PDA

View Full Version : Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?



palerider
03-08-2010, 11:47 AM
If AGW theory were correct and increasing atmospheric CO2 caused warming, it would happen because the increased CO2 would capture more long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelengths. That means that if one took a snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation in say 1970 and another snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation at a later date when more atmospheric CO2 were present, less outgoing long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts would prove the basis of AGW theory. An equal or greater amount of outgoing longwave radiation in those wavelengths would disprove the basis for AGW theory as it would indicate that even though more atmospheric CO2 were present, no more long wave radiation was being absorbed by that increased CO2. Well, guess what?

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/GT20pic2.jpg

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/GT20pic4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/GT20pic3.jpg
Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

palerider
03-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Further:

CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Saturation is a term physicists use when all suitable radiation gets absorbed, so adding more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything.

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.


Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.

A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.
The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

The question is phrased in terms of what happens when CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Doubling only shortens the distance the radiation travels before being completely absorbed, as shown in the small image.

The green part of the image is the absorption spectrum superimposed onto the atmospheric effects. The yellow areas on the edges of the shoulders are supposedly where the heat is added to the atmosphere.


At mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 300m instead of 100m. Reducing those distance by half is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

As shown on the page titled "Crunching the Numbers," the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming.

There's another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase....

wilbur
03-08-2010, 05:17 PM
Sounds like you pulled this from the American Thinker story by Gary Thompson, here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html).

There are a few rebuttals to this story available, and they all seem to claim that the studies that the author Gary Johnson used to "refute global warming", actually argue for the opposite conclusion that he tries to support. In nearly every denialist story I bother to check out, I find this to be the case... the research that the artciles cite almost always ends up arguing for or supporting the other side of the argument. And also, the American Thinker has an especially poor track record in this regard. So if I were a betting man, I'd put all my money on the possibility that AT is peddling a big fat pile of steaming BS - though you never know.. this could be the one time they defy the pattern.

Fortunately, these rebuttals link to the studies in question, so we can corroborate. I havent had time to check them out, yet, but here are some tidbits:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=144



Thompson concludes "After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970". By "analyzing this graph", he presumably means eyeballing the graph as he provides no actual data analysis. This is a shame because in Harries 2001 directly below this graph is data analysis of the calculated difference between the IMG and IRIS satellite data as well as a comparison with modelled results. What do models predict will happen with rising greenhouse gases? Less longwave radiation will escape at the absorptive wavelengths of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As the atmosphere warms, it will emit more radiation over the whole longwave spectrum. So we expect to see an increase in outgoing radiation over some of the longwave spectrum with sharp drops at certain wavelengths. This is indeed what is observed, consistent with model simulations.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IMG_vs_IRIS_difference.gif

Figure 2: Observed difference between 1970 to 1996 over the central Pacific (top). Simulated difference over the central Pacific (middle). Observed difference for 'near-global' - 60°N to 60°S (bottom) (Harries 2001).

The top curve in Figure 2 is the observed difference between 1970 and 1996 over the central Pacific. This shows strong agreement with the middle curve which is the modelled results. The bottom curve is the observed difference for a near-global area. Observations are consistent with our theoretical expectations of how the greenhouse effect should behave. The close match between observation and simulation lead the paper's authors to conclude "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate". One wonders how Gary Thompson missed this conclusion as it's stated both in the paper's abstract and in the concluding paragraph.




http://zero132132.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/american_thinkers_folly/



Three studies are cited; Harries 2001, Brindley 2001, and Chen 2007. The author claims that these papers show that there’s been no decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (infrared radiation) between 1970 and later measurements, and therefore global warming is false. Case closed.

The problem is that his claims are the exact opposite of the conclusions of the studies he’s cited.

“Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

This is the conclusion of the Harries paper. Indeed, that’s the exact opposite of the conclusion the author claims to draw from this study.



Links to cited peer review:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://ams.confex.com/ams/11satellite/techprogram/paper_24874.htm
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

Sonnabend
03-08-2010, 05:21 PM
It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE

Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

wilbur
03-08-2010, 05:24 PM
It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE

Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

This has what to do with the topic of this thread?

palerider
03-08-2010, 05:33 PM
The "data analysis" your article speaks of....would that be a trick or a fudge factor. The data need no analysis to alter the graph unless your religion needs for the graph to say something else.

FlaGator
03-08-2010, 05:43 PM
Just because there is a rebuttal, doesn't mean that the original isn't true. It just means someone disagreed with it.

palerider
03-08-2010, 05:54 PM
I am interested wilbur, exactly what occurence would it take for you to stop believing in AGW theory.

More rain = AGW. Less rain = AGW. More snow = AGW. Less snow = AGW. Less Antarctic ice = AGW. More Antarctic ice = AGW. Warmer = AGW. Cooler = AGW.

You know, a theory that can not be falsified by observed data isn't science. It is religion.

Is there any piece of observed data that would convince you that AGW theory is a hoax, or at least bad science or do you place your entire trust in computer models and simulations that invariably do not match observed data?

wilbur
03-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Just because there is a rebuttal, doesn't mean that the original isn't true. It just means someone disagreed with it.

And I think my post on it fairly suggested that that could be the case, and was completely open minded. I also provided links to the peer review findings in dispute - so we can check the source material and find out who, if anyone, is using it appropriately.

palerider
03-08-2010, 06:08 PM
And I think my post on it fairly suggested that that could be the case, and was completely open minded. I also provided links to the peer review findings in dispute - so we can check the source material and find out who, if anyone, is using it appropriately.

We know now that peer review has little meaning within the climate science community and likely won't have any meaning for some time.

wilbur
03-08-2010, 06:57 PM
We know now that peer review has little meaning within the climate science community and likely won't have any meaning for some time.

Well, if you are going to go that route, then the material you presented in the OP is undermined as well, since its claims are drawn entirely off the peer review in question.

It seems a little inconsistent and self-serving to endorse contrarian claims based on some peer review, then when it turns out the peer review might not actually support said claims, to all of the sudden start doubting its credibility.

palerider
03-08-2010, 07:21 PM
I am interested wilbur, exactly what occurence would it take for you to stop believing in AGW theory.

More rain = AGW. Less rain = AGW. More snow = AGW. Less snow = AGW. Less Antarctic ice = AGW. More Antarctic ice = AGW. Warmer = AGW. Cooler = AGW.

You know, a theory that can not be falsified by observed data isn't science. It is religion.

Is there any piece of observed data that would convince you that AGW theory is a hoax, or at least bad science or do you place your entire trust in computer models and simulations that invariably do not match observed data?

Constitutionally Speaking
03-08-2010, 07:51 PM
One of the findings of the Wegman Commission was that peer review in the climate science field of study pretty much consisted of a small group of close associates giving each other blow jobs.


Seriously - all joking aside, the peer review process consisted of a couple of dozen true believers who had very little statistical ability - who pretty much passed whatever was produced within that small clique.


Here is an excerpt:


It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely
heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical
community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

wilbur
03-08-2010, 11:22 PM
I am interested wilbur, exactly what occurence would it take for you to stop believing in AGW theory.

More rain = AGW. Less rain = AGW. More snow = AGW. Less snow = AGW. Less Antarctic ice = AGW. More Antarctic ice = AGW. Warmer = AGW. Cooler = AGW.

You know, a theory that can not be falsified by observed data isn't science. It is religion.

Is there any piece of observed data that would convince you that AGW theory is a hoax, or at least bad science or do you place your entire trust in computer models and simulations that invariably do not match observed data?

One obvious way to disprove AGW, would be to demonstrate another probable cause for the portion of the warming in the 20th century, which at present is believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2. In other words, propose an alternate, mutually exclusive theory, and support it with better evidence. Pretty cut and dry. It hasnt been done successfully.

As for what kind of weather patterns it would take to convince me that AGW is probably false... not sure exactly. A start might be a sustained and statistically significant deviation from temperature projections based on AGW... that would probably do it.

wilbur
03-08-2010, 11:28 PM
One of the findings of the Wegman Commission was that peer review in the climate science field of study pretty much consisted of a small group of close associates giving each other blow jobs.


Peer review is anonymous.



Seriously - all joking aside, the peer review process consisted of a couple of dozen true believers who had very little statistical ability - who pretty much passed whatever was produced within that small clique.


Very little statistical ability? That sure as hell aint true - the accusation is especially ironic, given that Wegman has no paleoclimatology ability. Once again, when reconstructions were redone according to Wegmans recommendations (something curiously not included in his report) Mann's temperature reconstructions suffered no significant change - which is what paleoclimatologists had said would happen, incidentally.

