Check out Anthony Watt’s site, this entry, and the recent story about disappearing glaciers. The often repeated claim was glaciers disappearing by 2035, the actual number is 2350, and the report they cited was a non peer reviewed WWF ‘report’. Story is originally from the Houston Chronicle and the main source is John Nielsen-Gammon, state climatologist for Texas at A&M University. I would check Pielke Jr and Sr’s sites for their report on the surface temp studies, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it and I forgot which one issued it.
If you cannot support your statements then don’t make them, like I said there is nothing Skeptics “deny”.
If you have no faith then you should only believe what is empirically proven
Experiments have shown that CO2 in a glass tube holds heat, that is not the atmosphere. So I remain skeptical.
It is not meaningless because the greenhouse theory claims that an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures not cause them to decline for the last ten years
The paper I saw declared it (CO2 lag) irrelevant, made unsubstantiated assumptions and supported those assumptions with hand tuned computer climate models that are nothing more than the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.
There is no appeal to authority but rather an appeal to a relevant source that does not think themselves to be a bunny rabbit.
To greenhouse theory the cooling is very significant as is the cooling between the 1940-70s.
The fact is I am always open to new ideas and do not knee-jerk dismiss a paper because some bunny rabbit has a problem with it or something is considered “established ideas”. I will wait to hear the author’s response to any published criticism before passing judgement.
I concentrate on all aspects of the debate.
Digging up the roots of the IPCC (Spiked, UK)
Right, a basic cause and effect is impossible only some more absurdly complicated process is “likely”. The only thing that can be concluded from ice-core records is that CO2 did not cause the warming.
AGW “theory” is in perpetual change based on whatever the current empirical data shows. I wish I could develope a theory that says, “whatever happens in the future just make an excuse for and then declare it AGW!”
Nothing has been predicted. They failed to predict the recent 10 years of cooling. All their predictions have been utter failures.
You had no run away warming in prehistoric past when CO2 levels were much higher than today. Thus their is absolutely nothing to support alarmism. Regardless if CO2 followed temperature changes then there is absolutely nothing to derive from that in relation to CO2 driving temperatures, it is an impossibility based on simple logic.
Austrian economics has absolutely nothing to do with climate science. But to use your analogy, you are claiming that you cannot use the Austrian Business Cycle Theory because it was used in the past. This is all that is being “predicted” from past CO2 and temperature coorelations - CO2 did not cause the temperature changes.
I discount anything not empirically proven, especially talks of doomsday.
It’s ridiculous to expect someone to ‘support’ such a rhetorically minor and ridiculously obvious statement. Your demand for support has the feel of an amateur debater trying too hard to stick to ‘the rules’. Shall I also quote Merriam Webster for the source of the definitions of all the words I use? Give me a frigging break.
Thanks, Spock. Say hi to Kirk for me. My initial statement in this thread was that virtually nothing was proven beyond the fact that in a lab, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and that generally speaking the planet has warmed over the last century. It’s your turn to put up or shut up; where is this statement of “faith” you claim I have made? Please show how either statement is one of faith.
I have not argued this point, so what in Christ’s name is the point of your engaging me in ‘debate’ about it? Or is it, as I have said, the standard skeptic’s knee jerk reaction to anyone who so much as dares to say anthropogenic global warming just might in the farthest reaches of all we know, just might be possible?
No, it isn’t. It’s only significant because of how they’ve chosen to deal with it, which is basically plug in an assumption about man made aresol and possible natural variation cooling. It goes back to the models and whether or not they can, or could ever be, expected to predict such small scale variations in global patterns. However, as with the business cycle theory, just because one doesn’t know where and how new money and credit will enter the system and periodically be spent until it’s devalued, that doesn’t mean the overall theory is wrong as to what the effects will be. A means of retaining energy is being added to our climate system in excess of what would otherwise have been there. The possible consequences are all that’s at issue. There may be none, there may be some minimal to moderate consequences, and there’s a very small chance we’ll all cook like prawns in a deep fryer. If you think the latter is a non possibility, get your climate science degree and prove it. Otherwise, the shennanigans of the Hockey Team and Hadley aside, there’s still some basic physics and chemistry to deal with that may lead to certain consequences, and no one with more than half a brain cell or more is arguing that basic point.
