Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[BenBurch]

Ivor, I told people how to compute that in another thread, but damn if I am gonna go look it up. Even when I gave them all the equations, they never performed the calculation. Funny that. Suppose they didn't really want to know.

 

[AlBell]

Congratulations! You have just discarded ALL of science!

No. Reality still exists, and, who knows, the science community may eventually figure out how to accurately measure changes in the chaos that determine climate.

That community may also determine how to accurately model historically, then predict, the effects of "knowns", and better yet move a few more things into the "known" column.

 

[BenBurch]

All science operates on that basis. All of it.

What you have constructed is a nescient epistemology that actually denies any knowledge whatsoever.

And I am absolutely certain you do not believe that, and apply it ONLY in this case.

Else you would never ever go to a doctor because all of their knowledge about how to dose you with dangerous chemicals is statistical and based on a model of patient response.

In any case its so utterly false as to make a laughingstock of those who maintain it.

 

[AlBell]

Cheer up, Ben. "Climatology" is at least at the Galen stage. The problem is they don't even pretend to have a Hippocratic Oath.

 

[Megalodon]

No. Reality still exists, and, who knows, the science community may eventually figure out how to accurately measure changes in the chaos that determine climate.

That community may also determine how to accurately model historically, then predict, the effects of "knowns", and better yet move a few more things into the "known" column.

Sure, reality is out there. But science, all of science, is trying to find the model that explains what we observe in the world. AGW is a model that encompassed the observations that happened until then, and predicted the observations being made since. Is it a perfect model? No, but then, it never is. And the major fault until now is that the observations keep happening before they where predicted.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, I told people how to compute that in another thread, but damn if I am gonna go look it up. Even when I gave them all the equations, they never performed the calculation. Funny that. Suppose they didn't really want to know.

To a first-order approximation, the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives the answer:

T = (j/sigma)^1/4

where j is the absorbed energy flux from the sun (240Wm^-2) and sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67x10^-8Js^-1m^-2K^-4).

T = (240/5.67x10^-8)^1/4 = 255K, or about -18 deg. C.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increases the surface temperature of the earth by over 30 deg. C.

Now, has anyone got a convincing argument as to why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not going to result in an overall increase in the average surface temperature of the earth?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Quit squabbling. It's T-shirt time.

http://www.cafepress.com.au/hidethedecline

 

[!Kaggen]

And what would JREF be without straw men? I'm not claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I'm claiming unforced natural variability from non-ergodic behaviour in the hydrological cycle is greater than the direct effect from CO2; and once this is correctly accounted for many of the claims (e.g. feedbacks) disappear into the uncertainty of science. And what you have left doesn't amount to much.

And you have the graphs with the error bars and CI's to back up your claim I suppose?
or does that just apply to those that have something relevant to say.

 

[BenBurch]

Cheer up, Ben. "Climatology" is at least at the Galen stage. The problem is they don't even pretend to have a Hippocratic Oath.

Showing zero ability to comprehend what I said.

I'm ignoring you henceforth.

 

[AlBell]

No. Reality still exists, and, who knows, the science community may eventually figure out how to accurately measure changes in the chaos that determine climate.

That community may also determine how to accurately model historically, then predict, the effects of "knowns", and better yet move a few more things into the "known" column.

Sure, reality is out there. But science, all of science, is trying to find the model that explains what we observe in the world. AGW is a model that encompassed the observations that happened until then, and predicted the observations being made since. Is it a perfect model? No, but then, it never is.

At the current state of climatic art (& science) is hard to tell what is effected more by the gigo problem; historical data, or the magic-parameter models.

And the major fault until now is that the observations keep happening before they were predicted.

And that is firmly in the eye of first the data gather and subsequent data-massagers, as well as the eye of the beholder.

But yes, GW appears to be happening.

 

[!Kaggen]

At the current state of climatic art (& science) is hard to tell what is effected more by the gigo problem; historical data, or the magic-parameter models.
And that is firmly in the eye of first the data gather and subsequent data-massagers, as well as the eye of the beholder.
But yes, GW appears to be happening.

Why does this remind me about the church telling Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis, but not as the truth.

 

[Cuddles]

OK, before everything gets binned because the usual suspects are unable to contain their constant bickering, let's just emphasise the two main points here.
Firstly:

BTW, MOST denialists seem to dispute that. In fact, why care about HADCRUT3 at all if you don't dispute that? Because 100% of that is about temperature. If you stipulate that the world is warming, its off the table.

This is an extremely important point, especially as far as the hacked emails are concerned. All the data that is called into question addresses the question of whether the Earth is warming or not. If you accept that the Earth is warming but merely dispute the cause or effect, this data is irrelevant. Since many deniers claim to hold this position, it seems rather odd that they are so pleased about these emails since they don't actually add anything at all to their position. On the other hand, if you don't accept that the Earth is warming, this data is irrelevant. After all, you didn't accept the data before the questions about fraud arose, so what difference does it make now?

Either way, the focus on the emails is really rather weird, since no matter what flavour denial you prefer, they don't support the case. Either you ignored this data anyway or you accept its conclusions and dispute other, completely unrelated, data.

Secondly:

Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement.

That is Science.

Indeed, that is science. In fact, that is probably the most important part of science. It doesn't matter how controlled your tests, how accurate your observations or how elegant your theory is, if no-one else can repeat your results, those results may as well not exist. What we have in this case is that many independent groups, some looking at the same or similar data, some looking at entirely separate things, all come to the same conclusion. If one of those lines of enquiry, or groups of enquirers, turns out to have a problem, the conclusion still remains.

So arguing about these emails is really rather pointless. Yes, it may well turn out that a few scientists were dishonest. Disappointing, certainly, but hardly the first time it's happened, and rather unlikely to be the last. But regardless of the outcome of an investigation, it won't change all the other things that have also led to the same conclusions.

Science. It works, bitches.

 

[AlBell]

At the current state of climatic art (& science) is hard to tell what is effected more by the gigo problem; historical data, or the magic-parameter models.
And that is firmly in the eye of first the data gather and subsequent data-massagers, as well as the eye of the beholder.
But yes, GW appears to be happening.

Why does this remind me about the church telling Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis, but not as the truth.

Roll your eyes all you wish, and pretend that using telescopic observation to deduce planetary orbits is a problem similar to predicting chaotic systems of as-yet not well understood influences.

 

[Megalodon]

But yes, GW appears to be happening.

GW is happening, at a rate similar or faster than predicted by AGW theory decades ago. There is no credible alternative theory, and the mechanism by which this one works is rooted in solid physics foundations.

We know beyond a doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Isotopic composition of the atmosphere tells us that we are responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2.

On top of it, ocean acidification is happening, again slightly faster than predicted. As an aside, only that justifies a deep cut in emissions and CCS-CCC programs.

So all the observations around us are happening according to AGW theory, but somehow some unexplained, unobserved mechanism is responsible for GW.

And this delusion somehow justifies insulting scientists without a shred of evidence for the paranoid conspiracies. And no, the stolen emails are not evidence now, and they certainly weren't evidence years ago, when delayers harped on the same conspiracy theories.

 

[BenBurch]

... but somehow some unexplained, unobserved mechanism is responsible for GW. ...

They fail to comprehend (I think they may not be smart enough) that they have to provide a testable alternate hypothesis to attack the consensus theory.

A few have tried;

1. The sun did it by being so very active that there was a lack of galactic cosmic rays and so cloud formation was low and heat was not being rejected. -- trouble is, that when you test this, you find that the sun had not been particularly active, and that no cooling trend appeared in the last couple of years in spite of the highest GCR flux since the dawn of the space age brought about by a sun devoid of sunspots.

2. All the thermometers are thrown off by urban heat islands. Well, shot down fast by proxy data, and ocean surface water measurements -- its a non-starter, but I include it because so many of the woo believe it.

3. Unicorn farts -- OK, you got me there. I can't prove that Unicorn farts are not the cause of Global Warming.

 

[AlBell]

But yes, GW appears to be happening.

GW is happening, at a rate similar or faster than predicted by AGW theory decades ago.

Praise Hanson.

There is no credible alternative theory,

Nor is one required.

and the mechanism by which this one works is rooted in solid physics foundations.

The greenhouse effect is rooted in solid physics. CO2 is a component.

We know beyond a doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Isotopic composition of the atmosphere tells us that we are responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2.

Agreed.

On top of it, ocean acidification is happening, again slightly faster than predicted.

Probably correct.

As an aside, only that justifies a deep cut in emissions and CCS-CCC programs.

Which unfortunately is unlikely to be realized in any reasonable timeframe.

So all the observations around us are happening according to AGW theory, but somehow some unexplained, unobserved mechanism is responsible for GW.

AGW theory is an effort to explain GW, I grant that.

And this delusion somehow justifies insulting scientists without a shred of evidence for the paranoid conspiracies.

Sorry you can see no evidence. Some do.

And no, the stolen emails are not evidence now, and they certainly weren't evidence years ago, when delayers harped on the same conspiracy theories.

The implications of the emails are now under discussion. Who knows what the future holds in that regard. I suspect you don't, and I'm sure I don't.

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, just as an aside; Are the guys who believe this crap the ones who flunked high school physics and algebra? It it just that they resent those of us who managed to become scientists and engineers and so anything we say is automatically wrong?

 

[AlBell]

Or is the problem that scientists and engineers are as susceptible to snake-oil salesmen as everyone else? Magicians excluded, I guess?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

There is no credible alternative theory,

Nor is one required.

Yes, one is required. You agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What theory do you use to explain why human activity increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will *not* raise the average surface temperature of the earth, in line with the basic physics?

 

[!Kaggen]

At the current state of climatic art (& science) is hard to tell what is effected more by the gigo problem; historical data, or the magic-parameter models.
And that is firmly in the eye of first the data gather and subsequent data-massagers, as well as the eye of the beholder.
But yes, GW appears to be happening.

Why does this remind me about the church telling Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis, but not as the truth.

Roll your eyes all you wish, and pretend that using telescopic observation to deduce planetary orbits is a problem similar to predicting chaotic systems of as-yet not well understood influences.

No that is not what reminds me of Galileo.
Try again.