Bob Park and Global Warming

[Diamond]

They can, to an extent. That is why scientists are measuring methane emissions from cattle in Australia now, to quantify the amount of this gas being added to the atmosphere.

Then it would churlish to point out that methane in the atmosphere appears to have stopped accumulating and has begun to fall... http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-02c.htm#methane

 

[Diamond]

Measurements are not restricted to the lab. For example, IR absorption by the atmosphere can be directly measured by satelites.

Funnily those same satellites have shown virtually no warming of the lower troposphere. That makes it difficult to reconcile the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide with little or no temperature rise.

By the way, Mars shows some evidence for global warming as well. Maybe its all those probes they keep sending.

I'm glad you now accept the validity of modelling in determining the warming effect of atmospheric gases. So if this is true for water vapour, isn't it also true for carbon dioxide?

Troll. Just admit that you wrote down the statement about "being as obvious as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the sky is blue" because its a troll.

I make no such allowances for models that fail to predict phenomena since they are "calibrated" by the very phenomena they are supposed to be modelling. This produces a circular reasoning that the models are predicting the phenomena when they are doing nothing of the sort.

And if he was alive, I'm sure Carl Sagan (as an astronomer) would have told you that often this is simply impossible in observational sciences, since more often than not there's many other factors that come into play. Just like in this case, where there's the pressure broadening problem, and there's plenty of other confounding factors, such as the lack of liquid water on Mars' surface, and different rates of heat transfer within the atmosphere. Again, you have to look at it as a whole, which is why modelling is so important.

Nice try, but Sagan was a planetary scientist and often used analogues from one planet to explain behavior on another as part of his work. As for whether he would have said that "it would impossible to separate variables in the observational sciences" is unwarranted speculation on your part. I have what he did say about separating variables and the context in which he said it was firmly in the observational sciences.

You guessed wrong.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Funnily those same satellites have shown virtually no warming of the lower troposphere. That makes it difficult to reconcile the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide with little or no temperature rise.

Could it have anything to do with this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/llnl-rdt112701.php

Nice try, but Sagan was a planetary scientist

I stand corrected. Thanks.

and often used analogues from one planet to explain behavior on another as part of his work. As for whether he would have said that "it would impossible to separate variables in the observational sciences" is unwarranted speculation on your part. I have what he did say about separating variables and the context in which he said it was firmly in the observational sciences.

I never said "it would be impossible to seperate variables in the observation sciences," just that often this is the case.

And please could you refrain from personal attacks.

 

[Diamond]

I never said "it would be impossible to seperate variables in the observation sciences," just that often this is the case.

No. You put words in Carl Sagan's mouth to gain some sort of authority for your questioning of whether separating variables is possible in observational sciences.

And please could you refrain from personal attacks.

Which personal attack? Was it the one where I called "Troll" for having me agree with you when I did nothing of the kind? Or declining to answer an inquiry for evidence with "its as obvious as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the sky is blue"? Or the "public service announcement that I'm some other moniker"?

They are all statements designed to get a reaction. And you made them, not me. I call it like I see it.

I have had lots of personal attacks on this thread and this board. Funnily enough, you never object to them either.

 

[Diamond]

Could it have anything to do with this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/llnl-rdt112701.php

It could do, or it could be that carbon dioxide really doesn't trap that much heat. We've had volcanoes for the life of the Earth. The temperature has still managed to vary considerably.

 

[a_unique_person]

Funnily those same satellites have shown virtually no warming of the lower troposphere. That makes it difficult to reconcile the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide with little or no temperature rise.

It would indeed be churlish, since the trend is still clearly upwards. And scientists are actually out there trying to measure and understand what is going on, since as soon as someone says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, some says what about methane.

Well, scientists are hard at work trying to measure, understand and explain it all.

 

[Diamond]

It would indeed be churlish, since the trend is still clearly upwards. And scientists are actually out there trying to measure and understand what is going on, since as soon as someone says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, some says what about methane.

Well, scientists are hard at work trying to measure, understand and explain it all.

Which makes false the idea that the science is settled, doesn't it? Its not as certain as "Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the sky is blue" is it?

All of the atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases" in some sense. The questions are whether they are significant, whether we can do anything about it and whether its desirable to do anything about it to change it.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Which personal attack? Was it the one where I called "Troll" for having me agree with you when I did nothing of the kind?

I'm sorry if I was putting words into your mouth. I thought you were evading the issue.

Or declining to answer an inquiry for evidence with "its as obvious as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the sky is blue"?

I did nothing of the kind. If you don't believe me, take a look at the second page. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

Or the "public service announcement that I'm some other moniker"?

How is that a personal attack? Why would it bother you?

I have had lots of personal attacks on this thread and this board.

Yes, and you've responded in kind.

 

[Diamond]

How is that a personal attack? Why would it bother you?

Because its irrelevant, meaningless and an attempt to drift the thread.

Yes, and you've responded in kind.

Just so.

 

[Diamond]

I did nothing of the kind. If you don't believe me, take a look at the second page. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

and here it is. Referring to Morchella's statements (made without any reference to evidence) and my request for scientific studies, you replied:

When you know that the claim is true, and generally accepted and well established, then yes, it is 'nick-picking.' It's also petty, pointless, and time consuming. It's like asking for a citation for Newton's laws of motion, or evidence that the sky is blue. No honest debate can proceed under these kinds of conditions.

But we weren't asking for a citation of Newton's Laws of Motion but for evidence of something that is clearly disputable about carbon dioxide and climate change.

The claims about carbon dioxide and climate change may well be well-known, but it does not make it true or scientifically accepted by everyone in the same sense as the veracity of Newton's Laws of Motion.

Yes, I'm quoting the text and context. You gave a flippant, arrogant, throwaway remark and I bridled at it for very good reason because it is intellectually insulting.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which makes false the idea that the science is settled, doesn't it? Its not as certain as "Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the sky is blue" is it?

All of the atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases" in some sense. The questions are whether they are significant, whether we can do anything about it and whether its desirable to do anything about it to change it.

And the mainstream scientific consensus appears to be that the "greenhouse gases" have been enhanced by human activity. I can find scientists for you very quickly, who are very clever, who don't believe in evolution. However, most scientists agree with evolution, despite the fact that we have seen no new species appear in our time, only variations of species.

 

[Diamond]

And the mainstream scientific consensus appears to be that the "greenhouse gases" have been enhanced by human activity. I can find scientists for you very quickly, who are very clever, who don't believe in evolution. However, most scientists agree with evolution, despite the fact that we have seen no new species appear in our time, only variations of species.

Which makes skepticism of scientist's claims as opposed to the evidence itself, a noble pursuit, doesn't it?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Diamond,

Okay, I disagree that this establishes me as "declining to answer an inquiry for evidence", but it's completely pointless arguing about it here. If people are interested (which I doubt) then they can go back and read page 2 and judge for themselves. They certainly don't need our commentary.

And apologies if you were offended by my comment. It was the result of frustration rather than anything else.

 

[CapelDodger]

As someone who's been a committed and active anti-racist my whole life I would like to address Diamond's smear

My relevant comments were:

So subsequently the argument has been shifted to proving that there was a Little ice Age in the rest of the world, but the people who lived there were too foreign to notice.

here probably was some global-scale cooling, but not on the scale that was seen in the North Atlantic, and it's that scale of variation that is being touted as a global experience. If it was, why didn't people notice? We're not talking thousands of years ago or desolate locations, we're talking hundreds of years ago in densely populated regions outside the North Atlantic; where's the evidence?

You prefer isotopic proxies to the testimential histories of the highly literate societies involved

With regard to the Japanese and Chinese historical accounts which you regard as equivalent to the European experience, please cite a few

And what do I get from worm-brain?

Racism, with a cherry on top

What I found unfounded was Capel's dismissal of contrary evidence to his beliefs: that only the Europeans had a clear historical record of the Little Ice Age and that all modern proxy investigations were invalid because only the European historical record mattered.

It beggars belief that anyone could actually interpret my comments in that way, which leaves intentional malice as the only interpretation.

 

[Diamond]

As someone who's been a committed and active anti-racist my whole life I would like to address Diamond's smear

I do not accept this statement without evidence. You dismiss historical evidence from other civilizations without so much as a tinge of doubt. You make dogmatic statements and ignore all contrary evidence.

It beggars belief that anyone could actually interpret my comments in that way, which leaves intentional malice as the only interpretation.

No. It leaves the only interpretation that you seriously tell us that the "Little Ice Age" only happened in the North Atlantic and that proxy reconstructions combined with historical records which show the same signal all around the world can be safely ignored.

THAT is what beggars belief.

Also, and you haven't replied to this yet, but the carbon dioxide graph you are so fond of, is a modern proxy reconstruction. Shall we put it in Capel's Perpetual Bag of Ignorage on the grounds that no historical records exist testifying to it?

 

[CapelDodger]

I just had a look at the John Daly response to tropopause the tropopause getting higher.

The atmosphere always expands with the 11-year solar cycle

Just the sort of thing you'd expect. The subject is the increased height of the tropopause, and Daly talks of the atmosphere. He expects his audience - no doubt often correctly - won't notice the difference. The reason that the atmosphere expands is that the increase in solar energy input over the solar cycle is concentrated in the ultra-violet, which is principally absorbed in (and warms) the stratosphere. The stratosphere expands, and so the atmosphere expands. Heating the stratosphere has the effect of lowering the tropopause, so his whole argument falls to pieces. He carries on by pointing out that the solar cycle changes in tropopause height that he has invented cannot be seen in the results, therefore he dismissed the results. The reason thay can't be seen is that they don't exist.

You have to go the original papers when these people quote them, because they have no interest in being truthful or scientifically accurate. They simply wish to persuade, and if lying and pseudo-science are necessary (which they are when you're trying to show something that isn't so), so be it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Diamond:

I don't suppose you have any idea what that reply will look like to a thinking being. People only have to look up the page to see my actual comments. You really are a deeply stupid person.

 

[pupdog]

In the same issue of Science as Santer et al. (changes in troposphere altitude, 25 July) is an article by Verburg &al. describing the ecological consequences of global warming over the past century. This article did not address the mechanisms for warming, only the ecological effects in a deep tropical lake. the main conclusion was that primary productivity of the lake has decreased over this period, accompanied by an expansion of the volume of anoxic water. This is not a favorable consequence of global warming (whatever the cause).

It's simplistiic to conclude that global warming will just make life better.

 

[Diamond]

Diamond:

I don't suppose you have any idea what that reply will look like to a thinking being. People only have to look up the page to see my actual comments. You really are a deeply stupid person.

Yes, and I hope they will. Since they are all safely quoted, there's little you can do.

You've avoided answering question after question about why modern proxy measurements other than the carbon dioxide one should be ignored in favour of only the European historical record. You've refused to justify why "The Little Ice Age" only happened in the North Atlantic despite cooling periods happening all over the globe at the same time.

THAT'S what will stand out. A deeply fixed mindset that ignores all contrary evidence.

 

[Diamond]

In the same issue of Science as Santer et al. (changes in troposphere altitude, 25 July) is an article by Verburg &al. describing the ecological consequences of global warming over the past century. This article did not address the mechanisms for warming, only the ecological effects in a deep tropical lake. the main conclusion was that primary productivity of the lake has decreased over this period, accompanied by an expansion of the volume of anoxic water. This is not a favorable consequence of global warming (whatever the cause).

It's simplistiic to conclude that global warming will just make life better.

I would never be so bold. On balance I'd rather be warming than cooling, but some places would see a negative impact and some a positive impact.

The other part is that I'm not convinced we can alter the climate in any measureable way, certainly not the Kyoto Protocol.