How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[a_unique_person]

That's precisely the point. The entire AGW argument is from ignorance, association, and assumption. The proof is in the pudding, and I've suggested ways to specifically test the hypothesis at the microfractions in discussion. No one has done these specific experiments (I don't know why), but I've heard a lot of excuses why they shouldn't be done (e.g., won't represent the actual conditions in the atmosphere, etc.).

A lot of people are presuming a magnitude of effect that has not be proven nor is consistent with current climatological observations not equally and more easily explained by other phenomenon.

-Dr. Imago

The HITRAN database of spectral responses for various gases, including CO2. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran//

Does HITRAN model the atmosphere?

HITRAN is a database, not a "simulation" code.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The HITRAN database of spectral responses for various gases, including CO2.

But...

The parameters in HITRAN are sometimes direct observations, but often calculated.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran//

... I guess we're back to square one.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

But...



http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran//

... I guess we're back to square one.

-Dr. Imago

No, once again your ignorance is the problem. They say, it's a database, not a simulation. It's the parameters that are what they are talking about. Having measured the responses of gases, you can then vary several parameters. Unless you want them to take measurements for every possible variation, then they are going to calculate some of them, based on measurements.

read the history.

http://in-cites.com/papers/LaurenceRothman.html

How accurate are the HITRAN measurements?

We require these things, because of the instrumental capabilities of NASA satellites, to have incredible accuracy. That means we want to know line positions to one part in 10 million or even better. That’s a tough demand. We want to know the intensities to better than two percent. That’s tough, too. There are so many sources of error. For example, the pressure and the temperature in the cells that we’re using to measure these quantities. We’re pushing the envelope.


​

It's good enough for the scientists in this area.

​

 

[mhaze]

The Dr Imago box would not tell the whole story.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

A saturated gassy argument.

As has been often noted, that is indeed one saturated and gassy argument by RC. One little snake's nest of twisting and trying to make little circles of logic to fit their preconceived notions.

In other words, it is a poor article.

 

[a_unique_person]

As has been often noted, that is indeed one saturated and gassy argument by RC. One little snake's nest of twisting and trying to make little circles of logic to fit their preconceived notions.

In other words, it is a poor article.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Weart describes what scientific research has discovered. I'm sorry if science is not good enough for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

No one has done these specific experiments (I don't know why), but I've heard a lot of excuses why they shouldn't be done (e.g., won't represent the actual conditions in the atmosphere, etc.).

You speficied a box that does represent atmospheric conditions. That's not the problem. The difficulty is in building such a box. It's not a trivial problem.

 

[CapelDodger]

As has been often noted, that is indeed one saturated and gassy argument by RC.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

One little snake's nest of twisting and trying to make little circles of logic to fit their preconceived notions.

Was that what the USAF was doing in the 40's? I think it more likely they were motivated to get the science right. It wasn't about climate, it was about long-range detection of strategic bombers.

In other words, it is a poor article.

That was a very poor response. Anybody can go and read the article and come back wondering about you.

Repetition is a common GW Sceptic trait. Which is hardly surprising, given that you've got so little to play with.

 

[CapelDodger]

I can only assume that Ts would defend the Propaganda found to be such, perhaps by arguing it to be nicely flavored with strawberry syrup and crushed nuts on top?

But let him speak.

The judgement didn't find the film to be propaganda. Check it out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Only last week I got into a discussion with two of my coworkers (or cow orkers ) One by one, they argued about a dozen or two points (mostly the demonstrably false ones) that you listed in your OP. Both of them are very politically conservative and that seems to be a pattern, at least here in the States.

The GW Sceptic "industry" is mostly a US phaenomenon. The Heritage Foundation seems to have become the lead institution (and it's not my heritage ). We have a few notables (Bellamy and Lord Munchkin come to mind) and right-wing papers such as the Dail Mail and the Torygraph work the cause. To no great effect. All the main parties are keen on "doing something" about climate change.

When I hear arguments against A/GW from the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Milloy, Jeff Beck etc. (not sure if non-US folks know who these yahoos are) I am almost reflexively (and, admittedly, sometimes thoughtlessly) dismissive of them. So, I'm no better in that regard.

Life's too short not to do some sifting . When you've reached a sober and dismissive conclusion about a source it's sensible not to waste any more time on it. If they have surprisingly found something interesting to say you'll hear about it from someone else.

I don't think we have this shock-jock culture over here. Our broadcasting histories are very different.

The Gnomon made a similar point a few posts ago, and I agree with his "too black and white" notion.

In general terms, I agree. In the context of this thread, the "black and white" is inherent. GW Sceptics are those who will not accept the reality or implications of AGW. Not honest sceptics; these people start from conviction. That's the "them" to my "us" .

 

[Dr. Imago]

No, once again your ignorance is the problem. They say, it's a database, not a simulation.

Who said anything about it being a simulation? You're harping on that like it's important. Their database - and this is clearly stated - is used in simulations. They can huff-and-puff about accuracy all they want. The fact is, and they freely admit this, the data in their database is at least part calculated and not from direct observations.

Can you read?

-Dr. Imago

 

[CapelDodger]

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Weart describes what scientific research has discovered. I'm sorry if science is not good enough for you.

I think what passes for the rebuttal is "as has often been noted". By which mhaze means he noted it (for whatever peculiar reason) and has said so many times. Works for him. Doesn't work on us.

I found the RealClimate posts very informative. I find Dr Imago's Box hilarious.

