The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 54996 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I see the increased variability as something so obviously bad the the fact that I'm not qualified to discuss it professionally in detail as a non-issue.
However, exactly which bits of it are worst isn't really important, since it's pretty much all bad.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I see the increased variability as something so obviously bad the the fact that I'm not qualified to discuss it professionally in detail as a non-issue.
However, exactly which bits of it are worst isn't really important, since it's pretty much all bad.

You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems.

I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work.

The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?

I would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems. "
It's hard to discuss them when you refuse to accept that they exist.

"I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work. "
I can't help what you do, or don't see. But even a few years ago there was enough evidence to fill an hour of television about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x

"The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?
"
Not, it's not at all sure.
I already addressed that and you are complacently ignoring it.

" would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble."

And I'd very much like you to answer the question I have asked repeatedly.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Why do you think you are right and all the experts are wrong?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 51 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The problem is the inter-connectedness of everything. What Tim doesn't appreciate is the delicate balance in the natural world. Ecosystems can be devastated by even subtle changes that seem too small to matter. Civilisations can be overturned by such changes.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.
Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?

If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there  wouldn't be  scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
 And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?

But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.


I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.

A critical thinker would say that weather and climate change is not something that just appeared in the past 100 years. These things are part of what the earth has done for millions of years. The question I would ask, if we normalize the data gather methods, using the methods we use for weather 1M year ago; tree rings, ice core samples, how would the past compare to the present.

Modern data gathering gives us a second by second picture, which you can't see with tree rings. This will create the illusion that there is more variability today. Has anyone investigated normalizing the data gathering methods to see how well they compare? You can't tell day to day weather and rainbows by tree rings. But you can with photography and satellites.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.
Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?

If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there  wouldn't be  scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
 And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?

But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.
I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.

The Right (note the capital letter btw) is trying to avoid teaching logic at all.
However if you think your point is true please supply some evidence for it- but obviously, not in this thread.

But, on the subject of " you have it backwards" perhaps you can explain something
There is no doubt that there's more CO2 in the air.
There's no doubt that we put it there (we know how much oil we burned essentially because we know how much profit the oil companies made; the figures tally).

So, how can AGW not happen?

It's like the people who don't believe in eveolution.
When you ask them how come it doesn't happen they start to look at their shoes and mumble.
Unless you say "God resets it every night" there's no way round the fact of evolution- never-mind the evidence that it happens; what could stop it doings so?

Well, in the same way,
Given the fact that CO2 absorbs IR as it does; what stops it being a greenhouse gas.
What stops more of it being a more effective greenhouse gas?
 (and please don't waste time talking about saturated transitions- I'm a spectroscopist).

If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
First of all, about 50% of the energy given off by the sun is in IR. This means extra CO2 not only keeps the heat in the earth, but it also IR out. My prediction is temperature should rise slower than all the models predict. This is what the hard data says.

One question to ask is, why did man made global warming rebrand itself into climate change? It was like Coke brand becoming the New Coke brand.  One likely reason is the temperature rise has been less than what is being predicted by the models, thereby lending doubt about other predictions and the strength of the CO2 affect. There is a door open in the greenhouse, that is really due to some CO2 cloth shrouded, keeping out heat.

Climate change was chosen as the new branding, because this is less quantitative and more qualitative. Anything can be called climate change. There is no clear objective standard, like temperature. This means if children see a rainbow for the first time, it could be due to climate change.

Another problem, that is more subtle is, modern weather and climate is monitored, in real time, globally. Whereas the weather and climate, more than 150 years ago, has to be inferred from things like ice core samples and tree rings. This type of data does not show the same variety, day to day. Modern tools will always show more stuff.

As an example of how this can impact optics and perception, for fun, I would like to make the prediction that man made global warming is responsible for more rainbows. If you do a Google search, "rainbows", under images, you can see all types of pictures of rainbows, nearly all of which were taken in the past 10 years. 

Next, try to find a picture of a rainbow from 500 years ago or say 100,000 year ago. There is no pictorial evidence that rainbows ever existed before the invention of color photography. 

We all know my fun claim is false and misleading. We can infer that rainbows existed in the distant past, based on the physics of light and water bubbles. But to convince the laymen, you will need to teach them the basic physics needed to allow them to make this inference. Good luck with that, if the paid consensus says the preponderance of the hard data says more rainbows in the past 100 years, compared to any time in the history of the earth.

