BTW, Demonstrable AGW = 0. Again.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, so 99.99% of climate scientists of the world are completely wrong, but a few untrained republicans have all the answers.
Hmm...

How much training do you need to discover that the spectral absorption characteristics of water is far greater than that of either Carbon Dioxide or Methane, and the stuff makes up 3/4ths of the surface of the planet?

Diffusion increases with heat, so if the global warming theory was correct, then the planet would already be a superheated inferno like Venus.

But yeah, you go believe people who tell you that they need to take control of the planet for your own good. On the other hand, accepting such a demand is probably a natural preference for some people of the Teutonic persuasion.

[Diogenes]

People fall off the fence both ways. If you look at the data, you can't make an intelligent decision because the data is all hokus pokus. We don't have adequate climate models to tell if the doom saying is correct or not. That hasn't stopped the emotionally disturbed adolescents from declaring the end of the world is at hand and it's their parent's fault, nor stopped life's degenerate tricksters from trying to bank a billion by investing in green tech and then pushing the political machine to support his investments.

If the planet is getting warmer while the sun is getting colder, there are reasons to consider the carbon claims. The problem is, that politics and psychology have become so involved that there's almost no room left for real science.

I'd say that's a real problem all on its own.

Years ago I saw a Scientific American article regarding Scientists who support AGW and those who oppose. I started going down the list of Scientists looking at their specialties. Most of the supporters of AGW were scientists in a field unrelated to meteorology or even physics. I saw Anthropologists, Zoologists, Botanists, Paleontologists, and such like.

Among the opponents, it was mostly physicists, Meteorologists, Cosmologists, Geologists, etc. In other words, people whom I would regard as having a much better understanding of the actual science involved.

Needless to say, I thought it was amusing that the AGW supporters believed we should pay attention to them.

[Diogenes]

Look, I am not on the side of the doom sayers either, but it is pretty clear that it has been getting warmer and that pretty quickly. It is hard to deny that looking at the way the glaciers and the ice shelfs at the poles have been declining. I am not 100% sure that it is manmade, but it certainly is not a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
Now, I might be wrong but that sounds like "climate scientist" to me.

You aren't reading the proper websites. Stay on mainstream media sites, and you will only get the propaganda line.

Try reading this guy's stuff for awhile.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/


He often comes up with information that you won't see anywhere else, or if you do, it's much later after he first posted it. Here's a story linked from his website.




http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/july-w ... st-months/

[Skipjack]

Among the opponents, it was mostly physicists, Meteorologists, Cosmologists, Geologists, etc.

Name one of each that is an opponent. Just curious.

[palladin9479]

Yeah, so 99.99% of climate scientists of the world are completely wrong, but a few untrained republicans have all the answers.
Hmm...

No such thing as "climate science", its not a science at all. Climatology is considered a "soft" science like psychology. There are no facts, empirical studies, no theorems and nearly no application of the scientific method. It's just collecting statistics and running numbers, no actual foot work required other then occasionally sticking a ruler into the ground to gather measurements. And typically those aren't done by "climate scientists" but by meteorologists, atmospheric physicists (bet you didn't even know those guys existed) or glaciologists (bet you didn't know those guys existed either).

There is no doubt the worlds getting warmer, just like hundreds of years ago it was getting colder, and hundreds of years before that it was getting warmer. The earth does that, warm -> cold -> warm -> cold -> warm -> cold -> very warm -> (sun explodes). So getting overly excited that it's getting warmer is rather stupid.

Not a single proposed model from the "climatologists" has actually predicted anything. Inputting past data gets you fireball earth scenario in the 1800's. No matter the data you put into Mann's "lost" formula (that was later reverse engineered) you get fireball earth. Put in an approaching ice age and the earth explodes into Venus like proportions. That is why I can't believe anything these people say, as long as their acting like a political party, black balling opponents and trying to down out malcontent, instead of a true science group then I do believe most of the worlds hard scientists won't believe them either.

Science is done by gathering data, proposing a theory, gathering more data (conducting tests / experiments) checking that data against your theory, then doing it all over again until your positive it's right. Then you hand it over to the critics for them to validate and attempt to prove wrong. If they can prove you wrong (falsifiability) then you need to go back to the drawing board. It's that last step that has been totally and completely skipped.

AGW theory as it stands is not a theory, it lacks falsifiability, the ability to be proven wrong. It's the gold standard on whether a theory is logical or not.

