• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

metzomagic said:
Of course it won't work. But insult and ridicule is all that's left once every avenue of logic and rationality has been exhausted. It's a symptom of abject frustration, when people won't listen to a single thing you say, or read a single thing they're politely asked to read.

You didn't at any stage in your career happen to negotiate on behalf of a trade union, did you? Because that would explain a lot.
Click to expand...
Okay, here is where you are wrong. You are personifying the argument. It's quite irrelevant to me if you don't like people who don't agree with you, and it is irrelevant what non substantive things you would like to talk about, including personifying the argument (which is another one of the Alinksy methods).

Therefore I repeat the prior statements:

But feel free to actually contribute.

On, and if you want, go look around at Tamino or RC for the "AGW Hypothesis".

Good Hunting!

It would be quite amiss, to debate a subject on which various people might think differently on the definition, so there can't be anything wrong with simply asking for that definition. Then various premises can be stated, arguments made, and conclusions reached.

On the contrary, ducking and dodging stating the very definition of AGW is very strange behavior. And that's where we seem to be stalled at.
 
mhaze said:
On the contrary, ducking and dodging stating the very definition of AGW is very strange behavior. And that's where we seem to be stalled at.
Click to expand...

The whole thing is getting a bit weird at the moment. A lot of noisy thrashing around.

Anyway. Did you see this one?
 
mhaze said:
On [sic], and if you want, go look around at Tamino or RC for the "AGW Hypothesis".
Click to expand...

Before we start round 15 on this venerable topic, can we at least agree that AGW is a *theory*, with a mountain of hard evidence (and peer-reviewed papers) to support it, that has been painstakingly gathered over the past few decades... rather than just a *hypothesis*? You seem to be using the two terms interchangeably throughout your posts, so which is it then: do you think AGW is a theory, or a hypothesis?
 
DogB said:
The whole thing is getting a bit weird at the moment. A lot of noisy thrashing around.

Anyway. Did you see this one?
Click to expand...

Yes, AGW feedback assumptions are at the very heart and seems to be the main source for most skeptics as questionable at best.

It's unfortunate that feedbacks haven't been studied more in depth over the past 30 years. Then perhaps we could have had more realistic models at this point.

The question now is just how over estimated are the models if this recent hypothesis holds ground.
 
DogB said:
And how do we even start on this one?

As always, the more we learn, the less we know.
Click to expand...

I agree. And that's why the science is never settled.

Hence the need for open intellectual dialogue from both sides for the sake of discussion/debate and chewing over empirical evidence AND questionable science processes/methodology behind any hypothesis and/or theory.

All it takes is one paper to blow out a hypothesis and/or theory.

Einstein illustrated this.
 
Originally Posted by DogB
And how do we even start on this one?

As always, the more we learn, the less we know.
Click to expand...

start by acknowledging their acknowledgement of GHG warming as the driver
by acknowledging water vapour is a feedback
that feedback magnitudes are subject to other factors such a ENSO/NAO/PDO locations and ocean current shifts..

that's where they are coming from.....not from

it ain't happening and we're not responsible if it is .....position..

We don't know everything about aerodynamiccs either but we get in planes every day.....failure to act on what we do know ......increased fossil carbon is driving global warming...just as Exxon's own scientists acknowledged in the 90s....due to the lame excuse of "we don't everything" is pathetic and irresponsible

Silly nostrums from grandpa's knee hardly cut it here....:rolleyes:
the world and even the fossil fuel companies have moved on to dealing with the manmade problem and intend to make money on the shift to low carbon

......some here seem stuck in a failed meme :garfield:
 
DogB said:
And how do we even start on this one?

As always, the more we learn, the less we know.
Click to expand...
As always, the more we learn the better we can explain what we measure.

We can start by stating that this paper is an explanation of the slowdown in global warming over the last decade as in the title and very first paragraph.
Water vapour could be behind warming slowdown
A puzzling drop in the amount of water vapour high in the Earth's atmosphere is now on the list of possible culprits causing average global temperatures to flatten out over the past decade, despite ever-increasing greenhouse-gas emissions
Click to expand...

But the explanation of the records showing temperatures flattening off in the decade spanning 2000 to 2009 could also include solar activity or the El Niño Southern Oscillation (both in negative phases during this period).
 
DogB said:
The whole thing is getting a bit weird at the moment. A lot of noisy thrashing around.

Anyway. Did you see this one?
Click to expand...
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
A bit out of my area of expertise but as the article states:
Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.
Click to expand...

There is also the Physics World article: Carbon-cycle feedback smaller, but still positive

My interpretation
  • This better value for the feedback will decrease the uncertainty of the projections.
  • The value is positive so the feedback still leads to higher temperatures.
    We will probably have to wait for someone to run the computer models with the new value to see the projected effect.
 
metzomagic said:
Before we start round 15 on this venerable topic, can we at least agree that AGW is a *theory*, with a mountain of hard evidence (and peer-reviewed papers) to support it, that has been painstakingly gathered over the past few decades... rather than just a *hypothesis*? You seem to be using the two terms interchangeably throughout your posts, so which is it then: do you think AGW is a theory, or a hypothesis?
Click to expand...
No, I do not use the terms interchangeably. I have said that you will not find scientists using the term "AGW".

Therefore, I am questioning some people here on the JREF forum who think they know what is going on, and whose use a term that scientists do not, to mean things that appear vague, imprecise and unscientific.

Of course, if you wish to use the term "theory" in a common-use sense, not in the scientific, then we could discuss the "Theory of the Lock Ness Monster".
 
Reality Check said:
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
A bit out of my area of expertise but as the article states:


There is also the Physics World article: Carbon-cycle feedback smaller, but still positive

My interpretation
  • This better value for the feedback will decrease the uncertainty of the projections.
  • The value is positive so the feedback still leads to higher temperatures.
    We will probably have to wait for someone to run the computer models with the new value to see the projected effect.
Click to expand...

Long term feedbacks like this are not currently included in most climate modes and are not included in the IPCC projections. A reduction in anticipated CO2 feedback, therefor, can’t impact any of the current projections.
 
GreyICE said:
Here, I'll link to a past post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5178126&postcount=298

It took me a while to write that one, and MHaze was posting in that thread. So you can see where I'm coming from when I call him totally dishonest. There's several other very good explanations in that thread as well, if you can filter past the noise.
Click to expand...

I'm sure anyone who does not agree with your beliefs and where they head, or where you think they head at the moment, is in your view totally dishonest.

However in the referenced eigth grade level greenie greenhouse stuff that you have referenced, there are easily a half a dozen testable hypothesis.

There is therein, no "AGW Hypothesis".

Quite on the contrary - there are some statements of physical principles, coupled with some assumptions, opinions and beliefs about the application of those principles to the real world.

Fail.

POSTSCRIPT: I note that in the link you have provided, you do not say "This is the AGW Hypothesis". So disregard my above comments, unless you intended to say now and at this time, "here is a link to my version of the AGW hypothesis".
 
Last edited:
Megalodon said:
Well, you recall wrong. And since the last time I wasted time answering you and explaining something you decided to ignore me, I would put your gracious request for details on my "to do" list even if you had recalled correctly. Which you didn't....



Then you should take the time to read what was written in the last couples of pages.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Ironically, I'm the one who had his post banished to Dante's Inferno, not you.

Suffice to say, I will not be acknowledging your posts simply because I believe you to be trolling your opinion. You absolutely refuse to act civilized, and you have your insult-knob turned to maximum. so due to that I feel that your evidence may be of an equally authoritarian nature.

I write this only to explain to you why I plan not to "waste my time" on you. If someone wants to have a real debate, great, but an insult fest is not a debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom