopause in a totally static slab atmosphere with an instantaneous doubling of CO 2. You may be surprised to know that these are impossibilities in the real world.  Although there are many competing assumptions it is unknown how the hydrologic cycle which largely drives the atmospheric convection and the ocean convectioni cycles, responds to a rise in temperature. (If this was known there would not have been so many failed forecasts on the number of storms in a warm year.). It may be that the hydrologic cycle can overwhelm any effects from CO 2 scattering - remember the AGW hypothesis RELIES on more water in the atmosphere leading to more warmth - but perhaps this is not the overall effect. For example more convection in the Pacific leads to stronger trade winds blowing surface water westwards which leads to cold water welling up in the East Pacific La Nina. The cold eastern Pacific leads to less convection - when there is less convection the trade winds drop and the warm surface water from the West Pacific returns as a Kelvin wave and a few months later there is an El Nino. This is a complex feedback mechanism and El Nino results in that ocean heat venting rapidly through the atmosphere out to space largely by convection and the hydrologic cycle. The higher convection leads to higher trade winds and the hot surface water is blown back to the West. In many ways an El Nino is a cooling event - like sweating. This complex interaction of winds and ocean cannot be shown and accurately measured in a laboratory experiment with an infra red lamp and a column of air and CO 2. There are other cycles that remain puzzles - why did the Gulf stream slow over a few years then speed up again? <<Shrug>> nobody knows. What drives the PDO, NAO and AMO? Nobody knows - there are lots of guesses. It is really nice to simplify everything down to a single guilty molecule - but although I have not seen any empirical proof of the AGW assumptions., I have seen repeated falsification of the AGW claims. It is undeniable is that in the last decades of the 20th century the atmosphere got warmer but that is an empirical observation and proves nothing. Atmospheric temperatures have plateaued or declined as has ocean heat content over the last 5 or 6 years - despite CO 2 levels increasing. This is an impossibility according to the CO 2 causes Global Warming AGW hypothesis. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is in grave danger of obvious falsification. Hence the reason that you will hear all sorts of ideas for 'heat in the pipeline' and 'claims of hot ocean waters capability of negative convection below the thermocline. Unfortunately, each time sensors are sent to find THE smoking gun AGW observational evidence - for example the AQUA and ERBE satellite projects and the ARGO floats and deep water robots - they do the opposite. So no - the issue IS does CO 2 lead to warming in the REAL atmosphere; and that remains to be proven. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 3, 2009 18:37:07 GMT
As I recall, the issue is not whether CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere. In general, it does, and it does it logarithmically. In the lab and in theory, doubling CO2 concentration is estimated to increase temperatures 1 to 1.5 oC. This is about the same order as moving from Massachusetts to Virginia. People do this a lot, although taxes, not temperature, may be the primary driver.
The "Catastrophes" are an artifact of the IPCC scenarios, in which Feedbacks and Climate System Couplings are estimated.
“Ch 07: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 499 - 587. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf. “Ch 08: Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 589 - 662. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf. “Ch 08-SM: Supplementary Materials; Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In , 73. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/docs/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch08-SM.pdf.