So an and all the report really didnt amount to a hill of beans.

Sonnabend
03-09-2010, 05:13 AM
So an and all the report really didnt amount to a hill of beans.

Neithrer do Jone's lies...and Wilbur, the believability and integrity of a man I know has already lied to me is NIL.

He lied repeatedly. His data is false, exaggerated, "enhanced" and "massaged".

Nothing he or the CRU has said or published has any credibility now...the IPCC is a sick joke and their "data" taken from Greenpeace propaganda , is a laughing stock.

Dont care how much he protests.....as far as I and many others are concerned...once a liar, always a liar.

AGW is a hoax and a lie and you know it.

palerider
03-09-2010, 06:00 AM
One obvious way to disprove AGW, would be to demonstrate another probable cause for the portion of the warming in the 20th century, which at present is believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2. In other words, propose an alternate, mutually exclusive theory, and support it with better evidence. Pretty cut and dry. It hasnt been done successfully.

Since jones, et. al. have acknowledged that the medieval warm period actually existed and was warmer than the present, not to mention a great many warm periods in earth history that far exceed the present temperatures, exactly which unususal warming in the 20th century are you talking about. The warmig of the 20'th century is unusual in no way at all. And the fact that there has been no warming for the past decade in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2, and the dire predictions made is yet another bullet to the head of AGW theory. The IPCC certainly predicted warming during the past decade should CO2 increase and yet it didn't happen. That falsifies the theory and yet, you continue to believe. Why is that?


As for what kind of weather patterns it would take to convince me that AGW is probably false... not sure exactly. A start might be a sustained and statistically significant deviation from temperature projections based on AGW... that would probably do it.

That has been the case for some time. Last year when there was below normal snowfall, it was claimed to be because of AGW. This year when the snowfall is in record amounts, it is because of AGW. When we were hit with an above average number of hurricaines, it was said to be because of AGW. When we were hit with no hurricaines, it was said to be because of AGW. The predictions never match the projections so the projections magically change to match the observed data.

palerider
03-09-2010, 06:06 AM
Interesting to note that in the papers you reference, none of the authors come to the same conclusions based on the data. They either stated conclusions based on models or came to the conclusion that OLR had decreased when the observed data simply do not suggest any such thing.

ANother interesting note seems to be that "analysis" was performed on the data gathered in 1997 and 2006 but did not seem to be necessary on the data base gathered in 1970. Why would that be?

Constitutionally Speaking
03-09-2010, 06:16 AM
One obvious way to disprove AGW, would be to demonstrate another probable cause for the portion of the warming in the 20th century, which at present is believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2. In other words, propose an alternate, mutually exclusive theory, and support it with better evidence. Pretty cut and dry. It hasnt been done successfully.

Yes it has, because what we are experiencing is neither particularly drastic nor is it particularly rapid.

Mann and his group of merry fraudsters purposely tried to hide the Medieval Warming period - and THEN tried to say it was a local or at most a regional phenomena . I find it curious that they do so by taking a few isolated localized areas that did not show warming and threw out the vast number of readings that showed global warming.

It was a world wide warming - by every sense of the term.

palerider
03-09-2010, 06:30 AM
As for what kind of weather patterns it would take to convince me that AGW is probably false... not sure exactly. A start might be a sustained and statistically significant deviation from temperature projections based on AGW... that would probably do it.

One other thing wilbur, which projections made based on AGW are you suggesting aren't substantially different from observed data?

A small list if you don't mind since you seem to be under the impression that the projections have matched reality.

wilbur
03-09-2010, 09:30 AM
Since jones, et. al. have acknowledged that the medieval warm period actually existed and was warmer than the present, not to mention a great many warm periods in earth history that far exceed the present temperatures, exactly which unususal warming in the 20th century are you talking about.


Err what? No, they havent. If you're referring to the BBC interview, in which Jones has been libelously misrepresented repeatedly, this is what he actually said:


G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

[JONES:] There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, [b]if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.


That sure as hell is no acknowledgement that the WMP was a warmer period than today.



The warmig of the 20'th century is unusual in no way at all. And the fact that there has been no warming for the past decade in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2, and the dire predictions made is yet another bullet to the head of AGW theory. The IPCC certainly predicted warming during the past decade should CO2 increase and yet it didn't happen. That falsifies the theory and yet, you continue to believe. Why is that?


