Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[mhaze]

I know you want people to ignore that this hypothesis was put up first more than a century ago, revisited in the 50's when GHGs emissions were intensifying, and very well established during the 70's even while atmospheric sulfates masking the warming effect. But reality won't go away.



You think so?




.....As I construe it, the AGW hypothesis focuses on the main present climate forcing. It can be influenced and refined, and in fact it was. That's why it's now called AGW Theory.

But I simplified it as a simple hypothesis, so that it's easy for you to falsify.

Oh? But according to your attempt at a hypothesis, all the skeptics that I know would agree. For example, they might say "co2, that might cause a 0.1C rise in a century". This leads me to conclude that

(A) your offered "AGW Hypothesis" is wrong
(B) all of the Warmers who use the phrase "AGW Denier" toward their imagined opposition are morons

Now can you reconcile this curious disparity?

POSTCRIPT: Thanks for the chart - I needed a good chuckle this morning.

 

[Megalodon]

Are you kidding? Real skeptics, both in print and in blogs, were laughing at the ridiculousness of those IPCC sections as soon as they came out.

Find me one blog post or printed article where the "sceptics" discovered that the original source of this was a personal communication to New Scientist, and the point is yours.

Because "sceptics" generally laughing at any section of the IPCC report is hardly news, and has generally very little thought behind it.

 

[Megalodon]

Oh? But according to your attempt at a hypothesis, all the skeptics that I know would agree.

Actually, depending on the fashion du jour in the echo chamber, you would disagree with it.

For example, they might say "co2, that might cause a 0.1C rise in a century".

Then they only have to show that the physics of GHGs is wrong, or that it changes substantially from the lab to the atmosphere. Then they will have falsified my hypothesis, that is based on the known physics of GHGs.

This leads me to conclude that

(A) your offered "AGW Hypothesis" is wrong
(B) all of the Warmers who use the phrase "AGW Denier" toward their imagined opposition are morons

This leads me to conclude that

(A) your comprehension of scientific matters still sucks
(B) there are morons around here, but they're not who you imagine them to be
(C) your little attemps at a "gotcha" will continue to fail

 

[lomiller]

I guess my point is "How is this temp peak any different from the past peaks in the Milankovich cycles?"

Mainly because we are not at the peak of a cycle. Milankovich cycles peaked about 8000 years ago and have been declining since then.

 

[mythstifieD]

As an example, there is a bathtub, with water pouring in from a tap, and flowing out through the drain. The water level is up at the lip of the bath, just about to overflow. The water flowing in matches exactly the the amount draining out.

I start to pour water in myself, from a bucket. The water overflows the bath. The overflow was directly attributable to me, but the water flowing over will be a mix of what I poured in, and what was going in anyway from the tap.

I have a feeling that your analogy begs the question. You are clearly illustrating a human influence on the bathtub, but the point (i think?) of the analogy is to show that man is influencing the climate. What is at question is if it is humanity that is pouring that extra bucket of water, or whether it is something else. By directly having a human dump the bucket, you are using the conclusion as a premise.

Sometimes I wonder if all we've done is accounted for all the CO2 that we know of, and attributed the remainder to ourselves. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, though. Just a thought!

 

[BenBurch]

mythstifieD,

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in CO2 we see is human-caused.

I do not propose to educate you here on this, as we have gone into this in tedious detail in other threads here for the last several years.

Go off and read all of this and then come back here with your specific objections to the evidence proffered for the origins of that carbon.

When you do so, please also tell me what magic fairy disappeared all the carbon from all the coal and oil and gas and concrete we have consumed since you think its not in the atmosphere.

-Ben

 

[GreyICE]

Well we've done it folks. We've hit the level of questioning the basic reactions that define our daily existence.

C + O2 => CO2 + [Energy]

And there's question as to the term 'deniers'

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Are you kidding? Real skeptics, both in print and in blogs, were laughing at the ridiculousness of those IPCC sections as soon as they came out.

It was admitted by IPCC scientists nearly three years later.

It was vehemently defended by the IPCC too if memory serves.

 

[mhaze]

Find me one blog post or printed article where the "sceptics" discovered that the original source of this was a personal communication to New Scientist, and the point is yours.

Because "sceptics" generally laughing at any section of the IPCC report is hardly news, and has generally very little thought behind it.

Well, I guess you would be wrong in your assessment of the early on skeptical view of this section of the report. But the science was settled, wasn't it?

It is not necessary for me to play your little goal post shifting game.

Actually, depending on the fashion du jour in the echo chamber, you would disagree with it.

Then they only have to show that the physics of GHGs is wrong, or that it changes substantially from the lab to the atmosphere. Then they will have falsified my hypothesis, that is based on the known physics of GHGs.

This leads me to conclude that

(A) your comprehension of scientific matters still sucks
(B) there are morons around here, but they're not who you imagine them to be
(C) your little attemps at a "gotcha" will continue to fail

None of what you have said follows necessarily from your stated "AGW hypothesis" - it follows from your beliefs. I've questioned where the use of your attempt at an "AGW Hypothesis" leads, and it seems, given the nature of your response here, that my question stands as valid.

Thus I repeat them:

Oh? But according to your attempt at a hypothesis, all the skeptics that I know would agree. For example, they might say "co2, that might cause a 0.1C rise in a century". This leads me to conclude that

(A) your offered "AGW Hypothesis" is wrong
(B) all of the Warmers who use the phrase "AGW Denier" toward their imagined opposition are morons

Now can you reconcile this curious disparity?
​

And in conclusion I note that it is possible for both (A) and (B) to be true....

In other words, from your hypothesis does not logically follow the vindictiveness, narrow mindedness and bigotry of Warmers.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have a feeling that your analogy begs the question. You are clearly illustrating a human influence on the bathtub, but the point (i think?) of the analogy is to show that man is influencing the climate. What is at question is if it is humanity that is pouring that extra bucket of water, or whether it is something else. By directly having a human dump the bucket, you are using the conclusion as a premise.

Sometimes I wonder if all we've done is accounted for all the CO2 that we know of, and attributed the remainder to ourselves. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, though. Just a thought!

You asked a specific question, i answered it, now you are asking another question.

 

[mythstifieD]

You asked a specific question, i answered it, now you are asking another question.

Actually, I wasn't the person who you were responding to with that analogy. I just decided to jump in

 

[BenBurch]

I'm still waiting to hear about the magic fairy.

 

[Megalodon]

Look, what a surprise! When asked to back up his claim, mhaze runs again... Until new evidence arises, it's logical to assume that you where talking out of the wrong end of your digestive system.

As for your other antics, I answered your question, mhaze. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

 

[mhaze]

Look, what a surprise! When asked to back up his claim, mhaze runs again... Until new evidence arises, it's logical to assume that you where talking out of the wrong end of your digestive system.

As for your other antics, I answered your question, mhaze. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Frankly, your inability to clearly articulate an "AGW Hyptothesis" is disappointing.

If you want to strongly defend a position and attack others whom you categorize as being opposed to that position, you should be able to state what the position is that you have.

So as I suspected, instead of a clear scientific AGW hypothesis, we're really got sort of a Warmers' "position statement". But I don't find even that to be clearly stated, and it seems to be more of a mumbo jumbo devised ad hoc along the lines of ....

"AGW is whatever I feel it to be at this instant, and if you don't agree with what I think right now, you are a Denier...., and I have the right to modify AGW to suit the mood of the instant, and then call you a Denier at other times, until you understand what you should do is agree with whatever I say whenever I say it without question, since you are not as capable of understanding the Truthiness as me."

Without a proper AGW Hypothesis, you have no scientific basis for your rambling vindictiveness. With it, you have no reason for rambling vindictivenss, either....

 

[BenBurch]

Still waiting on the magic fairy... I see a pattern here;

AGW Truthers JAQ they found on "the internets" and expect us to give them detailed educations in the science of AGW. They respond with criticisms they do not even comprehend they got off the "the internets" (its a series of tubes) and then when WE ask them difficult questions they answer some different question entirely or run away (brave Sir Robin.)

