Slashdot Mirror
CO2 Levels Reach 400ppm at Mauna Loa For First Time On Record
Titus Andronicus writes "Today, NOAA reported, 'On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began in 1958.' For comparison, over the last 800,000 years, CO2 has ranged from roughly 180 ppm to 280 ppm. 'For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future.' The last time Earth had 400 ppm was probably more than 3 megayears ago."
Megayears? Someone trying to sound smarter than they are?
Stop breathing. It is the only way to keep the CO2 from rising...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
i hope there's a special place in hell for people who spent the 70's til present denying climate change - you know who you are. Unfortunately it will be the same place in hell as everyone else when it gets too hot around here.
Are you familiar with the concept of a megabyte, and how many bytes that is?
Kinda, so is it 3,145,728 years, 3,000,000 years, or the bastard 3,072,000?
Which contributes more to global warming, Memory or Storage?
Dupe.
Again?? same title location was added this time to the title. http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/05/1320222/observed-atmospheric-co2-hits-400-parts-per-million#
1024
hawaii gets all the air blowing across the pacific, so it can be considered a better baseline than doing it in a city where local emissions may influence. I don't see how the size of the cone or islands makes any difference. it's just a weather station on top of the mountain. And no, all the other islands were formed by their own volcanoes so stfu or are you a plate tectonic denier as well?
That's the same thing that I thought. The CO2 at Mammoth Mountain here in California has been so high it's killing trees. It's all volcanic too.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
The summary seemed to lead in a specific direction - the 'for comparison' referring to 800k years isn't based on info from other types of measurements, pre-1958 at that site.
Interesting bits from the Mauna Loa wiki
- It's a volcano
- It's been erupting for at least 700k years
- It may have emerged above sea level 400k years ago
- Oldest dated rocks are less than 200k years old
- It's drifting away from the hotspot and will go extinct in the next 500k=1m years
- It erupted last from Mar-Apr of 1984
- Atmosphere observations come from two observatories near the summit
- From its location well above local human-generated influences, the MLO monitors the global atmosphere, including the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Measurements are adjusted to account for local outgassing of CO2 from the volcano
I looked it up because my kneejerk was "But it's on top of a volcano..." and I can't help but be skeptic when there's big leaps in causation in summaries...
> So this seems like a silly place to consider as a steady-state CO standard.
If you lived on the volcano, you'd know better. Wind direction is very consistent and it is precisely because the volcano is so large that contamination is rare - it only comes out of the vents and those are few and far between.
How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Kinda, so is it 3,145,728 years, 3,000,000 years, or the bastard 3,072,000?
Which contributes more to global warming, Memory or Storage?
No, IEC has resolved this confusion now.
The last time Earth had 400 ppm was probably more than 3 mebiyears ago.
We're trying to figure out global levels so we'll account for the local levels. CO2 concentration minus local addition from the volcano and you get the general amount. Wow, that's difficult. Wait, I'm sorry, err SCIENCE!
Who woulda thunk it? These idiots actually adjust for local variation. Science is only hard if you don't understand it. Maybe you should try your bullshit back at Fox News or Heritage Foundation or whatever other bunker of denialism you normally post at.
55 years of monitoring, rather... math is hard....
All the worlds plants took a collective sigh of relief. CO2 has been so low for so long, it was like hypoxia for plants.
The 800,000 year level comes from testing of air pockets locked in glacial ice. Seriously, is it that hard to try and understand something before speaking stupid things? Jesus, you climate change deniers cannot even grasp the simplest concept of science.
You: 800,000 years that's so long ago where'd you get that "fact" right there?
Scientist: Pockets of air in glacial ice. You know, core samples and crap?
You: Har har har, ice, right. Come get your 800,000 year old sample from my freezer. High FIVE!
Damn, science isn't a fucking secret you just have to ask how they know stuff instead of saying "I don't get it therefore it isn't."
Fortunately for science the Mauna Loa readings are in good agreement with those taken at hundreds of other sites around the globe.
Here's a great animation from NOAA showing global CO2 distribution and putting recent changes in the context of the last million years or so. It takes a few minutes to watch, but it's worth seeing to the end, in my opinion.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
There is evidence that it is fossil fuel related. The concentrations of different isotopes of carbon are shifting. Fossil fuels don't have much Carbon 14 in them, since they haven't been exposed to the atmosphere for a long time.
a better baseline than doing it in a city where local emissions may influence
so instead do it next to a volcano?
:)
Just kidding, the juxtaposition just sounds hilarious
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I'm amazed you pulled your head out of the sand long enough to read the summary.
hawaii gets all the air blowing across the pacific, so it can be considered a better baseline than doing it in a city where local emissions may influence. I don't see how the size of the cone or islands makes any difference. it's just a weather station on top of the mountain. And no, all the other islands were formed by their own volcanoes so stfu or are you a plate tectonic denier as well?
mbeckman never said that Mauna Loa formed any of the other islands. He/she said "amounts to about 85 percent of all the other Hawaiian Islands combined". There's a big difference.
No less an authority than the United Nations pins a full 9% of all human-related CO2 production on cows, but it's worse than that:
Source: Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns
Ken
Or cows... Or deforestation... or maybe it's just a peak in a cycle that has a period somewhat longer than our history of direct measurements shows us...
I find it interesting that we only have direct measurements for about 60 years, but these folks are supremely confident that they know the CO2 level over the past 800,000+ years...
Ken
Indeed. So is reading. Ever heard of ice cores? They have the ACTUAL ATMOSPHERIC GAS from all those years trapped in them to be measured. No guessing, no assumptions, the ACTUAL GAS.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Global warming deniers like you make baby jesus cry.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It must interfere with your invincible ignorance field. But do try to keep up Ok?
without help: 1048576 how many bits is that?
\r
Isn't it interesting how average CO2 levels fluctuate throughout the year. As if colder temperatures actually decreased CO2 levels, while warmer temperatures increase it. In fact this correlates well with ice core data that shows CO2 levels lagging behind higher temperatures. You'd think they were somehow related, like perhaps all that water on our planet is perfectly capable of absorbing/releasing CO2 depending on TEMPERATURE. Wow this even explains why the oceans are getting more acidic. But no. Hey, are we going to claim that the year's seasons are also caused by the CO2 cycling mysteriously back and forth between "low" and "high"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There's no way to tell why they did it. I mean, they say it's because the CO2 from the volcano usually doesn't mess with the readings and they get clean readings from the Pacific. And, stupid them, they think that 3/10 of a single PPM is a good steady reading! Idiots!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
You need to get on the horn right now with Batman and let these guys know what to do. Right now they're just using well-established scientific principles and solid data. You should tell them you don't get how they do it which invalidates all their data. I'm surprised they published this without your OK.
Ah but it is the gas the got trapped during the freezing process. CO2 is heavier than air, and in an area where it is cold enough to take gas CO2 and freeze it what percentage of that CO2 was from the overall air, and how big of an air sample did that Co2 fall from?
How do you determine the methodology to figure it out? It won't be exact proportions because the air itself will be freezing and falling the CO2 to the ground.
It isn't that I don't think humans are screwing up their planet, I simply question the scientists who can't model the weather over a 72 hour period reliably thinking they can account for all the variations over a planet.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Ice cores? In Hawaii?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Precisely:
March 6, 2013: As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit
Isn't that downwind from China?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I find it interesting that we only have direct measurements for about 60 years, but these folks are supremely confident that they know the CO2 level over the past 800,000+ years...
Mmm, yeah, can't think why. The evidence, perhaps?
Scientists are seldom 'supremely confident' but when they are, that alone should tell you something.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
No, what it proves is that climate forcing due to CO2 is likely non-linear in impact. It also may indicate negative feedback loops responding to the changes. Also, since we're not measuring a closed system there are a huge number of possible things causing the current climate response.
This shit is really really really complicated. About the only thing I'm certain of is that all our models for climate so far are not good enough.
I think that the problem is that TFS starts off by saying that we've been monitoring C02 for 55 years, then says that it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years and at first glance, it looks like a contradiction. Of course, all it takes is a moment's thought to clear things up, but remember, this is Slashdot, where people post first, and think later, if at all.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Actually this is a follow-up :
2013-05-05 : "individual observations [...] have exceeded 400 parts per million" "The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm" "the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days"
2013-05-09 : "the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide [...] surpassed 400 parts per million"
Of course, Soulskill should have referenced timothy, they were obviously aiming for the dupe, but new data arrived in the meantime.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Much bogus science has survived based on the naive expectations of experimental rigor that later turned out to be ill-advised. Cold Fusion comes to mind. The point is that scientists have to document, and publish, ALL of their methodology. And in this case, as far as I can tell, they haven't. Of course, I didn't pony up to the research journal paywall to read every published paper. But I have read a great deal about volcanic test stations for CO2, and their arguments seem unsupported to me.
;)
I was once at a climate conference on sequestration, where a nuclear physicist on a panel begin talking about how difficult separating CO2 from the air actually is. "Magnetic separation requires a huge apparatus due to CO2's non-polarity. Centrifugal separation requires massive amounts of energy. This problem, I can tell you as a long-time experimental physicist, is tougher than it looks."
An audience member raised his hand: "I am only a physical chemist, and so can't really speak to your separation methods. But the way we do it is to cool the air to -78C and then collect the solid precipitate."
He got a standing ovation
Yeah, and you wanna comment on how things go for the life during those events? Your first example was likely a major extinction event, and a volcanic eruption 70k years ago nearly wiped out humans
"A very high CO2 measurement is found after a decade of reduction in overall temperature."
Riiight, yes global warming is a hoax because Bill O'Reilly's toes were cold this Christmas season.
That is .075% of the history of the planet.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Yes you will confim the accuracy of readings when you make other accurate readings.
Your accuracy is confirmed by the repeatability and reliability.
Or are you a "Measure twice, cut wherever you damn well care because if you get the same value twice then you're just exhibiting confirmation bias and therefore automatically wrong" sort of guy?
Of course, this has to be adjusted for things like Chernobyl, but I think it's safe to trust that this has been done. GW deniers have gotten very good at checking for things like this and the AGW evangelists have learned to be careful. (In case you're wondering why I'm knocking both sides, I'm a skeptic; I don't deny that the climate is changing, I'm just not convinced that humanity is the cause.)
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Are climate scientists really the best people to decide what to go about global climate change? They study the effects and may be able to predict things like rise in temperature, oven levels, ocean acidity and things like that, but they only solution they seem to propose is that we stop emitting carbon dioxide. Isn't it possible that other lifestyle changes could mitigate the effects and cause fewer disruptions than turning away from our primary energy source? Even if we do nothing, it's not likely that people will simply stay in areas and drown while the ocean levels rise.
A very high CO2 measurement is found after a decade of reduction in overall temperature.
Where did you get that "fact"? The last decade had the highest average global temperatures on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg
If you can't even get a simple quantitative *fact* like that right, why would anyone listen to any of your *opinions*?
And if you actually RTFA it's not about just the last decade, they have over 50 years of data showing a rise in both CO2 and ave global temperature.
. It also may indicate negative feedback loops responding to the changes.
But that's my skepticism in a nutshell. If I light some candles in my apartment it gets gradually warmer, For a while. Then the AC kicks in. The temperature feedback mechanism in my apartment is much larger than the heat source of a candle, or my gaming rig for that matter,
We know there's some sort of 100 k year cycle. Is it a feedback mechanism? Is it a strong one? Is more CO2 just going to kick in the cooling sooner, or overwhelm the cooling?
The one thing we do know is that "stable climate" is an oxymoron. Keeping temps at the same level just isn't one of our choices. So is warmer or cooler going to bring a better standard of living in the long run? And is more CO2 going to make it warmer (the simple analysis) or cooler (due to corrective feedback coming sooner)? And if it's going to get bad, what that cost in $, and what's it cost to avoid some of it in $, and what's the cheaper path?
It amazes my how many people have strong opinions about this, but have never thought about it beyond "man change - man change bad".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your stupid question is answered on the Mauna Loa web page. The short answer is the ice samples represent the CO2 level on a globular scale. The ML readings represent current global readings, because the CO2 is measured from air from the Pacific ocean. The ML readings aren't Hawaii specific levels. They explain what they do and what the readings represent. You probably won't read it because you're a fucking retard. I'm surprised you got this far you illiterate hillbilly. You deniers, you ask the same question 1,000 ways then declare victory when unstupid people give up trying to spoon feed each and every one of you cockroaches. This station has been measuring CO2 levels for 55 years and you think that they never thought to make sure they knew exactly what they were measuring? That they never thought how to make sure the data was clean as possible? You think there's just one guy with a pencil and paper writing down numbers or something? Fuck, you guys act like they never knew they were on a volcano.
Hey, guys, just found out from slashdot poster SuperKendall this is a volcano how's that affect the data? Why didn't we think of this? We're idiots all around for truth! Fuck! We never thought for one moment about data collection practices, woe is us. All our work brought down because we didn't answer one of the simplest questions known to man.
You got 'em, bro. You've destroyed every ounce of work with your staggering first-grade level of scientific knowledge.
Sheesh! What are they teaching people these days? Not mathematics, certainly.
PPM stands for PARTS PER MILLION. What we are talking about here is a change of 0.00012, or 1.2% of 1% of the atmosphere's gaseous composition. Climate hypochondriacs would have us believe that the atmospheric system is so precarious that a 0.00012 change in gas composition creates observable temperature results. Keep in mind that the CO2 effects are dwarfed by the oscillations of the major climate change gas, water vapor. There is simply no scientific evidence that CO2 changes of these tiny amounts quantitatively changes temperature in a world-wide system that has so many variables that no computational model today can hope to cope with.
Dude whoever you are, you have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely none. You have the understanding of a small and bratty child. You should be a politician and in a republican district, you would do veery well.
Confirmation bias is not data agreeing with other data. It's people believing what they already believe, sometimes in spite of overwhelming data that disagrees with them.
That article you site is a perfect example: the NASA data points to strong global warming since 1995, yet the author claims that warming was flat. He is siting data... that disagrees with him. THAT is confirmation bias.
Daily peak is not the same as daily average.
Just so you know: volcanos emit CO2. They're likely the primary source of "natural" CO2 emission long-term (as if mankind was somehow distinct from nature). A station on top of a large and occasionally-active volcano does seem like an odd choice for a baseline, without knowing more about it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Am I the only person worried about the macadamia nuts?
According to TFA, above 400ppm.
> Fortunately for science the Mauna Loa readings are in good agreement with those taken at hundreds of other sites around the globe. Roughly. Each hemisphere has the opposite season fluctuation of about 2%.
Multicellular plants just getting established then with larger concentration fluctuations. However life can adjust to slow, large changes. Significant changes in just centries instead of millions of years may stress life.
Or he was making a joke...
Nah, that couldn't have been it.
Maybe the originally author simply thought it was THREE REALLY LARGE YEARS!
400, after all, is just an integer with no chemical significance
That's sort of a weird criticism. They aren't saying that their instruments are measuring 400. They aren't out there measuring integers. The measurement is 400 parts of CO2 per million parts of air. That's what the reading is, that's the chemical significance. The significant fact of that measurement is that it's the highest one they've ever recorded. There's plenty to discuss about this without resorting to some sort of weird misdirection tactic that 400 is just an integer.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Am I the only one that thinks taking CO2 concentration measurements near one of the most active volcanic regions in the world is not such a good idea? Not saying the measurements are wrong, it just seems like they could have picked a better spot...
Point is -- we need more medical marijuana and industrial hemp to suck up the extra CO2 from the atmosphere. Hemp and algae are the best ways to remove CO2 from the air. And unless you know of someway to get high off algae, I say let's go with reefer.
And the reason they measure on top of a spewing volcano?
By "spewing volcano", do you mean the volcano which last erupted in 1984 and which is home to many permanent science installations?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million and the global temperature anomoly is not following! Why?! Has someone stuffed up the temperature readings and it is getting warmer? or has Co2 rise slowed and the readings at Mauna Loa are wrong?
800,000 years out of 4+ billion years is a drop in a bucket.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Define apocalypse for us.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)
"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."
This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).
-Styopa
We've ALL been duped!
I know, Jeremiah, right? If someone makes a percentage mistake between .04, and .0004, how could they get anything else right ever? The ice caps are just fine! Polar bears aren't starving! The weather is the same as it's always been! Don't worry! Invest in clean coal, fracking, and buy that new SUV! Quit worrying about CO2! Stop believing all this doomsday tree-hugging recycling FUD! I don't see any sea level rise! There's no tornado outside my house right now! In fact, it's kinda chilly - I need a sweater! What global warming?! The only thing warming is my beer! Yeah! You n' me, Jeremiah, WOOO! Cheers Bro! Stupid hippies, right?!
And they've gotten a new highest one almost much every year since they started in 1958. I don't know if it's "significant", but it's not unexpected. The 400 is pretty much arbitrary.
sure it's an integer in a domain of reals, but other scientists also used that same round number to have a look at what was going on in geologic core data. e.g. the last dozen or so times the planet exceeded the 400ppm level in the last 30M years the west antarctic ice shelf collapsed. every time. this is seriously not good and meanwhile you're just arguing meaningless semantics.
(cite: ANDRILL)
So glaciers melt - they have melted before and came back in a few million years there is no reason to believe that this will not occur again. So we lose access to them now but this would happen eventually anyway. Sure not in our lifetimes but across the millions or billions of years before the sun kills the planet completely ice will come and go unless we find a way to control the natural process that regulates.
Glaciers melting lead to rising sea levels - well this means a few options accept the loss of land or put up barriers to protect it. You always hear that NYC will be underwater in X number of years. Of course it wont. Humans will find ways to solve that problem. Build dams, raise the island by bringing in extra soil, etc. Now a place like Florida does not have those type of options so likely it will slowly be sunk by hurricanes that destroy the sand barriers that we put up. Yes, entire towns will be destroyed in a storm but this happens today. It will likely be more frequent thus making it more difficult to make the decision to rebuild. Eventually people will move somewhere else. And during this process jobs will be created to rebuild homes, reinforce older homes, build dams, better water management process etc. It is said that global warming will cost X billion or trillion dollars. Well a lot of that will go into job creation oddly enough. "You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life."
We are killing the planet! - Ahh this old argument. There is nothing we can do currently to kill the planet. Nothing. Sure global warming might kill off a chunk of species that cannot adapt. Hell all out nuclear war might kill off 90% of the worlds species but life will survive and adapt. Over a million years or so the radiation will decay and the adaption process will continue. It would be a blip on the radar for the earth, kind of like the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs.
So as I see it global warming is just accelerating a natural process that would happen anyway some time in the future (hundreds, thousands or millions of years). Lots of money will be spent trying to fight or clean up the damage but that just means job creation. Species will adapt or die but over a long enough time period we will die off anyway (baring interstellar travel).
They have multiple stations, including some very close to active volcanic activity for baselines. The core results aren't impacted by the regions volcanic activities.
As for global warming, we aren't going to stop burning the remains of life from the past, so it goes. I don't have a position or a "belief", it seems irrelevant to me given humanity's approach to energy.
BlameBillCosby.com
Baseline is the wrong word, I meant sample contamination.
BlameBillCosby.com
The annual cycle in CO2 is due to springtime uptake of carbon by plants and autumn release of CO2 as leaves fall and photosynthesis shuts down. The paleoclimatic delay between temperature and CO2 concentrations is characteristic of a positive feedback in the system.
Hello? Seven BILLION people?
And enough livestock to actually feed a good chunk of them?
Hell, the planetary population only two billion in something like 1925?
Yet we've nearly quadrupled population in the last 90 years?
Roughly half of which live in central and eastern Asia? Countries where their pollution output would shame early 20th century industrialists?
Yeah, fossil fuel has a good deal to do with it. But let's not pretend the sheer mass of humanity itself isn't contributing greatly to increased CO2.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...the fact that there are 7 times as many humans on Earth as there was even a couple hundred years ago.
Not saying fossil fuels aren't contributing, but surely the population issue has to be a contributing factor too.
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then. Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
But it's not as hot as it was then.
So what's the disconnect? It's like wearing your favorite blue jeans in high school, and getting into a car accident, and then fifty years later, putting on those same jeans, and worrying all day that you'll be in a car accident. The accident never happens. So was it *ever* the fault of the jeans?
I don't know about you but I don't tend to conflate religious nonsense with the actual scientific method, which is what we're discussing. I also think that dismissing scientific opinion as 'groupthink' is less than wise given what science has managed to achieve in its time. Science demonstrably works. On the other hand, some of us are still waiting for Jesus, right?
I suggest you don't rely on scientific opinion if you are skeptical - go look at the results and judge for yourself. I think you'll find their collective confidence stems from the enormous breadth of peer-reviewed study across multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
It may depend if the temperature stabilizes at +200F or -157F.
"cool the air to -78C and then collect the solid precipitate."
At that temperature, the vapor pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure. It would be like measuring the water content of air by cooling to just below 100 C.
You'd need to go quite a bit lower in temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_data
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
The physical chemist's point was that the physicist was thinking the wrong way about the problem: at the atomic level, rather than the chemical level. In fact, freezing CO2, while physically possible, is not economically feasible. But there are many carbon extraction systems that can use solar power and/or convection, in combination with CO2 absorbents, to extract CO2 at a reasonable cost. For example, early this year the NY Times reported on a Bill Gates-funded project to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere that aims to lower the cost to $100/ton, which is a reasonable cost that could be borne by industry.
But that cost should only be incurred once it's proven that CO2 does indeed cause global temperature increases, and that the CO2 is human-generated. Right now those are not proven facts. The suspicion of CO2 as a warming agent has been based on the correlation of CO2 concentrations with temperature, but no cause-and-effect has been proven. It could be that CO2 changes result from temperature changes, rather than vice-versa.
The feedback mechanism is known. Temperature goes up, evaporation rate goes up leading to more rainfall which causes more erosion which sequesters more carbon. After a few thousand years this feedback will bring the CO2 level back down.
All we need is some patience and the climate will correct itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Tobacco PR staffs climate change denial "think tanks" now...
There is no ice anywhere on Earth that can be proven to hold pristine samples of past atmospheres...
So what? You can't prove anything empirically.
This is a case of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
Well, I doubt it was because of the jeans.
But if it was, you might notice that you had the jeans on for some time before the accident occurred.
This is a strawman argument, though it might not be obvious to you that it is.
There is no claim that the system will respond instantly. A system as large as the earth will take some time to warm up. The energy imbalance is real and measured. There's just some delay in the system. A few decades is a very short time in earth history. Things are already heating up, but what we see is the response to the forcing up to 20 or 30 years ago.
mt
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/highlights/2007_no9.pdf
Cool.
And the magnitude of the seasonal oscillation demonstrates how powerful this uptake of carbon by plants is in relation to the 400ppm of CO2. Recovering a significant amount of the carbon uptake from seasonal plant growth and sequestering it into soil (thereby improving soil fertility), as can be accomplished with Biochar processing, is one of the very few technologies that could be employed to bring Earth back to the relatively safe levels of 350ppm that climate scientists have recommended as a goal. See http://venearth.com/ , http://www.biochar-international.org/ and http://350.org/ for relevant information.
The 100 ky cycle is mostly driven by Milankovitch Cycles which change the insolation of the surface. The cycles are also modified by feedbacks such as the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm or increasing albedo as more snow accumulates during the cooling side of the cycles.
The standing ovation was inappropriate. At the low partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would not precipitate at -78C. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/
Its not very hard to test the hypothesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
And when that happens in the dry upper atmosphere where the planet's heat is radiated outwards, less heat is radiated outwards.
I think you got that backwards. In the yearly cycle CO2 levels reach their peak in early May when plant growth in the northern hemisphere absorbs it back down to a minimum in September or October when CO2 released by decaying plant matter again becomes dominant. It has almost nothing to do with temperature except for the fact that it influences plant growth. In other words the seasons cause the yearly CO2 cycle, not vice versa.
This is called Confirmation Bias.
Huh!?!
How does making multiple independent measurements that agree with Mauna Loa do anything but validate the measurements taken there?
Interesting, I hadn't thought about soil erosion. What I was thinking about was rock weathering where CO2 is consumed by silicate weathering which results in calcium carbonate. This page shows it pretty well, http://dilu.bol.ucla.edu/home.html. There are vast amounts of carbon sequestered as calcium carbonate, maybe half that has ever been released from the mantle. Wiki mentions that erosion also transports dissolved CO2 to the ocean where various organisms convert it to calcium carbonate, think shells falling to the bottom of the ocean to form limestone.
In geological time frames this has a large impact on global climate. When the continents are in one mass there is little rainfall in the interior and little erosion. Global CO2 levels increase along with temperature. And the opposite also happens, lots of continents, especially with mountain ranges in the right places so lots of rainfall on land causing erosion and CO2 levels go down. This is perhaps the current situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
My completely unscientific theory about the breaking point is simply that with warming comes rising seas, which means the bottom of those seas cool down because of diffused solar energy, thus currents are affected.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Human burning of fossil fuels releases more than twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere each year as the yearly increase in CO2. Measurements of the change in the C12/C13 ratio show that atmospheric CO2 is being diluted by fossil carbon. What more do you need?
The "suspicion" of CO2 as a warming agent is based on the physics of CO2, specifically its property of absorbing infrared radiation which is easily measured in the laboratory. Why would you think it wouldn't do the same thing in the atmosphere or what is it in the Earth system that negates the effect?
Yes, humans like round numbers and tend to make note of them. They're easier to remember than 399.73.
10,000 years ago there were MILLIONS MORE "beef" on this planet than now. The North American buffalo were only the last ones to die.
Same idiocy in blaming "fat" for fat Americans: (officially available - just google) statistics show that fat consumption in the US actually continually slightly decreased since the 1960s.
THESE opinions are a form of religion too, not just "god" talk.
Here's an animated graph that shows CO2 measurements from 90N to 90S from 1979 to 2006. Mauna Loa is the big red dot north of the equator.
The Earth's temperature cooled very slightly between 1940 to 1970. So the doomsayers were actually predicting an ice age due to global cooling at that time.
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then.
Odd way to put it. You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt - safe to assume that there is no need to pretend at all.
Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
But it's not as hot as it was then. So what's the disconnect?
Agreed. There is no disconnect. Does this mean that you now accept the reliability of climate science? Heaven help us!
The measurements from around the world are all independently valid on their own. The fact that they are all in pretty good agreement with each other gives a strong indication that they must be getting it right. Measuring the concentration of a substance is pretty basic chemistry.
This animated graph that I posted elsewhere shows the evolution of CO2 levels from the North Pole to the South Pole since 1979. So I guess those independent measurements are all confirming each other in a big circle jerk?
There is nothing invented about a positive water vapor feedback. There has been a measured increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
You're right, CO2 does not generate much direct infrared heat itself. I releases the heat it gains by absorbing infrared mostly in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, in effect heating them up.
The 800,000 year history is based on samples from ice cores.
Actually it's not Carbon 14 they're measuring. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13. Both are stable as compared to the radioactive C14. Fossil fuels have a lower level of C13 than the atmosphere in general because photosynthesis prefers the lighter C12 atom. When we burn fossil fuels it dilutes the C13 in the atmosphere and changes the ratio.
That would be a pretty crazy cycle where CO2 levels haven't been above 300 ppmv for over 800,000 years then all of a sudden in a matter of 150 years it jumps to over 400 ppmv. CO2 levels can be measured from the bubbles of air trapped in ice cores and where the ice core measurements overlap with modern measurements they are in agreement.
If not for the thermal mass of the oceans it would be a lot hotter already. It's going to take some time (decades) for the oceans to warm up enough for the full temperature effect to manifest itself.
The 800,000 year level comes from testing of air pockets locked in glacial ice. Seriously, is it that hard to try and understand something before speaking stupid things?
If these trapped air pockets formed within minutes then remained hermetically sealed until humans looked at them then it might make sense to compare them with modern measuring instruments. Since this is obviously not the case such comparisons are, at best, "apples and oranges". (Things get even worst using "proxies" which equate to rough averages over periods from decades to centuries.) That's before even considering precision, accuracy and signal to noise ratio of any of the data.
There is evidence that it is fossil fuel related. The concentrations of different isotopes of carbon are shifting. Fossil fuels don't have much Carbon 14 in them, since they haven't been exposed to the atmosphere for a long time.
AFAIK nobody is measuring and recording the isotope ratios of fossil fuels as they are extracted. Volcanic emissions, including hydrothermal vents in deep ocean, are also likely to be very low in C14. If anything coal would be most likely to contain C14, given a source of neutrons, since solid carbon is a good neutron moderator.
Oxygen isotope ratios in water are affected by temperature. What effect does temperature have on carbon isotope ratios in carbon dioxide?
In the recent past carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has followed average temperature, with a delay of a few hundred years. Even if it can be demonstrated that human activities have had an effect on the isotope ratio, then that dosn't in itself show that these have made any difference to the concentration. There is much more carbon dioxide in the oceans than in atmosphere. More entering the atmosphere from other sources may simply equate to less entering the atmosphere from the oceans.
The fundermental problem is that we have no way of knowing what either concentration or isotope ratio of carbon dioxide would "naturally" be now. Moreover climate models predicated on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have failed to predicted anything. Thus "geo-engineering" involving attempts to manipulate the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is likely to be a complete waste of time. Even if something was done to actually reduce either carbon dioxide emitted by human activities or its concentration in the atmosphere. So far "green" methods have at best made no difference to human carbon dioxide emissions. About they only thing they appear to be good for is wasting money!
I don't think that's correct. If I had a range of other measurements and cherry-picked the ones that agreed with mine, thinking the others were outliers, that would be confirmation bias.
What we have here is a large set of independent measurements that all agree. Where is the bias? There is none.
Really? Perhaps the obvious was discarded because it required more energy to cool everything down than was desired.
A good example of the obvious not being considered is in corrosion prevention. Usually the obvious is just to coat everything in gold. There are almost always constraints that make that a bad idea in practice that is never considered.
Been there, done that, and the cloud guys got some solid numbers close to two decades ago.
They don't have to due to the short half life that's a mere blip before geological time starts. Ever wondered how carbon 14 dating can get down to a high enough resolution to see if the shroud of Turin is 400 years old or 2000? Well that's due to a half life short enough to spot the difference between lots of carbon 14 and not much.
A Greek word meaning disclosure of knowledge as used in the Revelation of John.
Yes there's lots of people, everyone has noticed. However Mao didn't manage to feed China by cutting the population. China got fed when the Chinese farmers got a lot better at producing food despite Mao's interference, and got even better after he died.
Population reduction is a lot harder and a much longer term project than reducing consumption via economies of scale, distribution etc. Birth rates are going down but it's going to take generations to flatten out.
But that's my skepticism in a nutshell. If I light some candles in my apartment it gets gradually warmer, For a while. Then the AC kicks in. The temperature feedback mechanism in my apartment is much larger than the heat source of a candle, or my gaming rig for that matter.
The feedbacks in place on this planet typical function over thousands of years. What's happening now is taking place over a 100 years. That's not lighting a couple of candles, that's dumping gasoline all over your apartment and setting it on fire.
It's not just the amount of warming, it's how fast it is occurring.
We know there's some sort of 100 k year cycle. Is it a feedback mechanism? Is it a strong one?
That's known as Milankovich cycles and it has to do with the natural orbital dynamics of the planet. It's not a feedback mechanism. And right now we should technically be cooling (an we were until we started burning fossil fuels in earnest).
Is more CO2 just going to kick in the cooling sooner, or overwhelm the cooling?
CO2 is not going to cool the plant. Fourier figured this out back in the early 1800's, and all the science done since then bears this out. Oh people have certainly tried to come up with negative feedbacks based on increased CO2, but none of them have stood up to the test. And now that scientists are runnin fully coupled climate models there is no evidence of a natural negative feedback from increasing CO2. In fact, they have been finding more positive feedbacks.
The one thing we do know is that "stable climate" is an oxymoron. Keeping temps at the same level just isn't one of our choices. So is warmer or cooler going to bring a better standard of living in the long run?
Neither. Our entire civilization depends on how the climate is. Climate shifts, even regional ones, can be quite painful to deal with an historically have caused whole civilization to collapse. And we could have kept things relatively stable if we hd started taking action 20 years ago, but we're way past that.
And is more CO2 going to make it warmer (the simple analysis) or cooler (due to corrective feedback coming sooner)?
There's plenty of peer-reviewed research to answer these questions, but in short yes to the first and no to the second.
And if it's going to get bad, what that cost in $, and what's it cost to avoid some of it in $, and what's the cheaper path?
That's just one aspect that climate scientists are researching. It WOULD have been cheaper if we had started taking steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but at this point we're going to see at least a 2C rise (even if we stopped all CO2 production today). There is also little hope for any serious actions to be taken in the near future. We lack the will and global cohesion. Basically, I doubt any serious action will be taken until it "gets bad" but by then it will be far to late to prevent anything.
It amazes my how many people have strong opinions about this, but have never thought about it beyond "man change - man change bad".
Science is not opinion. It is also not a popularity contest. The science shows that the climate is changing. The science shows that this will result in negative impacts. The science, in this case, is showing "man change bad". Make of that what you want.
~X~
Much bogus science has survived based on the naive expectations of experimental rigor that later turned out to be ill-advised. Cold Fusion comes to mind.
Hardly. You see, what happened with cold fusion was a couple then-scientists said they got neutron radiation out of their experiment along with heat production. They went public and it caused a sensation. However, they did this before others could duplicate their work. When other scientists tried to duplicate it, they failed. Upon review, it was shown that the original scientists at best were sloppy. Their work was summarily rejected.
In other words, science worked just the way it was supposed. Just like the recent kerfuffle over faster-than-light neutrinos.
The point is that scientists have to document, and publish, ALL of their methodology. And in this case, as far as I can tell, they haven't.
Yes they have: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html . It really isn't that hard to use Google.
Of course, I didn't pony up to the research journal paywall to read every published paper. But I have read a great deal about volcanic test stations for CO2, and their arguments seem unsupported to me.
I find this very hard to believe considering it took me all of 5 seconds to find link on the methodology.
An audience member raised his hand: "I am only a physical chemist, and so can't really speak to your separation methods. But the way we do it is to cool the air to -78C and then collect the solid precipitate."
He got a standing ovation ;)
You're either leaving out critical information or this story is pure bullshit. Dropping the temperature to -78C will NOT precipitate CO2. Try reading up on partial pressures. Not only that, but producing the right conditions to have CO2 precipitate takes quite a bit of energy in and on itself.
~X~
Dissolved CO2 is acidifying the ocean, killing corals and the fry of clams and other shell-building animals in the plankton, so they're not going to be converting much of it to calcium carbonate.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Pretty much nothing below 200 meters is affected by solar energy, except for the quantity of dead stuff that rains down from better-lit regions above. The two regions are pretty well isolated from each other in most places.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
once it's proven that CO2 does indeed cause global temperature increases . . . no cause-and-effect has been proven.
We're talking high school physics experiments here. Seriously. Local high school students measured the absorption and retention of heat by unaltered atmosphere in a chamber. Then they increased the amount of carbon dioxide and measured again. Higher CO2 content means higher heat retention. It ain't rocket surgery, this was first discovered in the 19th century, before carbon dioxide had been broken down into its constituent atoms.
and that the CO2 is human-generated.
, That's been done many times and many ways. Just look at the atmospheric CO2 content in bubbles preserved in glaciers, sediments, etc. to find what the CO2 level was a few thousand years ago. Subtract that amount of CO2 from the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Now estimate the amount of CO2 generated by our agriculture and burning of fossil fuels. To the shock and surprise of no one but you the two numbers match.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Hand waving. If we actually understood the complex interactions between ocean currents and climate, we'd have a model that could reliably predict ENSO/PDO/etc - as it is, the "the heat is hiding in the ocean" is an ad hoc special pleading that kinda undermines the original "CO2 drives global average temperature" meme.
Of course, we'll see in a few decades if that missing heat comes bubbling up during a new-maunder minimum like event :)
If indeed, there is a 20-30 year lag, then the situation is even worse for the co2 hypothesis. We've had a solid 100 years of increasing CO2, but instead of 70 solid years of increasing temperatures, we've had, by several different data sets, 17-19 years of statistically insignificant warming.
Were CO2 forcings 17-19 years ago flat?
Doom, for apocalyptic believers, always seems right around the corner. Funny that the 350 doom and 400 doom are already here, and we're not seeing massive numbers of hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass hysteria.
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
SNORTLE!
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability :) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much :)
Okay, take the blindfold metaphor.
As a teenager, wearing a blindfold, you drive your car one day, and you crash your car.
As an octogenarian, you go out, wearing a blindfold, and drive your car all day, and don't crash.
Hrm. That doesn't seem reasonable, now does it?
Maybe the CO2 levels of 3 million years ago aren't as potent as a blindfold on car crashes :)
Put another way, if CO2 levels of 3 million years ago caused temperatures massively higher than today, why don't those same CO2 levels today cause the same massively higher temperatures? Is it behaving this way just to spite us?
It fits into the new religion. Same old story.
This is a silly argument. Nobody claims CO2 is the only factor affecting global mean surface temperature.
Anything pre-1970 is a bit beside the point; as the accumulation has been exponential, the forcing was quite small then.
Leaving aside the 1998 cherry-pick, surface temperatures have increased more slowly than expected, but it is not flat. There are at least three explanations on the table other than "climate scientists know less than nothing and therefore there is nothing to worry about".
Since probably nobody will read except you who is not really interested this I'll be brief. 1) El Ninos have been scarcer of late, since 1998. As far as I know it's debatable whether this is a climate change feature or just random. Such a shift will superimpose a one-time cooling on the trend. 2) Heat is accumulating in the deep ocean 3) Increased particulate emissions may be increasing low clouds which provides some temporary masking. The first two are not uncertain to first order. None of these will affect the long term prognosis.
You are reading unreliable sources. I suggest you open your mind to the scientific mainstream before dismissing it.
mt
But you're too fucking lazy to read the many links given that explain their methodology and why the measurements are valid. Because it doesn't suit your fucking agenda. It's pretty clear who the idiot is here.
Except those aren't on the table. There simply isn't a world-ending-disaster to worry about. Oceans rising could be quite expensive, of course, but preventing that could also be quite expensive (or just impossible). Glaciation would be much worse, but that's just a slow process on human scale.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That cycle take 100 M years to work, it's not at all the 100 k year cycle. Also, it's bizarre to call that process 'sequestration", when something like 99.999% of carbon is bound in rock, and what we see in the air and seas is just a minor exception to the normal state of carbon on Earth.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
MYA = "Million Years Ago."
The disconnect is basic physics dictates that things take time to change. For example, if you put water on the stove, it does not boil instantly, even though the heat output of the hotplate is the same when it is boiling.
It will take 100s of years to lock in the effects of current carbon.
It's really very simple physics.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
says, and he actually studies the topic experimentally
CO2 enrichment experiments in natural vegetation including forests and rangelands (both of which are agricultural as defined by USDA) usually show an initial increase in productivity that quickly comes to a hard stop as nitrogen limitation is expressed, usually within a few years. Same is true for unmanaged ecosystems.
If you value intellectual integrity, then you're going to have to reach for another argument for not doing anything about CO2 pollution. Or you could just follow what the data says.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
From that PDF:
This study showed that only about one percent of net primary productivity and 16 percent of eroded carbon contribute to carbon sequestration in eroding watersheds. Combining these results with global estimates from previous studies, the erosion-induced terrestrial carbon sink can potentially offset as much as 10 percent of the global fossil-fuel emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005.
So that PDF which tries to convince us that releasing carbon is a non-issue due to soil erosion cannot account for the other 90% of the carbon in the atmosphere? And it does not even mention the other ill aspects of soil erosion.
No, soil erosion can only 'correct' 10% of the 2005 level of the problem. Hint: world carbon emissions have _increased_ since 2005, and then there is the other 90% of the problem to deal with.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Simply round-up every female under 50 and have them sterilized. The savings over the next thirty years in education and prison costs would be hundreds of $trillions. Nothing else would have to be changed. No one's life style would be diminished. In eighty years the few remaining humans would inherit a slightly warmer Earth but could move where ever the weather was most pleasant. They could subsist off of the infrastructure left in place. Robotics and the accumulated knowledge and advancements of the next fifty years will insure the few million remaining humans will live in a virtual utopia.
The only quandary will be should we allow some people to reproduce or relentlessly hunt down and sterilize every female human to insure that for at least the next several million years the other species on Earth will not be subjected to a carbon releasing intelligence. Or we can do nothing. There have been mass extinctions in the past and the planet itself survived and life renewed itself so if we cause another extinction a new ecosystem will be formed in a few million years.
Since the advent of the Argo program in the early 2000's we are getting a better handle on temperature changes and yes, the oceans are warming up. The top 10 feet of the oceans hold as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere and the average depth is over 12,000 feet so there's a lot of thermal mass there.
We really don't bother with labels like "organic", but we did just discard a load of manure because those horses had been given vermicide. We do go all boron on the ants, like teaspoons of the stuff.
I am looking for plans for a solar charcoal kiln, for once google has failed.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
The PDF simply reports the results of a study - I don't see anything there that suggests that soil erosion is going to stop global warming in the short term, its just a cool study, IMO, that helps everyone learn more about the complexity of the total system.
Do you think science be put through a political lens before it's published or talked about?
Your link says correctly that what heats glass greenhouses is not the greenhouse effect caused by carbon in the air.
The mythbusters demonstrated that containers with higher CO2/Methane levels grew warmer than a control. How exactly were they off-base?
"So hard that it has never been empirically tested,"
That is about as solid falsification as any lab experiment - if one had to put an entire system into a controlled experiment in order to test a hypothesis, most of what we call science would be impossible - we test hypotheses about gravity, gas pressure, genetics, etc. in controlled lab experiments, but for some reason we can't test the effect of carbon on infrared light??
If the lab experiments demonstrated that carbon had no effect on heat, we would need to re-examine the whole theory. But what is possible to reproduce in a lab does support the theory, as does historical data (insolation, global temperature, and atmospheric carbon levels from the Carboniferous period, etc) as does insolation vs. heat data from other planets (Mars, Venus, etc.).
If the Carboniferous was cold or Venus was cooler than it is, we'd have verifiable evidence that carbon and other greenhouse gasses do not have a the same effect on a planetary scale as they do in the lab, but all empirical evidence we can gather, both via observation and controlled experiment, supports the theory of the effect greenhouse gasses have of planetary temperature.
but have never thought about it beyond "man change - man change bad".
that's because the Rs have abdicated their responsibility. they're the party of industry and heartless growth, and they need to grow up and apply this view to a new industry of climate manipulation, rather than just shill and try to bury the issue in unthinking support of old oil.
in the end, climate will work out; the only question will be who gets shafted by our implementation of climate change technology. the Ds, of course, want a sort of austerity and personal responsibility. the Rs should be advocating some kind of free market solution that shafts the poor and indigenous cultures, so that we can work out an equilibrium between the two.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Then why compare today's ppm of CO2 to the Eocene and imply that we're headed towards Eocene temperatures?
Try again. The mauna loa data is very clearly a linear accumulation, not an exponential one.
Never said it was flat, but the fact that there is a disconnect between the model and reality leads one to question whether or not the central conceit (CO2 drives temperature) is true.
You're assuming that ENSO/PDO are neutral phenomena that cannot be responsible for a linear trend.
The simple fact of the matter is this - crying about 400ppm is an emotional appeal, not a scientific one. To play the science game, we start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, rather than a breathless press release :)
I fully agree, which is why I find it funny that some people believe that atmospheric temperatures drive ocean temperatures :)
In the end, I think the biggest impact of the atmosphere is albedo, which moderates how much warming happens to our large heat sink/source oceans.
It's a milestone. Those of us who have been thinking about this a long time once had 400 ppmv in mind as a distant, avoidable future.
As for whether it's been linear, go look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
"Then why compare today's ppm of CO2 to the Eocene and imply that we're headed towards Eocene temperatures?"
Are you really that silly? Falling from a great height onto a cement slab is not the only thing that can adversely affect your health. But that doesn't mean it's good for you!
mt
You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
And if you are wrong about this prediction, or your understanding of the science is wrong (not clear which your are referring to here), will you personally apologise or conveniently forget your error?
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability :) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much :)
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away. Where did you go, by the way?
irony adjective Like goldy, or silvery, except made out of iron.
"the highest average global temperatures on record"
I'm not disputing the records in the slightest, but, 200 years of records is not a very good data set compared to 454000000 years of the earth existing.
The NOAA forgets to mention that they are comparing a direct carbon dioxide measurement (400ppm) with two estimates (180ppm to 280ppm). These are very important distinctions in science that they have failed to make. It's the same for temperatures. All other temperature readings outside of our records are estimates based on other observable factors.
If they put it on the volcano then wouldn't all the measurements include the volcano emissions? In which case the increase must be from somewhere other then the volcano?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
(and therefore demand billions of humans change the way they live their lives to avoid a predicted future disaster derived in part from those ice cores)
If there was no such huge stake, would you bother to disagree so strongly with the ice core records? Cosmologists make a number of claims about the size of the universe (which aren't backed by direct measurements of the distances in question and thus, have similar empirical problems), but these claims don't affect tens of billions a year in public funding or the future of the human race.
They have absolutely NO empirical proof of the reliability of those cores and their accuracy....
Why is it impossible to make scientifically useful estimates of the diffusion of such gases in ice over such periods of time? Why is it impossible to compare it to ice core samples retrieved from historical times or to compare the ice core estimates to other estimates of atmospheric concentrations? Sure, it is impossible to measure such things directly, but not to estimate them.
Yea, too much of something too quick can be bad. Whether life will adjust to the acidified oceans over the long term and pull out much of that CO2 I don't know and it doesn't matter much to us if things readjust over millennium or longer.
There is an amazing amount of limestone in existence, just look at the white cliffs of Dover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The 100 k cycle is mostly the cycle of Earths orbit changing. Goes from circular to oval and back and sometimes it's summer in the northern hemisphere when the Earth is closest to the sun, other times is the opposite.
The erosion thing is quicker then 100 M years though maybe it should still be measured in millions. In geological time frames the carbon content of the atmosphere has fluctuated a lot, following things like massive volcanic out gassing and continents rearranging themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Do you think science be put through a political lens before it's published or talked about?
Quite the opposite, but I wish (ha, and a pony) that those with a political agenda would not misrepresent science as being in anyone's 'interest' or misquoting scientific papers to show one thing when the full results show something completely different.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
It's bias when you say that because a particular number agrees with other numbers it is a "better" result. It's just a result.
They measure in a volcanic area and report raised CO2 levels? Naaaah.. GET OUTTA HERE. Pull the other one.
Statements about maxima are unreliable for establishing trends. Running averages are a better measure, and the 5 year average in your graph shows a slight downward trend.
I don't know (and frankly don't care) whether temperatures have risen or not over the last decade. But you certainly demonstrated that you have no businesses interpreting statistics.
"I wish (ha, and a pony) that those with a political agenda would not misrepresent science as being in anyone's 'interest' or misquoting scientific papers to show one thing when the full results show something completely different."
Yeah. Where did you see that happening?
what makes you think the earth has a negative feedback mechanism in the climate, other than black body radiation? a giant AC? how can you believe there is negative feedback, then assert that the climate is unstable two paragraphs later? what makes you think that nobody has ever thought beyond "man change - man change bad"? Projection? What do you think climatologists and so on do all day? Party with that vast grant money the denialists think they are all conspiring to steal?
If anything, looking at the actual history of the climate, the climate is stable at a much warmer, wetter, and CO2 laden point than the one we are at now, and at which every living organism has evolved. It seems likely that this is related to all the CO2 pulled out of the air and buried during the carboniferous period, which coincided with the change in climate. in which case, returning a lot of that carbon into the air, a million times faster than it was taken out, might be expected to jar the climate from its current metastable state.
I repeat: what makes you think the earth has a negative feedback mechanism in the climate?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
100s of years doesn't seem that bad at all.
Of course, the point you bring up makes for an interesting idea about solar forcing remaining constant, but still inducing steady warming - as you say, you put water on a stove, with a steady heat, and even though the heat doesn't change, it only slowly raises the temperature of the water.
Food for thought :)
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
Suffice it to say, it is basic, fundamental climate science to understand that low resolution proxies filter out short term spikes in either direction.
Again, you've misunderstood :) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading :) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right? :)
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? :)
I did look. Do you understand the difference between linear and exponential?
The line in your graph is almost exactly 45 degrees heading up - x^2 looks something like this:
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/exponential-growth/images/formula_exponential_growth3.png
So, to be clear, the comparison between today's ppm (observed) and the Eocene's ppm (proxied) is meaningless, and only made in order to incorrectly imply that we will be seeing Eocene temperatures soon.
Whether or not 400ppm has any other detrimental affect other than temperature (which it obviously hasn't driven to Eocene levels), such as say, increased vegetation growth encroaching upon human settlement, is a completely different argument.
This is the sort of conversation to expect from deniers, and not from actual skeptics.
Regarding whether the accumulation is exponential, maybe step back and take a broader look?
http://www.eoearth.org/files/112301_112400/112388/620px-Co2_atmosphere.jpg
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide?topic=49557
"Whether or not 400ppm has any other detrimental affect other than temperature (which it obviously hasn't driven to Eocene levels)"
You're missing a word. "Yet".
Remember when I said "There is no claim that the system will respond instantly. A system as large as the earth will take some time to warm up." In this thread? No I figured you didn't. Forgetting counterarguments is a specialty you guys cultivate.
Well, I did my best. Go ahead and have the last word if you must.
mt
You do realize you're splicing a low resolution proxy to high resolution direct measurements, right? Literally comparing apples to oranges (and precious few oranges at that) :)
"Yet" is a weasel word used by apocalyptic doomsayers.
Be specific, how long do you think it will take for the earth to warm to Eocene temperatures now that we've hit 400ppm? 100 years? 200 years? Does the fact that CO2 keeps linearly climbing, yet temperature has stayed flat for almost 2 decades, offer any sort of concern to your primary conceit?
Yes, March 14, 2015 will be a special pi day. Yes, 400ppm has two pretty zeros at the end. Beyond that, the two have approximately the same real world importance :)
ah yes
"Combining these results with global estimates from previous studies, the erosion induced terrestrial carbon sink can potentially offset as much as 10 percent of the global fossil-fuel emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005." http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/highlights/2007_no9.pdf
Nothing to worry about, then. Everybody back to sleep.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
As I'd posted Beck's link to a number of threads on AGW, I wanted to post my response to some other links as well:
I just want to say thanks to some /. posters, in particular for the realclimate links (Rabett is a little too snarky for me) - specifically http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ [realclimate.org] [realclimate.org] .
The article is interesting, as is especially the commentary, in which people raise a number of well-informed questions and get well-informed answers.
I'm trying to honestly evaluate the claims of AGW as best I can as a layman. I'm not a climate scientist, and I'll admit, I have been made suspicious by the quasi-religious tone of the exercise (starting with Mr Gore) and the unquestioning adulatory tenor of its supporters (a Nobel and Academy Award for him, really?).
Anyway, I sincerely appreciate anything that increases my understanding of the science and details.
As a layman, it seems irrefutable that there is warming taking place. It seems that CO2 has recently spiked, and that makes anecdotal sense given the intense and constant consumption of hydrocarbons since industrialization.
However...the point of the AGW creed is not merely to prove warming or CO2. It is, in fact, to assert:
1) that the sole (or at least dominant cause) for global warming (later amended to 'changing climate' - hah) is human activity, AND
2) that this is an unmitigated catastrophe, AND
3) the only solution is expanding government control of the activities of individuals "for their own good".
#1 seems at least partially true.
#2 may certainly be true in the short run for people in coastal cities, but let's be honest, these very-human things were never established in their current locations based on their durability/safety, and in long enough timescales the survivability of anything approaches zero. Nothing is permanent, not even stuff that we deem "really important or inconvenient to change". That it's true in the medium- or long-terms is absolutely not proved, particularly not in the case of the most adaptable species this planet has ever seen (AFAIK).
#3 certainly doesn't logically follow either of the others, particularly considering some of the people volunteering (out of their own good nature) to be the ones making the decisions.
-Styopa
as was I
then perhaps you can point to those places on the graph where the volcano emitted some CO2 and threw the graph off. Because I see the annual variation and a general rise. Or are you suggesting that the volcano is emitting CO2 pretty much in sync with the amount of carbon human beings are burning, which itself is disappearing rather than showing up in the atmosphere? Occam is razoring his throat in his grave.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You have to admire the denialist logical facility.
1) AGW is a fiction, because historically high CO2 follows high temperatures, not the other way around.
2) AGW is a fiction, because currently high CO2 follows low temperatures.
I venture that if someone holds these opinions, you will never be able to create a logical argument powerful enough to cause him to abandon them.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You should probably have read the OP statement I replied to first before making your snarky comment...
"A very high CO2 measurement is found after a decade of reduction in overall temperature."
In fact, if you look at the last decade, it's still up almost 0.1 degree USING THE 5 YEAR MOVING AVERAGE (0.15 without). His statement was wrong, it's not a decade of reduction, it's just a decade of slowed increase with much more volatility. You seem to be making a conclusion based only on the final two data points on a graph.
Even *if* my response to the OP was incorrect - which is wasn''t - your attempt to establish a useful "trend" from 2 data points out of 100+ is absurd. And the fact that you tried to call someone else out on that on that after making such a silly statement is just plain sad.
I'm not establishing a trend at all. I'm saying that your statement, taken on its own, was wrong and unscientific.
Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about, and that's all there's to it.
It may have not been any more "scientific" (whatever you think that silly broad term means in this context) than the OP's post but it was factually and mathematically 100% correct, since it simply boils down to the statements "after a decade of reduction in temperature" and "that statement isn't true". That's all my post pointed out, and that's all it was trying to point out. It was a simple logical statement, not a statistical one (and moving averages are not particularly good at establishing trends at the end of a dataset, anyway, obviously).
And despite your denial, you called the last two data points in a 100+ year graph a trend. It's pretty easy to scroll up there and read your own post, but I'll make it easy...
the 5 year average in your graph shows a slight downward trend.
I'm not establishing a trend at all.
Sigh, yet another semantic nitpick debate with someone who can't even be consistent between his own posts, let alone make their own on-topic contribution to the thread as a whole... where are all of these slashdot trolls coming from??
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away.
Again, you've misunderstood :) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...
You admit again, and quite openly, that you consider the model to be falsifiable.
and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading :) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
You imagine that you can successfully conflate "not falsified" with "not falsifiable" and nobody will notice. You're wrong. You imagine that somehow, you can change the topic to something other than your constant stream of self contradictory, bizarre assertions. Wrong again.
I'll say this again: Let assume you are right and the NOAA 2008 model was falsified. Or randomly pick any other model. Not out of the question - models have certainly been falsified in the past. What then?
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right?
I guess that's the reason you haven't responded to explain why you engaged in a strawman, because this thread is closed. What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science. You just continue on in a haze of self contradiction and fallacy, or you stop posting.
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come?
Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy?
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
Silly rabbit. You're once again trying to have your cake and eat it too :)
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW"
You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!"
Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
If the failure of NOAA 2008 doesn't falsify your central conceit, then it really wasn't a legitimate falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, now was it? :)
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true :) This isn't how you do science :)
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Why should I apologize to you when you do that? :)
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW"
You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!"
Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
And here you misrepresent a conversation from yesterday as if it were impossible for me to flip back a page and actually read the text of the conversation. Ugh.. Such a strain to move the mouse.... oh. Look's like that wasn't what happened at all. Sorry.
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true :) This isn't how you do science :)
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science.
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Stop whining. I'm not your mummy, no amount of whinging will convince me to give you a lolly.
Why should I apologize to you when you do that?
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said:
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman: Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy? Rather than acknowledge your strawman and indeed, acknowledge the need to present facts and argue intelligently for them, you simply decided to edit out this discussion - even though that comment is the central point of this thread. Why do you not want to address the actual topic of this conversation?
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements.
The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades.
What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions :)
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" :) "Denying" has nothing to do with the argument I'm making about your poor grasp of the scientific method.
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable, but then you claim that that the falsification of a single model doesn't falsify your whole theory. The contradiction is in your thought process :)
* You claim AGW is in fact a falsifiable hypothesis
* You claim that my cite of NOAA 2008 shows that there is a falsifiable model out there for AGW
* You accept that NOAA 2008 was falsified
* You claim that the falsification of NOAA 2008 does not falsify the hypothesis it was meant to support
Oh please, don't be obtuse :) Are we to understand that your critique of my lack of apology was intended to encourage me never to apologize? :)
As for lies and fallacy, again, it seems you've been reduced to projecting your own faults upon others :)
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
Or do you believe that any CO2 driven warming is benign?
The problem here is that you want to hold onto the trope that CO2 is dangerous, but don't want to be held to account for quantifying or specifying the actual danger. You'll blithely sit by and let alarmists make wild predictions unfettered from reality, and ignore the fallacious comparison of CO2 levels of the Eocene with CO2 levels of today, but when called on it, you simply cry "strawman!"
I think you're trying to have a different conversation than I am :)
The topic at hand is the fallacious comparison between modern CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, and proxy CO2 measures that smooth out variation due to their low resolution, in order to make grandiose claims of apocalypse (dangerous climate change).
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again. And if you personally don't believe that CO2 emissions in the modern era are going to cause dangerous climate change, then we have no essential disagreement :)
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements. The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades. What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
Mmm. As I just highlighted to your buddy, feel free to continue to pretend that science equivalent to fairy wishing: Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions :)
I repeat: Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
What's the problem here? Are you so ignorant of science and the scientific method that you aren't actually able to shape the required material? Specify the exact nature of this variance in CO2 sensitivity as a function of time, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" :)
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" is not binary construct. falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is binary, it's true or it is not. Is this your view? Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory?
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said: Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman:
Feel free to pretend that science can happen without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Wait, do you *deny* that there is peer-reviewed literature over the past 10 years that has continually revised the IPCC's CO2 sensitivity value lower and lower?
Really?
So you're asking me to explain to you why the IPCC's asserted CO2 sensitivity values have been continually changing? Why don't you ask them to show their work? :)
That's *exactly* my point. You cannot assert that a theory is falsifiable if it is comprised of dozens of models, of which any arbitrary number can be falsified without actually threatening the central conceit of the theory.
Is a theory falsifiable when only one of it's many models is falsifiable?
Again, you misunderstand my argument - I'm showing you that your position is inherently contradictory. If AGW is falsifiable, then NOAA 2008 has already shown it to be falsified. If you defend AGW against NOAA 2008 by asserting that its falsification has no bearing on the theory of AGW, then you're showing clearly that AGW is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
What part of that don't you understand?
Deceptive editing? Are you asserting that I've edited your words in my direct quotes of you? Or are you unhappy that I don't quote *everything* you state?
Yes, that's exactly where we started...but it seems you don't understand what it means. Would you like a more thorough explanation?
I'm am asserting that that is the implication of making wild press releases trying to pretend that today's CO2 levels are somehow indicative of ancient, warmer times. Of course they don't *state* that things will happen immediately, because they've got no proof of that - but neither do they have any proof that it will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 1000 years.
It's like blithely mentioning that some criminal was black, implying that all blacks are criminals - alarmism, like racism, can be subtle.
Why avoid the question? Do you believe that modern human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous climate changes?
Follow up: do you believe that the fact that modern CO2 levels exist in a world significantly colder than the one existed the last time these CO2 levels existed in the proxy data should lead us to believe that we are headed for similar temperatures?
1. [re: your theory that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time] Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published:
In other words, show working.
2. [re: Your theory on AGW falsifiability] Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory of AGW? Answer yes or no, otherwise I will assume one as the lie, and the other as your actual view.
3. In one of the following post you told a lie. Which one of these statements is a lie?
(a) Here, you claim that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43695417 [slashdot.org]
(b) Here, you say it is: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895 [slashdot.org], and you assert that it has, fact, been falsified by means of falsifying a model (the "NOAA 2008 Model")
Answer with a or b.
4. Here, you assert several things that I supposedly said, for the sake of constructing a whole conversation that never, in fact, occurred: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895 [slashdot.org]
Explain these remarks in detail.
5. Provide this citation:
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
6. Provide this citation:
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
So according to you, climate models predict that when the CO2 levels reach 400ppm the temperature will immediately rise to the levels of the Eocene. Please cite these predictions.
7. Re: you assertion
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again.
Up to you to PROVE that NOAA predicted what you assert they predicted, that is, temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Provide a citation from NOAA in which they predicted that temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Why are you asking me to justify the changes in the IPCC estimates of CO2 sensitivity? Do you not understand the assertion here?
Furthermore do you honestly want to assert that there is one, true, constant CO2 sensitivity value? That no matter what other variation, the reaction of the climate to CO2 is a mechanical constant?
Really?
I'm asserting an if/then condition - you get to tell me what the condition is, and I'll tell you the resulting answer.
If model falsifications don't falsify AGW, then AGW is not falsifiable.
If model falsifications *do* falsify AGW, then AGW has been falsified.
Neither is a lie. I've offered you an if/then condition - you tell me what your "if" is, and I'll tell you what the logical conclusion must be.
Do you deny saying them?
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do :)
Again, as per #4:
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do :)
Wrong again :) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do :)
Wrong again :) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do :)
You seem to get really hung up on some of these concepts, perhaps because you take things too literally, or aren't a native language speaker.
You also seem to have lots of questions, but no willingness to actually give answers yourself - I won't bother linkspamming you with the laundry list of evasions you've already omitted from your last comment, but suffice it to say, you seem to be projecting your own insecurities.
It's highly ironic that in the same comment you declare, "I notice that you've edited out certain sections of this discussion, and chose to reply to others without addressing the question.", you fail to answer any of the questions posed to you :)
I guess that's the last refuge of alarmists who can no longer defend their position :)
Let's start with number 5, since it is a pre-requisite to your central fallacy.
5. Provide a citation to justify the following assertion from you concerning something I supposedly said:
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Are you unable to provide this citation? Answer either yes, and provide the citation, or no you cannot provide the citation
Again, you completely forget to answer the questions asked of you :)
Since you seem to be having a difficult time understanding my answers, I agree, we should do them one at a time - and maybe, you can answer questions posed to you one at a time too :)
Here's what you quoted from me:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable"
Here is what *you* said I was responding to:
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*;
2) I asserted that *if* AGW is considered falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable, you must agree that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, then so is AGW;
3) You critiqued your misunderstanding of my position, as if I was asserting that in all cases, any model failure causes the failure of an entire theory - on the contrary, if indeed a theory has a falsifiable hypothesis, then various models which may be either incidental or ancillary to the theory may be falsified without affecting the central conceit, *SO LONG AS THE CENTRAL CONCEIT IS FALSIFIABLE BY OTHER MEANS*. Read the caps part again, slowly, and let that sink in.
4) In your critique of your misunderstanding of my position, you referred to "the whole theory";
5) I attributed this "whole theory" as the theory you were talking about - i.e., *your* theory (or "my theory" when you're speaking from your point of view)
Now, perhaps you misunderstood the word "your", and took it to mean a personal theory that belonged to you, rather than "your" as in the theory *you* were talking about in your comment.
So to help clear it up, we can restate my comment as so:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes the whole theory falsifiable"
Why do I make this argument? Because you keep insisting that I asserted AGW was falsifiable because I asserted NOAA 2008 was falsifiable.
So now, let's ask you a *single* question, and we'll see if you have the intestinal fortitude to answer it:
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*;
I did not. Your mistake.
You said that the NOAA 2008 model was falsified, and via that falsification, the entire branch of climatology was falsified - ipso facto, because you believe this science to be falsified, you also believe it to be falsifiable. You cannot have the one without the other.
And your belief is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions. We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory. Secondly, the NOAA 2008 model does not exist. Some comments were made by someone from NOAA *in* 2008, which apparently caused some clucking in the henhouse of denialism (specifically Messrs Watts and Pielke) - but they've gone awful quiet about it, so I suspect they already know they were wrong. But by all the evidence, NOAA did not publish a model in 2008, making your falsification look a bit ridiculous.
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
Or: more likely, you were attempting to portray your remarks as directed against a theory that I myself made up. Which is clearly false - you are not arguing with me, but with 150 years of observations and critical thought, and, to top it off, with the laws of thermodynamics. You are not arguing with me, but with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, Hawking. So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
Let's move on.
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!
I'm happy to answer the question: No: I do not think that , for the reasons stated above.
Next question:
2. Why did you state that the underlying theory was not falsifiable when you clearly think that it is?
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's".
Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM :)
No, I said that if AGW was to be considered falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, and NOAA 2008, then the logical conclusion is that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, so is AGW.
My critique there, which you still don't seem to understand, is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too - if you claim AGW is falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, then you must also accept that AGW has been falsified because NOAA 2008 has been.
Not the use of the word "if".
You're off the reservation on this one KM :) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution? :)
Think about that for a second.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in? :)
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
Now, in case I've misinterpreted you, and what you really meant was "confirming observations cannot falsify the underlying theory", can you state *any* observation of your "forcing-o-mometer" that would falsify the central conceit of the underlying theory?
No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Please feel free to replace the term "your theory" with "the theory", if you can remember that "the theory" refers to "the whole theory" you have referenced.
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
Excellent, we're getting somewhere - you don't believe that NOAA 2008's falsifiability confers falsifiability upon the central conceit of AGW.
Next question: Is AGW a falsifiable theory, and if so, what observations would falsify it?
Again, a misunderstanding on your part. Let's split the universe up into a few possibilities, and maybe you can understand my "if" statements you've mistaken for simple assertions:
1) AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable
You've already addressed this - you simply don't believe it, and I accept yo
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's". Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM :)
So: In summary:
1. Your assertion that I said that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is proven a fallacy. You attempted to misquote me to support your fallacy, but were caught out.
2. You are now claiming to have never made that claim yourself: Here is you saying it (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895)
"And...it [the model] was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions.
You're off the reservation on this one KM :) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution? :)
Think about that for a second.
Mmm. All that second did is remind me that it is not my job to explain the workings of science to you.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in? :)
Once again - nobody needs to prove anything to you or fill in the (obviously) vast gaps in your understanding of the subject matter. Want to disprove the theory? It's UP TO YOU to disprove it. But first you'll need to learn the basics of the scientific method.
We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory.
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
*facepalm*
You are embarrassing yourself.
Seriously. Is it really your belief that observation is not, in fact, scientific? And by extension that the sun revolves around the earth?
Are you trying to invoke pity from me? Is that the tactic here? Or you trying to make this so easy that I'll get bored and go away?
Once again: The underlying theory has been confirmed by direct observations. It follows then, that these observations are both verifiable and falsifiable by observation. For example, Tyndal observed that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates light in such a way that it traps heat in a gaseous mixture. This result can be falsified by repeating Tyndals experiment and demonstrating that CO2 is not, in fact a greenhouse gas.
So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
Well, in the case of Arrhenius, Hornborg, Fourier and Tyndal it is most certainly their theory you are a
Whoa there, Trigger, you've gone from misunderstanding to full blown conspiracy mode! I know it's hard when your misunderstandings are illustrated clearly for everyone to see, but there's no need to get bitter and defensive!
You quoted me without proper context, specifically, without the context of the "if" statement. I stated, "if X, then Y". You've mistakenly asserted that I categorically stated "X is true".
Again, you fail to comprehend the argument - if NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable, and NOAA 2008 is falsified, then AGW is falsified.
Now, you've clarified that you don't believe NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable. I've asked you to specify what *does* make AGW falsifiable. /crickets
So, challenged on your ridiculous claim of a "forcing-o-mometer" that directly measures CO2 forcing, you dodge :)
I'll say it flatly - there is no such thing, and you're lying or woefully ignorant. Feel free to repudiate my claim by specifying the measurement device which *directly* measures CO2 forcing.
You: We've directly measured CO2 forcing with magical forcing-o-mometers
Me: B.S. - There is no such device.
You: Well, obviously I'm not going to tell you what the device is, and I'll assert that since you don't know what it is, you're just ignorant.
Really? You're going to claim the naked emperor has a beautiful new set of clothes that normal people can't see? :)
Okay, so now you're saying that the radiative properties of CO2 in a lab is a *direct* measurement of CO2 forcing in the global climate?
Really? Is *that* what your misunderstanding was? You thought that someone with a spectrograph measuring CO2 molecules in a test tube somehow was directly measuring the forcing effect of CO2 on global average temperature in the real world?
Yes, you can directly measure the properties of CO2. You can also directly measure the properties of H2O. From those properties, you cannot blithely assert a specific sensitivity of global average temperature to either CO2 or H2O levels.
Or would you like to argue otherwise, and dig yourself in deeper? :)
I was referring to *your* clause of "the whole theory". If you wanted to be more specific, you could have said, "I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory of thermodynamics proposed by Rumford.) conflation".
Of course, you didn't, because we weren't talking about Rumford's theories. Unfortunately, we were talking about an ambiguous, non-falsifiable, and thus far unquoted hypothesis of AGW, which you're either purporting exists somewhere unspecified, or is simply the logical conclusion to draw from a disparate cluster of other hypotheses.
Would you like to clarify your assertions by actually *stating* a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis of AGW? /crickets
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P > .95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
I beg to differ. Let's review:
#####
You: "1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working."
Me: "I have a falsifiable hypothesis - I believe that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
No, asserting that the radiative properties of CO2 is sufficient is not an acceptable answer.
No, asserting that AGW is considered true by default is not an acceptable answer."
#####
You might not *like* the answer you got, because obviously you don't really care for the idea of a falsifiable hypothesis, and I challenged the very premise of your question with my answer, but to say that I didn't answer is demonstrably false. I accept your apology for misunderstanding in advance :)
For the second bit:
#####
You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours :)
You seem to believe that it's theoretically possible for there to be another hypothesis out there (call it Hypothesis X), that could explain all of the observations we've had over the past 150 years of global average CO2 and global average temperature, with an arbitrary accuracy *better* (by however small an amount) than the central conceit of human CO2 emissions.
What you don't seem to understand is that Hypothesis X would be just as unscientific as AGW if it did not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Again, read that sentence over and let it sink in.
I'll go even further and state that if you had an unfalsifiable Hypothesis X that was 99.99% accurate, and a falsifiable Hypothesis Y that was only 70% accurate, Hypothesis X would *still* be unscientific. Of course, no GCMs or predictions of AGW have been anywhere near that accurate, but you get the point."
#####
Now again, you might not be happy with the answer I gave, because I directly challenge the utility of your question, but to say I didn't answer is either dishonest or demonstrating a terrible lack of comprehension. Again, I accept your apology in advance :)
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
2) Insofar as actually stating a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, to be concretely clear about "the whole hypothesis" you're defending, your lack of response is taken that you've never seen one, although clearly you believe it exists. I humbly suggest that if you'd like to make a scientific argument, you actually *find* it.
3) Insofar as actually stating *any* observations of global CO2 levels and global average temperatures which would falsify your central conceit, your lack of answer here clearly indicates that you do not believe that any observation of the variables in question would be outside the bounds of the explanatory power of your hypothesis. You are clearly convinced that since CO2 absorbs IR, AGW is true, and that unless the actual physical constants of the universe were shown to be incorrect, you shall always believe your hypothesis. This, of course, is the definition of faith, and I accept that it is both important to you and sincere.
Now, I'm feeling a bit sorry for your lack of skill in putting together a cogent argument, so I've decided
This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours :)
My hypothesis is that you don't have any proof for your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and you cannot offer any plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
Feel free to audit my hypothesis, by providing proof of your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and offering a plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
And you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask them again:
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P > .95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
One more thing:
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
By that measure you have previously admitted, on multiple occasions, that both the underlying science of AGW and the models built on that groundwork are both falsifiable and true and that you have no hypothesis or neces
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis...just as you've failed to do with the AGW hypothesis.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions? You're asserting that it's *my* job to show AGW is not falsifiable (proving a negative), as well as that it is my job to detail a competing model to prove the CO2 conceit is wrong (or at least "wronger" than some arbitrary Hypothesis X explanation I'm supposed to show).
You do realize that when you make these kinds of attacks that apply to your own behavior, it undermines your position, right?
Look, you need to really take some time to understand Popper, even if you don't agree with him. Falsifiability doesn't mean you're making it someone else's job - falsifiability come even *before* the search for evidence and observation.
How will you know when you're wrong if you cannot imagine any observations that would show that you're wrong? Faith is built upon the edifice of a belief system that avoids this question...just as you're avoiding this question, again and again.
Of course I answered your questions. You didn't like the answers, but I certainly did answer them, and you should stop lying about it. It makes you look petty and childish :)
Your "underlying science" (radiative properties of CO2) is falsifiable and arguably true.
AGW does not follow from the existence of the radiative properties of CO2, so it does not become falsifiable and true simply because the IR response of CO2 is falsifiable and true.
I'll further assert that NOAA 2008 was nearly unique in its specification of falsification criteria, and unsurprisingly, was in fact falsified. I know of no other paper in the literature that made any explicit statements of falsifiability, but I'm happy to read any that you can cite.
I'll quote you back to yourself: "Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified." :)
It's not my job to replace your unfalsifiable AGW hypothesis with another model :)
Wow. Define accurate:
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis.
Yes, exactly my point. This is the fallacy that you are engaged in, and when presented in raw form even you can see it for the fallacy that it is. I’ll note that you didn’t even try to differentiate between my example of the fallacy and your use of it. That’s pretty indicative.
So that’s a problem – for you. Now that you know that you may not engage in a burden of proof fallacy to prove you hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”, however will you prove your hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”)? I know! You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions?
Absolutely not. Do you imagine that you expressing a belief actually challenges the edifice of scientific findings? That if you express a belief as fact e.g. “Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not” that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Absolutely not.
The rules for burden of proof vary depending on whether or not the asserter is actually stating an assertion that is already scientifically proven. For brevity, we can call this set of assertions “facts” although the term “theory” is also acceptable for our purposes
a. If I restate an assertion that is already tested and proven according to the scientific method, I have no burden of proof.
b. If I state a
So you not only want to ask the question, but you want to tell me how to answer it too? :)
I'm sorry, but asserting that there is some burden of proof on proving a negative is simply a semantic attempt for you to shift responsibilities that thus far, you've shirked.
Put more bluntly, the burden of proof for your assertion "AGW is falsifiable" lies clearly with you, and you've failed to address it time and time again :)
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative - you're asking me to prove that there are no fairies in your garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that negative, I must assume your assertion is true.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Here, learn about Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working? :)
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too? :)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that butterfly or human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
So you're simply asserting that AGW is already scientifically proven, even though you cannot cite or quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? :)
Wow, ballsy. It's like hearing a creationist assert that Noah's ark is already scientifically proven, while glossing completely over the lack of any falsifiability :)
But AGW hasn't been tested and proven according to the scientific method. You can't even cite its necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - something that *surely* would exist if it was already proven using the scientific method! :)
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So [scientists] not only want to ask the question, but [they] want to tell me how to answer it too? :)
Yep. Suck it up dude.
You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the [asserter] - you're asking me to prove that there are [] fairies in [my] garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that [], [we] must assume [my] assertion [of fairies in the garden] is [false].
Yep.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Apparently not. You need a lesson on how to read, apparently.
Here, learn about Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Russell's teapot applies perfectly in this case – Russell surmises that in the case of the unobservable item (the teapot) the burden of proof lies with the asserter (you).
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working? :)
If you insist that you have some empirical proof that God does not exist, you are required to provide it, because the question of the existence of God is non-empirical unlike your own assertion. If you make some statement of belief (e.g. “I believe God does not exist”) this is perfectly acceptable but has no impact on someone who believes otherwise, and no impact on empirical reality.
In contrast, if you make an empirical assertion as you have done, and this assertion contrasts with known science, as yours does, you are unequivocally required to provide proof.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too? :)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
Driven to trolling I see. You are embarrassing yourself.
That if you express a belief as fact e.g. 'Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not' that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
That's your assertion. Now prove it.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
You say that c
So...what you're saying is...the falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is unobservable :)
This would fit with the idea that it exists out there somewhere, but an adherent such as yourself cannot bring yourself to quote it :) Perhaps some ritual is required before it is shareable with the masses? :)
So, the question of the existence of a falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is non-empirical, which means you don't need to provide any proof. I understand your rationale, but do you understand how flawed that is?
Are you a theist?
Okay, so I believe that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis of AGW does not exist. You believe otherwise. How do we determine empirical reality? Shall we just assume that it's my job to prove a negative? Really?
I say that there is no Russell's Teapot. Now I'm supposed to prove that? :)
Wow, you've taken denial to a whole new level :)
Wait, so somebody else's published work, that has no falsifiable hypothesis statement, requires *me* to prove that it doesn't have one?
Here, try this - I've read every single AGW paper ever published. Barring NOAA 2008, none have made any statement of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. You can check my work by actually reading every single AGW paper ever published :)
Wow. You go from NOAA 2008 to all "the models". I think you failed to read what I wrote again :)
No, I've equated your belief in AGW with theology, as it fails to actually have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and apparently requires that people prove the negative before it is dismissed :)
Just like a theist, you believe the proof lies in the person who believes that there is no Russell's teapot :)
Entertainment :) You're cute when you're cranky :)
But apparently without applying the same standard to yourself :)
Go ahead, prove your assertion that AGW has a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis :)
Wait, so you think the default assumption should've been "the sun revolves around the earth"? You believe that that particular scientific epiphany should have been accepted before ever entertaining say, the geocentric
Here's a fairly good back and forth on the falsifiability angle: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245
Even funnier is the IPCC explicitly avoiding claims of falsifiability of the models:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScientificEvidence.pdf
"The IPCC appreciated the necessity for attempting to falsify results by a process of validation from the beginning. Their first Report (1990)7 has a Chapter 4 “Validation of Climate Models”
A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the next (1995) Report and, as an “Expert Reviewer” at the time, I submitted the comment that since no Climate Model has ever been validated the term was inappropriate. Somewhat to my surprise, they agreed with me. In the Second Draft, not only had the title of the Chapter been changed, to “Evaluation of Climate Models” but the words “validation” and “validated” had been altered to “evaluation” and “evaluated” no less than fifty times in the text. In addition, all references to “forecasting” and “prediction” had been removed and all model results are now “projections” whose value depends on the extent to which their assumptions can be believed. .
These practices are now standard throughout all the IPCC Reports, .In other words, the IPCC admits that Climate Science cannot meet the requirements usually regarded as essential for the scientific method. ."
Another great little gem on falsifiability:
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/time-new-paradigm-climate-change
"Coming now to the more topical and contentious case of climate change, it is clear that science is operating in a Kuhnian fashion. There are a number of observations which would apparently serve to falsify the hypothesised enhanced greenhouse effect. Not least of these are the missing signature of CO2-driven warming (an enhanced rate of warming in the upper troposphere relative to the Earth's surface) and the lack of warming across the greater part of Antarctica. The response to this – from those who do not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand – is to point instead to evidence which is consistent with the AGW hypothesis and to introduce a range of fudge factors such as aerosols to account for the observed lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average temperatures.
The behaviour of a great many researchers involved in climate change is far from Popperian. Rather than test their hypothesis by trying to falsify it, they look instead for evidence which supports it and, in a deeply unscientific manner, will often simply dismiss contrary evidence on the basis of minor flaws or criticism. This is research done according to prejudice rather than with an open mind. To compound the error, and because evidence can only be gathered by observation rather than experiment, increasing reliance has been placed on computer models."
And the hits keep on coming:
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/agw-experts-are-idiots/
tl;dr - less antarctic ice is global warming. more antarctic ice is global warming.
And yet, despite your claims of a vast, time travelling conspiracy of climatologists, you are not able to actually provide any empircal evidence of this conspiracy and instead resort to quoting verbatim from other denialists. Do you think clucking from the hen house of denialism is taken as challenge by the scientific community? Do you think that the same claim repeated by someone else makes it seem more forceful? That is just sad.,
Kind of ironic, since you yourself have claimed that climate models are falisfiable. Do you know what falsifiability is?
Climategate. Google it. Especially the refutation of the many whitewash "investigations" :)
Show working :)
I said NOAA 2008 was falsifiable, and furthermore it was falsified.
You claim that its falsification has no bearing on the falsifiability or falsification of AGW.
So, in your world, climate models don't matter if they fail :)
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
Yes of course. A whitewash. Did Zombie Tyndal come forward in time and hypnotise the judges? It's a conspiracy maan. A proper, time travellin' conspiracy! How did they get the earth to warm by 0.7C over 100 years? Alien technology man!
Terrific! Here's a video of a sewage overflow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWOOqPAEgs - this sewage overflow producing less of a rancid stream of effluvia than than the blog you quoted.
Now, your guy might have more intelligence than a tapeworm. But what about two? Or - three? Hmmmm?
It's pretty clear to me that you are no longer up to this. The desperate spray of ridiculous clowns performing tricks to the tune of laughable fallacy? The reframing of my replies to make me the subject?
The NOAA 2008 Model debacle must be a blow for you, huh? I tried to warn you. Don't believe me? Look back over the last 7 posts or so. You just got into a blind rage or panic and start spraying fallacies left and right. I'll admit that you invoked pity.
Next time, check your facts. Heck: bring some facts.
No, I properly quoted your remarks and made an argument that apparently you have no coherent response to :)
What's your problem with NOAA 2008? We've already established that it contained falsification criteria that were observed, and that according to you, its falsification has no bearing on whether or not AGW is true.
Put another way, is there *any* model that you believe would have a bearing on whether or not AGW is true?
Checking - yup, the fact is you still haven't, in hundreds of comments, quoted a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW :)
What don't you understand about your reference?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Search for the phrase "rule out".
Now, if you want to make the argument that NOAA 2008 isn't a single model, but rather a single paper, and it refers to multiple simulation runs of HADcm3, I'm happy to use more specific language to help you understand the issue. :)
Here, some thorough work on the whitewashes, which you probably won't read, and therefore will be unable to comprehend :):
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
"1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes. Despite being asked by Parliament to conclusively resolve this issue, Sir Muir Russell did not attend the interviews with Jones and, as reported in UK media, his inquiry did not ask Jones if he had deleted emails.
3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. These ended up being subjective, he-said-she-said disputes, and in some cases the documentation was too sparse. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
There remain two other questions needing to be addressed:
6. Is the IPCC a reliable source of information on climate change? In light of the answer to question 3, and the findings of the IAC that fundamental reforms are needed, the answer is that, even if one assumes that the existing problems did not compromise the validity of previous IPCC reports, as of the present, the IPCC should be viewed as unsound until and unless fundamental reforms are implemented. It has become tendentious and conniving, and its review process is compromised.
7. Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. Sir Muir Russell’s team had no mandate to assess CRU scientific wo
You're not reading things again, are you? :)
But since we're on youtube, here's some soothing tunes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk
I love youtube :)
More christmas cheer for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]
Search for the phrase "rule out".
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
Sure it does. Search for "rule out". It rules out what has already been observed at the 95% confidence level...are you really going to claim that you still have a 5% chance of being right in the Bayesian sense? :)
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3. Or then again, maybe you didn't understand it, since you obviously never read NOAA 2008 :)
You're so cute! First, I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog, but second, you seem to think I'd consider your silence a *threat*! :)
I love you KM, and I love our time together, but you've got a lot to learn :) Try with this starter list:
1) proving a negative
2) russell's teapot
3) karl popper and falsifiability
You could do it if you tried, but we already know that's a soft spot in your character :)
I've also known people who believed that there was a giant worm in their stomach controlling their destiny and unbalancing their chi. Your story has somewhat less credibility than theirs.
Did you watch the one with the screeching monkey?
For example: Necessary according to whom?
Try to find something original next time
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Sure it does. Search for "rule out".
Apparently you can't read. And I see that you aren't really committed to proving Watts' conjecture, which is a wise move on your part.
We've failed to witness any plausible rebuttal from you, so we'll move on.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3.
That is obviously my point. Can't you read? I understood perfectly what was going on - I knew, in fact, since you first raised it in our last conversation.
You, in contrast, were completely taken in by that liar Watts.
Would you like me to go back over this conversation and draw out the times you made reference to the fairy tale model?
How many times has he (Watts) fooled you now?
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog
I was, of course referring to you metaphorical dog, which is you central fallacious construct: there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW - I called it a dog, rather than an construct or fallacy, because of your emotive attachment to it.
What of this necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
1. Popper doesn't demand that there be a "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW" - for Popper and his adherents, that would be like saying that astronomy (which has no "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement" , being composed of multiple hypotheses) is unscientific.
2. Your proof of your hypothesis: (there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW ) fails the test set by Popper. Your proof - which put succintly, is "There is no falsifiable hypothesis because I have never seen one" is Inductivist and therefore fallacious in the eyes of Popper.
3. Turns out that not all scientists accept Poppers theory. These bad boys make their own rules. The science the