Again, I don't think you have your facts right. It has been warming for this past decade, just at a reduced pace. The skeptics act like congressmen talking about the budget, and pretend that decreases in the rate of increase, are equivalent to true decreases. But like congressional spending, the warming hasnt truly reduced, its simply slowed its increase. And this slowdown isnt outside the bounds of expected natural variability... if it exceeds those boundaries, then we have a good solid reason to start seriously doubting AGW.



That has been the case for some time. Last year when there was below normal snowfall, it was claimed to be because of AGW. This year when the snowfall is in record amounts, it is because of AGW. When we were hit with an above average number of hurricaines, it was said to be because of AGW. When we were hit with no hurricaines, it was said to be because of AGW. The predictions never match the projections so the projections magically change to match the observed data.

Well, I'll readily agree, that many politicians, self-appointed authorities, and ideologues often make exaggerated claims or work very hard to induce unwarranted panic. Heck, even a couple of scientists do from time to time. They cause problems, in that they constantly oversell doom and gloom. Nobody should be listening to these people - among them is Al Gore. More importantly, nobody should be mistaking these people for actual authorities on the matter.

And of the course, the other side has its panic merchants, who are just as pervasive, just as loud, and arguably more effective and absurd. Its not fear of a warming climate they sell, but the ever present threat of socialism, high taxes, liberalism, and big government - and their ambition to sell this fear inspires, what in comparison to truth, can only be called obscenity. Nobody should be listening to these people either - these include just about every right wing pundit or talking head.

But the vast vast majority of scientists are not so dogmatic and are quite liberal with admissions of incertitude, about a great many things regarding global warming. If you find actual scientists proclaiming such contrary predictions with the certitude you suggest, then I'll pay attention. Till then, it sounds like you just listen to the wrong folk.

Sonnabend
03-09-2010, 04:27 PM
t has been warming for this past decade, just at a reduced pace.

LIAR.

The world has not warmed in fifteen years.

palerider
03-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Err what? No, they havent. If you're referring to the BBC interview, in which Jones has been libelously misrepresented repeatedly, this is what he actually said:

That sure as hell is no acknowledgement that the WMP was a warmer period than today.

Interesting thing about jones and his claims about the MWP.

Jones et al 1998:
..we can only concur with Hughes and Diaz (1994) that there is little evidence for the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, although it is variably quoted as occurring between 900 and 1200...From the few reconstructions used prior to 1500 there is little evidence for the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.

Jones and Mann 2003:
To the extent that a ‘Medieval’ interval of moderately warmer conditions can be defined from about AD 800–1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth.

Jones & Mann 2004:
Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales.

BBC interview 2010:
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

http://www.co2science.org//data/mwp/studies/l2_sajama.php
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N23/C3.php
http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/antarcticaiceage.php
http://www.co2science.org//data/mwp/studies/l3_lakeanterne.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/C2.php
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_eastchinasea.php
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N39/C3.php
http://co2science.org/articles/V8/N13/C3.php
http://co2science.org//articles/V11/N53/C2.php
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N11/C2.php
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_pescaderobasin.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacone.php
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
http://co2science.org//articles/V12/N34/C2.php

I simply grew tired of listing the numerous studies that indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the MWP as well as the little ice age were global. Upon what basis does jones make the claim that there are not enough studies to indicate that the MWP was global?




Sorry, I have my facts just fine. What you have are not facts but predictions made by simply terrible computer simulations.

[QUOTE=wilbur;245955But the vast vast majority of scientists are not so dogmatic and are quite liberal with admissions of incertitude, about a great many things regarding global warming. If you find actual scientists proclaiming such contrary predictions with the certitude you suggest, then I'll pay attention. Till then, it sounds like you just listen to the wrong folk.

Terribly sorry Wilbur, but again, you have it wrong. The vast majority of scientists don't buy into AGW theory. Don't you find it a bit odd that it is difficult to find an actual scientist (physicists, chemists, et. al.) who accepts AGW theory? Most actual scientists reject the theory because it lacks any actual scientific underpinnings. For example, which physical law do you believe lends support to AGW theory?

Considering that the very very vast majority of scientists reject AGW theory, it is clear that it is you who is listening to the wrong folk.

wilbur
03-09-2010, 08:35 PM
Interesting thing about jones and his claims about the MWP.

