Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

If you thought that was going to buy you some respite from zeusbheld you've clearly choosen hope over reason.

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

And only one side whines so much.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

 

[CapelDodger]

But note even with CO2, what is refuted is the strong greenhouse warming and high climate sensitivity.

I know you guys were talking amongst yourselves, but it's been refuted, has it? Is the science finally settled - in your opinion and (hardly coincidentally) in your favour)? "Strong" and "high" provide you with some wiggle-room, of course. Perhaps you could quantify what's been settled. I can but ask, and only hope for a straight answer. Reason suggests I won't get one.

 

[CapelDodger]

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

This superior attitude is not doing you any favours. zeusbheld is not about to cede control of the conversation he started; if you can't handle that you shouldn't have got involved in the first place.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

Which brings us to "gibbering". (I was sure I could depend on you to introduce that.) All we need now is some whining gibberish from Lucy and we'll have a full-house.

 

[fsol]

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.

It's really pretty simple. There isn't any need for a lot of chatter and personal attacks, unless you actually don't have much to produce.


"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

You should remember that the next time you decide to link to CO2science.

 

[Slimething]

I know you guys were talking amongst yourselves, but it's been refuted, has it? Is the science finally settled - in your opinion and (hardly coincidentally) in your favour)? "Strong" and "high" provide you with some wiggle-room, of course. Perhaps you could quantify what's been settled. I can but ask, and only hope for a straight answer. Reason suggests I won't get one.

You won't get an answer from me. I was considering dumbing down what we were talking about so you could understand it but I'm laughing too hard to do it. mhaze, do you have the patience?

 

[mhaze]

You should remember that the next time you decide to link to CO2science.

CO2science?

Down, but not Out!
A week ago we experienced a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack on our website that rendered it inaccessible to patrons. Unfortunately, the company that managed our website was unable to stop the attack, and we had to make the decision to host our website elsewhere. Moving our website to another server is not a simple task and must take place in stages. For now, only the current weekly issue of CO2 Science will be accessible, followed by a gradual return to full website access and functionality in the coming days and weeks.

Warmologists? Those who would stop www.co2science.com articles like this

Lake Qinghai on the Tibetan Plateau Reference
Xu, H., Liu, X. and Hou, Z. 2008. Temperature variations at Lake Qinghai on decadal scales and the possible relation to solar activities. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 70: 138-144. What was done
Working with sediments retrieved from Lake Qinghai on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the authors reconstructed a 600-year temperature history of the region based on high-resolution series of the sediment's total carbonate content, the δ18O and δ13C of its carbonates, and the detrended δ15N of organic matter contained in the sediment cores, which they compared against total solar irradiance histories reconstructed from sunspot numbers, and tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be data that are also indicative of solar activity.
What was learned
Xu et al. report that their temperature history indicates that "the intervals of 1430-1470, 1650-1715, and 1770-1820 are consistent with the three coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age," and that "these obvious cold intervals are also synchronous with the minimums of the sunspot numbers during the past 600 yeas," namely, "the Sporer, the Maunder, and the Dalton minimums," which facts strongly suggest, in their words, "that solar activities may dominate temperature variations on decadal scales at the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau." In addition, their observation that "more and more evidence indicates that the Little Ice Age occurred worldwide," provides more and more evidence that it was likely solar-induced.
What it means
If the development of the significant cold of the worldwide Little Ice Age was driven by a concomitant change in some type of solar activity (which seems fairly well proven by a wealth of real-world data, of which the study of Xu et al. is but one example), it logically follows that the "undevelopment" of the Little Ice Age (i.e., the global warming of the 20th century) was primarily driven by the reversal of that change in solar activity, and not by the historical rise in the air's CO2 content. However, as also noted by Xu et al., how small perturbations of solar activity have led "to the observed global warming, what is the mechanism behind it, etc., are still open questions." Nevertheless, everything else about the matter seems fairly well established.

 

[mhaze]

You won't get an answer from me. I was considering dumbing down what we were talking about so you could understand it but I'm laughing too hard to do it. mhaze, do you have the patience?

