Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[BenBurch]

Do your own damned research. I did enough of it for you in this thread.

However, for the rest of you;

Basic physics says that each time you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, you get about a 2 degree rise in global temperature. Using that as a basis, we have to compute other factors that mitigate or enhance that effect, but 2 degrees is still a good, conservative estimate.

Here is what we have done so far;

 

[lomiller]

Up in the air only in the minds of those who don't know what they are talking about.

You only get proof in court, geometry, or alcohol. There is no such thing as proof in science. All you get is data and the best explanation that fits the data.

Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air as far as the whack-a-doodles are concerned. This is the common thread that runs though all woo, and the best way to spot the crackpots on any issue is usually to look for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.

Which such a conspiracy may be possible, surely it counts as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Before anyone starts reaching for straws, scientists disliking crackpots who harass them and try to obstruct the scientific process is not evidence of a global scientific conspiracy.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html

This shows the range of possible futures. These scenarios depend on what choices we make in the present.

A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels is the optimistic scenario, and a quadrupling is the most pessimistic. Reality will likely fall in the middle.

 

[BenBurch]

Good summary article; http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

 

[Reality Check]

All else equal, no doubt about it; increased CO2 should raise average surface temperature.

All that's needed then is to accurately define the magnitude of that raise in "average surface temperature" and predict how it effects local area conditions.

You should be careful - that is almost accepting the evidence that global warming exists !

The evidence is:

• Global warming is measured to be happening, i.e. the termperture datasets show an increase in global temperature over the last 30 years even if we excluse HADCRUT3.
• CO2 has been measured to have increased over the same period. CO2 (as you acknowledge) is a greenhouse gas. It is at least a partial cause of the global warming.
• The decrease in 13C/12C ratios means that the burning of fossil fuels and trees is a contribution to CO2. This ratio was roughly constant before 1850.
• Human beings burn fossil fuels and trees. They really got into this around 1850 (the Industrial Revolution).

Conclusion: Human activities are a partial cause of the observed global warming. Thus AGW.

The question of how much of global warming is due to us is dependent on climate modeling.

 

[AlBell]

double post

 

[AlBell]

Do your own damned research. I did enough of it for you in this thread.

Answer: an actual consensus, with numbers, CIs, timing, etc does not exist other than as a bunch of people waving their arms and yelling as typified by the IPCC reports.

ps. Thanks. Two degrees huh? Paribus ceterus of course. We'll find out what cloud effect is one day, and who knows what else.

OBTW, is that C or F?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Answer: an actual consensus, with numbers, CIs, timing, etc does not exist other than as a bunch of people waving their arms and yelling as typified by the IPCC reports.

ps. Thanks. Two degrees huh? Paribus ceterus of course. We'll find out what cloud effect is one day, and who knows what else.

OBTW, is that C or F?

So your approach is ignore what you do know (i.e. increased CO2 raising the surface temperature of the earth) and hope things you don't know are effective or even exist are going to mitigate the effects of it?

Isn't that kinda like believing in a sky-daddy to look after you?

 

[BenBurch]

So your approach is ignore what you do know (i.e. increased CO2 raising the surface temperature of the earth) and hope things you don't know are effective or even exist are going to mitigate the effects of it?

Isn't that kinda like believing in a sky-daddy to look after you?

Not sure if it equates to a religion, but it sure is a weird way to relate to reality.

 

[AlBell]

Answer: an actual consensus, with numbers, CIs, timing, etc does not exist other than as a bunch of people waving their arms and yelling as typified by the IPCC reports.

ps. Thanks. Two degrees huh? Paribus ceterus of course. We'll find out what cloud effect is one day, and who knows what else.

OBTW, is that C or F?

So your approach is ignore what you do know (i.e. increased CO2 raising the surface temperature of the earth) and hope things you don't know are effective or even exist are going to mitigate the effects of it?

What I do know? Two degrees, average temperature rise (whatever that might actually mean), over what? The time frame for CO2 to double? With no confidence intervals in sight. Are you stating this is the consensus scenario?

Isn't that kinda like believing in a sky-daddy to look after you?

Religious fervor seems to characterize adherents to your position, not mine.

 

[a_unique_person]

What I do know? Two degrees, average temperature rise (whatever that might actually mean), over what? The time frame for CO2 to double? With no confidence intervals in sight. Are you stating this is the consensus scenario?

You are stating this as if they are incompetent. The climate sensitivity is difficult to determine. Just because it is, seems to give some people comfort and grounds for complacency. It frightens me.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Any problems that you think are new were always present. OMG PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW. No kidding sherlock.

Hang on a second. Wasn't peer review supposed to be the 'holy grail' for the warmers as to why we had to listen to the science. Now peer review has always had problems?
Wow!

 

[a_unique_person]

Hang on a second. Wasn't peer review supposed to be the 'holy grail' for the warmers as to why we had to listen to the science. Now peer review has always had problems?
Wow!

Peer review is the best system we have come up with, peer review has problems. The two claims are entirely consistent.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What I do know? Two degrees, average temperature rise (whatever that might actually mean), over what? The time frame for CO2 to double? With no confidence intervals in sight. Are you stating this is the consensus scenario?

What on earth are you talking about?

Religious fervor seems to characterize adherents to your position, not mine.

Sure there are nutters in both groups. The main difference between the two groups is that in general the deniers seem to revel in their ignorance and want the human race to not act in the face of a scientifically credible threat to its health and prosperity.

This bizarre attitude is compounded by the fact that many of the proposed solutions to reduce CO2 emissions would have large benefits for both individual and public health.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air as far as the whack-a-doodles are concerned. This is the common thread that runs though all woo, and the best way to spot the crackpots on any issue is usually to look for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.

Even if they are supressing evidence?

Which such a conspiracy may be possible, surely it counts as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Before anyone starts reaching for straws, scientists disliking crackpots who harass them and try to obstruct the scientific process is not evidence of a global scientific conspiracy.

Correct. But is does raise a lot of suspicions, especially when other information is shown (or attempted to be supressed) that contradicts their scientific claims.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Peer review is the best system we have come up with, peer review has problems. The two claims are entirely consistent.

This week.

 

[Pixel42]

You are stating this as if they are incompetent. The climate sensitivity is difficult to determine. Just because it is, seems to give some people comfort and grounds for complacency. It frightens me.

The assumption seems to be that if there's a large range of possible outcomes the least worst one will be the one that actually happens. So if the expected temperature rise by 2100 is, say, 4 +/- 2 degrees C then 2C is what should be expected and planned for. In fact, of course, 6C is just as likely as 2C.

 

[a_unique_person]

Even if they are supressing evidence?

They didn't suppress evidence.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They didn't suppress evidence.

Who didn't?

 

[Father Dagon]

Ignore reality if you like. But there it is, Sparky. Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement.

That is Science.

Ever heard about Richard Walther Darré and Artamanen? (So let's just drop the right-left axis, shall we? It confuses more than it clarifies and has to be recalibrated for every country and every time.)