Simple climate change refutation challenge

[Alric]

It simply says the conclusion of the papers is considered to be plausible.

And considering the rest of the report; what bearing does this have on the conclusion that climate change is at least partly man made?

 

[jsfisher]

And considering the rest of the report; what bearing does this have on the conclusion that climate change is at least partly man made?

Since these are not issues I have raised, why are you directing this question to me? Perhaps you are trying to divert attention from your misstatement and from your failed attempt to cover it up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hmm..starts going up acutely with the use of fossil fuels and increased atmospheric greenhouse gases.. The point is that it agrees with everything else.

And what's more, it agrees with predictions. All the alternative explanations have been derived after the fact, and most of their current proponents were once of the opinion that it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Lets never forget Lindzen's Iris Theory. I'm sure he'd like everybody to, so lets not .

 

[Alric]

Since these are not issues I have raised, why are you directing this question to me? Perhaps you are trying to divert attention from your misstatement and from your failed attempt to cover it up.

No. I just like to point out how mendacious it is to argue about the word plausible regarding one paper within the larger context of climate change.

You did say:

Absolutely fascinating, indeed. So TrueSceptic and David Wong endorse plausible as a standard for sufficient proof for their global warming agenda.

I venture TS and DW are not bothered by the word plausible in the context of all research. As indicated in the same paragraph plausible appears and in the remainder of the report.

 

[jsfisher]

No. I just like to point out how mendacious it is to argue about the word plausible regarding one paper within the larger context of climate change.

I fail to see what is deceptive in pointing out a logical flaw in a statement. I would have thought you would have been all for honesty and sound reasoning in presenting your arguments. Your behavior now suggests otherwise.

 

[mhaze]

No. You are showing titles and abstracts that don't mean what you say they do. Can you take a minute and discuss one like I have done multiple times?

You read the graph by assessing the trend over time. That is the solid black line. An increase in temperature.

Sun I'll pick some to discuss, but you are liable to somehow allege they do not matter, the consensus is yada-yada-yada.

Adding up the lines (as I said)
0.45+0.00+0.00-0.20-0.38 = -0.13
Not the black line.

Shall we accept R=0.0 for Mann's hokey stick, toss that out as worthless, and move on to other research?

 

[Geckko]

It was not outside mainstream thinking, it was presented that way until Zantac was outside patent. At which point the argument faded away. Did you not notice that?



Wegener proposed continental drift, and made a compelling case for it. Look at a map of the Atlantic and you can make one for yourself. What was lacking was a mechanism. There wasn't much doubt that there was a mechanism. Plate tectonics provided that. And it was plate tectonics that you raised, not Wegener.



Relative to what? Climate change is a damn' sight quicker than plate tectonics, and a damn' sight slower than the realm of General Relativity.

Relative to a human lifespan, climate change is happening quickly.

You are being completely obtuse.

Wgener proposed his theories (OK DRIFT for crying out loud!). By the time he died the "consensus" rejected his theories. It matters not a jot why. It took decades for the "consensus" to discover what it did not know.

Similarly for Warren and the other guy.

The message is simple. Any phrases, such as:

When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge.

Are anti science. And despite irrelevant nit picking are demostraby untrue (well, to the consensus anyway )

 

[TrueSceptic]

...and his assessment was of a statement. He rejected a statement; you agreed with him. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I agreed with his assessment of GWS thinking

Originally Posted by David Wong
Fascinating to see how the denier mind works. If we can find even the slightest hint of a crack in the wall, the wall therefore does not exist.

You could seriously use their method of thinking to deny absolutely any scientific finding about anything.

You've got it exactly.

Now, the question is: do they actually believe what they claim?

That is what I agreed with, not something you think I agreed with. Got that now?

 

[bobdroege7]

As for the OP, climate change or global warming is not just due to CO2, not by a long shot, it is a bit more complicated than that.

From PNAS, which is a peer reviewed journal for those who care.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...ng&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Non-CO2 GHGs. These gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing.

Methane is important

Climate forcing by CFCs and related chemicals is still growing today, but if Montreal Protocol restrictions are adhered to, there should be no net growth in this forcing over the next 50 years. A small decrease from today's forcing level is possible, at least comparable in magnitude to the expected small rebound in stratospheric O3 forcing.

CFCs are still having an effect

Carbon Dioxide. CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.

Note the will become the dominant forcing

We argue that black carbon aerosols, by means of several effects, contribute significantly to global warming. This conclusion suggests one antidote to global warming, if it becomes a major problem. As electricity plays an increasing role in future energy systems, it should be relatively easy to strip black carbon emissions at fossil fuel power plants. Stripping and disposal of CO2, although more challenging, provide an effective backup strategy.

We need to get with India and China to at least improve the efficiency, and limit the black carbon aerosols produced by their coal burning power plants.

This source, again a peer reviewed article from PNAS

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...ng&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Tells us that the effects of an annual increase in atmopheric CO2 concentration will warm the planet for a long time and thus we can not expect to see global temperature and CO2 concentration to increase in a lock-step fashion, even if they were the only factors affecting climate change.

Because of the long time scale required for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as well as the time delays characteristic of physical responses of the climate system, global mean temperatures are expected to increase by several tenths of a degree for at least the next 20 years even if CO2 emissions were immediately cut to zero; that is, there is a commitment to additional CO2-induced warming even in the absence of emissions. If the rate of increase of CO2 emissions were to continue up to 2025 and then were cut to zero, a temperature increase of 1.3°C compared to preindustrial conditions would still occur in 2100,

 

[Alric]

CO2 is just the easiest gas to measure. All man-made greenhouse gases are produced more or less by the same processes so measuring one, you get an idea of all others.