EG:
Problem: She's a witch! We need to prove it.
Theory: If she's a witch then she'll float
Problem: What if she drowns?
Theory Part 2: Then obviously she's a witch or else God would of saved her.

Experiment: Throw girl into water, if she swims kill her as she's a witch, if she drowns then she's already dead and still a witch.

Same logic was used by climate scientists. If the world is getting hotter then it must be CO2, if the world gets cold then it's CO2.

[seedload]

More scientific than their arguments in favor of man-made global warming.

Anyone remember this bit of propaganda that backfired on them?

http://youtu.be/JfnddMpzPsM


Yup, it revealed exactly what they are. Funny that they didn't regard the blatant murder of dissidents as an objectionable thing.

Yeah, and then "they" likened the opposition to the Unibomber. Those bastards.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/ ... -skeptics/

Oh, wait. I lost track of who "they" is?

It has been my experience that one leftist loon is much like another. They are all sanity challenged in my opinion, else they wouldn't be leftists. Those capable of rational thinking give up leftism after a few years. Milton Friedman, Roger Simon, and Charlton Heston come to mind.

While you may see no distinction between advocating the murders of many people with whom you disagree and the comparing of the class of green loons with a specific green loon, most people would hardly regard them as being similar.

On a separate but related point, I don't suppose you know what is a tu quoque argument ?

I do. I wasn't really arguing that your notion that the specific ad referenced wasn't terrible. It obviously was. That was a valid point and one that I don't discredit.

What I was pointing out was that you seemed to imply that the ad was an indictment of ALL liberal AGW proponents. It wasn't. It was specific stupid ones, not necessarily the masses. Further, when you generically used the word "they" to refer to all AGW proponents as if they were both necessarily liberal and necessarily as extremist as those sponsoring those horrible ads, I found it a disturbing generalization. As an argument against the generalization, I think pointing out that "they" is too inclusive by expanding the notion of "they" is not that bad an argument. I was just pointing out the irony of that generalization by using one of my own, that all conservative skeptics of AGW would run an ad comparing believers in AGW to the Unibomber. I suppose that you can consider this an ad hominem attack against your hypocrisy if you want. But since your original argument was so muddied by your generalizations, it is hard to even figure out what position of yours I was apparently using a logical fallacy to discredit.

Further, the ad I referenced was NOT comparing green extremists to the Unibomber. It was comparing ALLl believers in AGW to the Unibomber. There are tons of people who accept AGW theory who would not qualify as either green or extreme. The ad says "believe". As to whether the Unibomber is a green extremist, I really don't know. I have read a summary of his Manifesto and it does seem to have some evolutionary roots perspective to it, but I didn't think that equated to a back to nature conclusion similar to the Move group. Whatever. As I said, I am not a Unibomber scholar.

I am pretty sure that if he was grouped with Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, and Osama bin Laden, who were the next planned "believers" in AGW for the heartlands campaign, that you wouldn't be making the claim that they were simply comparing greens to green extremists.

Finally, I don't think that you can really say that the joke of the ad that you reference was the equivalent of advocating for murder. The ad was obviously a joke that, despite being in very bad taste, was so over the top that it obviously didn't represent any real advocacy. At least that the impression of this particular AGW skeptic.

[randomencounter]

Yeah, the whole "climate change" thing is some nutty marketing idea.

The simple fact is that the astronomical temperature of Earth is a fairly constant 300K if I recall my sums correctly.

As with all facts in the real world, it isn't really that simple.

All astronomical bodies have a variety of different surfaces at different wavelengths. For simple bodies like asteroids or airless planets these surfaces are mostly the solid surface of the body. Once you add an atmosphere into the mix it gets much more complex. CO2 is nearly opaque in certain portions of the infrared, which are different than the bands absorbed by water vapor and methane. This means that as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, Earth's emission surface for those frequencies in the 300K emission spectrum is pushed up to progressively higher altitudes resulting in more heat stored below the emission surface.

More heat => higher average temperature.

But, of course, you all know that isn't the *whole* story, not nearly.

The astrophysics calculations to show the altitude of the average emission boundary for Earth is relatively simple given the atmospheric concentrations of the various gasses that absorb significant IR, but we are dealing with a system that has a variation in temperature on the order of 1/3 the absolute temperature of the system.
It isn't that unusual for Earth to have areas at 240K and 350K at the same time. That much of a natural variation in the system means that showing where the additional heat from the higher 300K surface has gone, is right now, and will go is ridiculously complicated, and makes it easy for people with an agenda to cast doubt on any results arrived at because it's likely that fewer people actually understand every part of the system completely than really have a firm grasp of quantum mechanics.

