Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Look, suppose we agree that the planet's "greenhouse effect" is 33C net-
Take all 20th century warming, 0.7C, assign it to AGW as a "max AGW".
AGW CO2 effect is 0.7/33 = 2.1% absolute maximum.
Realistically, maybe 0% to 0.5%. Zero is not unrealistic at all with negative feedback.
​

Can you give me an example of a negative feedback associated with CO2?

Any change caused by a change in CO2 concentration in low and high cloud cover, or atmospheric water vapor levels and distribution, which results in a more outgoing IR or more VR/IR reflected before reaching the lower atmosphere. Note only very small percentage changes on a global basis are required.

The actual 20th century numbers don't seem to validate a CO2 sensitivity that is high due to positive feedback. So it is reasonable to ask what negative feedbacks are at work and what hypothesized positive ones are not working as advertized.

 

[mhaze]

Interesting. I just browsed over there and this is the top article:

Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds

Then there's this:

NASA Study Improves Ability To Predict Aerosols' Effect On Cloud Cover

That's also from page 1, the 10 most recent stories. I can cite more if you like.
But keep in mind, too, that the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity. Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".

Actually, you don't appear to have cited anything at all. Of course if there is a way to find the technical journal articles and cite them from you "Science Daily" page, I'd be happy to know what it is.

Here is what the page says on the bottom left:

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA

MLA
University of Arizona (2008, August 23). Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2008/08/080819082600.htm

​

You are welcome to prove me wrong and show how to find the technical articles from the pop science summary on the science daily page. Otherwise, I am not sure how your referencing it can be taken seriously.

the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity. Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".

Utter nonsense. Actual, real live scientists of whom I have known many do not need their words and in particular their words used in published, peer reviewed work redefined to suit the purposes of Piggy on JREF forums. They will say what they believe are valid conclusions based on the evidence for such conclusions as a result of the work they did, and generally limit the scope of any statement to a defendable scientific position within that particular subset of science.

Some scientists are fervent believers in man made global warming. This does not have any relation to their use of the English language in their published work. Others may believe global warming is a mix of courses, and still others may laugh at the GW/AGW issues.

You misrepresent all of these subsets to make a polemical point.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, no one is going to support WWF/Greenpeace assertions with mainstream science such as IPCC reports, politicized thought it certainly is (Summary having been written before the technicals, technicals changed to conform to summary. Reviewer comments on line since they were released under threat of Freedom of Information act are telling about where numerous criticisms were squished to induce conformity).

So, once again, you allege some massive fraud. Do you have credible evidence for either of those claims?

 

[BenBurch]

So, once again, you allege some massive fraud. Do you have credible evidence for either of those claims?

Conspiracy nutters never do.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Utter nonsense. Actual, real live scientists of whom I have known many do not need their words and in particular their words used in published, peer reviewed work redefined to suit the purposes of Piggy on JREF forums. They will say what they believe are valid conclusions based on the evidence for such conclusions as a result of the work they did, and generally limit the scope of any statement to a defendable scientific position within that particular subset of science.

Some scientists are fervent believers in man made global warming. This does not have any relation to their use of the English language in their published work. Others may believe global warming is a mix of courses, and still others may laugh at the GW/AGW issues.

You misrepresent all of these subsets to make a polemical point.

So when all the world's national science academies support the AGW position, they are misrepresenting their members, who mysteriously allow this to continue?

 

[Spud1k]

So, once again, you allege some massive fraud. Do you have credible evidence for either of those claims?

He won't have any evidence to back up the first claim because what he alleges is a flat out lie. The summaries and the contents were written in tandem with multiple rounds of reviewing that took place over a period of several months to years (can't remember the exact time frame off the top of my head). The executive summaries were released first because they were quicker to proof, but that was only after the overall content had been settled on and approved.

As for the stuff about objections to content, I bet he is referring to the WG2 (impacts) section. Because it is a more complicated topic and the science is younger and more cross-disciplinary, the material in WG2 is a lot more contentious than WG1 (the science basis). As a result, deniers frequently use the behind-the-scenes debates that went into WG2 to try and undermine the core conclusions of WG1 (i.e. AGW is most likely real with CO2 being the main culprit), which in reality had much more of a consensus behind them. If that's not what he's talking about, he's more than welcome to clarify, but like I said, if the conclusions were as seriously off as he makes them out to be, there'd have been a huge backlash in the journals by now.

And before anyone tries to use my last paragraph to claim that the impacts aren't understood so therefore aren't worth worrying about, one of the senior WG2 authors (who I won't name, obviously) once told me at a conference that he thought the outlook presented in the final version was far too rosy, so that line of reasoning works both ways.

 

[Spud1k]

Some scientists are fervent believers in man made global warming. This does not have any relation to their use of the English language in their published work. Others may believe global warming is a mix of courses, and still others may laugh at the GW/AGW issues.

Real scientists who study these things (and I'd hazard I know a lot more of them than you do), do indeed see global warming as being caused by a mix of effects. It just so happens that the man-made influences happen to be the biggest ones.

The reason many don't refer to the pro or anti AGW thing in their published work is because when you're studying individual atmospheric processes such as aerosols and clouds or whatever, it doesn't actually matter whether the overall warming is caused by man or not. The research just feeds into the bigger picture, regardless of what the over-arching theme is.

On that point, it's also worth noting that I only ever use the term 'AGW' as a term of convenience when I'm debating deniers. The term just doesn't exist in science - partly because it is an oversimplification (there is a small natural component, after all) but also because the human influence thing is more or less a done deal in mainstream science.

 

[mhaze]

Agree mostly.

More reasons why Piggy's contention that the phrase GW = AGW in scientific discussion is laughable. Piggy would arbitrarily set the phrase GW = AGW, thus finding support for his position anywhere he finds the phrase GW. How convenient!

 

[Piggy]

Actually, you don't appear to have cited anything at all. Of course if there is a way to find the technical journal articles and cite them from you "Science Daily" page, I'd be happy to know what it is.

Here is what the page says on the bottom left:

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA

MLA
University of Arizona (2008, August 23). Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2008/08/080819082600.htm

​

You are welcome to prove me wrong and show how to find the technical articles from the pop science summary on the science daily page. Otherwise, I am not sure how your referencing it can be taken seriously.

You could to to the UAz site and look it up.

You'd find this and this (see link to PDF at top).

For the other, you could do the same at the NASA site.

the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity. Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".

Utter nonsense. Actual, real live scientists of whom I have known many do not need their words and in particular their words used in published, peer reviewed work redefined to suit the purposes of Piggy on JREF forums. They will say what they believe are valid conclusions based on the evidence for such conclusions as a result of the work they did, and generally limit the scope of any statement to a defendable scientific position within that particular subset of science.

Some scientists are fervent believers in man made global warming. This does not have any relation to their use of the English language in their published work. Others may believe global warming is a mix of courses, and still others may laugh at the GW/AGW issues.

You misrepresent all of these subsets to make a polemical point.

No, it's not utter nonsense. Current papers on GW don't go out of their way to explain accepted science that's the basis of their work. Papers on evolutionary biology don't go out of their way to explain the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection. Ditto for current research on climate change.

 

[Piggy]

More reasons why Piggy's contention that the phrase GW = AGW in scientific discussion is laughable. Piggy would arbitrarily set the phrase GW = AGW, thus finding support for his position anywhere he finds the phrase GW. How convenient!

I'm not talking about phrases.

When scientists discuss global climate change or global warming, they are talking about a process which the scientific community agrees is driven primarily by human activity.

The reason most articles don't bother to add references to human causes is because, as Spud1k mentioned, it's usually not within the focus of the specific research they're doing and it's already accepted science.

For this same reason, you won't find research papers in evolutionary biology going out of their way to explain the Modern Synthesis.

If you know of any current papers in peer-reviewed journals in the climate sciences which find that human activity is not the primary driver of global climate change, and which have been accepted enough to be followed up on by other scientists, then please post them.

 

[mhaze]

....The reason most articles don't bother to add references to human causes is because, as Spud1k mentioned, it's usually not within the focus of the specific research they're doing....

Thanks for correcting or clarifying your error.

Origionally quoted by mhaze:
....You are welcome to prove me wrong and show how to find the technical articles from the pop science summary on the science daily page. Otherwise, I am not sure how your referencing it can be taken seriously.
​

You could to to the UAz site and look it up.
You'd find this and this (see link to PDF at top).
For the other, you could do the same at the NASA site.

NO, actually you can't. If a specific reference is not listed by SD in their dumbed down prose, you cannot validate or refute their their claims, slant or spin on particular scientist's conclusions.....

I have no idea why they would choose to present in this fashion. Here is the extent of their reference:

Adapted from materials provided by University of Arizona, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

What scientist(s )? What timeframe? Name of study? Title of article? Name of research group? Skeptical sites meticulously reference their journal cites.

 

[lomiller]

I'm well aware of this, and have listened to that skeptoid a few times. My entire point is that they aren't reputable.

So why did you link them? You were asked for science developed by Greenpeace, not some self published articles that no one here, no one in the IPCC and no one in the community of scientists studying global warming pays attention to.

While people like mhaze and virtually every other person on the denialist side may routinely link to papers from low quality sources, no one on the side of the science has to, they have more real papers to present then anyone could ever read.

 

[lomiller]

I have to wonder ... if we got no real warming for the next two years, or four years, or eight years, or ...

at what point would we all call this a failed hypothesis?

Was Newton’s law of gravity considered a failed hypothesis when it couldn’t explain the orbit of mercury?