 

[CapelDodger]

Who said anything about it being a simulation? You're harping on that like it's important. Their database - and this is clearly stated - is used in simulations. They can huff-and-puff about accuracy all they want. The fact is, and they freely admit this, the data in their database is at least part calculated and not from direct observations.

Can you read?

-Dr. Imago

It is composed of many careful observations and extrapolations between them. The observations themselves confirm the basic physics on which the extrapolations are based, and these are extrapolations between close observational data-points.

When it comes to huffing and puffing, well, your post is packed with both the huff and the puff. Just look at it. Why do you guys get so riled so easily? Chill, dude. Wales won the Triple Crown and Scotland beat England; it's a beautiful day.

 

[Dr. Imago]

You speficied a box that does represent atmospheric conditions. That's not the problem. The difficulty is in building such a box. It's not a trivial problem.

No it's not. High school kids are being compelled to do this experiment right now in their physics classes. The difference is they are using nearly 100% CO2 in their bottles, not a mix of small, incremental microfractions representative of decades of change in atmosphere CO2 levels.

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

This is being taught as "proof of principle" of the greenhouse gas effect. I'm suggesting that if you were to do this experiment appropriately, you could very easily figure out the magnitude of energy asorption and re-radiation directly attritubable to CO2 in the lab.

Again, again, and again. IT'S VERY SIMPLE!

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

I find Dr Imago's Box hilarious.

That's because you are anencephalic.

-Dr. Imago

 

[CapelDodger]

No it's not.

We agree on something then,

High school kids are being compelled to do this experiment right now in their physics classes.

Where do they get the boxes from?

The difference is they are using nearly 100% CO2 in their bottles, not a mix of small, incremental microfractions representative of decades of change in atmosphere CO2 levels.

Where do the bottles come into it ? We haven't settled the box thing yet. You remind me of some MBS's I've had to deal with.

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

This is being taught as "proof of principle" of the greenhouse gas effect. I'm suggesting that if you were to do this experiment appropriately, you could very easily figure out the magnitude of energy asorption and re-radiation directly attritubable to CO2 in the lab.

The principle of greenhouse warming was established long ago. The HITRAN observations were done in the lab, in the 40's, and they've no doubt been repeated since.

Again, again, and again. IT'S VERY SIMPLE!

-Dr. Imago

It's simplistic. You demand that the experiment be done "appropriately" in a box that reproduces atmosphere conditions. Show me the box that can do that and I'll tip my hat to you.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's because you are anencephalic.

-Dr. Imago

It's been a beautiful day .

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't get me wrong. Nothing (well...) would please me more than to see the Dr. Imago Box made a reality. What do you think it would cost?

Short of artificial gravity the only technology I can think of would be a centrifuge that the box sits in. I haven't done the math, but that's gotta be one f*** of a centrifuge. So from a throwaway "box" that does something, the project's grown to cutting-edge centrifuge technology. Perhaps you can see why DR Imago reminds me of MBA's I've had to deal with in the past.

And even if it were done it would only prove how CO2 behaves inside a centrifuge. Not nearly good enough .

 

[Dr. Imago]

It's simplistic. You demand that the experiment be done "appropriately" in a box that reproduces atmosphere conditions. Show me the box that can do that and I'll tip my hat to you.

I never said it has to reproduce atmospheric conditions. YOU said that. I actually want to isolate CO2 (unless it has some heretofore never explained "magical" property in the atmosphere that has never before been elucidated) and directly test it's heat capacity at the microfractions being discussed. This will directly show its "heat effect" isolating it from all other possible confounding variables. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

I suggested this almost three months ago and I'll I've heard since is either the chirp of crickets or some lame excuse why it can't be done.

First off, get your facts straight. I didn't invent this experiment (that you are now derisively calling "Dr. Imago's Box"). It (or, a poorly representative "science on a budget" example of the same) is already being done and taught as "proof of principle" in high school science classes. If it's good enough for highschoolers, then why not real scientists. Right now, I really wonder what the take-home message those kids are getting... that maybe someday we're going to be living in a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere?

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

Who said anything about it being a simulation? You're harping on that like it's important. Their database - and this is clearly stated - is used in simulations. They can huff-and-puff about accuracy all they want. The fact is, and they freely admit this, the data in their database is at least part calculated and not from direct observations.

Can you read?

-Dr. Imago

Can you understand what they are saying? As Capel Dodger has explained, they make measurements, then they interpolate for different conditions, which you can enter as parameters. IIRC, these include pressure, temperature, concentration. You can't make individual measurements for each of these, and the other parameters, you'd be there for a few centuries. As the scientist says in the interview, they are confident of the accuracy of the database.

 

[a_unique_person]

I never said it has to reproduce atmospheric conditions. YOU said that. I actually want to isolate CO2 (unless it has some heretofore never explained "magical" property in the atmosphere that has never before been elucidated) and directly test it's heat capacity at the microfractions being discussed. This will directly show its "heat effect" isolating it from all other possible confounding variables. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

I suggested this almost three months ago and I'll I've heard since is either the chirp of crickets or some lame excuse why it can't be done.

First off, get your facts straight. I didn't invent this experiment (that you are now derisively calling "Dr. Imago's Box"). It (or, a poorly representative "science on a budget" example of the same) is already being done and taught as "proof of principle" in high school science classes. If it's good enough for highschoolers, then why not real scientists. Right now, I really wonder what the take-home message those kids are getting... that maybe someday we're going to be living in a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere?

-Dr. Imago

The Hitrans database will tell you what you want to know. They have a lot of information on that site, that explains what, where, how and why, along with reports.

In the meantime, you are going to sit here and hold your breath until you turn blue because anonymous posters on the internet won't do your bidding.