<breathe direction="in"/>

So, just because your pet data set shows that some region is experiencing cooling with carefully chosen sites over a time period chosen to support the case, the fundamental principle is unchanged and the net results are not just unchanged but as inevitable as rocks falling off a mountainside.

You just didn't happen to be standing under those particular rocks this time.
[Edit] Scale correction and extra word...

[seedload]

Yeah, so 99.99% of climate scientists of the world are completely wrong, but a few untrained republicans have all the answers.
Hmm...

About what?

It isn't clear what you are responding to and therefore it isn't clear what you believe that only one climate scientist out of every ten thousand climate scientists disagrees with. I am curious.

[seedload]

The simple fact is that the astronomical temperature of Earth is a fairly constant 300K if I recall my sums correctly.

Not a simple fact. A dubious assumption. The idea that global temperature should be fairly constant is a major point of disagreement. Certainly it is necessary for this assumption to be true for the recent observed rise in temperature to be significant. It's the entire reason that the Mann hockey stick was so important to the IPCC. AGW theory needs to establish not only temperature rise but that this temperature rise is unprecedented. Since there is no real data of precedent, the IPCC relies on proxy reconstructions that show that temperature is invariant. It is not he blade of the stick that is in dispute, but the flat shaft, and this is a very highly disputed topic.

[seedload]

...I was willing to concede the possibility that even a blind squirrel might find an acorn once in a while.

Then I saw the spectra-graphic absorption characteristics of Water Vapor and I realized, "Yup. Liberals are idiots. They are wrong about this too."

Look up the Spectral-graphic absorption characteristics of Water Vapor and tell me why we aren't an 800 degree inferno, like Venus.

Looking at anything beyond water vapor is a waste of time.

When you argue about water vapor overwhelming CO2 or that CO2 is saturated, you are arguing against a simplified explanation of AGW theory not against actual AGW theory. Actual theory basically agrees with you for the lower atmosphere but things change higher up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -argument/

I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I am just saying that you shouldn't dismiss global warming due to your brief perusal of spectra-graphic absorption characteristics without a little deeper look.

[GIThruster]

I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I am just saying that you shouldn't dismiss global warming due to your brief perusal of spectra-graphic absorption characteristics without a little deeper look.

That is really the issue. Now glance back at this thread and consider how many people posting here have already made up their minds--nearly all.

How many are experts in the data?

None.

How many have significant knowledge of the actual data?

None.

How many have shown an understanding of even the relevance of the first post?

None.

And when you look at the work of those who claim to be experts, you don't get better behavior.

[randomencounter]

The simple fact is that the astronomical temperature of Earth is a fairly constant 300K if I recall my sums correctly.

Not a simple fact. A dubious assumption. The idea that global temperature should be fairly constant is a major point of disagreement. Certainly it is necessary for this assumption to be true for the recent observed rise in temperature to be significant. It's the entire reason that the Mann hockey stick was so important to the IPCC. AGW theory needs to establish not only temperature rise but that this temperature rise is unprecedented. Since there is no real data of precedent, the IPCC relies on proxy reconstructions that show that temperature is invariant. It is not he blade of the stick that is in dispute, but the flat shaft, and this is a very highly disputed topic.

The astronomical temperature of a body is simply the equilibrium point where energy added to the planet (mostly from the nearest star) is equal to the energy emitted from the planet (or asteroid/moon/spaceship).

There's a slight modification due to energy intrinsic to the planet from fissionables in the core and heat left over from planetary formation, but that is constant on shorter timescales and slowly declining on longer ones.

With both inputs to surface temperature and the fact that there is single output taken into account the result is a single constant temperature that only varies as the inputs vary.

For AGW theory to be valid, it doesn't need to prove half the things you say it does. All it needs to prove is that there is a mechanism by which humans are causing more of the inbound solar energy to be retained than would have been absent human action.

One mechanism (of several) is the release of CO2 from the burning of cubic miles of fossil fuels world-wide. This feeds into the atmospheric effect I described above. The waste heat from the production of the CO2 is also a contributor, but I think the consensus is that it is minimal compared to the solar contribution retained by the additional CO2.

