• 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

biostudent said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Was he referring to the elusive "missing carbon sink?"

​
Yes.
Click to expand...

Then to his credit he mentioned it, confronted the problem head on, and suggested a possible answer.

True believers in AGW do not like to deal with implications of that missing carbon.
 
David Rodale said:
Please AUP, it is not getting warmer. We've already been through this countless times. The trend has flattened and is even the opposite sign depending on which data set is used.
Click to expand...

The climate is getting warmer. Picking an El Nino to La Nina period of time is cheating.

Must I again catalog the failed predictions and Met O's admission of "natural variation" temporarily stalling AGW?
Click to expand...

The Met O has got it right more than wrong ;)
 
a_unique_person said:
You've already had it explained to you. No point doing so again.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. You adopted a standard for trolling: "Its already been explained to you in other threads"

No its not. When and where has there been a demonstration of carbon dioxide rise preceding temperature rise?

500,000 years of ice core records don't show a single instance. So where is it?
 
a_unique_person said:
The climate is getting warmer. Picking an El Nino to La Nina period of time is cheating.
Click to expand...

Cherrypicking a short time period when both temperatures and carbon dioxide are rising and calling it "greenhouse warming" is also cheating.

The Met O has got it right more than wrong ;)
Click to expand...

So has Madame Zaza. That's why she's still in business.
 
a_unique_person said:
The models explain why there are the complex variations in temperature over the known record. As we are constantly reminded, the climate is a complex system, with several major influences.

An excellent explanation.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Click to expand...

Now we have the second layer of trolling. After trying the "its been explained to you before" gambit, its now the "read huge amounts of text and try to guess which part of a sentence I'm actually referencing" con.

Why can't you actually quote evidence instead of pointing at a library wall and saying "My proof is contained in one of those excellent books"?
 
Diamond said:
Now we have the second layer of trolling. After trying the "its been explained to you before" gambit, its now the "read huge amounts of text and try to guess which part of a sentence I'm actually referencing" con.

Why can't you actually quote evidence instead of pointing at a library wall and saying "My proof is contained in one of those excellent books"?
Click to expand...

The whole chapter directly addresses your point. The idea that one part of a sentence explains it just simplistic. The title of the chapter is about understanding and attributing climate change. The IPCC has gone into extensive detail doing just that. It's a complex issue, and it deserves more than a cursory glance at a sentence.
 
Diamond said:
Because inadvertently, you keep making reference to scientific studies that turn out to be either a) the Hockey Stick or b) studies that use Hockey Stick data or methods or both.
Click to expand...
Show me.

Steve McIntyre would fairly be described as an expert in multiproxy studies and the Hockey Stick in particular.
Click to expand...
He's streets ahead of most GWS, in that he does put the work in and is pretty thorough, but he's not neutral and he's certainly not perfect.

Alric keeps finding the Hockey Stick and keeps making statements based on the Hockey Stick, such as "climatologists have discovered climate change" which is a reference to the Hockey Stick's claims about the change in the twentieth century being "unprecedented in a thousand years"
Click to expand...
So he does, and his support of it far outstrips your insulting ranting attempts to rubbish it.
 
David Wong said:
Well, but not in this thread at least, not unless I'm reading it wrong. Nobody here seems to dispute 1 (that CO2 creates a greenhouse effect) or 2 (that there is more of it in the atmosphere now) and they at least acknowlege 3 (that there is data that shows an increase in temperature, whether the data was collected and interpreted correctly or not).
Click to expand...
You said earlier
3. Yes, there is data indicating that as CO2 has risen, temperatures have also risen, which would in fact be consistent with the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that an increase of it would increase the greenhouse effect
Click to expand...
So you didn't read this
Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Click to expand...
 
Diamond said:
No its not. When and where has there been a demonstration of carbon dioxide rise preceding temperature rise?

500,000 years of ice core records don't show a single instance. So where is it?
Click to expand...


That is irrelevant to the question of whether CO2 is causing the current warming trend.

Now isn't it?
 
mhaze said:
1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Click to expand...

Just in case I'll briefly answer these again.

1 and 3: CO2 is a greehouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation. And:

670px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png


2: Even if that's correct, both phenomena are not exclusive and would probably exacerbate each other.
 
Alric said:
Just in case I'll briefly answer these again.

1 and 3: CO2 is a greehouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation. And:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima...png/670px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png

2: Even if that's correct, both phenomena are not exclusive and would probably exacerbate each other.
Click to expand...



1. Not a relevant answer. The question is for you to show an "actual atmospheric study". These would be peer reviewed studies. The point of this question is to show up the absence of actual atmospheric research verifying the "CO2 greenhouse hypothesis".

3. Relevant, but essentially unquantified. #3 is essentially the same question you have asked in the OP of this thread. I received in response to this question a correlation of R = 0.22 and another of R = 0.44. #3 looks to quantify the relationship and thus to determine if it is a large effect (important) or a small effect (irrelevant). Indications from responses received are that the correlation is weaker than other influences on climate and temperature.

2. Correct, but there is a caveat. If by examination, past climate has on a cyclic basis been similar to today, then there is a likelihood that today's climate is simply a repeat of that cycle. Note that this is not by any means definitive proof that say, for some confluence of natural events, that natural cycle did not occur and the current (NOT UNPRECEDENTED) warming was actually due to man's influences.

A question such as "Prove that the 20th century warming is not due to man's influence" is asking to prove an irrefutable hypothesis. (similar to "prove there is not a god").

McIntyre's papers debunking the hockey stick did not disprove its existence. They simply noted that based on the evidence provided by Mann et. al., "no conclusion was possible". Thus Mann's conclusion, that the hockey stick existed, was wrong.

What #2 does prove is that current warming is not unprecedented but is quite within the realm of natural variation.
 
You will never understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its on the atmosphere. That is the observation. Nothing to be proven.

You will never understand #3 is something you just made up and is the wrong way to look at it.

And #2 is just some guy's idea that is not incompatible with anthropogenic climate change. No taking into account a bit of mendacity. In his graph where he emphasizes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, he chooses the data from just one study. In reality, many studies have higher current temperatures. Compare the following two graphs:

Singer.png

HStick.png


And that doesn't even take into account measurements after the year 2000. This one does:

Satellite_Temperatures.png


None of your straw man arguments are sufficient to disprove the reality of the measurements (that is the real world) presented in graphical form in the post above yours. That is why from the outset this thread asks for more data that could possibly contradict anthropogenic climate change.

You have not been able to provide any. Besides thoughts, re-interpretations and ad hominen attacks.
 
Last edited:
Alric said:
Just in case I'll briefly answer these again.

1 and 3: CO2 is a greehouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation. And:



2: Even if that's correct, both phenomena are not exclusive and would probably exacerbate each other.
Click to expand...


Where is the IR being absorbed? Just wondering.
 
mhaze said:
1. Not a relevant answer. The question is for you to show an "actual atmospheric study". These would be peer reviewed studies. The point of this question is to show up the absence of actual atmospheric research verifying the "CO2 greenhouse hypothesis".
Click to expand...
mhaze, I'm curious: some time ago you said this.
We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?
Click to expand...

I've got nothing against people changing their minds (of course!), but why the change?
 
Alric said:
You will never understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its on the atmosphere. That is the observation. Nothing to be proven.

You will never understand #3 is something you just made up and is the wrong way to look at it.

And #2 is just some guy's idea that is not incompatible with anthropogenic climate change. Besides not the dishonesty. In his graph were he emphasizes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age he chooses the data from just one study. In reality, many studies have higher current temperatures. Compare the following two graphs:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Singer.png
http://homepage.mac.com/alric/HStick.png

None of it sufficient to disprove the reality of the measurements (that is the real world) presented in graphical form in the post above yours. That is why from the outset this thread asks for more data that could possibly contradict anthropogenic climate change.

You have not been able to provide any. Besides thoughts, re-interpretations and ad hominen attacks.
Click to expand...

No, Alric. I don't doubt that you have found differences in the typical temperatures displayed between various graphs. Haven't I said as much? I went down the list and shown the origins of the various colored lines in the chart a page or two back? There isn't any need to call someone dishonest because he's used a different data set than the one you like. There are numerous good data sets, and sometimes they differ. This is a whole area of discussion in itself. So you can't just say someone is dishonest and then assert that your data is "right".

By the way, look at your chart from Singer. See the data is from Crowley and Houghten? These are very established mainstream climate scientists. One of the colored lines of the chart I enumerated was Crowley. These are not scientists you should discount at all.

You will never understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its on the atmosphere. That is the observation. Nothing to be proven.
You will never understand #3 is something you just made up and is the wrong way to look at it.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is methane and so is water vapor. These all work together don't they? You seem to have focused on just CO2 for some reason. Why is that? The IPCC doesn't just look at CO2. Mainstream science doesn't see it that way, either. Gore did promote this concept, but it remains a sort of radical fringe environmentalist concept. Even Dr. Hansen is talking about other factors, including the effect of black soot and aerosols.

Certainly, #3 is something I thought up. Is there anything wrong with actually thinking a bit and then writing down what you come up with? I asked you to do that a bit, too. Are you suggesting that we should just parrot things we read or hear? I'd hope not!

Don't doubt that some clever physicist or mathematician might find relationships in this data and produce some huge "gotcha", where we don't see anything obvious but very weak correlations. Who knows? Some such individual may respond to #3. Stranger things have happened.

#2 is just some guy's idea that is not incompatible with anthropogenic climate change.

That "some guy" is Dr. Singer, who correctly argued in the 1980s that the effects of CFCs on the ozone hole were not understood properly. Only now are scientists realizing that he was right about that. Other work that Singer has done suggests strongly that "anthropogenic climate change" may exist, but be a very minor factor in climate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom