Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[fishbob]

Unacceptable. The issue of "peer-review" is now quite up in the air based on latest developments as you already know. Show me hard data proving that it is man-made.

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.

 

[Badger]

Oops, wrong link. I'll go looking for the right one.

Here.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1362

 

[Badger]

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?

Are you ad-hom'ing? That's impressive.

 

[AlBell]

<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?

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.

 

[fishbob]

Regarding "no credible alternative theory "

Nor is one required.

The alternative is wallowing in ignorance. Not my preference - - - but whatever floats your boat.

Just realize that with that attitude, your input is not required.

 

[Megalodon]

Praise Hanson.

Weak

Nor is one required.

Yes it is... You want to play science, there are rules.

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

The characteristics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are rooted in solid physics.

Probably correct.

No, quite correct.

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

What you grant is inconsequential. There was a AGW theory before GW.

Sorry you can see no evidence. Some do.

Some hear voices in their heads, I don't. I'm willing to see the evidence, but nobody wants to show any.

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.

The emails are irrelevant. Days have passed and all the delayers are still harping about the same handful they quoted out of context in the beginning. Maybe there's something to be found, but it's starting to look someone dived for gold and brought mica instead...

 

[BenBurch]

Are you ad-hom'ing? That's impressive.

No, just asking. Something has to explain the hostility and total lack of comprehension of science, mathematics, or engineering.

 

[BenBurch]

Regarding "no credible alternative theory "



The alternative is wallowing in ignorance. Not my preference - - - but whatever floats your boat.

Just realize that with that attitude, your input is not required.

Unicorn farts. They need to be honest and tell us that their alternative is Unicorn farts.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.

What's the title of the alternate theory you are relying on being correct which explains why the expected rise in global temperature from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is *not* going to happen?

Could you summarise it for us?

 

[Sparky]

No, just asking. Something has to explain the hostility and total lack of comprehension of science, mathematics, or engineering.

Still sounds like an ad-hom to me since I'm an electrical engineer. You appear to be the only hostile one in these threads so far.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[BenBurch]

What's the title of the alternate theory you are relying on being correct which explains why the expected rise in global temperature from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is *not* going to happen?

Could you summarise it for us?

We've already boxed him in; He cannot now turn to denying that there is anything to explain, which is what they usually do when you press them.

 

[BenBurch]

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.

Then you have stipulated the point and we can go home.

 

[technoextreme]

Unacceptable. The issue of "peer-review" is now quite up in the air based on latest developments as you already know.

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

 

[AlBell]

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.

What's the title of the alternate theory you are relying on being correct which explains why the expected rise in global temperature from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is *not* going to happen?

Could you summarise it for us?

I mentioned no alternative theory, and agreed CO2 "average surface temperature" rise could be computed. Doing so accurately is the problem.

Have you seen a number, CI, and time frame you would bet on?

 

[BenBurch]

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

As long as humans exist there will be problems with anything they do.

But it is the premise of this thread (remember, this topic has a topic!) that when multiple groups independently arrive at compatible data sets from a number of different approaches, then you have consensus and can rely on the result.

To deny this negates all reason and all science, and is an epistemology that leads only to destruction.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I mentioned no alternative theory, and agreed CO2 "average surface temperature" rise could be computed. Doing so accurately is the problem.

Have you seen a number, CI, and time frame you would bet on?

The best estimates by scientists who know far more about the subject than I do is more than a 1.5 deg. C rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, but more likely about 3 deg. C.

Why should I believe they are wrong?

What extra knowledge do you have than makes you think the scientists are way off in their estimate?

 

[AlBell]

As long as humans exist there will be problems with anything they do.

But it is the premise of this thread (remember, this topic has a topic!) that when multiple groups independently arrive at compatible data sets from a number of different approaches, then you have consensus and can rely on the result.

To deny this negates all reason and all science, and is an epistemology that leads only to destruction.

Indeed. Now, what is the "consensus" CO2 contribution in degrees change, from what baseline, the confidence interval, and time frame for that change?

 

[BenBurch]

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

 

[lomiller]

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.

I don’t suppose you have some evidence to back up this claim?

BTW what you apparently don't seem to understand is that science develops models for reality. If you discard the notion of models you are in fact discarding science in its entirety.

 

[Megalodon]

BTW what you apparently don't seem to understand is that science develops models for reality. If you discard the notion of models you are in fact discarding science in its entirety.

Been there, done that... maybe you'll be more successful...