The additional retention of heat is split between an increase in thermometer temperature of air, water, and land, and an increased depth of the "visible" atmosphere at the wavelengths of interest.

This suggests that a factor to look at that I don't recall seeing in any of the literature is world-wide snow lines.

[seedload]

The simple fact is that the astronomical temperature of Earth is a fairly constant 300K if I recall my sums correctly.

Not a simple fact. A dubious assumption. The idea that global temperature should be fairly constant is a major point of disagreement. Certainly it is necessary for this assumption to be true for the recent observed rise in temperature to be significant. It's the entire reason that the Mann hockey stick was so important to the IPCC. AGW theory needs to establish not only temperature rise but that this temperature rise is unprecedented. Since there is no real data of precedent, the IPCC relies on proxy reconstructions that show that temperature is invariant. It is not he blade of the stick that is in dispute, but the flat shaft, and this is a very highly disputed topic.

The astronomical temperature of a body is simply the equilibrium point where energy added to the planet (mostly from the nearest star) is equal to the energy emitted from the planet (or asteroid/moon/spaceship).

There's a slight modification due to energy intrinsic to the planet from fissionables in the core and heat left over from planetary formation, but that is constant on shorter timescales and slowly declining on longer ones.

With both inputs to surface temperature and the fact that there is single output taken into account the result is a single constant temperature that only varies as the inputs vary.

For AGW theory to be valid, it doesn't need to prove half the things you say it does. All it needs to prove is that there is a mechanism by which humans are causing more of the inbound solar energy to be retained than would have been absent human action.

One mechanism (of several) is the release of CO2 from the burning of cubic miles of fossil fuels world-wide. This feeds into the atmospheric effect I described above. The waste heat from the production of the CO2 is also a contributor, but I think the consensus is that it is minimal compared to the solar contribution retained by the additional CO2.

The additional retention of heat is split between an increase in thermometer temperature of air, water, and land, and an increased depth of the "visible" atmosphere at the wavelengths of interest.

This suggests that a factor to look at that I don't recall seeing in any of the literature is world-wide snow lines.

I don't understand what you are trying to say?

The blackbody temperature of the Earth is something like 255K. Yes, there exist atmospheric mechanisms that affect the energy fluxes of the planet to raise the temperature above that of a blackbody. I guess the resultant temperature is what you are calling the astronomical temperature. All I said was that the astronomical temperature was not necessarily "fairly constant". You say as much by saying that "other factors" can influence it.

Yes, there seems to be an established mechanism by which additional CO2 could cause global warming. However, just demonstrating a mechanism by which additional CO2 can cause warming is NOT enough to say that it will cause warming. You need to either (1) show how the whole system will react or you need to (2) prove it through real world data.

The IPCC tries to do the first using computer models. Calculations of the mechanism for CO2 raising temperatures show temperature rise much less than the IPCC predicts. The computer models use positive feedbacks to get much worse results than pure math provides. Whether these models are valid is heavily disputed.

The IPCC tries to do the second by providing current data that shows temperature is going up and reconstructing past temperature to show that the current temperature rise is unprecedented (your fairly constant astronomical temperature). This combined with data that shows a concurrent CO2 rise is used as evidence that CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. The evidence that past temperature is fairly constant is highly disputed.

Regards

[randomencounter]

Real world data shows warming (including the data linked at the top of this thread).

There is a theoretical mechanism to explain the warming and humanity is tweaking that mechanism as hard as we possibly can.

So of course since every little wiggle in a global weather system with a variation of almost half it's absolute value must individually support this warming trend or AGW is a lie.

I call shenanigans.

[GIThruster]

Real world data shows warming (including the data linked at the top of this thread).

No, it doesn't. All of the data to date is local. NASA and NOAA plan to change this with several sat missions that will be able to better monitor the average temperature of the planet in the future, but thus far there are no reliable methods to monitor the planet's temperature, and future methods will be of very little value for a few decades, and that data has to be matched with equally detailed data concerning the average temperature of the Sun, which we also do not yet have.

This is one of the problems we have with people posturing the way you are, because you actually get people to believe your nonsense when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. We honestly DO NOT KNOW if the planet's average temperature is rising or falling. It is because temperature is dynamic and constantly changing from place to place that one cannot use local measurements unless one then makes all sorts of extrapolations each of which entail assumptions that are unwarranted. We not only need sat data, we need deep space sat data. LEO simply will not do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space ... bservatory