As to what it would take to point to a flaw in the current understanding, that depends. The length of time a trend takes to become statistically significant depends on how strong that trend is. A very strong cooling trend could become statistically significant in a couple years. A leveling trend could take decades to become statistically significant.

Should this happen, it’s much more likely the current theories would be modified rather then discarded. After all you still need a theory that explains all the existing data, unless your goal is to have no theory at all.

 

[mhaze]

Was Newton’s law of gravity considered a failed hypothesis when it couldn’t explain the orbit of mercury?

As to what it would take to point to a flaw in the current understanding, that depends. The length of time a trend takes to become statistically significant depends on how strong that trend is. A very strong cooling trend could become statistically significant in a couple years. A leveling trend could take decades to become statistically significant.

Should this happen, it’s much more likely the current theories would be modified rather then discarded. After all you still need a theory that explains all the existing data, unless your goal is to have no theory at all.

You are now exhibiting denial mechanisms. Prior link to Lucia blog analysis show last decade cooling disproves a 100 year 2°C warming trend at a 95% confidence level.

Jump through that hoop now, please.

 

[Piggy]

NO, actually you can't. If a specific reference is not listed by SD in their dumbed down prose, you cannot validate or refute their their claims, slant or spin on particular scientist's conclusions.....

I have no idea why they would choose to present in this fashion. Here is the extent of their reference:

Adapted from materials provided by University of Arizona, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

What scientist(s )? What timeframe? Name of study? Title of article? Name of research group? Skeptical sites meticulously reference their journal cites.

Dear mhaze:

Yeah, actually, you can. I know because I did.

And no, that was not the extent of their citation. Here is the citation at the bottom of the page:

University of Arizona (2008, August 23). Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds.

Go back and look for yourself.

And the researcher's name is included in the article. That's how I found the originals, in HTML and PDF, on the U. Az. Web site, which I linked for you.

They gave the author, title, source, and date. Sometimes SD -- which is updated several times a day and reports on the latest publications -- reports on press releases and other types of pre-publication. Sometimes they report on research which is published online by the university or institution where the research was performed. But they tell you everything you need to go find the original.

When it's published in a journal, the citation is something like this, which I just snagged at random from a current article:

Journal Of The American Medical Association (2005, March 31). Simple Intervention Encourages Sun Protection Behaviors.

If you can't find the source articles when the authors, titles, dates, and institutions are cited, then... sorry to say this, but... you have no idea how to do research.

 

[Piggy]

You are now exhibiting denial mechanisms. Prior link to Lucia blog analysis show last decade cooling disproves a 100 year 2°C warming trend at a 95% confidence level.

Jump through that hoop now, please.

Dear mhaze:

You're citing analysis posted on a blog? You don't care to cite any real publication?

You can't find source articles when you're given the researcher's name, the institution, the date of publication, and the title?

And yet you expect to be taken seriously?

If so, you should adjust your expectations. Or change your methods.

 

[lomiller]

The "majority of qualified scientists agree" is a classic error in logic known as "argumentum ad verecundiam." It is a reverse use of ad hominem. I could counter that the history of scientific revolution is the history of the majority being wrong... but that would be the reverse use of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Only an appeal to a false authority is a logical fallacy. Appeal to the opinions of real experts is quite acceptable.

After all just because scientific consensus can be wrong does not mean that it is, or that we should take serious any claims that it is.

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, the arctic is at near-record melt conditions;

 

[lomiller]

Actually, it points to the climate having a substantial lower sensitivity to CO2.

It says that we would have seen 1-2 deg more warming from CO2 if we hadn’t been pumping out aerosols. This means a higher sensitivity to CO2 not lower.

 

[mhaze]

Dear mhaze:

Yeah, actually, you can. I know because I did.

And no, that was not the extent of their citation. Here is the citation at the bottom of the page. Go back and look for yourself:

Thank you for repeating my complaint from my prior post as if you just discovered it and as if I overlooked it.

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA

MLA
University of Arizona (2008, August 23). Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2008/08/080819082600.htm
​

And the researcher's name is included in the article. That's how I found the originals, in HTML and PDF, on the U. Az. Web site, which I linked for you.

They gave the author, title, source, and date. Sometimes SD -- which is updated several times a day and reports on the latest publications -- reports on press releases and other types of pre-publication. Sometimes they report on research which is published online by the university or institution where the research was performed. But they tell you everything you need to go find the original.

When it's published in a journal, the citation is something like this, which I just snagged at random from a current article:

If you can't find the source articles when the authors, titles, dates, and institutions are cited, then... sorry to say this, but... you have no idea how to do research.

So you might find the ref if you did some work, it might just be a news story, it might be peer reviewed ... it might not....

Let's discuss...

Human-driven changes in the westerly winds are bringing hotter and drier springs to the American Southwest, according to new research from The University of Arizona.

SD links to some sort of University press release interviewing a scientist, which a reader then finds on his own that there is no peer reviewed published work?

You cited this junk as proof of what, exactly?