 

[Alric]

Shall we accept R=0.0 for Mann's hokey stick, toss that out as worthless, and move on to other research?

No.

From XKCD.

 

[Alric]

Are anti science. And despite irrelevant nit picking are demostraby untrue (well, to the consensus anyway )

Let's look a Wegener for a second. He presented his work based on very good circumstantial evidence but without a mechanism. The problem is that plate tectonics was not recognized in his time.

As time passed and plate tectonics was recognized his work was immediately acknowledge even though it did contradict what was believed so far.

In the case of climate change contrarians, the data, mechanism (greenhouse effect) and evidence (increase in temperature, glacier melting) all point to a strong man-made component. The contrarians are grasping at straws and nitpicking because they are is no real data to support their claim.

Note that I said dissenters. Not scientists. This reflects that their efforts are more political and social than science-based.

 

[mhaze]

No.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

From XKCD.

Why not, R=0 is R=0 is R=0. This means FYI that the data that Mann presented does not allow for any conclusion. You can still assert that the "hockey stick is plausible", just not on Mann's study. So why not? All I said is let's agree to toss it, and move on to other studies. Surely you could pick a better one then. But if you want to continue to defend the indefensible, go for it. I'm just trying to move forward a bit here.

CO2 is just the easiest gas to measure. All man-made greenhouse gases are produced more or less by the same processes so measuring one, you get an idea of all others.
​

Well, no you don't. Again, FYI Bob is pretty serious about AGW and he is trying to tell you to get at least partly off the big bad CO2 bandwagon. Bob notes -

...the effects of an annual increase in atmopheric CO2 concentration will warm the planet for a long time and thus we can not expect to see global temperature and CO2 concentration to increase in a lock-step fashion, even if they were the only factors affecting climate change.
​

Major sources of methane are animals (livestock), decomposing plant matter, dams on rivers. So methane isn't largely produced by the same processes as CO2.

And about a decade, for reasons that no one seems to understand, the curve of methane in the atmopshere flatlined. CFCs, same story. We don't really know much aboiut CFC decomposition but for sure it isn't related to CO2.

You see, as I have been saying, mainstream science does not support your views as you have presented them so far. Doesn't take "deniers and contrarians to rebut them".

 

[David Rodale]

As for the OP, climate change or global warming is not just due to CO2, not by a long shot, it is a bit more complicated than that.

From PNAS, which is a peer reviewed journal for those who care.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...ng&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT



Methane is important



CFCs are still having an effect



Note the will become the dominant forcing



We need to get with India and China to at least improve the efficiency, and limit the black carbon aerosols produced by their coal burning power plants.

This source, again a peer reviewed article from PNAS

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...ng&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Tells us that the effects of an annual increase in atmopheric CO2 concentration will warm the planet for a long time and thus we can not expect to see global temperature and CO2 concentration to increase in a lock-step fashion, even if they were the only factors affecting climate change.

"Peer reviewed". Ignorance of PNAS publishing process is enlightening.
Hint: Track I Track II Track III


Aside from that, don't you find it odd H2O is not mentioned anywhere in either of those pal reviewed essays?


Maybe you can answer this question: do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in?

 

[CapelDodger]

No.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

From XKCD.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are being completely obtuse.

Wgener proposed his theories (OK DRIFT for crying out loud!). By the time he died the "consensus" rejected his theories.

What consensus? A consensus of the old and defiant, and much exaggerated anyway. Continental drift wasn't rejected; the search was on for the mechanism. That's why plate tectonics was arrived at in the first place - the search for a mechanism to explain the obvious observations. Continental drift isn't just about contours, it's about matching gelology across the Atlantic.

It matters not a jot why. It took decades for the "consensus" to discover what it did not know.

The message is simple. Any phrases, such as:

"When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge."

That was a question, not a phrase, and you've yet to answer it. AGW "dissenters" have been at it for decades, with no consistency except that AGW is wrong, whatever happens. It won't happen, it isn't happening, it might be happening but if so because of this, or possibly that, but it might not be happening anyway ...

Are anti science. And despite irrelevant nit picking are demostraby untrue (well, to the consensus anyway )

It's relevant that your presented examples can be so easily picked to pieces. Give us a real one.

 

[CapelDodger]

double post

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's look a Wegener for a second. He presented his work based on very good circumstantial evidence but without a mechanism. The problem is that plate tectonics was not recognized in his time.

As time passed and plate tectonics was recognized his work was immediately acknowledge even though it did contradict what was believed so far.

In the case of climate change contrarians, the data, mechanism (greenhouse effect) and evidence (increase in temperature, glacier melting) all point to a strong man-made component. The contrarians are grasping at straws and nitpicking because they are is no real data to support their claim.

The contrast is glaring.

Note that I said dissenters. Not scientists. This reflects that their efforts are more political and social than science-based.

Absolutely. For some, ideology demands that AGW not be so. If science comes into conflict with ideology, ideologists try to crush science.

Hey, it worked for Stalin .

 

[Alric]

This is Craig Venter scientist/adventurer extraordinaire. He has added more gene sequences to gene databases than anyone else. This is his opinion of the state of affairs of carbon going to the atmosphere. Not that it has scientific relevance. I just enjoy his joke at the end:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Venter.mov

And yes. That is Richard Dawkins next to him.

 

[a_unique_person]

.mov ?