Jones et al 1998:
..we can only concur with Hughes and Diaz (1994) that there is little evidence for the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, although it is variably quoted as occurring between 900 and 1200...From the few reconstructions used prior to 1500 there is little evidence for the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.

Jones and Mann 2003:
To the extent that a ‘Medieval’ interval of moderately warmer conditions can be defined from about AD 800–1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth.

Jones & Mann 2004:
Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales.

BBC interview 2010:
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

http://www.co2science.org//data/mwp/studies/l2_sajama.php
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N23/C3.php
http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/antarcticaiceage.php
http://www.co2science.org//data/mwp/studies/l3_lakeanterne.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/C2.php
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_eastchinasea.php
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N39/C3.php
http://co2science.org/articles/V8/N13/C3.php
http://co2science.org//articles/V11/N53/C2.php
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N11/C2.php
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_pescaderobasin.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacone.php
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
http://co2science.org//articles/V12/N34/C2.php

I simply grew tired of listing the numerous studies that indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the MWP as well as the little ice age were global. Upon what basis does jones make the claim that there are not enough studies to indicate that the MWP was global?



Sorry, I have my facts just fine. What you have are not facts but predictions made by simply terrible computer simulations.



Terribly sorry Wilbur, but again, you have it wrong. The vast majority of scientists don't buy into AGW theory. Don't you find it a bit odd that it is difficult to find an actual scientist (physicists, chemists, et. al.) who accepts AGW theory? Most actual scientists reject the theory because it lacks any actual scientific underpinnings. For example, which physical law do you believe lends support to AGW theory?

Considering that the very very vast majority of scientists reject AGW theory, it is clear that it is you who is listening to the wrong folk.

Oh dear, co2science.com. I do hope you realize that the information your reading on those peer reviewed articles isnt actually original material from the authors of the studies in question, nor are they official abstracts... nor do they necessarily reflect the conclusions of the authors of the studies in question, though due to the way the site presents their reassessments, often makes that appear to be the case. Something for which the site has been vigorously criticized. They don't even provide links to the original abstracts. So you arent really citing peer reviewed studies there, you're citing 3rd party (biased) reinterpretations of select peer review studies. Editorials, basically. And... those editorials are known to frequently contradict or otherwise sit askance from the conclusions of the original studies they discuss.

Although, I guess if you did think you were citing real peer review, it would be an understandable mistake - the site appears to be designed to mislead people in that way.

Big Guy
03-09-2010, 09:17 PM
If Wilbur does not agree with the information the others post it has to be faulty information. He will then start calling you a MORON or and IDIOT. ONLY WILBUR HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THINGS GLOBAL WARMING.

Rockntractor
03-09-2010, 09:39 PM
If Wilbur does not agree with the information the others post it has to be faulty information. He will then start calling you a MORON or and IDIOT. ONLY WILBUR HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THINGS GLOBAL WARMING.
He will beat you with his consensus club
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/CavemanWeb.jpg?t=1268188686

Jfor
03-09-2010, 10:59 PM
Oh dear, co2science.com. I do hope you realize that the information your reading on those peer reviewed articles isnt actually original material from the authors of the studies in question, nor are they official abstracts... nor do they necessarily reflect the conclusions of the authors of the studies in question, though due to the way the site presents their reassessments, often makes that appear to be the case. Something for which the site has been vigorously criticized. They don't even provide links to the original abstracts. So you arent really citing peer reviewed studies there, you're citing 3rd party (biased) reinterpretations of select peer review studies. Editorials, basically. And... those editorials are known to frequently contradict or otherwise sit askance from the conclusions of the original studies they discuss.

Although, I guess if you did think you were citing real peer review, it would be an understandable mistake - the site appears to be designed to mislead people in that way.

Kind of like the editorial you linked in another post refuting that Jones did not lie? Douche bag.

wilbur
03-09-2010, 11:21 PM
Kind of like the editorial you linked in another post refuting that Jones did not lie? Douche bag.

I wasn't linking to that article as if it were a peer reviewed study, now was I? But regardless, the Jones case was clear cut, and the editorials claims' could be fact checked (and totally vindicated) with all of about 5 minutes of investigation by referring to the Jones' interview. The editorial was demonstrably right. So game over, you lose.

We can check how well the studies in question track with their commentary at co2science.org too - but that will take serious time.

palerider
03-10-2010, 06:42 AM
Oh dear, co2science.com. I do hope you realize that the information your reading on those peer reviewed articles isnt actually original material from the authors of the studies in question, nor are they official abstracts... nor do they necessarily reflect the conclusions of the authors of the studies in question, though due to the way the site presents their reassessments, often makes that appear to be the case. Something for which the site has been vigorously criticized. They don't even provide links to the original abstracts. So you arent really citing peer reviewed studies there, you're citing 3rd party (biased) reinterpretations of select peer review studies. Editorials, basically. And... those editorials are known to frequently contradict or otherwise sit askance from the conclusions of the original studies they discuss.

Although, I guess if you did think you were citing real peer review, it would be an understandable mistake - the site appears to be designed to mislead people in that way.

Circumstantial ad hominems? Is that really the best you can do? And as to the criticizm, we know the origin don't we? The criticizm has as much credibility as the peer review process within the climate pseudoscience community.

palerider
03-10-2010, 06:43 AM
If Wilbur does not agree with the information the others post it has to be faulty information. He will then start calling you a MORON or and IDIOT. ONLY WILBUR HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THINGS GLOBAL WARMING.

Predictable. It has been their MO for quite some time.

palerider
03-10-2010, 06:45 AM
I wasn't linking to that article as if it were a peer reviewed study, now was I? But regardless, the Jones case was clear cut, and the editorials claims' could be fact checked (and totally vindicated) with all of about 5 minutes of investigation by referring to the Jones' interview. The editorial was demonstrably right. So game over, you lose.

We can check how well the studies in question track with their commentary at co2science.org too - but that will take serious time.

It took me just about as long to find that his position on the MWP has changed radically from didn't happen to it happened in some places and the evidence does exist that it happened everywhere. Denial simply isn't a rational argument.

palerider
03-10-2010, 06:46 AM
We can check how well the studies in question track with their commentary at co2science.org too - but that will take serious time.

Feel free. I have been tracking them for some time which is why I tend to find them credible. They have been criticized by a group that have been found to be frauds. How seriously should one take such criticizm?

What is interesting is that there are still those who are defending the church.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 08:10 AM
Feel free. I have been tracking them for some time which is why I tend to find them credible. They have been criticized by a group that have been found to be frauds. How seriously should one take such criticizm?

What is interesting is that there are still those who are defending the church.

Speaking in generalities, the defenders of the faith seem to have some vested interest that AGW be true. I suspect that it is bound closer to their ego than to any actual science on the matter. If it is determined to be wrong means that they were wrong and they were wrong because they were fooled by the same type of junk science that they thought they were above. It makes for an interesting mental dilemma.

palerider
03-10-2010, 05:45 PM
Speaking in generalities, the defenders of the faith seem to have some vested interest that AGW be true. I suspect that it is bound closer to their ego than to any actual science on the matter.

I suspect it is bound more closely to the tens of billions of dollars in grant money to be had so long as a feeling of crisis can be maintained. 25 years ago the best gig a climate scientist might get was a network weatherman and that didn't pay very much. Today with all the grant money, they are driving beemers, living at fashionable addresses, and buying boob jobs for their fashionable girlfiriends. I suppose there are a lot of people who would go along with a hoax rather than give up such bennies.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 05:54 PM
I suspect it is bound more closely to the tens of billions of dollars in grant money to be had so long as a feeling of crisis can be maintained. 25 years ago the best gig a climate scientist might get was a network weatherman and that didn't pay very much. Today with all the grant money, they are driving beemers, living at fashionable addresses, and buying boob jobs for their fashionable girlfiriends. I suppose there are a lot of people who would go along with a hoax rather than give up such bennies.

I was thinking of people like wilbur who aren't necessarily financially invested in agw but more emotionally invested in it. I can't imagine that anyone who can see the amount of conflicting data wouldn't at least be open to entertain the possibility that they are mistaken.

palerider
03-11-2010, 06:23 AM
I was thinking of people like wilbur who aren't necessarily financially invested in agw but more emotionally invested in it. I can't imagine that anyone who can see the amount of conflicting data wouldn't at least be open to entertain the possibility that they are mistaken.

True. They many are like the most devout members of a congregation. They cast a blind eye on any quantity of credible evidence that is contrary to their belief.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 08:45 AM
I was thinking of people like wilbur who aren't necessarily financially invested in agw but more emotionally invested in it. I can't imagine that anyone who can see the amount of conflicting data wouldn't at least be open to entertain the possibility that they are mistaken.

The problem with your thesis is that I do entertain the possibility that I am mistaken, all the time. I only maintain that, according to the evidence, human caused global warming seems more probable than not. I've never cried like chicken little, or preached any amount of doomsday nonsense. In fact, a quick perusal of this thread will show any reasonable observer that I am quite open minded, and that my opponents habitually misrepresent the beliefs of others and uncritically accept and believe suspect information.

See Pale Rider for the second time, claiming that Jones "admits that the MWP was probably global", even after I pasted his source quote that shows Jones said no such thing. See Sonnabend, who keeps repeating the lie that Jones said that there has been no warming in 15 years, when Jones actually said the opposite. That's religious dogma and ego, my friend, that not only leads the afflicted to accept bad information uncriticially.. it leads them to continue to believe the bad information even when factual proof is presented that said information is not true.. and thats not what I'm doing.

What I criticize most often, is the terrible, uncritical, and dogmatic denialism, which is fueled almost entirely on untruth, exaggeration, and fallacy - denialism which seems now permenatly, and deeply interwoven with ideology to such a degree, that a denialist cannot even perceive the distinction between AGW as a scientific theory, and the philosophy of liberalism. The denialist is truly puzzled by this distinction, because it has become incomprehensible to him/her to treat liberalism and AGW as the unrelated concepts that they are. To the denialist, to concede to one, is to concede the other. And thats tragic, becuase it simply isnt the case.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 09:09 AM
Circumstantial ad hominems? Is that really the best you can do?


Well, my skepticism regarding co2science is really no different than the skepticism you show towards peer review below. The only relevant difference is that co2science, by all acounts, has far less established credibility than does peer review.


And as to the criticizm, we know the origin don't we? The criticizm has as much credibility as the peer review process within the climate pseudoscience community.

Its not really ad hominem, on either of our parts, because we both rely on arguments from authority. So questioning those authorities is perfectly relevant. Therefore no fallacy of relevance (such as the ad hominem) is commited by doing so.

But, if peer review isnt credibile, than neither is co2science, since all their commentary is directly gleaned from (and allegedly supported by) peer review. In fact, they like peer review so much, they try their best to present their own editorial commentary in such a way that its easily mistaken for official abstracts of the papers they review. By criticizing peer review, you undermine yourself here, yet again.

And its still a rather dubious trick to rely upon peer review when you think it supports your case, but then to start complaining about it when it turns out that it might not.

palerider
03-11-2010, 11:45 AM
The problem with your thesis is that I do entertain the possibility that I am mistaken, all the time. I only maintain that, according to the evidence, human caused global warming seems more probable than not.

Based on what? It is hard scientific fact that the saturation point of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere was reached a very long time ago and before we were even a factor. That being the case, upon what evidence do you believe that we are responsible for climate change"


See Pale Rider for the second time, claiming that Jones "admits that the MWP was probably global", even after I pasted his source quote that shows Jones said no such thing.

Try reading for comprehension. I said no such thing. I pointed out that his stance on the MWP has alterd considerably over time.

palerider
03-11-2010, 11:49 AM
Well, my skepticism regarding co2science is really no different than the skepticism you show towards peer review below. The only relevant difference is that co2science, by all acounts, has far less established credibility than does peer review.

Those involved in the peer review process admitted to corrupting the process. I see no such evidence against CO2 science. And since the peer review process within climate science has proven corrupt it has no credibilty. Upon what evidence do you make the claim against CO2 science, the word of those who already corrupted the peer review process?



Its not really ad hominem, on either of our parts, because we both rely on arguments from authority. So questioning those authorities is perfectly relevant. Therefore no fallacy of relevance (such as the ad hominem) is commited by doing so.

I suggest you learn what a circumstnatial ad hominem is.


But, if peer review isnt credibile, than neither is co2science, since all their commentary is directly gleaned from (and allegedly supported by) peer review. In fact, they like peer review so much, they try their best to present their own editorial commentary in such a way that its easily mistaken for official abstracts of the papers they review. By criticizing peer review, you undermine yourself here, yet again.

Data and findings can be correct without peer review.


And its still a rather dubious trick to rely upon peer review when you think it supports your case, but then to start complaining about it when it turns out that it might not.

I don't rely on peer review and never have.