• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple climate change refutation challenge

mhaze said:
As already noted,

By the way, some people presented with a link that did not work, would politely ask for the correction. You don't and immediately jump to wrong conclusions.

Bias previously noted and confirmed again confirmed, thanks.
Click to expand...

What is that link that did not work?

And yes I do have a huge bias towards peer-reviewed publications and the scientific consensus.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Hardly a narrow focus: it is the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Oreskes made multiple claims; Peiser made multiple claims. Both sets of claims have uncontested (as far as I know) challenges against them, so there is reason to doubt both.
 
Alric said:
Ok. Show me that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? I have not challenged the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I have, however, challenged your blatantly false statement putting increases in CO2 concentration in absolute lock-step with temperature increases.
 
CO2 versus Historical Temperature. No obvious correlation on the longer time scale. And, no correlation in the last century due to that pesky 1940-1970 cool period.

Source: Loehle, corrected version of published paper.
Note error bounds provided, unlike the references of the OP.
http://www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025



 
Last edited:
The direct cause of warming may, wholly or in part, be due to increased CO2.
The increased CO2 is due to increased human population.

So long as we continue having kids at current rates, any attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is peeing on a forest fire.

Yet that's one graph we don't see much in this context.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
What is that link that did not work?

And yes I do have a huge bias towards peer-reviewed publications and the scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

Why then do you ignore peer reviewed articles in direct conflict with conclusions of the "consensus"?

BTW, do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in? What does the "consensus" say?
 
fsol said:
It'll probably be Loehle's reconstruction. It's the current favorite amongst the CA peeps.
Click to expand...

It's not Loehle's reconstruction. It is a compilation of reconstructions from other than tree rings, but they are not his. Have you read the Loehle paper thoroughly?
 
jsfisher said:
Why would I do that? I have not challenged the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I have, however, challenged your blatantly false statement putting increases in CO2 concentration in absolute lock-step with temperature increases.
Click to expand...

We are talking about different things. You are referring to the atmosphere. I am talking of CO2 being a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
We are talking about different things. You are referring to the atmosphere. I am talking of CO2 being a greenhouse due to its physical properties.
Click to expand...

No to "CO2 being a greenhouse".

Want to try water vapor as the major greenhouse gas, and CO2 as one minor greenhouse gas?

By the way. Try the Vostok ice cores. See if your assertion that temperature moves in lockstep with CO2 does any better with Vostok.
 
Last edited:
David Rodale said:
It's not Loehle's reconstruction. It is a compilation of reconstructions from other than tree rings, but they are not his. Have you read the Loehle paper thoroughly?
Click to expand...

Yes. And Loehle does not use tree rings. That is the point of the paper.

And finally this is something to consider. Upon further investigation this is the peer-reviewed paper that appears to contradict some aspects of climate change. However this paper was not well received in part for the poor track record of the journal. The criticism can be summarized as not enough calibrated data from just a few sites, not all sites.

However, assuming it is 100% correct it is still just one of many other similar studies. While the others roughly agree Loehle stands suspiciously apart.

Note the following two graphs. Each line is a different study. Look at the 1000 year mark. Note that his 95% confidence interval does include a temp anomaly around 0.2 compared to the current measured 0.7. Considering 6 other studies agree with the lower confidence interval I think its safe to say a lower temperature in the past is more likely than the higher temperature within his 95% confidence interval.

Discussion?

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


250px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


thum_1422447b474e3e947c.png
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
No to "CO2 being a greenhouse".

Want to try water vapor as the major greenhouse gas, and CO2 as one minor greenhouse gas?

By the way. Try the Vostok ice cores. See if your assertion that temperature moves in lockstep with CO2 does any better with Vostok.
Click to expand...

Well don't just say it. Show it!
 
Alric said:
Yes. And Loehle does not use tree rings. That is the point of the paper.

And finally this is something to consider. Upon further investigation this is the peer-reviewed paper that appears to contradict some aspects of climate change. However this paper was not well received in part for the poor track record of the journal. The criticism can be summarized as not enough calibrated data from just a few sites, not all sites.

However, assuming it is 100% correct it is still just one of many other similar studies. While the others roughly agree Loehle stands suspiciously apart.

Note the following two graphs. Each line is a different study. Look at the 1000 year mark. Note that his 95% confidence interval does include a temp anomaly around 0.2 compared to the current measured 0.7. Considering 6 other studies agree with the lower confidence interval I think its safe to say a lower temperature in the past is more likely than the higher temperature within his 95% confidence interval.

Discussion?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...png/250px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422447b474e3e947c.png
Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts again? And leaping to the edges of the confidence boundaries?

Sorry, that doesn't fly. You wanted something that refuted the OP, now you've got it and you've made a rather lame rebuttal. The reasons your rebuttal isn't good are:
  • dancing around some imaginary "quality standard" for peer reviewed journals, after requesting peer reviewed journals, and after implicitly accepting the Oerkes paper as peer reviewed, which is wasn't
  • not distinguishing between tree rings as being or not being quality indicator of past temperatures
  • not distinguishing between newer and older research. Typically (and certainly in this case) newer research builds on record of prior research, and attempts to improve the understanding of or confusion implicit in that research.
In steadily arguing the premise of your OP you
  • accept the ice core CO2 data
  • skirt around the 1940-1970 warming period
  • and try to ignore the Medieval Warm Period
While the others roughly agree Loehle stands suspiciously apart.

Why, newer research often does stand suspiciously apart from older research, by way of that "newer" qualifier. However, in this case, neither do you get your cake, or get to eat the cake that wasn't gotten. How peer reviewed studies showing a Medieval Warm Period would you like? The reconstruction I presented is only one.

A dozen? You see, it was the "Hockey Stick" that stood suspiciously apart, by way of the conspicuous absence of the Medieval Warm Period. A couple dozen peer reviewed studies?

More?

Hardly anyone will agree with your OP premise, neither intelligent people who believe in AGW or skeptics. There is one person who did agree with you, and here he is -





In this section of his talk Gore says that the presented graph isn't from Mann's hockey stick, but is from Lonnie Thompson's ice core work. Of course, Gore doesn't even know what he is talking about. But his presentation does show a miniscule Medieval Warm Period - obviously insignificant.

All you have to do to support your premise is figure out where Gore's graph came from (which he said was Thomspon, not Mann) but which isn't Thompson. Then you have a bit of support. But wait - wouldn't you like to hear what Thompson has to say about the chart? Hmm....
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
We are talking about different things. You are referring to the atmosphere. I am talking of CO2 being a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties.
Click to expand...


You can be referring to anything you like. I was referring to a statement you made. You said:

Alric said:
I've explained this before. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If its concentration goes up, temperature must too. Its a physical property of CO2.
Click to expand...

The part in bold is blatantly wrong.
 
mhaze said:
Moving the goal posts again? And leaping to the edges of the confidence boundaries?.....
Click to expand...

Would you care to respond to the points in my post?

Note that these are not "edges of confidence boundaries". These are boundaries with 95% probability of being correct. Any point in the area between the lines has a 95% point of being correct. I am going to go with the points that agree with all other independent studies.

In this case the medieval warm period is cooler than modern times. Specially more recent measurements not included in Loehle's.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
Call me crazy but I don't see the word atmosphere in that post you quoted. I was reffering to CO2 as a gas.
Click to expand...

You are being incredibly dishonest, now. You stated that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (a concept involving behavior in the atmosphere), and then you immediately followed that statement with another meant as a conclusion of what your "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" claim actually meant.

And now you back pedal to deny any atmospheric context.

Ok, have it your way. Let's take any atmospheric context out of your still blatantly false statement. Here it is again, now stripped of the context you deny applies:

If its [CO2] concentration goes up, temperature must too.​

Without the context you so lamely deny, your statement now doesn't even pretend to make sense. Or should I be off to check on all my CO2 fire extinguishers for overheating?
 
Last edited:
I think you are making much ado about nothing. Will this statement make you happy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation. In general, as its concentration goes up in a system like an atmosphere, in the presence of a source of infrared radiation, the temperature of the system will increase.

Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom