Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[GreyICE]

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.

Okay, well if they feel like stating for the record that they disagree with the theory I'd just laugh.

Otherwise, I've seen deniers bandwagon onto every stupid idea imaginable (including the idea that it's a good idea to evaluate Global Warming with a law that assumes constant temperature) but I'd be hard pressed to chalk up any 'denial' of the effect to anything other than knee jerk 'NO' reactions. It's too well documented, and too well understood.

There's a few individuals who I think fall onto the 'posting while intoxicated' bandwagon that insist on trolling these threads, and I'd believe anything out of them, but I'd never rank them as serious deniers for the simple reason that I've seen enough trolls to know that it's less the cause and more the reactions that they enjoy.

 

[mhaze]

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 .....

Which is just a repetition of what I have already said, that there might be a group of hypotheses. And that therefore, when there was discussion about the "AGW Hypothesis", that no one could understand what exactly was being discussed.

You started your post with...

"I don't know what he means by no definitive AGW hypothesis"

and a few sentences later are led by logic to agreeing with me.

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's interesting that I just said this:

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:

And you responded by not simply stating the scientific hypothesis.

 

[mythstifieD]

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.

Plato would agree to this.

 

[mythstifieD]

Which is just a repetition of what I have already said, that there might be a group of hypotheses. And that therefore, when there was discussion about the "AGW Hypothesis", that no one could understand what exactly was being discussed.

You started your post with...

"I don't know what he means by no definitive AGW hypothesis"

and a few sentences later are led by logic to agreeing with me.

It's interesting that I just said this:

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:

And you responded by not simply stating the scientific hypothesis.

Essentially, if I get you, you're saying that AGW suffers from "Bundled Deal" logic. The same reasoning that says God definately exists, because there are six unrelated logical arguments that hint at his existence. Alone, they are weak, but together, strong!

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. A weak argument + a weak argument = A weak argument. Not even a "Not as weak argument".

So, I think you are saying that there are a number of arguments for the "A" in AGW, but they're all inconclusive. Therefore, a bunch of inconclusive arguments does not make a conclusive argument.

 

[mythstifieD]

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...

If you really read Climategate, then you'd know that realclimate.org is their brainchild and tighly controlled by the perpetrators of the alleged fraud. In fact, it's borderline circular reasoning to dispel Climategate by listening to realclimate.org.

Policeman: Did you kill him?
Bob: No way! Ask Jake, he's my friend.
Policeman: Jake, did Bob kill him?
Jake: Of course not!
Policeman: Well, jeez, okay then! Sorry to bug you two...

It really amuses me when people sweep Climategate under the rug. It could very well be the biggest fraud in history (Forget Maddof, there's TRILLIONS at stake here). I'll wait for a full, level-headed analysis of the emails first, but it's incredibly presumptive to just dismiss it because of a graph here or there, the graph itself may be influenced by the fraud! Climategate puts the brakes on almost the entire picture until we know just how far its tentacles reached.

That's my opinion

 

[macdoc]

May I suggest
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
for like minded CT companions..

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

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

As evidence, I offer this thread: No trend in atmospheric CO2, he said.

 

[GreyICE]

As evidence, I offer this thread: No trend in atmospheric CO2, he said.

Um, yeah. Even if CO2 were actually steady in the atmosphere, this would not affect the Greenhouse Effect in the least. So while that statement is wrong, it is not a denial of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[Corsair 115]

There's a post in that thread which claims that carbon dioxide plays only a very tiny role in warming the surface of Venus. How is that not a de facto denial of the greenhouse effect as it is exhibited on Venus?

 

[a_unique_person]

If you really read Climategate, then you'd know that realclimate.org is their brainchild and tighly controlled by the perpetrators of the alleged fraud. In fact, it's borderline circular reasoning to dispel Climategate by listening to realclimate.org.

Policeman: Did you kill him?
Bob: No way! Ask Jake, he's my friend.
Policeman: Jake, did Bob kill him?
Jake: Of course not!
Policeman: Well, jeez, okay then! Sorry to bug you two...

It really amuses me when people sweep Climategate under the rug. It could very well be the biggest fraud in history (Forget Maddof, there's TRILLIONS at stake here). I'll wait for a full, level-headed analysis of the emails first, but it's incredibly presumptive to just dismiss it because of a graph here or there, the graph itself may be influenced by the fraud! Climategate puts the brakes on almost the entire picture until we know just how far its tentacles reached.

That's my opinion

If it were only opinion, you could be right, but RC offer evidence for all their claims. CRU are English, RC is run and founded by researchers in the USA. It is not any more 'tightly controlled' than any other blog is. What actual scientific fraud did 'climategate' involve? There is none that I can see, just a lot of bitching because the scientists at the CRU didn't like to help out people who's only interest is in bitching about the people they were asking for help in doing even more bitching about the CRU.

 

[Mikemcc]

If you really read Climategate, then you'd know that realclimate.org is their brainchild and tighly controlled by the perpetrators of the alleged fraud. In fact, it's borderline circular reasoning to dispel Climategate by listening to realclimate.org.

Policeman: Did you kill him?
Bob: No way! Ask Jake, he's my friend.
Policeman: Jake, did Bob kill him?
Jake: Of course not!
Policeman: Well, jeez, okay then! Sorry to bug you two...

It really amuses me when people sweep Climategate under the rug. It could very well be the biggest fraud in history (Forget Maddof, there's TRILLIONS at stake here). I'll wait for a full, level-headed analysis of the emails first, but it's incredibly presumptive to just dismiss it because of a graph here or there, the graph itself may be influenced by the fraud! Climategate puts the brakes on almost the entire picture until we know just how far its tentacles reached.

That's my opinion

I don't agree with this guys conclusions but about a third of the way down on the linked page below is a comparison of all 5 datasets from 1979 to date. Funnily enough they ALL appear to match quite closely. I assume that you also think that the NASA, RSS, UAH (including Roy Spencer!) and NCDC researchers are 'in' on the hoax too?

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

 

[lomiller]

I don't agree with this guys conclusions but about a third of the way down on the linked page below is a comparison of all 5 datasets from 1979 to date. Funnily enough they ALL appear to match quite closely. I assume that you also think that the NASA, RSS, UAH (including Roy Spencer!) and NCDC researchers are 'in' on the hoax too?

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

There are better comparisons. His method for normalizing the reference scales is seriously lacking. All he does is set Jan 1979 to zero, which means any difference in that month gets carried though the entire series.


The reason the series have different zero values is that some of them use different reference periods. GISS uses 1951 to 1980, NCDC uses 1901 to 2000, HadCRU uses 1961 to 1990 and the two satellite sets use 1979 – 2000. The correct way to do a head to head comparison would be to recalibrate them all to the 1979-2000 reference period used for the satellite sets. Obviously you couldn’t use a pre 1979 reference period if you want to include the starlit data because it only goes back that far.

For a much better analysis I’d look here.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

It doesn’t include NCDC, but it correctly normalizes the data.

 

[mhaze]

There's a post in that thread which claims that carbon dioxide plays only a very tiny role in warming the surface of Venus. How is that not a de facto denial of the greenhouse effect as it is exhibited on Venus?

Fourth thread that Corsair seeks to derail a thread into discussion about greenhouse effect and Venus.....

Bait not taken.

 

[bobdroege7]

How about this paper from Schwartz that I found on what's up my buttt?


https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/mds/www/Schwartz_etal_2006.pdf



No connection to GISS, Hadcrut, RC or any of the other usual suspects as far as I can tell.

Maybe this line of evidence has been discussed before, maybe not, but what of it?

Like the local weather here, no frost until december this year. A first.

 

[Geckko]

One thing that occurred to me WRT HADCRUT - and I believe this would apply to GISS as well - is whether the outing of Wang (a 3 year old story that the Grauniad has now discovered as an "exclusive") lead to a fresh look at urban heat island adjustments.

Jone/Wang appears to have been the key benchmark for determining how much allowance should be made for the UHI effec. The conclusions of that paper were "not much adjustment".

 

[Mikemcc]

One thing that occurred to me WRT HADCRUT - and I believe this would apply to GISS as well - is whether the outing of Wang (a 3 year old story that the Grauniad has now discovered as an "exclusive") lead to a fresh look at urban heat island adjustments.

Jone/Wang appears to have been the key benchmark for determining how much allowance should be made for the UHI effec. The conclusions of that paper were "not much adjustment".

Not necessarily, from what I understand it would be important if we were discussing actual temperatures, but we're not, we're discussing temperature anomalies from a given baseline (61-90 for HadCRUT3). Even if a station was subjected to UHI, this wouldn't make any difference to the anomaly provided the same degree of heating from UHI was also present in the 61-90 period.

 

[BenBurch]

We have the dataset that NASA did where they excluded all but the most reliable stations, and it shows the same story as the data set with the urban stations, so this idea is a non-starter. Sorry.

 

[Geckko]

Not necessarily, from what I understand it would be important if we were discussing actual temperatures, but we're not, we're discussing temperature anomalies from a given baseline (61-90 for HadCRUT3). Even if a station was subjected to UHI, this wouldn't make any difference to the anomaly provided the same degree of heating from UHI was also present in the 61-90 period.

Well, yes, that is obvious.

But there is extensive coverage from sites that will include changes in local environment from increased population or urban development over the last 100 years. I don't really think a hand waving "it shouldn't make much difference" really cuts it.

I would have thought the type of paper that Jones/Wang attempted to be (without the fraud) is what is needed to make a decent stab at the potential temperature drift over time in order to identify how much observed warming might be an artifact of UHI.

I would have thought that is simply good science.

 

[fsol]

Well, yes, that is obvious.

But there is extensive coverage from sites that will include changes in local environment from increased population or urban development over the last 100 years. I don't really think a hand waving "it shouldn't make much difference" really cuts it.

I would have thought the type of paper that Jones/Wang attempted to be (without the fraud) is what is needed to make a decent stab at the potential temperature drift over time in order to identify how much observed warming might be an artifact of UHI.

I would have thought that is simply good science.

Which is why they have done further studies since 1990.

CRU put out a statement to this effect with refs to the newer studies this week.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

Edit to add: I didn't think that there was any proof of fraud btw.

 

[Geckko]

Which is why they have done further studies since 1990.

CRU put out a statement to this effect with refs to the newer studies this week.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

Edit to add: I didn't think that there was any proof of fraud btw.

Well, if I flat out lied in a paper or a report I would consider that fraud.

I think this gives an excellent account of the state of play WRT the UHI. I don't think this part of the science is as settled as claimed.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/