Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[DogB]

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.

Firstly, I should say it's a well written post and I have no argument with it.

MHaze's assertation that there is no definitive AGW hypothesis is an interesting one but not one I agree with. You post seems to be a fair summary but he disagrees (as you can see below). I must admit I am curious as to where Hazey is going with this line of argument so for the moment I remain on the fence.

 

[DogB]

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.

I assumed the 40ppmv/^oC figure was from the C⁴MIP model. Did they not include this in the projections?

 

[mhaze]

Firstly, I should say it's a well written post and I have no argument with it.

MHaze's assertation that there is no definitive AGW hypothesis is an interesting one but not one I agree with. You post seems to be a fair summary but he disagrees (as you can see below). I must admit I am curious as to where Hazey is going with this line of argument so for the moment I remain on the fence.

Well, I have noted that scientists do not speak in phrases such as "AGW hypothesis" and do not debate as Warmers here do. Simple fact. Further if you look at the IPCC AR4, you do not to my knowledge find anywhere, an alleged "AGW hypothesis" by that term. Finally, if you simply look at this well known chart (which is likely outdated and which I do not agree with, but that is a separate issue):




One finds that the IPCC attribute multiple causative factors to the "A" and additionally, multiple causative factors to the "GW".

Why do I continue on this point? Well, it is possible to debate the sensitivity of CO2 forcing, or the assumption of constant (or randomly varying) radiative balance at lower troposphere. Etc. But if there is no agreed upon definition of "AGW hypothesis", then different people debating it do not have similar or agreed upon premises.

First clearly state and agree on premises, then debate is possible.

Pretty simple stuff, isn't it?

 

[Wangler]

AGW predicts stratospheric cooling.

What does this suggest to you?

It suggests you know more about that than the scientists.

From the article:

It remains unclear what is driving the changes in stratospheric water vapour. Average temperatures at the coldest point in the stratosphere — about 16 kilometres above the tropics — have fallen by about 1 °C in the past decade, says Bill Randel, who heads the atmospheric chemistry division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. Colder temperatures freeze out water vapour that might otherwise have entered the stratosphere. But, Randel says, "We don't really understand why that 1-degree temperature change occurred."

 

[DogB]

First clearly state and agree on premises, then debate is possible.

Pretty simple stuff, isn't it?

I see what you're saying but just because it hasn't been defined and would be difficult and complex to do so doesn't mean it's impossible.

Are you suggesting that because there's no clear definition of the hypothesis it's not falsifiable? I wonder about that myself sometimes.

 

[DogB]

It suggests you know more about that than the scientists.

Careful! You're anglin' for an ignorin'.

 

[BenBurch]

It suggests you know more about that than the scientists.

From the article:

No, it suggests you don't have a clue about how any of this works.

I don't presume to know more than the scientists, but I do know that a GHG warming cools the Stratosphere. That is predicted and observed.

I also know there is a definite limit to how much the humidity in the Stratosphere CAN decrease.

 

[mhaze]

I see what you're saying but just because it hasn't been defined and would be difficult and complex to do so doesn't mean it's impossible.

Are you suggesting that because there's no clear definition of the hypothesis it's not falsifiable? I wonder about that myself sometimes.

The hypothesis would be falsifiable if arbitrarily defined and agreed, on but specifically not falsifiable if various people discussing it understand it to mean different things or if they are not aware of others' definitions.

Compare this with the point of view of a skeptic. A skeptic's position is not vague at all, it is skepticism concerning a certain issue which is (in this case) vague or imprecisely stated.

There is no other logical position.

 

[Wangler]

I don't presume to know more than the scientists, but I do know that a GHG warming cools the Stratosphere. That is predicted and observed.

It is probably useless to speculate on what the scientists in that article know or don't know about stratospheric temperature changes, but I wonder if they are just ignorant about the effect of GHG warming on stratospheric temperature, or if they just overlooked this obvious fact.

Still, it does appear that you are more in the know than Bill Randel, the head of the atmospheric chemistry division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

 

[macdoc]

What the gentleman sad was "more than expected"..it in no way denies the known effect of stratospheric cooling due to higher retention...it just indicates there is an anomaly in expected versus measured.

 

[Wangler]

What the gentleman sad was "more than expected"...

What gentleman said that? Was it in the article, or the paper?


ETA: Also, I am fully aware that the article or paper is not denying the known effect of GHG on stratospheric cooling.

 

[DogB]

The hypothesis would be falsifiable if arbitrarily defined and agreed, on but specifically not falsifiable if various people discussing it understand it to mean different things or if they are not aware of others' definitions.

Compare this with the point of view of a skeptic. A skeptic's position is not vague at all, it is skepticism concerning a certain issue which is (in this case) vague or imprecisely stated.

There is no other logical position.

While your point is technically valid you don't think it's a bit of a cop out? I mean I can posit a definition that, while not being complete by any measure, would IMHO be general enough to use as a working tool. Let's try...

AGW hypothesizes that burning fossil carbon in the form of coal and oil increases atmospheric carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide hinders the reradiation of solar energy in the form of longwave radiation thereby warming the earth's surface and lower atmosphere. This effect creates both positive and negative feedbacks which may amplify or supress the warming.

How's that?

 

[Meed]

Deleted (wrong thread).