Nope! But from Andrew's list here is the home study list -

Greenhouse Theory:

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002) - C. R. de Freitas

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5501, 5 January 2001) - Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola

Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles (Geology, v. 33; no. 1; p. 33-36, January 2005) - Lenny Kouwenberg, Rike Wagner, Wolfram Kürschner, Henk Visscher

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)- Richard S. Lindzen

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998) - Sherwood B. Idso

Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417–432, March 2001)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161) - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
QUOTE A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research)- Stephen E. Schwartz

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels (Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003) - A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)- H. Jelbring

 

[zeusbheld]

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

problem is, the word "theory" has a different yet completely legit meaning in the wider world. as a parallel, no doubt analytic philosophers cringe whenever they hear some layperson say things like "my philosophy of life is you reap what you sow."

iv'e even heard scientists occasionally make this usage error (usually outside of their field, heh). nonetheless it is very much worth preserving its specialized meaning within science; look at the grief abuse of the word has caused in the hands of creationists!

so in short, it's a fussy point true, but 100 percent cringe-worthy. and a lot more important of a distinction than the specialized use of "philosophy." maybe we need a new word for "scientific theory"....

 

[a_unique_person]

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so, for the moment, let's say that one or several hypotheses requiring the formation of a hotspot have been falsified on the basis of one false prediction. However, there must be some hypotheses that don't predict that so AGW hypotheses are still alive.

I have noted before that, based on the physics underpinning the basic concept of greenhouse gases adding insulation and thus warming the planet, I believe that the hypotheses are probably true but not proven. I am begining to reach the opinion, though, that such signal as AGW is generating is weaker than first expected and may be unresolvable for quite some time. We'll just have to wait and see.

The theoretical basis for greenhouse gases is quite sound. The only bickering should be on the extent of the warming caused.

Understanding and attributing climate change http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

 

[zeusbheld]

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

no, more like he expect people who *claim* to have put some thought in the matter to show some evidence they have.

given that you are rather adamant about your position, i would naturally expect you'd already worked all this out for yourself. given your conviction, i'd expect you'd have some knowledge of the sites you're foisting on people. apparently not.

i *could* tell you the ten films that have influenced me the most, off the top of my head. but in your case, you get a link to IMDB and told to go figure it out for yourself. you've earned it.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

why? has whining has been working sooo much better for you than putting a teeny bit of thought into it?

 

[zeusbheld]

Now pick your best choices.

you start. that would require thinking, however. so i won't hold my breath.

 

[fsol]

CO2science?

Down, but not Out!
A week ago we experienced a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack on our website that rendered it inaccessible to patrons. Unfortunately, the company that managed our website was unable to stop the attack, and we had to make the decision to host our website elsewhere. Moving our website to another server is not a simple task and must take place in stages. For now, only the current weekly issue of CO2 Science will be accessible, followed by a gradual return to full website access and functionality in the coming days and weeks.

Warmologists? Those who would stop www.co2science.com articles like this

Nice to see that you are sticking to your tried and tested "no evidence for your claims" motif. Of course it was "warmologists" (whatever or whoever that might be) that carried out the DoS. It couldn't possibly have been anyone else. The word "pathetic" springs to mind for some reason.

Lake Qinghai on the Tibetan Plateau

Reference
Xu, H., Liu, X. and Hou, Z. 2008. Temperature variations at Lake Qinghai on decadal scales and the possible relation to solar activities. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 70: 138-144. What was done
Working with sediments retrieved from Lake Qinghai on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the authors reconstructed a 600-year temperature history of the region based on high-resolution series of the sediment's total carbonate content, the δ18O and δ13C of its carbonates, and the detrended δ15N of organic matter contained in the sediment cores, which they compared against total solar irradiance histories reconstructed from sunspot numbers, and tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be data that are also indicative of solar activity.
What was learned
Xu et al. report that their temperature history indicates that "the intervals of 1430-1470, 1650-1715, and 1770-1820 are consistent with the three coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age," and that "these obvious cold intervals are also synchronous with the minimums of the sunspot numbers during the past 600 yeas," namely, "the Sporer, the Maunder, and the Dalton minimums," which facts strongly suggest, in their words, "that solar activities may dominate temperature variations on decadal scales at the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau." In addition, their observation that "more and more evidence indicates that the Little Ice Age occurred worldwide," provides more and more evidence that it was likely solar-induced.
What it means
If the development of the significant cold of the worldwide Little Ice Age was driven by a concomitant change in some type of solar activity (which seems fairly well proven by a wealth of real-world data, of which the study of Xu et al. is but one example), it logically follows that the "undevelopment" of the Little Ice Age (i.e., the global warming of the 20th century) was primarily driven by the reversal of that change in solar activity, and not by the historical rise in the air's CO2 content. However, as also noted by Xu et al., how small perturbations of solar activity have led "to the observed global warming, what is the mechanism behind it, etc., are still open questions." Nevertheless, everything else about the matter seems fairly well established.

