Simple Question About AGW

[TrueSceptic]

Yeah, I already came to the conclusion that I have no right to speak for anyone else by declaring this a compromise. Apologies to all involved for my presumptuousness.

No, it was only my view. It is your equally valid opinion that it is a compromise.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I was only pointing out that the only reason anyone would pay attention to someone like you on a scientific topic is your clammor that we are all in peril from AGW. Otherwise, why would anyone listen to the likes of you or know-nothing politicians?

What clammor (sic)? Where? Why would that be a reason, even if it were true? Why would anyone listen to an arrogant ignoramus like you?

 

[TrueSceptic]

That's OK. No need to apologize for your mischaracterization of science. Indeed, that takes a lot of honesty and integrity to admit an error.

Be well.

Kindly define science for us.

 

[mhaze]

Depends on what is supposed to be judged.

If we are to judge how good the science behind the model is, and the performance of the climate-modeling, then it is very much reasonable to say that the differing factor between A,B and C developed in accordance with A, and that as such, A is the relevant prediction to judge against the resulting temperature trend.

If we are to judge how well Hansen can predict political actions, sure , then B was the "most probable" from him. But that isn't really relevant to most discussions.

Correct.

 

[mhaze]

You said

Try it again. Perhaps Mhaze will let you borrow his famous "grammer tense" ?

Unnecessary, it is the net cast of your own ignorance that ensnares you, while others only patiently explain how you may step out of it.

 

[Alric]

If you are into podcasting you might be interested in the latest podcast of the NY academy of sciences.

"Mar 21, 2008
The Rapidly Changing Climate System
Michael Oppenheimer
A Princeton geosciences and international affairs professor, and a leader of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gives a global warming overview."

http://nyas.cachefly.net/climate_change.mp3

Most misconceptions addressed. With data.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Unnecessary, it is the net cast of your own ignorance that ensnares you, while others only patiently explain how you may step out of it.

You're a funny guy. Let's see. You can't even read what you wrote.

 

[mhaze]

I mean a reliable primary reference...

Already posted to you.

 

[mhaze]

Regarding this whole Hansen thing, I think that we have all found primary source documents that allow us to be reasonably confident in claiming the following:

• Hansen considered the CO2 component of the Scenario A predictions to be "business as usual" (and BAU CO2 is what occurred)
• Hansen believed that Scenario B was the most plausible combination of all components of the A/B/C predictions (and none of the scenarios occurred in total)

Can we all agree that is fair?

These statements are correct based on what Hansen actually said. It's quite irrelevant if they are fair.

My inference, because I have found no written proof of this, is that Hansen, therefore, did not believe it was likely for CO2 emissions to be worse than "business as usual" in the coming decades, so it was sensible to use BAU as a component of the Scenario A (worst case) forcing predictions.

Again, correct. BAU is life without CO2 emissions controls. He could have varied Scenario A based on say, third world industrial development. He should have included volcano/no volcano option in all three Scenarios. But, that would not have created the most alarming "Scenario A" so .... no volcano in Scenario A ...... but include them in the other scenarios...

I'm not here to dispute whether or not he is a far-left radical

I am only trying to be descriptive and clearly indicate when someone is to the middle or to the side. As another example, Gavin Schmidt of www.realclimate.org in an interview in New York said "I'm just a far left radical environmentalist". Now, I think we could say, uuhh, Gavin Schmit was a far left radical environmentalist....

This could be debated....maybe he was joking But Hansen isn't joking when he talks about 80 foot sea level increases....

 

[a_unique_person]

I am referring to the lack of an atmospheric hotspot at the tropics. mhaze posted that there was a lack of it and CD confirmed that any warming would necessitate such a hotspot. So, as most of us agree that warming is or has occurred, I'm asking why no hot-spot.

My purpose is not to disprove AGW, as I don't think it can be. It's practically unfalsifiable. I want people to realize what the models are and that they are imperfect at the moment. Some cling to them as if they were theory, though.

The models are imperfect, the IPCC clearly states that. They are based on theory.

 

[Slimething]

The models are imperfect, the IPCC clearly states that. They are based on theory.

Aye. The IPCC report is, to me, a very balanced document that is misquoted and misconstrued by too many. They plainly caution that correlation is not causality and that it's only a weight of the evidence approach that leads to the conclusion that AGW is a threat. I can buy that.

And, yes, the models are based on theory but the models are not theory themselves.

Again, I write, that people have to be patient and calm. The underlying physics of GHG AGW is patent and convincing. I agree with mhaze that the magnitude of the warming is not so great. I also agree with mhaze that there it too much speculation about what will happen and it's based on very little hard evidence.

Thanks, AUP.

 

[Slimething]

What clammor (sic)? Where? Why would that be a reason, even if it were true? Why would anyone listen to an arrogant ignoramus like you?

Kindly define science for us.

Why? You've already said that no one should listen to me. Kindly take that to heart and act on it.

IOW, buy a dictionary. You'll find it quite useful as you progress through high school.

 

[Slimething]

Well you shouldn't. The entire EM spectrum is the entire EM spectrum. Light, is that small portion of the EM spectrum that can interact with photoreceptors in animal eyes.

All the scientists I know, including myself, mean electromagnetic radiation. It's all light. I'll point out that most people do the same thing when they speak of "UV light" and "infrared light". Don't tell me you've never used those terms! Do you really expect scientists to go around saying "EM radiation" when "light" is not incorrect?

BTW, your definition of light is flawed. Light outside the visible spectrum fully interacts wtih photoreceptros in animal eyes. Moreover, how do you know which wavelengths a particular animal can see? Many insects can see UV. Many nocurnal predators can see IR.

 

[Alric]

Are you not including humans with animals? Some animals do see uv and/or infrared light, as you correctly point out. That is what makes uv and ir radiation also light. X-rays, for example are not perceived by any animal photoreceptor and that is why you never hear the term x-ray light.

Read my definition again and you'll see its correct.

 

[fsol]

Wonders if this is an appropriate thread to stick this.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html

The full comments on Beck are linked to as word files in Rabbetts blog post. Neither E+E or Beck come out of it very well. But that isn't really surprising. We knew that already, well most of us anyway.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wonders if this is an appropriate thread to stick this.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html

The full comments on Beck are linked to as word files in Rabbetts blog post. Neither E+E or Beck come out of it very well. But that isn't really surprising. We knew that already, well most of us anyway.

I am not a scientist, but even I could tell that Beck's paper was preposterous.

Papers I never want to see again.

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Anything by Archibald, a self confessed fiddler of data.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Why? You've already said that no one should listen to me. Kindly take that to heart and act on it.

IOW, buy a dictionary. You'll find it quite useful as you progress through high school.

I see. Instead of answering a simple question, you resort to pathetic insults.

 

[TrueSceptic]

All the scientists I know, including myself, mean electromagnetic radiation. It's all light. I'll point out that most people do the same thing when they speak of "UV light" and "infrared light". Don't tell me you've never used those terms! Do you really expect scientists to go around saying "EM radiation" when "light" is not incorrect?

BTW, your definition of light is flawed. Light outside the visible spectrum fully interacts wtih photoreceptros in animal eyes. Moreover, how do you know which wavelengths a particular animal can see? Many insects can see UV. Many nocurnal predators can see IR.

You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!

 

[mhaze]

You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!

You can't even read what you wrote.

Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus?

What a slime thing he is.

Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.

 

[Megalodon]

Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.

If you add "high-school student puts scientist on ignore", you have my story with David Rodale