"Definition of Climate Change in the IPCC: Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use." "Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines 'climate change' as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.' The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between 'climate change' attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and 'climate variability' attributable to natural causes." “IPCC Anniversary Brochure,” December 2004. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf. Page 4. Actually this IS the issue. As the full effects of the atmosphere cannot be replicated in the laboratory, the warming effect of CO 2 scattering 8% of the outgoing infra-red radiation in a dynamic atmosphere cannot be assumed as a simple mathematical equation based purely on radiation through a gas column. Firstly you have to provide a figure for how much heat energy goes past the CO 2 in the denser part of the atmosphere to the tropopause by convection and as latent heat of state change of water. This has not been quantified so it is not known how much of the energy leaving the tropopause to space bypassed CO 2. Remember all the radiative forcing figures are generated based on radiation to the tropopause in a totally static slab atmosphere with an instantaneous doubling of CO 2. You may be surprised to know that these are impossibilities in the real world. Although there are many competing assumptions it is unknown how the hydrologic cycle which largely drives the atmospheric convection and the ocean convectioni cycles, responds to a rise in temperature. (If this was known there would not have been so many failed forecasts on the number of storms in a warm year.). It may be that the hydrologic cycle can overwhelm any effects from CO 2 scattering - remember the AGW hypothesis RELIES on more water in the atmosphere leading to more warmth - but perhaps this is not the overall effect. For example more convection in the Pacific leads to stronger trade winds blowing surface water westwards which leads to cold water welling up in the East Pacific La Nina. The cold eastern Pacific leads to less convection - when there is less convection the trade winds drop and the warm surface water from the West Pacific returns as a Kelvin wave and a few months later there is an El Nino. This is a complex feedback mechanism and El Nino results in that ocean heat venting rapidly through the atmosphere out to space largely by convection and the hydrologic cycle. The higher convection leads to higher trade winds and the hot surface water is blown back to the West. In many ways an El Nino is a cooling event - like sweating. This complex interaction of winds and ocean cannot be shown and accurately measured in a laboratory experiment with an infra red lamp and a column of air and CO 2. There are other cycles that remain puzzles - why did the Gulf stream slow over a few years then speed up again? <<Shrug>> nobody knows. What drives the PDO, NAO and AMO? Nobody knows - there are lots of guesses. It is really nice to simplify everything down to a single guilty molecule - but although I have not seen any empirical proof of the AGW assumptions., I have seen repeated falsification of the AGW claims. It is undeniable is that in the last decades of the 20th century the atmosphere got warmer but that is an empirical observation and proves nothing. Atmospheric temperatures have plateaued or declined as has ocean heat content over the last 5 or 6 years - despite CO 2 levels increasing. This is an impossibility according to the CO 2 causes Global Warming AGW hypothesis. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is in grave danger of obvious falsification. Hence the reason that you will hear all sorts of ideas for 'heat in the pipeline' and 'claims of hot ocean waters capability of negative convection below the thermocline. Unfortunately, each time sensors are sent to find THE smoking gun AGW observational evidence - for example the AQUA and ERBE satellite projects and the ARGO floats and deep water robots - they do the opposite. So no - the issue IS does CO 2 lead to warming in the REAL atmosphere; and that remains to be proven. The real question is this: Is there any evidence that the climate system is sensitive that a trivial amount of excess heating from CO2 can lead to a run away series of positive feedbacks leading to dangerous changes in climate? I think the evidence from history, and inspite of the decades of work by AGW promoters, no. The have failed to show any compelling evidence that their scenarios could happen. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 3, 2009 22:26:00 GMT
Your argument suffers from the fatal flaw I mention in my above post. You claim that the warming from co2 the models show is simply "built" into them, but that implies it would be easy to "build" no warming from co2 into a model. Or even cooling from co2. That would be the argument against AGW, yet we are to believe noone has bothered doing it? If they are all "idiot researchers" and the models are so malleable why haven't they removed the hotspot? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! While it was exasperating reading the first part of your message that last bit made it all worth while. To borrow a word from Dubya, I "misunderestimated" you. Perhaps instead of challenging others you should ask yourself why you defended the models' basic assumptions by pointing out that a phenomenon that is REQUIRED to demonstrate those basic assumptions...is absent from the real world. You believe the hotspot problem falsifies AGW, not me. Such a position is inconsistent with your argument that models can be tuned to show anything and that scientists tune them to promote AGW. If you think the hotspot in models falsifies AGW then why haven't these AGW promoting scientists tuned out the hotspot from the models? I see the same kind of inconsistent arguments coming from creationists who claim on one hand that scientists fake fossils to support the theory of evolution but then go on argue "there are no transitional fossils". Well if scientists are willing to fake fossils how can there be no transitional fossils? Another inconsistent pair I hear from skeptics is the old "Science requires all theories to be falsifiable, therefore AGW (or evolution) is not science because it is not falsifiable" coupled with "AGW (or evolution) has been falsified" and they don't even spot the contradiction. People are just looking for excuses and not thinking through their own arguments carefully. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 3, 2009 22:27:08 GMT
socold writes "World #1 - How I see it" Let me add the world as Jim Cripwell sees it. There is no experimental evidence to show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels causes global temperaturss to rise. Yes there is. Is there a single experiment showing this? Of course not. Is this known from the results of multiple experiments? Yes. |
|