 

[metzomagic]

A not so very merry go-round

I mostly lurk here when it comes to discussions on AGW, because I've only recently begun to read up on it. Funnily enough, I only got interested in the science behind AGW once 'Climategate' broke. What I have read since last November - and I have read *a lot* on both sides of the argument - has convinced me that the A in AGW is a *fact*. For me, two very accessible web pages that establish that fact are:

1. A page that shows how GHG forcing is the largest factor behind the temperature increase trend we are seeing, using statistical analysis rather than complex computer models:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

Especially telling there is the chart labelled 'No GHG'. With all other climate forcings *except* GHG, the trend line doesn't fit the measured temperature anomaly at all. Put the GHG effect back in, and BAM! Perfect fit.

But how do we know that the atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely composed of CO2 generated by man? Here is how:

2. A page that explains how the distribution of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 is entirely consistent with that produced by the burning of fossil fuels:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

So those two pages nail it for me. Unfortunately, discussions on AGW in these forums (and many others) will just keep going round, and round, and round ... until it is much too late to do anything about it. Most of the AGW denialists seem to have an ideological/financial agenda that won't allow them to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW. You can never convince them in the face of that, just as you can't convince a creationist of the fact of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs *sigh*

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programme...

 

[Megalodon]

Frankly,...

Frankly, if you can't understand the words I write, it's your problem. I stated the initial AGW hypothesis, as a favour to you guys. It gave you a lot of things to falsify.

You are now complaining that it's more complicated then that. Well, that's why it is called AGW theory, because a lot of work has been done on the initial hypothesis, and a number of different processes and feedbacks were taken in account when making projections.

But the hypothesis is still there, and you decided that, since you can't falsify it, it would be better to divert attention by attacking imaginary problems in my formulation. Quite amusing, but ultimately pointless.

BTW, since you seem to have forgotten, could you cite one (1) blog that found the problem with the initial source for the Himalaya information? You know, one (uno, um, eins, un) that wasn't just pointing and laughing at something that went over their head? You said you had the information, so... can you provide it?

 

[bobdroege7]

Well, I guess you would be wrong in your assessment of the early on skeptical view of this section of the report. But the science was settled, wasn't it?

It is not necessary for me to play your little goal post shifting game.

Sometimes it helps to shift the goalposts a little bit so someone could actually try to make a point.

Since you can't actually make an argument to disprove the AGW hypothesis, much less any argument at all.

None of what you have said follows necessarily from your stated "AGW hypothesis" - it follows from your beliefs. I've questioned where the use of your attempt at an "AGW Hypothesis" leads, and it seems, given the nature of your response here, that my question stands as valid.

Thus I repeat them:

Oh? But according to your attempt at a hypothesis, all the skeptics that I know would agree. For example, they might say "co2, that might cause a 0.1C rise in a century". This leads me to conclude that

(A) your offered "AGW Hypothesis" is wrong
(B) all of the Warmers who use the phrase "AGW Denier" toward their imagined opposition are morons

Now can you reconcile this curious disparity?
​

And in conclusion I note that it is possible for both (A) and (B) to be true....

In other words, from your hypothesis does not logically follow the vindictiveness, narrow mindedness and bigotry of Warmers.

No arguments ad populum here?

No arguments ad hominem here?

No straw man arguements here?

I guess it is unreasonable to suggest that anyone make a coherent argument against AGW.

You haven't done it yet.

 

[BenBurch]

Still not one answer to;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5554606#post5554606

 

[mhaze]

Sometimes it helps to shift the goalposts a little bit so someone could actually try to make a point.

Since you can't actually make an argument to disprove the AGW hypothesis, much less any argument at all.

No arguments ad populum here?

No arguments ad hominem here?

No straw man arguements here?

I guess it is unreasonable to suggest that anyone make a coherent argument against AGW.

You haven't done it yet.

Umm,,,let me clarify...

I'm trying to get someone to cough up what the "AGW" is, the actual scientific hypothesis.

There isn't any reason for me to "make an argument against AGW" unless someone can adequately produce the explanation of "AGW", which explicitly in this context means the "AGW Hypothesis".

(By the way: I admit to knowing that real scientists do not use terms like AGW for these very reasons. But let's keep this little secret between you and me, so that Megalodon doesn't find out. It's fun to watch him keep thrashing trying to produce some premise that fits his conclusions. And it's fun to watch Warmers whose position is based on delusions like "AGW" squirm when simply asked to define it).