I wonder if I go and actually read the paper, if it will say what they purport it to. The last time I went and did that with CO2science it ummm...didn't.

 

[TrueSceptic]

why? has whining has been working sooo much better for you than putting a teeny bit of thought into it?

This is all rather amusing, isn't it? You come here as a real open-minded sceptic, pretty much asking to be persuaded by evidence from either side, and mhaze spends most of his time insulting you. He's some advocate for his cause!

 

[Slimething]

so in short, it's a fussy point true, but 100 percent cringe-worthy. and a lot more important of a distinction than the specialized use of "philosophy." maybe we need a new word for "scientific theory"....

zeusbheld, I've learned from past unpleasant experience that some words have too much meaning. In a debate, never let the other side control the lexicon. If you do, soon they turn the language against you and you find yourself being a "denier", or "pro-abortion", or "being against the Patriot Act". I know I'm echoing what you are saying but I wanted to explain why, in a debate about science, I am particularly anal about honoring the terminology.

Yep, we do need a new word for either the scientific or the vulgar meaning of "theory".

 

[Slimething]

The theoretical basis for greenhouse gases is quite sound. The only bickering should be on the extent of the warming caused.

That is exactly what I've been saying but in too verbose a manner, AUP. Thank you for clarifying it. I agree with the the physics underpinnings. However, I feel that there are either undiscovered or unconsidered factors that apply and are hampering the development of a hypothesis with acceptable precision. (Sorry, I can't help myself lapsing into the jargon.)

 

[TrueSceptic]

And only one side whines so much.

It's handy that Coulter was mentioned. Just the sort of person GWS want on their side...or perhaps she really is!

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Sure, as Prince Charles is the person you want in your side.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269482,00.html
Britain's Prince Charles Compares Global Warming to Nazis

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

LONDON — Britain's Prince Charles said Tuesday that urgent action is needed to fight climate change, likening the struggle to Britain's battle against Nazi Germany in World War II.
The environmentalist prince told a business conference at his St. James's Palace residence that "the crisis of climate change is far too urgent and discussion simply isn't enough."
"I do not want my children and grandchildren, or anyone for that matter, saying to me, 'Why didn't you do something when it was possible to make a difference and when you knew what was happening?'" he said.

"We can do it, just think what they did in the last war. Things that seemed impossible were achieved almost overnight."
The 58-year-old heir to Britain's throne is a firm supporter of environmentalist causes, and runs an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in western England. He also has a multimillion-dollar line of organic foods, Duchy Originals, whose profits go to charity.

 

[zeusbheld]

zeusbheld, I've learned from past unpleasant experience that some words have too much meaning. In a debate, never let the other side control the lexicon. If you do, soon they turn the language against you and you find yourself being a "denier", or "pro-abortion", or "being against the Patriot Act". I know I'm echoing what you are saying but I wanted to explain why, in a debate about science, I am particularly anal about honoring the terminology.

hear hear! i am often accused of "wasting time hashing out semantics" but really... if you don't agree on the semantics how do you know you're talking about the same freakin' thing???? semantics matter.

****** digression alert *********
incidentally i have been accused of being both for and against the Patriot Act. problem with being in the middle is both extremes shoot at you. (off topic but the patriot act has some very good anti-money-laundering provisions).
*****end digression alert *******

Yep, we do need a new word for either the scientific or the vulgar meaning of "theory".

i hold no hope of of the great unwashed adopting something like "idea" instead of "theory" so maybe a new word on the science side is the way to do. "established theory" and "tested theory" are far too dorky.

 

[mhaze]

An erudite and distinguished group, the Warmers are.

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout

 

[mhaze]

zeusbheld, I've learned from past unpleasant experience that some words have too much meaning. In a debate, never let the other side control the lexicon. If you do, soon they turn the language against you and you find yourself being a .....

I wait still for Trueseptic to define contrarian...