No, you appeal to authority after saying appeals to authority do not impress you. The paper is likely crap and it doesn’t take a genius to know that. Even just following the arguments and analogies at the site I linked gives a good explanation as to why the authors are off base. That plus the fact that even skeptics are slow to not willing to rely on this paper should be clue enough that it’s a hail mary shot at best. It aims to over turn the fundamental understanding of how all planets with atmospheres react to the sun, and it does so without proposing an alternative that seems to work, and it does so by questionably isolating certain steps in the process which seem to violate the laws of physics, but when the broader view is taken don’t actually do so.
As for what you’re debating, I have no idea. I have not detected more than the slightest difference between your position and mine, other than I apply the same standards to both sides whereas you’re seemingly willing to overlook issues on the side of the skeptics and hold proponents to a higher standard of evidence/quality of work. I do not dismiss skeptics because the RC crew says they are unqualified, I also do not simply dismiss the RC crew despite their documented issues. Their conclusions still may be right. What’s missing and needed is the same thing that’s been missing and needed for the last decade or more; independent replication and verification of their results, and a more open field for debate on the subject.
Read this…
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)
“An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
Actually they have been,
IPCC AR4 WGI - Review Comments
IPCC AR4 WGII - Review Comments
No it isn’t. That is an unhelpful caricature of the theory, and one usually posed by knee jerk skeptics trying to pass themselves off as moderate or ‘only interested in the science’. The theory states that the addition of GHGs to our climate system can have the effect of retaining energy within that system and causing changes in that system. Those changes would have to be warming driven, they do not have to be warming en toto. There can and have always been hypothesized differences in changes relative to lattitude, northern vs souther hemisphere, land vs sea, etc. Also, while hysterics in the media have been happy to portray any extreme weather event as the result of global warming, I have seen few actual scientists who claim that extreme events within normal distribution which don’t affect the mean trend are anything but that: extreme events that can and will happen regardless of what man does or doesn’t do with fossil fuels.
Simple logic, no. Simple mindedness, yes. Without knowing how or why the cycle stops itself, there’s no way to know whether or not the contribution to CO2 and other GHGs man has added via burning fossil fuels can be successfully incorporated into that system and likewise stopped. It may very well be that the ability of the cycle to stop itself can be shortcircuited by adding too much CO2 and or other GHGs to the system, or that other issue such as land usage would contribute to warming regardless of the system’s tendency to stop such warming in the past. These are complex systems and very sensitive to initial conditions, and as such trying to predict what will happen based on what did happen is a fool’s game unless you can show there is no significant difference between the past and the current conditions. Raw CO2 and other GHG levels are not the only measure of difference that may be relevant.
Jesus Christ, it’s an ANALOGY. Are you a real human being or a bot of some kind, for the love of God? And it’s a VALID analogy, because I am NOT saying that you cannot use the ABCT, what I am saying is you can’t use past boom bust cycles as models for predicting the particulars of current boom bust cycles. How much new money and credit was created, where and how it entered the system, how it worked its way through the system, and what degree of effect there will be, are entirely the result of the initial conditions presented at the start of the current cycle and have nothing to do with past cycles. The economy is a perfect analogy for the climate and the limitations on possible predictions using past data. And if one accepts CO2 and GHGs as analogously creating money out of thin air or even redistributing it via taaxation, the question is how significant of an increase/redistribution is it? If it’s the equivalent of the Fed increasing the money supply .000001% or something, this does not invalidate ABCT, it just means the increase was minor and overshadowed by other much more powerful forces in the economy. Likewise the addition of CO2 and other GHGs to the climate system may or may not be overshadowed by other more powerful forces. Right now it looks like their contribution is negligible to minimal.
While I’m sure Austrians, and me too, would argue in principle against The Fed even if all it did was sit there and increase the money supply at a steady rate of .05% a year, I don’t think anyone would be too worried overall about that. The Fed would be like The Minimum Wage. Wrong in principle, but a yippy schnauser compared to other more destructive, poorly trained viscious pit bull type interventions. The relevant question is what’s the significance of our increase in GHGs over what otherwise would have existed. And if you know the answer to that, by all means write it up and get it published so we can all stop worrying. But until your or someone else does that, it’s wrong to make definitive statements as to the magnitude of our GHG contributions to the climate system and what affect they may have.
May you live long and prosper. Good luck with Uhura too…
I have a problem with ridiculous statements, such as “skeptics deny [insert anything]”. I would appreciate it if you do no use the same propaganda tactics alarmists use to dismiss skeptics.
I will take you at your word.
That is not how you came across, you came across as being “thee objective” arbitrator of truth and skeptics are “deniers”.
Give me a break. Their theory fails, they insert more theory no matter what happens and you claim everything is ok? Please.