Technically this is correct, since all we have before the invention of photography, is wives tales, anecdotes and inference that rainbows occurred, which is not hard data, per se. If you can't agree there is more hard data, today, then you are not a real scientist. I got you on a technicality of science.

Even if critical thinking people can accept the inference o rainbows before first color photo in 1861, how would quantify the inference, so you can compare the numbers to refute my claim? This is where we need to go even farther away from the layman. It is so much easier to count photos. Climate change was chosen because like rainbows, modern tools will have more hard data. While the path of inference days is riddled with holes that only experts can appreciate, who can be easily discredited.

This is why I suggested doing a comparison using only the crude tools that are used for ancient climate. Both will be limited in the same way, so we have apples to apples.

I saw a study where a scientists did just this and compared the last 1200 years. He found that the modern trends were within the parameters of the larger trend. I forgot where I saw it but this is recent. I don;t have time now, but I will try to find it.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"First of all, about 50% of the energy given off by the sun is in IR. This means extra CO2 not only keeps the heat in the earth, but it also IR out. "
Flat out wrong.
The CO2 that is the Earth's atmosphere is part of the Earth so, when the heat is absorbed by the CO2 in that atmosphere it is absorbed by the Earth. That's not "keeping it out", that's "keeping it IN"
But thanks for showing how little you are concerned about the truth in this matter.

"One question to ask is, why did man made global warming re brand itself into climate change? "
Another question is "how much wood could a wood chuck chuck?"
But asking that in the current circumstances is plainly trying to detract attention from the question you were asked.
So, why not stop talking cobblers and answer the question?

If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
First of all, about 50% of the energy given off by the sun is in IR. This means extra CO2 not only keeps the heat in the earth, but it also IR out. My prediction is temperature should rise slower than all the models predict. This is what the hard data says.

It's too bad for you that the greenhouse effect is about visible light being absorbed at the surface of the Earth and reradiated as infrared light (in addition to what Bored chemist said). Then some of that new infrared light is then trapped increasing the overall heat at the surface. This would be the third time I've told you this. If I have to continue to repeat myself my opinion of your desire to actually have a discussion about this is going to suffer.

Also, there is no actual hard data showing that the temperature rise is slower than the models. Here is a good explanation (far too complex to quote here):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

The following is also useful:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm

In short there is no data supporting your assertion.

Quote
One question to ask is, why did man made global warming rebrand itself into climate change? It was like Coke brand becoming the New Coke brand.  One likely reason is the temperature rise has been less than what is being predicted by the models, thereby lending doubt about other predictions and the strength of the CO2 affect. There is a door open in the greenhouse, that is really due to some CO2 cloth shrouded, keeping out heat.

Climate change was chosen as the new branding, because this is less quantitative and more qualitative. Anything can be called climate change. There is no clear objective standard, like temperature. This means if children see a rainbow for the first time, it could be due to climate change.

Except that isn't what happened at all:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Quote
Another problem, that is more subtle is, modern weather and climate is monitored, in real time, globally. Whereas the weather and climate, more than 150 years ago, has to be inferred from things like ice core samples and tree rings. This type of data does not show the same variety, day to day. Modern tools will always show more stuff.

As an example of how this can impact optics and perception, for fun, I would like to make the prediction that man made global warming is responsible for more rainbows. If you do a Google search, "rainbows", under images, you can see all types of pictures of rainbows, nearly all of which were taken in the past 10 years. In fact, of the pictures of rainbow you will find, may correlate to the invention of the cell phone?

Next, try to find a picture of a rainbow from 500 years ago or say 100,000 year ago. There is no pictorial evidence that rainbows ever existed before the invention of color photography. 

We all know my fun claim is false and misleading. We can infer that rainbows existed in the distant past, based on the physics of light and water bubbles. But to convince the laymen, you will need to teach them the basic physics needed to allow them to make this inference. Good luck with that, if the paid consensus says the preponderance of the hard data says more rainbows in the past 100 years, compared to any time in the history of the earth.

Technically this is correct, since all we have before the invention of photography, is wives tales, anecdotes and inference that rainbows occurred, which is not hard data, per se. If you can't agree there is more hard data, today, then you are not a real scientist. I got you on a technicality of science.

Even if critical thinking people can accept the inference o rainbows before first color photo in 1861, how would quantify the inference, so you can compare the numbers to refute my claim? This is where we need to go even farther away from the layman. It is so much easier to count photos. Climate change was chosen because like rainbows, modern tools will have more hard data. While the path of inference days is riddled with holes that only experts can appreciate, who can be easily discredited.

This is why I suggested doing a comparison using only the crude tools that are used for ancient climate. Both will be limited in the same way, so we have apples to apples.

I saw a study where a scientists did just this and compared the last 1200 years. He found that the modern trends were within the parameters of the larger trend. I forgot where I saw it but this is recent. I don;t have time now, but I will try to find it.

Nope yet again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Specifically toward the bottom there is a comparison between some normally used paleo records and actual temperature measurements for the same time periods. The paleo records agree with each other and the modern measurements. Turns out scientists actually know what they are talking about and are generally very careful about data collection and interpretation. Of course anyone that actually understands how science is done already knows that.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Quote
The researchers from Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have for the first time reconstructed the variations in water availability across the Northern Hemisphere seamless for the past twelve centuries. This allows for comparisons between various parts of Europe, Asia, and North America.

The study shows that hydroclimate extremes have been stronger and covered larger areas in some earlier centuries than during the twentieth century, explains lead author Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist from Stockholm University.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160406165534.htm

Manmade global warming, due to CO2, should mean more water in the atmosphere since the solubility of water in the atmosphere will increase with temperature. This group has shown there was actually more water in play, at other times of the past, compared to the present. However, this is not correlate to temperature. There is something being left out of the model, by those who know how to collect data. Collecting data is different from analyzing data.

Even if the temperature is going up, due to CO2, their study shows that temperature rise alone does not correspond to wide spread climate change, since climate change is connected to the water in play. In fact, the articles says they found worse droughts in cooler times.

Quote
The scientists compared their reconstructed hydroclimate variations with a new temperature reconstruction they also developed, to understand links between the two. It turned out that only a few regions showed clear correlations between changes in temperature and hydroclimate. For instance, drought was most widespread during both the relatively warm twelfth century and the relatively cold fifteenth century.

There only appears to be more rainbows, today, than in the past, because it was assumed too difficult for renegade scientists to correlate the past under the peer pressure review process.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2016 12:48:14 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Let me discuss one more aspect of the optics for manmade global warming, that is more subtle and seems to fool even top notch scientists. The human brain is the most important tool of science. However, there is no rule in science that requires that the this brain instrument needs to be calibrated. What would happen if the GC of the chemist was not properly calibrate. He would see things that are not there and miss things that are there, even if he has the best of intent.

To show how one aspect needed for mind calibration, let me first compare pure science to applied science. I am more of an applied scientist, which is why I have so many theories for the same thing; contriver. Pure science faithfully collects data, from which the laws of science appear; correlate. Applied science is different. This type of science begins with the laws of science, as a platform, to create new things, that may not part of nature, but nevertheless may have practical use; tools.

A classic example is of the difference between the two is metallic aluminum. Aluminum cannot be found as a pure metal in nature. This is because aluminum will oxidize with so much heat output, there is hardly any natural process that can reverse this. The pure scientist will not find aluminum metal in nature. Applied science, on the other hand, can make metallic aluminum using electricity.

Say a pure scientists, gathering natural data, found some metallic aluminum. He is not passing any judgment, but systematically collecting the data. He brings it back to his colleagues and all assume this was natural. They are not aware this is a product of applied science, because this invention is new and still secretly protected by patents.

If this was a real natural discover, this discovery could have a ripple effect in terms of how pure science thinks the earth works. In other words, to get to metallic aluminum, the earth will need to be governed by some new laws, such as have a source of electricity. This need, could then lead some to think the iron core is sending out sparks to the surface. This could explain the return stroke of lightning, etc. I am just making this up, as an illustration of the ripple affect, that assuming  applied science is natural.

A pure scientist is not trained to extrapolate pure science, to serve the needs of industry and culture. His mind is more set around  collecting natural data and correlating this to what we know to about the natural universe. The applied scientist, is cut from a different cloth, and is not concerned about natural, other than to using this as a platform, for adding the human touch to nature. Anything is possible beyond that.

Certain problems can appear if either overlaps the other too much. The applied scientist can think he just invented something, only to find out this is natural. The applied chemistry may spend years synthesizing a new molecule that wakes you up, only to find out this is already in coffee; whoops! Or the pure scientist may think he found a new phenomena, that can change how we view nature, only to find out this is not natural. There is synthetic mechanism, and not any big ripple in natural science.

The latter is interesting, because this is how magic works. Magic is based on science, which extrapolate natural laws, by contrivance. The object of any trick is do what appears to extend the laws of nature. If his lovely assistant flies around the stage, then the laws of gravity, have just been blown wide open.

This magic tricks requires extrapolation of the known laws science; physical and psychological, so the output data of the experiment (trick) appears to generate data for the pure scientist, in each of us. The magician places metallic aluminum in the woods of the mind so it looks to belong there. The hope is the audience of layman pure scientists will extrapolate this to the logical natural limit; flying around the stage is possible. 

The layman can understand basic science, but he may not understand how to invent from this. Magic only needs you to understand the basics, such as gravity pulls downward. They don't expect the audience to be full of applied scientists working on an anti-gravity device and has eliminated many options. That person knows what to look for and will try to find the secret, if it does exist, to help his own research. This is not a guy the magician wants in the audience, especially if he is spoils the trick. It works better with layman natural scientists.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Let me discuss one more aspect of the optics for manmade global warming, that is more subtle and seems to fool even top notch scientists. The human brain is the most important tool of science. However, there is no rule in science that requires that the this brain instrument needs to be calibrated. What would happen if the GC of the chemist was not properly calibrate. He would see things that are not there and miss things that are there, even if he has the best of intent.

To show how one aspect needed for mind calibration, let me first compare pure science to applied science. I am more of an applied scientist, which is why I have so many theories for the same thing; contriver. Pure science faithfully collects data, from which the laws of science appear; correlate. Applied science is different. This type of science begins with the laws of science, as a platform, to create new things, that may not part of nature, but nevertheless may have practical use; tools.

A classic example is of the difference between the two is metallic aluminum. Aluminum cannot be found as a pure metal in nature. This is because aluminum will oxidize with so much heat output, there is hardly any natural process that can reverse this. The pure scientist will not find aluminum metal in nature. Applied science, on the other hand, can make metallic aluminum using electricity.

Say a pure scientists, gathering natural data, found some metallic aluminum. He is not passing any judgment, but systematically collecting the data. He brings it back to his colleagues and all assume this was natural. They are not aware this is a product of applied science, because this invention is new and still secretly protected by patents.

If this was a real natural discover, this discovery could have a ripple effect in terms of how pure science thinks the earth works. In other words, to get to metallic aluminum, the earth will need to be governed by some new laws, such as have a source of electricity. This need, could then lead some to think the iron core is sending out sparks to the surface. This could explain the return stroke of lightning, etc. I am just making this up, as an illustration of the ripple affect, that assuming  applied science is natural.

A pure scientist is not trained to extrapolate pure science, to serve the needs of industry and culture. His mind is more set around  collecting natural data and correlating this to what we know to about the natural universe. The applied scientist, is cut from a different cloth, and is not concerned about natural, other than to using this as a platform, for adding the human touch to nature. Anything is possible beyond that.

Certain problems can appear if either overlaps the other too much. The applied scientist can think he just invented something, only to find out this is natural. The applied chemistry may spend years synthesizing a new molecule that wakes you up, only to find out this is already in coffee; whoops! Or the pure scientist may think he found a new phenomena, that can change how we view nature, only to find out this is not natural. There is synthetic mechanism, and not any big ripple in natural science.

The latter is interesting, because this is how magic works. Magic is based on science, which extrapolate natural laws, by contrivance. The object of any trick is do what appears to extend the laws of nature. If his lovely assistant flies around the stage, then the laws of gravity, have just been blown wide open.

This magic tricks requires extrapolation of the known laws science; physical and psychological, so the output data of the experiment (trick) appears to generate data for the pure scientist, in each of us. The magician places metallic aluminum in the woods of the mind so it looks to belong there. The hope is the audience of layman pure scientists will extrapolate this to the logical natural limit; flying around the stage is possible. 

The layman can understand basic science, but he may not understand how to invent from this. Magic only needs you to understand the basics, such as gravity pulls downward. They don't expect the audience to be full of applied scientists working on an anti-gravity device and has eliminated many options. That person knows what to look for and will try to find the secret, if it does exist, to help his own research. This is not a guy the magician wants in the audience, especially if he is spoils the trick. It works better with layman natural scientists.
It might be better for you if you typed less.
You might make fewer mistakes that way.
So, for example, your point about an uncalibrated instrument- well- that's what laboratory inter comparisons and reference materials are for.
You analyse those, see that you are not getting the right answer and so you find out what the problem is.
You, on the other hand, know that you are out of step with science, but plough on anyway.

You are also flat out wrong about the pure vs applied science.
Aluminium was first isolated as a metal by Oersted- doing pure science. (There are also some reports of it occurring as a metal in nature- but that's hardly the point.)
There is no difference between pure and applied scientists in the way you imply.
So- you don't know what you are talking about.

You also seem to have got lost in your rant.
You started that posy by saying "Let me discuss one more aspect of the optics for manmade global warming, that is more subtle and seems to fool even top notch scientists. "
then you didn't say anything about it.
Are you an idiot?

At the end of the day you have forgotten to address the important issue:
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
"You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems. "
It's hard to discuss them when you refuse to accept that they exist.

You claim that they exist. It is for you to back up this claim. I cannot talk about such things that you will not specify.

Quote
"I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work. "
I can't help what you do, or don't see. But even a few years ago there was enough evidence to fill an hour of television about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x

Somebody could easily make an hour long TV program about the world being flat.

Here is a study saying that our present expectation of normal waether/climate witjout any influence of CO2 is very much a rose tinted thing;


Quote
http://acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-reveal-risks-for-water-supply/

“The study showed that modern climate records, which are available for the past one hundred years at best, do not capture the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred,” Dr Tozer said.[/size][/color]

Quote
"The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?
"
Not, it's not at all sure.
I already addressed that and you are complacently ignoring it.

Do you think that a warmer, wetter world with more abundant CO2 would be a more fertile world for plant growth? Excluding other factors. So we can look at storms and droughts separately. So we can actually advance the discussion by agreeing what we agree on etc?

Quote
" would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble."

And I'd very much like you to answer the question I have asked repeatedly.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

1. Predictions they made which were accuracte, with low margins for error which they got right.

and

2. Predictions they make which show something bad which would not be easily countered by the state in question spending the same on countering it as they presently spend upon traffic lights.


Quote
Why do you think you are right and all the experts are wrong?

I think some experts are wrong. I think lots of them are right. I think most of those who think that there is no significant trouble are saying stuff in a legal way that allows them to make noises that sound to the believers like they are part of the cult whilst being able to point to it in a few years and show that they never said anything untrue.

I live in a world where I am told that I will be sacked if I don't attach myslf to the "man safe" system of a harness and inertial laniard to work on the roof of the school I am working on. The harness is designed in such a way that if I was to fall in it it would hold me in such a way that I would be unable to breath. After 10 minutes I would be expected to be dead if suspended in it. I don't use the harness and even when I am unable to get away with not having it on I make sure that it is not securely attached to anything in the hope that if I do fall the thing will not snag and crucify me after tearing my scrotum appart. This often also happens.

Climbing harnesses allow you to fall 140m and climb back up to have another go. These are not allowed.

I live in a world where people tell me that the experts say that Bangladesh will be flooded and all the people will start a war to get away from the rising seas. This will happen due to a 1m rise in sea level over the next 100 years. Bangladesh gets at least 2cm of sediment dumped on it every monsoon.

Every bit of this AGW subject I look at falls appart.

Your avoidance of the questions is typical of somebody who knows really but is in deep denial.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2016 10:03:18 by Tim the Plumber »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
The problem is the inter-connectedness of everything. What Tim doesn't appreciate is the delicate balance in the natural world. Ecosystems can be devastated by even subtle changes that seem too small to matter. Civilisations can be overturned by such changes.

You, and others, do not appreciate the robustness of nature.

The types of people who are the skeptics are the types of people who are not all that risk averse. Those who think the world will end due to slight changes are the same who have never taken a risk.

Here is a simple quiz;

What have you ever done in your live and career that was a deliberate risk which you took because you thought the reward was worth the risk?

My example; I renovated a house in Rotherham, investing my savings and using debt to make a sucess of the project. I also did the same in France but that has been a financial disaster.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.
Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?

If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there  wouldn't be  scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
 And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?

But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.
I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.

The Right (note the capital letter btw) is trying to avoid teaching logic at all.
However if you think your point is true please supply some evidence for it- but obviously, not in this thread.

But, on the subject of " you have it backwards" perhaps you can explain something
There is no doubt that there's more CO2 in the air.
There's no doubt that we put it there (we know how much oil we burned essentially because we know how much profit the oil companies made; the figures tally).

So, how can AGW not happen?

It's like the people who don't believe in eveolution.
When you ask them how come it doesn't happen they start to look at their shoes and mumble.
Unless you say "God resets it every night" there's no way round the fact of evolution- never-mind the evidence that it happens; what could stop it doings so?

Well, in the same way,
Given the fact that CO2 absorbs IR as it does; what stops it being a greenhouse gas.
What stops more of it being a more effective greenhouse gas?
 (and please don't waste time talking about saturated transitions- I'm a spectroscopist).

If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

Answer;

1, Water vapour does almost everything that CO2 does already.

2, The effect of CO2, even if we ignore the water vapour thing, is not enough to warrant any panic. The IPCC et al add strange positive feedback effects to the initial figures to push them upwards.

3, Even with these add-ons the numbers that come out of the IPCC do not scare me at all. The effects seem to be well within the capacity for humans to cope with with tiny changes to livestyle. Changes like taking the jumper off and buying a new garden chair.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Answer;

1, Water vapour does almost everything that CO2 does already.

2, The effect of CO2, even if we ignore the water vapour thing, is not enough to warrant any panic. The IPCC et al add strange positive feedback effects to the initial figures to push them upwards.

3, Even with these add-ons the numbers that come out of the IPCC do not scare me at all. The effects seem to be well within the capacity for humans to cope with with tiny changes to livestyle. Changes like taking the jumper off and buying a new garden chair.

2
It's true that water vapour absorbs IR- but not at the same wavelengths as CO2 so the effects both drive independently in the same direction.
2 if we don't ignore the water (and it seems we agree that's the sensible approach- since you raised it) then you have to account for what the effect will be.

You haven't even tried to show that additional CO2 doesn't cause additional warming- so let's assume that the denialist fairy doesn't undo that warming.
We add CO2 to the air- it gets a bit warmer.
That encourages the evaporation of more water - that increases the concentration of water in the air.
And, since (as we both agree) that is a potent greenhouse gas, we get even more warming.

Why do you try to write that off as "strange positive feedback effects" when it's pretty much the obvious outcome?

3
Extreme weather events already kill lots of people every year.
Your complacency threatens  even more lives.
Don't you consider people's lives to be important- as long as you can still waste energy as you always have?


And, at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my point.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile


Answer;

1, Water vapour does almost everything that CO2 does already.

2, The effect of CO2, even if we ignore the water vapour thing, is not enough to warrant any panic. The IPCC et al add strange positive feedback effects to the initial figures to push them upwards.

3, Even with these add-ons the numbers that come out of the IPCC do not scare me at all. The effects seem to be well within the capacity for humans to cope with with tiny changes to livestyle. Changes like taking the jumper off and buying a new garden chair.

2
It's true that water vapour absorbs IR- but not at the same wavelengths as CO2 so the effects both drive independently in the same direction.
2 if we don't ignore the water (and it seems we agree that's the sensible approach- since you raised it) then you have to account for what the effect will be.

You haven't even tried to show that additional CO2 doesn't cause additional warming- so let's assume that the denialist fairy doesn't undo that warming.
We add CO2 to the air- it gets a bit warmer.
That encourages the evaporation of more water - that increases the concentration of water in the air.
And, since (as we both agree) that is a potent greenhouse gas, we get even more warming.

Why do you try to write that off as "strange positive feedback effects" when it's pretty much the obvious outcome?

It has been much warmer in the past without this effect coming into play. The science of IR absorption and emission is beyond me. The degree to which the wavelengths are overlapping with the water that is already there, the amount of additional water, the degree that this would cause any more absorption or if that effect is already at maximum, I don't know.

All I can talk about is that this is a very complex system and I don't see anbody having a good robust understanding of it because I don't see anybody being very good at predicting it's opperations.

Just because a pretty theory says that the obvious result of increased CO2 says that the temperature will rise does not trump the fact that it has not risen during the period when we have vastly increased the amount we produce and thus the amount of CO2 in the air. Data trumps theory.


Quote
3
Extreme weather events already kill lots of people every year.
Your complacency threatens  even more lives.
Don't you consider people's lives to be important- as long as you can still waste energy as you always have?

Over 35,000 people die each year in the UK alone due to pollution from diesel cars and trucks. This is a direct result of the fixation against CO2 and the race for low carbon vehicles rather than a sensable approach. Do you care about this at all?

I don't, much. That's because there are many millions of people dying as a result of increased food prices. Ten million is a figure I have seen in a paper but I cannot see the figure being so low. This is something I care a lot more about. I consider it to be a far greater vrime against humanity than WWII. This is due to the very conservative figure of at least 200 million deaths so far.


Quote
And, at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my point.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

I have no ambition to convince you that AGW is not happening. I don't see that it has over the last 18 years and would not be surprised if it turns out that it's 100% drivel but that will be beyond my level of science.

The significant question is not if it's real but to what degree it is going to happen. Thus I ask you the following, again;

Given the last 18 years of no signoficant warming can we dismiss the top half of the IPCC's predictions? If not what range of projected temperature increase do you think is now on the cards for 2100?

It would also be nice if you were to comment on the what it would take for you to consider the AGW thing dead in the thread about it.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

It would also be nice if you were to comment on the what it would take for you to consider the AGW thing dead in the thread about it.[/color]
I already did.
As I said.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

Saying it doesn't exist "I don't see that it has over the last 18 years" doesn't make you look good when the data disagrees with you.
You say "Just because a pretty theory says that the obvious result of increased CO2 says that the temperature will rise does not trump the fact that it has not risen during the period when we have vastly increased the amount we produce and thus the amount of CO2 in the air. Data trumps theory."
well, it sure does.


https://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/december-of-2015-at-1-4-c-above-1890-is-a-terrifying-new-jump-in-global-temperatures/

Pretending that reducing carbon emission vehicles from vehicles will somehow increase pollution doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

It would also be nice if you were to comment on the what it would take for you to consider the AGW thing dead in the thread about it.[/color]
I already did.
As I said.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

Saying it doesn't exist "I don't see that it has over the last 18 years" doesn't make you look good when the data disagrees with you.
You say "Just because a pretty theory says that the obvious result of increased CO2 says that the temperature will rise does not trump the fact that it has not risen during the period when we have vastly increased the amount we produce and thus the amount of CO2 in the air. Data trumps theory."
well, it sure does.


https://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/december-of-2015-at-1-4-c-above-1890-is-a-terrifying-new-jump-in-global-temperatures/

Pretending that reducing carbon emission vehicles from vehicles will somehow increase pollution doesn't make a lot of sense.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66558.0

You have not made any coment on this thread. I would like you to make your comment.

Again! I do not have the opinion that global warming is not happenening at all. You are constructing a false argument, a strawman.

Petrol engines burn more fuel to make the car go than deisel engines. Thus there has, in Europe been a move to deisel pushed by the governments to reduce carbon emissions. YOU KNOW THIS! This has had the effect of greatly increasing harmful pollution. 35,000 deaths per year.

Your terrifying new jump in global temperatures has a trend of +0.74c per century!!! Who the hell is going to be terrified of that???
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You seem to be claiming that almost the only thing killing people  is increased diesel use.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx

The data I posted isn't supposed to terrify you: just stop you lying.

"You have not made any comment on this thread. I would like you to make your comment."
OK, here's a comment .
This thread would be shorter if you didn't ask  me to provide the same reply in different threads.

If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Just to inject a hint of sanity, life expectancy in civilised countries (and in the USA) has increased steadily since 1960, and respiratory disease as a cause of death has become less significant over the same period, which suggests that "diesel fumes are killing everyone" is a bit short of the truth.

And for the sake of clarity, it would be foolish to suggest that the climate isn't changing, since it always has done and is inherently unstable, but every attempt to predict the change from anthropogenic causes, seems to fail. The only question is whether this failure is due to excessive enthusiasm of the doomsayers, or an absence of any scientific basis for their predictions.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Just to inject a hint of sanity,

Why stop at sanity when we could also do with a bit of logic and empirical evidence? For instance:

every attempt to predict the change from anthropogenic causes, seems to fail.

Where is your evidence for this statement? Why do you believe we have failed to predict the changes from anthropogenic causes when basically every trained climate scientists (you know the people that are actually trained to study the climate) say the opposite? I mean I've posted more than enough evidence already supporting the validity of current climate models in terms of predicting current climate states but lets go over it again anyway.

For starters:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm (and since no that disagrees seems to be willing to take the time to actually read a link)

Quote from: The link above
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.

Quote from: Same
A paper led by James Risbey (2014) in Nature Climate Change takes a clever approach to evaluating how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting around the noise caused by natural cycles. The authors used a large set of simulations from 18 different climate models (from CMIP5). They looked at each 15-year period since the 1950s, and compared how accurately each model simulation had represented El Niño and La Niña conditions during those 15 years, using the trends in what's known as the Niño3.4 index.

Each individual climate model run has a random representation of these natural ocean cycles, so for every 15-year period, some of those simulations will have accurately represented the actual El Niño conditions just by chance. The study authors compared the simulations that were correctly synchronized with the ocean cycles (blue data in the left frame below) and the most out-of-sync (grey data in the right frame) to the observed global surface temperature changes (red) for each 15-year period.

...[There was a figure here please actually follow the link]

The authors conclude,

When the phase of natural variability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century.

Quote from: Still the same link
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future...

The above establishes that the models work in terms of both hindcasting and forecasting. Additionally the models fail to work without the inclusion of anthropogenic causes. Now if you happen to have any peer reviewed articles with empirical evidence that counters any of that than by all means let's see it. Of course there is more:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm <- The sun can't account for the climatic changes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm <- General overview of why the current climatic changes are not from natural causes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm <- General overview of why the rapid changes we are seeing are bad

So again I ask do you have any peer reviewed scientific articles with empirical evidence backing your claim the climate scientists are wrong?
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
You seem to be claiming that almost the only thing killing people  is increased diesel use.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx

The data I posted isn't supposed to terrify you: just stop you lying.

"You have not made any comment on this thread. I would like you to make your comment."
OK, here's a comment .
This thread would be shorter if you didn't ask  me to provide the same reply in different threads.

If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/diesel-fumes-biggest-health-catastrophe-since-black-death-as-london-exceeds-yearly-air-pollution-a6803876.html

http://fortune.com/2015/11/30/diesel-emissions-deaths-europe-ee/

Quote
More than 500,000 Europeans a year may be dying from conditions related to air pollution, the European Union’s environmental watchdog said in a new report Monday. The report is likely to further stoke the emissions controversy plaguing the continent’s automakers.

I take offencs at being called a liar when I have posted numbers that are commonly availible.

Your refusal to answer basic questions shows the depth of your denial.

Your constant use of the straw man that I am in any way telling you that humans do not cause any warming of the earth shows how much you will dodge the issues.

Your inability to answer the challenge of what would show the AGW hypothesis to be wrong or weak shows just how far away from any sort of scientific thinking you have reached on this subject, your religion.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Just to inject a hint of sanity, life expectancy in civilised countries (and in the USA) has increased steadily since 1960, and respiratory disease as a cause of death has become less significant over the same period, which suggests that "diesel fumes are killing everyone" is a bit short of the truth.

And for the sake of clarity, it would be foolish to suggest that the climate isn't changing, since it always has done and is inherently unstable, but every attempt to predict the change from anthropogenic causes, seems to fail. The only question is whether this failure is due to excessive enthusiasm of the doomsayers, or an absence of any scientific basis for their predictions.

Who said that deisel is killing every one?

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I just note the EU weasel words "may be dying". Usual drivel from an organisation that is constitutionally unable to tell the truth about anything.

Let's suppose there are 300,000,000 Europeans. All of them are going to die from something. About 6% will die from respiratory disease, i.e. 18,000,000 in total, at about 260,000 each year. So what does the figure of 500,000 relate to? How is it estimated? And what does the EU mean by "air pollution"? Smog in the street, secondary tobacco smoke, or industry-specific toxins? 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums