Simple Question About AGW

[Alric]

What then should be the litmus test for AGW via CO2?

It seems that you would have to believe in chemistry first.

 

[David Rodale]

It seems that you would have to believe in chemistry first.

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

 

[TrueSceptic]

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!)

Welcome, and enjoy!

 

[Alric]

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

The litmus test should be that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its chemical properties, namely infrared absorption.

And yes, gold is shiny and copper conducts heat.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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

What would those studies be? Care to define them?

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.

I mentioned Coulter because she represents a particular type, the right-wing Creationist right-wing bigot. I'd be worried if I had any beliefs in common with hers.

Of course, it is amusing that you pick me up on this when you lot go on and on and on about Al Gore, as if his advocacy of AGW somehow automatically discredits it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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



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.

You have to ask: why are most "sceptics" so sloppy if their case is so strong? Why are they so frequently dishonest or insulting? Why do they rarely seem to be sceptics in the true, open-minded, sense?

Note that I'm here not to advocate AGW. I'm here to try and find out what drives GWS and all I keep seeing are confirmations of my HTBAGWS list.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

False. Homeopathic solutions are so dilute that the "active ingredient" cannot be detected. That is the point.

A common dilution is "30C" (1:10^60) and many are much more dilute than that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Just replied to say that I made an error in the post above. The parts per million range is expressed differently in terms of gaseous versus aqueous concentration. 1000 ppm CO₂ represents about 2 g of CO₂ per cubic metre (if I've done my sums correctly this time) of atmosphere, not 1 g per litre as I mistakenly said before. My apologies for my error, I was out by 3 orders of magnitude. Still as Alric said above these are orders of magnitude above homeopathic doses, and I am surprised that human production of carbon dioxide (2-3 ppm (by volume) annually according to mhaze) is so high.

From 284 ppm in 1832 to 384 ppm in 2007. That is average of only about 0.6 ppm. Since 1960, however, the increase has averaged about double that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

An experiment that can and has been repeated many times.

Perhaps you'd like to ask mhaze to explain it to you?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Okay, you've asserted that I posted lists containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but when asked where they are, you duck and dodge.

A reasonable conclusion is that you just made it up.

Do you really want us to go thru your list, one by one?

Note accusation of dishonesty.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I don't get it. Once again, we seem to have the case where someone isn't going to accept that AGW is real, until an anonymous person on the internet who is not a scientist can demonstrate it to them . I am not going to be able to do that.

No demonstration will ever be enough.

 

[TrueSceptic]

eugenics did.



but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time. the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.


fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.



sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."

Can something so complex and with such noisy data ever be "done and dusted"? Don't we reach a point where we accept that something is so likely to be true, and with no credible falsification, that we should proceed as if it is true?

Do we demand absolute proof for everything? Of course not: much is based on statistical analysis. Where would medical science stand, for instance?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.

Well this is odd, because last year he said this:-

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

Another reasonable, polite response that will impress the open-minded sceptic looking for persuasive arguments.

 

[a_unique_person]

Only rational argument? No, that is impossible as long as many items have a "level of understanding" of Low or Medium Low.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp

The other forcings aren't changing significantly, so what's left?

 

[Round Robin]

I could be wrong about this, but isn't the physics behind the absorption/re-emission of infrared radiation by a CO2 molecule similar to the physics behind the absorbtion/re-emission of various wavelengths of an absorption nebula?

A nebula has densities of only ~1000 particles/cm^2 but the physics hold up and we can determine the composition of absorption nebulae by observing their absorption lines with a spectrometer.

When a photon encounters a molecule that absorbs and re-emits it, does it care if there is another molecule nearby? I doubt it. My point is, if there is a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that is measurable (unlike a homeopathic dilution) why would the physics of absorption/re-emission break down to an infrared photon in the atmosphere? Isn't an absorption nebula an "experiment" that demonstrates that extremely small concentrations of matter result in a measurable effect on opacity to radiation?

 

[a_unique_person]

I could be wrong about this, but isn't the physics behind the absorption/re-emission of infrared radiation by a CO2 molecule similar to the physics behind the absorbtion/re-emission of various wavelengths of an absorption nebula?

A nebula has densities of only ~1000 particles/cm^2 but the physics hold up and we can determine the composition of absorption nebulae by observing their absorption lines with a spectrometer.

When a photon encounters a molecule that absorbs and re-emits it, does it care if there is another molecule nearby? I doubt it. My point is, if there is a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that is measurable (unlike a homeopathic dilution) why would the physics of absorption/re-emission break down to an infrared photon in the atmosphere? Isn't an absorption nebula an "experiment" that demonstrates that extremely small concentrations of matter result in a measurable effect on opacity to radiation?

You could be right, but it wouldn't matter.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

Venusian temperatures can be predicted according to the greenhouse hypothesis, then the predictions can be compared to accurate measurements. Therefore the hypothesis can be falsified by measuring Venusian temperatures. Such measurements have been made, and the hypothesis still stands.

It's no great trick to calculate Venusian insolation, its albedo has been measured, and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature. The Venusian atmosphere is a heck of a lot better experiment than Dr Imago's bit of atmosphere in a box. It's an entire frickin' atmosphere, for one thing.

 

[David Rodale]

Another reasonable, polite response that will impress the open-minded sceptic looking for persuasive arguments.

Please explain to Alric what a litmus test is.

To be honest, we've been enduring relentless ad hom attacks, many quite vicious, since the first day I joined this forum. No apology is forthcoming as his ignoramus first response is typical.

Now, what is the litmus test for AGW? Since oceans cover ~70% of earth's surface, they must warm annually in order for global warming to be present as it is claimed the sun's energy is essentially constant.

Next, it must be explained why the troposphere is not warming as global climate models dictate.

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?

I patiently await your non-reply.

 

[David Rodale]

Venusian temperatures can be predicted according to the greenhouse hypothesis, then the predictions can be compared to accurate measurements. Therefore the hypothesis can be falsified by measuring Venusian temperatures. Such measurements have been made, and the hypothesis still stands.

It's no great trick to calculate Venusian insolation, its albedo has been measured, and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature. The Venusian atmosphere is a heck of a lot better experiment than Dr Imago's bit of atmosphere in a box. It's an entire frickin' atmosphere, for one thing.

Keep waiving those arms Capeldodger.