This is why I have had a problem with your posts. The whole theory is in doubt not just the consequences. You claim to be skeptical but then fall back on this nonsense and mention absurd idiocy of a “deep fryer”. The basic point is still being argued and attempting to use intimidation to state otherwise is disingenuous.
The fact that you consider the rabitt a credible source concerns me.
Based on what? The rabitt’s review? Which has been wrong before. Like I said I am waiting to hear a rebuttal from the authors to any published criticism.
The skeptics have not talked about the paper much at all and have hardly dismissed it, which I find interesting.
I understand you believe this, which is why I was right on my analysis as you believing yourself to be above the debate and “objective” yet you managed to get various points wrong and called skeptics deniers.
Sorry but I am skeptical of your position.
Of course retaining more heat will cause cooling! Who can you sell this to besides left wing environmentalists?
Why the cycle starts and stops is well established,
Milankovitch Cycles and the Ice Ages (NASA)
How CO2 is added to the atmosphere is irrelevant. What matters is that CO2 has been greater in the past and there was no run away warming.
But it is not a valid analogy as I am not talking about modeled predictions but the cause and effect as stated in ABCT. In this case CO2 did not cause the temperature changes.
What I stated was logical and you resort to a cheap Star Trek insult.
You should not let your Vulcan style adherence to logic and preoccupation with “propaganda tactics alarmists use to dismiss skeptics” lead to an over analysis of rhetorical statements which confirm universal truths, such as the fact that there are a small amount of nut jobs out there. Your claim that “AGW ‘theory’ is in perpetual change based on whatever the current empirical data shows” is equally off base and a skeptic caricature. Roger Pielke Jr, is perfect example of a person who accepts the general theory but admits grave uncertainties in application and prediction.
However note, I did not ask you to provide proof for a statement which is false in an absolute sense because I got the gist of your issue; lack of falsification because, in the popular press especially, anything and everything that happens is blamed on AGW. Asking you for ‘proof’ or ‘support’ of your statement is ridiculous as any proof you present is going to arguable, easily countered, subject to interpretation, etc. So in not doing that but accepting the general thrust of your argument and trying to present what I see as the best most charitable view of what actually happens, we avoid going down the road of arguing some ridiculous tangential and ultimately inconsequential point of BS and keep a wider purview to our argument.
See how nicely that works? This is not a peer reviewed and refereed journal, it is an internet message board. It’s a pick up game as opposed to an NBA play-off. As such, learn to let inconsequential shit slide.
I do not recall using the word denier. I do recall trying to say, quite clearly I thought - that since a lot of the so called specialists are mired to their necks in political bullshit and activism, and since the skeptics make good isolated points but generally lack the resources and/or independence a reasonable person would expect from all sources to provide a coherent alternative theory, that nothing is really trustworthy but the basic lab work and the general trend of the Earth’s temperatures over the last 100 years. I fail to see the problem with that overall view.
They didn’t ‘insert’ the theory in question - the lag time - it was predicted damn near 20 years ago in a paper that’s been widely cited and which you can access at any proponent and most skeptic sites. It’s a red herring and not worth the time unless you have specific data/papers showing an inconsistency with the idea that a temp increase from whatever cause can itself cause loss of snow and ice, which then leads to a lower albedo and the release of more CO2 due to the gas being less soluable at higher temperatures, which logically means CO2 increases can and will lag temperature increases even if the initial temp increase is from CO2 itself released through some other process, or some other cause entirely.
The whole theory can’t be in doubt because the nature of CO2 and how it responds to certain frequencies is not in doubt. Whether or not the nature of CO2 and its response to infra red radiation means jack shit in light of other forcings in the climate is what’s at issue. The basic mechanism is not in doubt and is well established in lab studies. To question it is to question settled chemistry and physics. Likewise the nature of sodium is well known with regard to what happens when you stick it in water. It is an alkali metal, this is settled, inarguable and done. That doesn’t however mean any degree of moisture will cause the dramatic energy release you get when you dunk a ten pound brick of the pure stuff into a tank of water.
Whether that page is credible or not is up for grabs, it seems credible to me based on what I know and remember of studying thermodynamics, and the authors of the paper you cited seem way off base. That you appeal to authority after stating that an appeal to authority is a fallacy concerns me as it seems you have two standards to apply where bloggers with possibly questionable credentials and motives and dodgy publication histories can criticize AGW theory, but bloggers of questionable credentials and motives with dodgy publication histories can’t criticize critics of AGW theory. And after the Climategate BS, I’m not as concerned with publication credits at this point as I am with solid reasoning and facts, where ever they may originate.