 

[metzomagic]

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.

mhaze, trying to discuss something with you is like trying to nail down jello. Talk about ducking and dodging, you have perfected it as an art form.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

According to the dictionary, anthropogenic = caused or produced by humans

From the the an article hosted on the realclimate site, which is compiled by climate *scientists*:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_scientific_consensus.html

(2009) A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

So AGW is an acronym for 'global warming which humans contribute significantly to'. And it was a 'hypothesis' way back at the turn of the previous century in 1896 when Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius observed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas that trapped the sun's heat, and that mankind had been pouring significant amounts of it into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age by burning coal. He estimated that the mean temperature in Europe would be be 4 - 5 deg C cooler were it not for the atmospheric CO2, which would be ice age level. Source:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Since, oh I don't know when exactly... maybe the last 25 years or so climate scientists have, by virtue of all the peer reviewed research, advanced the AGW hypothesis to a sufficient level of certainty/robustness that it is now a theory. The theory is backed up by a mountain of corroborating data (earth and satellite temperature measurements, tree dendrochronology, ice core samples, coral reef analysis, etc.).

While AGW may not be an acronym that all climate scientists use to describe the phenomenon that is 'global warming which humans contribute significantly to', it is an acronym that has certainly been adopted by the mainstream media and most people would agree to its meaning.

 

[mhaze]

.....
Since, oh I don't know when exactly... maybe the last 25 years or so climate scientists have, by virtue of all the peer reviewed research, advanced the AGW hypothesis to a sufficient level of certainty/robustness that it is now a theory. The theory is backed up by a mountain of corroborating data (earth and satellite temperature measurements, tree dendrochronology, ice core samples, coral reef analysis, etc.).

While AGW may not be an acronym that all climate scientists use to describe the phenomenon that is 'global warming which humans contribute significantly to', it is an acronym that has certainly been adopted by the mainstream media and most people would agree to its meaning.

You've stated the problem but don't see it.

1. Presume there is an "AGW Hypothesis".
2. Suggest that lots of research confirm it.
3. Elevate it to a theory.
4. Admit that AGW is an imprecise term used largely by media mainstream.
5. Assert that most people would agree on what AGW is.

Unless you can clearly state the scientific hypothesis which is the "AGW hypothesis", your logic is no better than numerous well known historical logical fallacies:

• "Blacks aren't as smart as whites"
• "Bugs are spontaneously created in heaps of manure"
• "The sun revolves around the earth".

It is by rigorous scientific process with precise definition of premises that correct conclusions are reached, not by substituting into (1) blurred and inaccurate popular conceptions.

 

[metzomagic]

You've stated the problem but don't see it.

1. Presume there is an "AGW Hypothesis".
2. Suggest that lots of research confirm it.
3. Elevate it to a theory.
4. Admit that AGW is an imprecise term used largely by media mainstream.
5. Assert that most people would agree on what AGW is.

Unless you can clearly state the scientific hypothesis which is the "AGW hypothesis", your logic is no better than numerous well known historical logical fallacies:

• "Blacks aren't as smart as whites"
• "Bugs are spontaneously created in heaps of manure"
• "The sun revolves around the earth".

It is by rigorous scientific process with precise definition of premises that correct conclusions are reached, not by substituting into (1) blurred and inaccurate popular conceptions.

You should write an open letter to all the climate scientists who are actively working in the area of AGW, informing them that what they've spent their entire career researching in fact doesn't even exist. While you're at it, send them each a box of homeopathic sleeping pills so they can bring an end to their pathetic, wasted lives.

It would probably be a complete waste of time, but not as much of a waste of time as even *contemplating* to post on a thread in which mhaze is participating.

 

[GreyICE]

Firstly, I should say it's a well written post and I have no argument with it.

MHaze's assertation that there is no definitive AGW hypothesis is an interesting one but not one I agree with. You post seems to be a fair summary but he disagrees (as you can see below). I must admit I am curious as to where Hazey is going with this line of argument so for the moment I remain on the fence.

I don't know what he means by 'no definitive AGW hypothesis.' There's a definitive theory on the Greenhouse Effect, which no one is denying, even the worst of the worst.

The Greenhouse Effect and the resulting increase in retained heat from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions can result in many effects. There's hypotheses about these, as well. Some of them are more definitive than others (we have a great idea as to what it does to the ocean as the ocean warms, we have some idea what it does to the water vapor content of the atmosphere, we are constantly refining our idea as to what it does to the ice sheets (the latest discovery I saw was the rivers under the glaciers, which have been moving them much faster than expected).

In the end, it's like saying there's no definitive hypothesis of 'The Car.' Sure, there's the Otto cycle that runs the engine, there's several combustion hypotheses that explains the gasoline mixtures and what results in good burning, there's chemical catalyst theory that explains the catalytic converter, there's ignition theory that explain spark plugs, there's many laws of physics which explain the brakes and steering, but there's just no definitive hypothesis of 'The Car.'

Which, in its way, is true, but it's completely dishonest to imply that as a result we have no idea how cars work. Complex systems are interrelated in many ways, and trying to summarize all these ways into a single theory is bollocks. You'd never try to unify chemical catalysts, combustion, and rolling friction into one unified theory of 'cars' but that's what he's asking for.

 

[BenBurch]

...
There's a definitive theory on the Greenhouse Effect, which no one is denying, even the worst of the worst.
...

I do believe you have missed several discussions here in which the deniers did JUST that.

 

[GreyICE]

I do believe you have missed several discussions here in which the deniers did JUST that.

Alcoholics anonymous absentees, or people who are serious?

 

[BenBurch]

Alcoholics anonymous absentees, or people who are serious?

Well, hard to tell given the intellectual level of some of those involved, but yes, they were quite serious. This was about two years back, and one was a Petroleum Engineer who claimed that the supposed IR behaviors of CO2 were nonsense. He's long since banned here, I believe.

I also believe Poptech was denying the GHE and MHaze has said things that appear to be just that.