Simple Question About AGW

[zeusbheld]

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

and all of them make more money than you. and Willie Nelson in particular has a rep as a 9/11 'troofer'--that means fancier tinfoil hat than *yours*.

so? relevant how?

celebrities and their academic record have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

I wait still for Trueseptic to define contrarian...

i'll have a go.

"skeptic" would be slimething, "contrarian" would be the late, grate "tokie"... although you do seem to be taking great pains to head that way.

you wouldn't happen to be sent to discredit skepticism would you? just askin'.

 

[zeusbheld]

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!

it's OK, since he opened that can of worms, i have no qualms about playing those sorts of games... and actually... i kinda like that dirty feeling.

fortunately for him, his drivel has no bearing on science, other wise he'd have proved global warming through sheer abject incompetence at trying to "disprove" it.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

and all of them make more money than you. and Willie Nelson in particular has a rep as a 9/11 'troofer'--that means fancier tinfoil hat than *yours*.

so? relevant how?

celebrities and their academic record have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

The point made was about this casual observation:

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

Mhaze and I simply pointed to some examples of wackos (in Charles case) or people with no qualifications that are AGW believers......wich would have been completely unnecesary if, per example, somebody posted something like this:

and Coulter make more money than you.
so? relevant how?

Wackos have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

 

[TrueSceptic]

I wait still for Trueseptic to define contrarian...

I did, and you disagreed with my definition. So...?

 

[Dr. Imago]

celebrities and their academic record have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done.

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

you wouldn't happen to be sent to discredit skepticism would you? just askin'.

I have already suggested that some "sceptics" here must be parodic plants because no real sceptic could be so ridiculous, but of course if they are really good we will never catch them out and even if we did they would never admit it!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done.

"Science", as defined by you, not being done, in your opinion.

 

[Round Robin]

I fail to see how the probability of (A)GW reality has anything to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of it by laypersons whose judgement may be saddled with various political or ideological agendas. In fact, the words of individual climate scientists carry little weight on their own.

The facts surrounding (A)GW are affected by neither eloquent opponents nor ridiculous proponents.

-r^2

(Hi... this is my first post... and I'm dumb enough to jump into the lions den!)

 

[varwoche]

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done.

Time and time again you fail to answer challenges to this line of thought that you keep touting. I assume this vague statement relates back to this whimsical gem:

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. ... But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

Apparently you're not following the state of the science or even the thread(s). Otherwise you'd be aware that your claim -- consisting of pure speculation that you've failed to provide an iota of support for -- is abject nonsense:

study about the sun
study about the sun
study about ozone impact on arctic
study about aerosols
study about aerosols

I could list many more studies that don't concern CO2, on both sides of the fence.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I fail to see how the probability of (A)GW reality has anything to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of it by laypersons whose judgement may be saddled with various political or ideological agendas. In fact, the words of individual climate scientists carry little weight on their own.

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

The facts surrounding (A)GW are affected by neither eloquent opponents nor ridiculous proponents.

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Time and time again you fail to answer challenges to this line of thought that you keep touting.

Huh? What challenges? I'm not the one making specific claims. I am the one challenging people to do additional science that will either prove or disprove their current claims.

Science - it's quite simple - is the unbiased collection and assimilation of facts that help to elucidate something meaningful and predictive about a particular area of interest. There are many ways to remove bias from this process, none of which I've seen consistently employed to date.

To that end, all I've asked is that the people looking at retrospective data, and making broad, sweeping statements about the accuracy, meaningfulness, and validity of those data, use more rigorous methods to either further prove or disprove their conclusions.

Specifically, I would like to see two things:

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

2) A prospective, blinded study of dendrochronology controlling for other mitigating factors that would validate the current historical temperature record.

These are two very easy experiments that could be started today. The first one could be done in an afternoon. The second one may take a decade (or so), but would demonstrably make the point about the effect of CO2 - either way.

Why won't these researchers do these experiments? I've heard a lot of excuses why they won't, but still no one is doing them. Funny.

I don't care about other "forcers" of climate change at the moment. Let's focus on CO2, upon which is the peg the majority of this debate's hat is currently hung.

PROVE THE PRINCIPLE! This has NOT adequately been done to date. Correlation does not equal causation. And, there has not definitively proven to be a causative link. (I feel like the only sane man in a crazy world. SHEESH!)

-Dr. Imago

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

That you will never see.
For newcomers, AGWrs claim that the physics about their pet theory is very sound.....CO2 have some properties that make it a "greenhouse gas".

But......... the real question is : Those properties are still in effect when CO2 is in a 1000 PPM dilusion (almost homeopatic) on air? And what happens when this CO2 is stored in large masses of water?

There are some other questions, and AGWrs have come with nice theories about this, but a controlled experiment we haven't see.

 

[zeusbheld]

The point made was about this casual observation:

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

Mhaze and I simply pointed to some examples of wackos (in Charles case) or people with no qualifications that are AGW believers......wich would have been completely unnecesary if, per example, somebody posted something like this:

ah. point taken. i didnt' notice that. (translation: noticed and forgot, even though i was the one who brought up Coulter, but only coz mhaze brought Miloy after being specifically requested not to).

certainly there are wackos on either end. and they all make more money than you. or me.

incidentally, i'd service Ann Coulter. i'm easy. but i wouldn't let her bear my children. she's a creationist.

 

[Alric]

Specifically, I would like to see two things:

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

2) A prospective, blinded study of dendrochronology controlling for other mitigating factors that would validate the current historical temperature record.

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet. CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

2) Multiproxy studies are validated and calibrated using multiple measurements. For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings, lake sediment analysis, glacier retreat, coral reef build up, and I am probably missing a few. For example calibrated glacier retreat:

Oh, oh..oh...Is that a hockey stick I see?

 

[zeusbheld]

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

yes, and when that 'single study' happens, it will inevitably be followed by lots of further research reproducing the result.

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

that's fair enough, for sure.

but the best way to CORRECT it is for posters like mhaze to stop posting even dumber, sloppier arguments. no offense, but DUH.

but looking at this forum--and let's be clear i'm NOT sold on the A in AGW--there are too many people on the skeptic side in this forum that just do a crap job of posting. if one paid no attention to the science, didn't give a rat's orifice about 'democraps' and 'republic***s', one would probably be put off by sloppy posts like mhaze's and inclined to trust more careful posters like Trueskeptic. damn shame too since it's utterly superficial.

mhaze, raise your game. the world needs more skeptics who are skeptics, rather than tinfoil hatters.

Slimething, well played and keep it up.

 

[Round Robin]

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

Sincere question: when a field becomes as large (encompassing many scientific disciplines) and as mature ("greenhouse effect" was proposed in the 19th century), what single study could disprove GW or AGW? Those seem to be pretty big theories with many sub-theories and hypotheses. I could imagine someone proposing a seminal hypothesis that demonstrates a non-causality between atmospheric GHGs and global temperature, but that would then require many, many more studies to test, replicate, and verify it.

As an example, could any one single study disprove the Theory of Evolution now, after 150 years? Ok... I suppose finding "a bunny rabbit in the pre-cambrian" would disprove at least part of it, but would such a study be accepted without a great deal more studies to verify it?

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

Oh, I don't know about that... I think that Greenpeace can often act idiotically, as can many other ideologic (as opposed to scientific) environmentalists, and I don't think that this is a secret among those who accept AGW as probable. Is it possible that there is a confirmation bias to your hypothesis that AGW "believers" (I don't agree with the framing of that point with the word "belief") get a free pass when it comes to their evangelism? I'm quite aware that I'm highly susceptible to confirmation bias of my assumptions!!

 

[Dr. Imago]

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet. CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/d/a0d6bbe1cf969c447b5475d3dfbc5bb3.png[/qimg]

And this is my calculated radiated forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10014&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1202712471[/qimg]

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?

2) Multiproxy studies are validated and calibrated using multiple measurements. For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings, lake sediment analysis, glacier retreat, coral reef build up, and I am probably missing a few. For example calibrated glacier retreat:

[qimg]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/fig3a.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, oh..oh...Is that a hockey stick I see?

Gibberish.

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations.

Not done yet. Why?

-Dr. Imago

 

[zeusbheld]

Correlation does not equal causation. And, there has not definitively proven to be a causative link. (I feel like the only sane man in a crazy world. SHEESH!)

YES! i've seen a LOT more proAGW than noAGW science papers and granted i most likely don't fully understand the science, but all i'm seeing is correlations! normally i read evo bio papers (for fun, believe it or not). compare and contrast.

i don''t know enough about it to know what experiments *should* be done, but the stuff i have seen is suggestive, sure. but i've seen NO papers that'd convince me that AGW is a nailed-down theory, let alone that it's gonna be a disaster that we have to fix NOW before it happens or.... else.

and when i express my skepticism i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics. i expect the climate scientists are working in good conscience (unlike many internet posters and conspiracy nuts). but... there hasn't been enough time and enough research done to sort the wheat from the chaff. fads and trends hit science as much as any human activity, and until it's done and dusted we don't KNOW.

 

[mhaze]

For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings,

That is fairly easily done. Note Loehle 2007 is a multiproxy study without tree rings.

Alric-
And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

Hard to read the graph, but it looks like you are claiming "1" increase in 50 years? Is that w/meter 2?

 

[David Rodale]

For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings,

That is fairly easily done. Note Loehle 2007 is a multiproxy study without tree rings.



Hard to read the graph, but it looks like you are claiming "1" increase in 50 years? Is that w/meter 2?

Here's one with tree rings We mustn't forget the unprecedented warming in the Arctic either
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
Abstract

This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.