Not talking about it but not dismissing it? Are they pondering it? Or is this a typo? This paper would be a landmark paper if it proved what it proclaims, and it’s been out there for a bit now and no one is celebrating it as seminal or paradigm shifting or whatever. I’d be leary at the very least.
Please provide the direct quote where I called skeptics “deniers.” I said, “just remember the extreme of both sides of this argument gets a lot wrong. Skeptics deny facts, alarmists fabricate them.” Emphasis added. And that is an accurate account of what extremists on both sides of this debate do. It seems clear that at least some of the homogenized data from Hadley was actually pasteurized, meaning it had heat added for purposes of getting a certain result. To me that is fabrication. You yourself are a perfect example of a skeptic denying a fairly ridiculous point in denying that there is a more than reasonable mechanism proposed more than 17 years ago as to how CO2 can and would trail temp increases, and in how you try and use unsettled sciencec - how CO2’s behavior might affect the climate system - to try and deny settled science - how it behaves period. It’s a greenhouse gas in that it behaves a certain way with regard to IR radiation. Deal with it, it’s settled fact. I have never said that means alarmist AGW claims are settled, nor have I said that it’s settled how the nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas will affect the climate system if at all. It’s perfectly possible any additional IR it retains gets lost through some other mechanism. You seem incapable of seperating these issues. Should I have used a semi colon instead of a period between “gets a lot wrong” and “Skeptics”? Would that have made things abundantly clear, or are you trying to take a quote out of context for your own purposes, or more likely and as I suggested before, are you just engaging in a knee jerk reaction to the sheer gall of someone who implies that not all skeptics are pure angels and that there may, God forbid!, just may be something to AGW?
That was a sarcastic remark on my part because the base of AGW theory is falsified everytime you have a cooling trend yet the amount of atmopheric CO2 continue to increase. They resort to all manners of excuses to explain why the theory is still true.
You said - “Skeptics deny facts”.
You have no basis for the claim that they lack “independence”.
A coherent alternative theory has been presented,
Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges (PDF) (Danish National Space Center)
The Cloud Mystery (Video) (52min)
But this is still a false argument. You do not need a competing theory to falsify another.
The lag time was not predicted. Have you actually looked at the paper? You seem quick to believe any “refutation” without verifying it. Which skeptic sites can I get it from? You keep making unsubstantiated comments like this.
No it is not a red herring. You have to prove that CO2 levels are anything more than a consequence of the temperature changes because that is all that can be derived from the ice cores.
I’ve provided a published paper disputing this.
“It seems credible to you” does not make it so. I have no applied no double standard to any other bloggers. Now you are lying about them having questionable credentials and “dodgy” publication histories. The blog you referenced thinks he is a bunny rabbit, mine state who they are and their credentials.
I know you are the “objective one” we are not. Please I’ve heard this crap before.
Can you show me where the skeptics dismissed it because apparently I missed it.
“Skeptics deny facts”
No it is not. Skeptics don’t deny facts. This sort of propaganda is what I am talking about.
You continued insults of saying I deny things speaks volumes to your dishonesty in the debate and thus your inability to be objective as you pretend you are. Maybe you should stop pretending to be the objective one when in reality you are not. You continue to get basic parts of the debate wrong over and over and then make ridiculous declarations of “settled science”.
Nothing is settled until empirically proven, deal with it.
You don’t call anyone deniers? Really? People can make up their own minds…
Do I also deny the holocaust?
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
AGW theory is not falsified every time there is a cooling trend. That is about the most ridiculous statement one can make on this issue. A warming trend does not confirm it, and a cooling trend does not invalidate it. The uncertainty around the climate sensitivity limits forecasts to qualitative trends and natural variability due to other forcings which may dominate at any give time, or all the time, and which can still force trends one way or another regardless of additional CO2 and/or warming. It’d be just as moronic to claim an increase in supply and sales along side a price increase falsifies marginal utility without first acknowledging other forces are also at work on demand, the effects of which can over shadow the effect of price increases. The difference is in climatology we maybe able to isolate and measure the contributions of CO2 in general, and man made CO2 in particular, and thus know just how much of an effect there was one or the other, if any, due solely to CO2.
And that was part of a broader statement about what the EXTREMISTS on both sides of this argument tend to do. Are you truly so petty and ridiculously trollish as to think you can take it in isolation and out of context and fool me or anyone else with half a shred of intelligence as to what the point of my statement was?
Indeed I have. The original paper was from 1990, found here: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf The amplification of the orbital forcing shown in that paper shows that loss of ice and subsequent albedo change and CO2 release can follow warming. As for where you can get it, I’ve seen this paper discussed at ClimateAudit and Watt’s site, as well as JunkScience and RealClimate among others.
No, you don’t, because it’s irrelevant to the fact that warming from any source will have such an effect due to the highly disputed facts that ice and snow have a tendency to melt at higher temperatures and gas is less soluable at higher temperatures in water…
It is a red herring because it does not falsify AGW theory. All the lag does is demonstrate that historically CO2 and ice loss have trailed temperature increases from other climate forcings. It says nothing about whether or not man made additions of CO2 to the climate system from what were previously long term stores of carbon, in addition to natural forcings and existing levels of atmospheric Co2, will lead to higher temperatures. That CO2 release has historically lagged temperature increases due to other forcings DOES NOT falsify the theory that CO2 can by itself in sufficient amounts lead to significant warming.
No, because I have no time to waste on such BS. The skeptic sites usually handle this crap in unindexed comments sections and I have no desire to go troll through the entire site of climateaudit and others to thread together something which you’ll likely not read anyway. The paper has been refuted to my satisfaction, having a general understanding of thermodynamics.
See above. This quoting out of context is weak, remedial, and pointless.
And if you go through the comments sectios of ClimateAudit and Watt’s site you shouldn’t be too long in finding a post from someone who doubts the Earth has warmed (it has) or the nature of CO2 as a GHG (it is). I’m not digging this shit up to prove a pathetically irrelevant piece of rhetoric which you have fastened on and pulled out of context for your own psychotic reasons.
And you have yet to provide a single quote that I have claimed anything beyond the establishment of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the lab and that the Earth has warmed over the last 100 years is proven.
The only insult I care about is dishonesty which you have demonstrated in abundance. You continually take one quote out of context and try to spin it to some bullshit extreme when what I was saying is fairly clear to anyone of grade school level intelligence or higher. You have provided a published paper from a bumblefuck journal that makes false claims about thermodynamics, uses a poor model for the Earth’s climate system, and the majority of the begining of which is spent delineating the difference between convection heating as it occurs in a greenhouse and the radiative heating as occurs with greenhouse gases, a point usually made in the first paragraph of any book, article, or essay that for some reason deems it necessary to actually let people know that when people speak of “the greenhouse effect”, it’s not because the Earth exists in a stellar greenhouse with glass panels between it and the sun…
The Eli Rabett refutation is probably the best that’s going to be seen on this issue because the paper is such a piece of shit it seems. And if publication is your standard, be my guest and do a search of the NIH database of published papers on weight gain and loss, there are many in there that fail to find a connection between weight gain and loss and hyper/hypo caloric diets respectively. Usually because the study models suck, have an N=1 sample, don’t actually track calories but rely on self reporting, etc., etc., etc., etc. But hey, they’re published!, and not specifically refuted for each one, so I guess that means by your logic a person can eat pure Crisco by the pound and pork chops dipped in mayonaise and not have any weight gain worries…
You are also either through ignorance or the desire to troll not acknowledging the paper on the amplification of orbital forcing through loss of albedo and subsequent CO2 release, and continue to think that because historically CO2 and ice loss have lagged natural forcings that this proves CO2 can’t be a forcing in and of itself, which is an unsupported conclusion; the historical record only shows that it lags other natural forcings, not that it can’t be a force in and of itself. Your ability to seperate issues and properly deduce the implications of research is severely wanting.
I didn’t initially expect to find such people here, nor do I think denying global warming is the same as denying the holocaust. However you are quite foolish and ill informed about more than a few issues to say the least. My position is one of fairly extreme skepticism. I think it’s possible man made CO2 emissions might affect the climate, and that current evidence says such effects are minimal to negligible. This is confirmed by the IPCCs own work, by the fact that observed warming doesn’t match their alarmist scenarios but does match CO2 only predictions. And that’s granting the models are at least partially useful and that they got the climate sensitivity right, which I seriously doubt. This page includes a presentation which sums up my views and criticisms of AGW theory and evidence nicely. I see no issue here, I have no fucking clue other than trolling/knee jerk foolishness as to why you’re persuing this ‘debate’ with your main focus being an out of context off the cuff quote about extremist skeptics and my hoofy reluctance to abandon all science including repeatedly lab verified tendencies of some gases to retain heat.
Either way, until you get a dose of common sense via a review of these posts and/or an accidental blow to the head, I see no point in continuing this nonsense.