It is simple really. Calculate global heat content. Is it higher than last year? Is it getting steadily higher over the past few decades? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.
Ah, were it so simple. Your observation of increasing temperatures, on any scale, be it from day to day, season to season, year to year or decade to decade, does not show that it is caused by humans.
Global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt for anyone that has a damn clue about the nature of reality.
Be more specific. We're talking about a theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, not any momentary global warming or cooling that happens as a matter of natural variation.
Both are falsifiable, but both are also true.
No, evolution is falsifiable. The so-called theory of catastrophic AGW is not falsifiable, and is definitely not science.
How about this -> would historic evidence of rising CO2 but lowering temperatures falsify the theory of catastrophic AGW? If not, why not?
global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution,
Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis (find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian period, for example). The theory of catastrophic AGW is a tautology -> more snow means global warming. less snow means global warming. This is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Conflating the theory of evolution with AGW is a disservice to the understanding of science -> they aren't even in the same ballpark.
You can die of cancer without doing anything at all that's unhealthy. Breast cancer is suicide? Explain that to me, please.
Call me crazy, but actually, your chance of dying of cancer is probably due to doing something you *think* is healthy, but really isn't -> like eating carbohydrates.
Check out this guy's lecture on the "diseases of civilization" that would appear whenever carbohydrates got introduced into the diets of indigenous folk:
There's a good chance that by eating all those whole grains and cereals that have been touted as "healthy", you've been setting yourself up for cancers of all sorts.
The problem with fossil fuels is that we're not paying the true cost of using them. If you added in all the externalities it would cost 3 or 4 times what it does now.
I guess in order to make that claim, we've got to have some hard numbers on what externalities you're talking about, and have some discussion about why those costs aren't already factored in. My guess is that they're debatable in both identity and magnitude (if CO2 is a good thing because it improves plant growth, this is a positive externality, but if you believe that CO2 is a bad thing because the himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, that's a negative externality...the arguments there can get pretty arbitrary very quickly).
That being said, let's say for sake of argument you're right, and we're somehow deferring the costs of cheap energy -> once you put in a carbon tax, you're hoping beyond hope that once the money is in the hands of the government, it will be used efficiently and effectively to work towards reducing the costs of energy. I'm not sure if that's even possible to imagine, but YMMV.
Except your ounce of prevention on DDT killed 40 million african babies. Just because you're worried, and just because you have some bright idea on how to fix your anticipated problem, doesn't mean that your proposed fix isn't going to screw the pooch worse than your wildest imagination.
The same precautionary principle under the lead of Ancel Keys and his infamous "7 countries study" led to the low-fat/low-calorie dogma that has been the cause of the epidemics of obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases. If we had just laid off the carbs, we'd be doing fine now.
No need, my friend, greenhouse gardeners work all day in 5000ppm CO2, with no ill effects:) But if you'd like to wear the breathing apparatus just for a fashion statement, please, don't let me stop you:)
we are forced into a position of endeavouring to stabilise the climate as much as possible of face horrendous calamities like flooded and destroyed cities and, famines from altered drought and flooding patterns destroying agriculture.
Why forced? There's nothing stopping us, with our level of technology, from moving things around and adapting to whatever environmental conditions that come upon us.
I guess the question is, should we initiate our own horrendous calamities upon the population of the earth in some vain attempt to stabilize climate we can't possibly control, or should we focus our efforts on adapting to whatever the future may hold?
The theory of abiotic oil holds that rapidly rising streams of compressed methane gas reach the crust from the mantle, and when they strike pockets of high temperature they condense into heavier hydrocarbons like crude oil.
Well, apart from the brief moment in 7th grade when I thought the world would be forever changed by cold fusion, I think the proper statement is "what people need is cheap energy", not necessarily compared to alternatives but compared to their incomes. Conservation is actually a wonderfully effective way to increase productivity, but more productivity usually leads to more economic activity and population growth, which leads to a net increase in CO2 or whatever side effects of energy you may have.
Of course, here's where I have to trot out the obligatory "what about nukes" line, but I'll admit as much of a free market liberal I am, I'm not sure if I'd condone the complete deregulation of the nuclear power plant industry.
Now, it's certainly possible that an alternative to petroleum products will become cheaper and more attractive than petroleum itself, but once that moment comes, no government impetus will be necessary -> the profit motive will deal with that very nicely. In the mean time, any subsidies or tariffs to try to guide people in the "right" direction really only serves to reduce wealth, and you end up with fraud like you did in Spain (http://www.expansion.com/2010/04/19/empresas/energia/1271712211.html for those who understand Spanish).
The joys of malaria that have killed 40 million african children over the past 40 years came to you thanks to the blackballing of DDT by radical environmentalists back in the 60s and 70s. If you're worried about malaria, it's not the temperature that should concern you, it's the irrational demonization of life saving chemicals like DDT.
Google for "abiogenic oil". Petroleum didn't come from fossils, it's a naturally occurring product from the inner layers of the earth -> it was never part of the biosphere. If you doubt it's possible, just imagine where all the natural gas out on Saturn's moon Titan came from (it's atmosphere is about 1.4% methane).
That being said, the earth has experienced periods of much higher temperatures (which have been particularly beneficial to life in general and humans in specific), and tremendously higher CO2 levels. Even if you grant that CO2 levels have risen due to human activity, the assertion that this will cause an increase in temperatures significantly, or that any significant increase in temperature would be detrimental, do not automatically follow.
It is indeed possible to create a mathematical climate model that is consistent with historical and prehistorical climate evidence, as well as climate on other planets, and yet does not predict several more degrees of warming from anticipated CO2 increases, then produce it.
Assuming you meant "If it is indeed..." -> show me a mathematical climate model that is consistent with historical and prehistorical climate evidence, as well as climate on other planets (like Mars' disappearing ice caps without any human CO2 emissions). Go ahead, pick any one of the 23 cited by the IPCC. I await your citation with glee:)
Given the amount of opposition to global warming from powerful, wealthy interests that stand to lose financially from CO2 mitigation efforts, it seems certain that somebody would have developed such a model.
And let's not forget the powerful, wealthy interests who stand to lose financially from the end of CO2 trading schemes too:) Look, let's not pretend that there are monied interests on both sides of this equation, it's just being dishonest with yourself.
This is not a criticism of the final summary, but a comment on an early draft.
Really? Did you read the comment response from the IPCC? It certainly didn't mention any adjustments to fix the final draft in a way that would be acceptable.
It was obvious to me from the outset (as I think it would be to any scientist not blinded by bias) that there is no evidence of malfeasance here.
Really? Wow, that's a bold statement given the absolute lower depths which Phil Jones and his buddies plumbed in the pond of ethics. I suppose if one were incredibly generous, one could write it off to incompetence, but I think any honest reading of the material shows clearly that these guys were so convinced that they were right, that any action, no matter how unethical on their part, was justified by the ends.
The HARRY_README.TXT is obviously somebody's first efforts at understanding and adapting old code. I don't think any objective reader could possibly see it as evidence of falsification.
First efforts? This thing is a work of years, and the very obvious hard coding of a spurious warming trend to adjust measurements is right there in black and white. It's fairly obvious that the code was created specifically to create trends which did not exist, and HARRY, god bless his soul, was honest enough to call it out for what it was -> garbage.
Who said anything about the scales being exactly the same? It remains the case that there are multiple gravitational theories, and the ones that are used routinely to predict things like spaceship trajectories and planetary orbits are known to be approximations
You're trying to build an analogy here, asserting that the 23 different IPCC models are all equally valid since we have several models of gravitation which are also equally valid. Your analogy fails because the scales at which theories of gravitation diverge are orders upon orders of magnitude greater in difference than the differences between your supposedly 23 different, yet completely correct models of CO2 based warming.
If you've got 23 models, and at this point all of them are roughly the same in worth according to you, then you've almost definitely got a confirmation bias going on (or not nearly enough data to be able to discern between right and wrong).
No, it's the other way around. I started out skeptical, and was convinced by the science.
Don't tell me, were you convinced by a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth"?:)
I recognize the characteristic style of argumentation employed by cranks--the embracing of any argument, no matter how transparently invalid
You are the one who is saying that humans are supernatural.
No, I'm the one saying that humans are natural, and can't possibly be affecting global climate by adding trace amounts of plant food into the atmosphere measured in parts per million. You're the one attributing superhuman powers to people:)
That's because you and other denialists are religious, and willfully reject the science.
HA! Sorry, the Church of Global Warming is religion -> I'm a card carrying member of Atheists United, and you're the Southern Baptist here:)
And AGW is indeed falsifiable.
Okay, give my your falsifiable prediction. What observations in the temperature record, past or present, would falsify your theory?
Oh, wait, you're gonna do that whole "more snow == global warming" and "less snow == global warming" dance, right?:)
But it is obvious that you don't give a crap about science, since all you do is to push your political agenda.
Political agenda? Hey man, I just asked you hard questions, and you couldn't answer them without acting like a radical environmentalist libtard so convinced of their righteousness that they can't see their own religious beliefs for what they are.
Actually, I used to be an AGW skeptic myself. That was before I actually bothered to educate myself.
Really? What happened, did you see a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth"?:)
How can he lose the original data when they licensed it from somewhere else, and the place they licensed it from still has the same data?
Still looking for your clue-hat? The problem is that not knowing which original data was licensed from where is a loss of information. Ever hear of traceability? CRU lost it.
On the contrary, the findings of the CRU have been independently verified by scientists from all over the world.
Verified? ROTFLMAO! Did you hear the part when Phil Jones admitted that not a single person who ever peer-reviewed their stuff EVER asked for the data?
CRU findings have certainly been contemporaneously parroted by other warmists, but that's a long cry from verification.
You are indeed a typical dishonest and ignorant creationist/denialist.
Again, dear lady, you protest too much, and obviously hate in yourself what you purport to hate in others.
So here, you are postulating some unidentified physical mechanism that will somehow "kick in" to keep global warming well below the range of plausible projections under scenarios of unrestrained CO2 output, as discussed in the AR4 report.
Well, it would definitely be interesting to determine the exact physical mechanism which has created the sawtooth saturation pattern in the ice core records - it's most likely a matter of the physical properties of CO2 and the limits of its transference of heat to other gases, and the reaction of water to increase temperatures (evaporation), causing a maximum heat level possible. Here's are some interesting pieces on that:
If you have reasonable grounds for taking issue with the AR4 summary, feel free to state them (although I've yet to see any indication that you've even read it).
Sure, how about this opinion, stated very clearly by Andrew Lacis:
"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
This was pretty clear from the outset, and two separate inquiries have reached the conslusion that the stolen correspondence provides no evidence of falsification.
Bull pucky. Both of the whitewash inquiries specifically avoided addressing the real issues, and you're a man enough to admit that.
Have you read the Climategate emails? Or the HARRY_README.TXT? Be honest:)
Just as the various climate models provide predictions that are very similar at a large scale, but differ in the fine details, the gravitational theories make similar large-scale predictions, but diverge at small scales
Whoa, unjustified generalization alert! The scales at which gravitational theories diverge are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude greater than the scales that climate predictions (i'm sorry, "projections") are made on. If you were going to measure earth's climate change the same way you're comparing gravitation, you'd be talking in geologic time scales versus human time scales, and FWIW, none of the models have any way of reconciling with the geologic time scale history of the planet, much less give us any ability to predict future geologic time scale events.
Look, it's obvious you're a smart guy, but how is it you've got such a blind spot on this? Is it just an emotional attachment to the idea of environmentalism? Was it just that the warmists got to you first? You're not the only obviously intelligent person I've seen taken in by this, but it drives me bonkers to see an otherwise rational person making the same kind of arguments creationists do
That's a fallacy, because we know for a fact that humans exist, and we know that humans are able to create things. Your argument only makes sense if you consider humans to be supernatural, like God.
You see, now you've got the essence of the Church of Global Warming -> humans are supernatural beings that can affect the global climate in significant ways by altering a trace atmospheric gas measured in parts PER MILLION!
Your God of the gaps argument simply holds no weight.
The religious statements here are yours alone.
Oh, don't be modest, your blind faith and emotional instability are a wonder for all to see!:)
No one is saying "it must be due to some arbitrary actor".
Sure you are. You've identified evil humanity and the trace gas and plant food CO2 as the cause of the world's woes in the most arbitrary and capricious manner. The thought that it is even possible for you to be wrong is but a fantasy, since you make no predictions that can be falsified by observations. If that isn't arbitrary, then nothing is.
You wouldn't know science if it punched you in the face.
Well, I can certainly tell when it's punching you in the face, and you're looking pretty beat up right about now:) Say a couple of Hail-Gore's at your Church of Global Warming, and you'll get over it though:)
AGW denialism, creationism, and tobacco denialism. Same shit, new wrapping.
Ah, the lady doth protest too much! You hate in others what you hate in yourself, and it must drive you nuts to be the same sort of believer that a creationist is with your AGW faith:)
Still waiting for your falsifiable hypothesis, if you can even think of one:)
Phil Jones admitted losing the original data. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
The CRU licensed that data from elsewhere. When they deleted a tiny part of the raw data, that data was still available from where they licensed it from (and still is).
Put on your clue-hat, you're missing it. The whole point of CRU was that it made all of these predictions and projections based on manipulating data that they now cannot account for. While certainly some of the raw data can be found in the original locations from whence it came, we can't tell from whence it came.
Imagine a pile of 100,000 sticks. CRU made its conclusions based on 100 of those sticks, but has no idea which 100 sticks it was now, since they deleted the data. Hell, Phil Jones couldn't even find his mythical data sharing agreements which kept him from releasing their data supposedly!
You really think you can defend this guy?
But the data was not lost or deleted. The original licensors still have the raw data.
But, thanks to shoddy work at the CRU, we have no idea which original licensors were used, or what subsets of data from them were used. This is the same sort of malarkey CRU was trying to pull when they said "oh, you can get our public data from other sites!", when in fact, understanding *which* station data they were using was the important part. You're missing the forest for the trees.
AGW denialism, creationism, and tobacco denialism. Same shit, new wrapping.
So sayeth the high muckity muck hkmwbz of the Church of Global Warming! Keep digging, you'll find your brains somewhere buried in the ground:)
There is near universal agreement among climate scientists on the atmospheric physics that predicts several degrees of global warming.
Let me finish that statement for you, and see if you still agree with it:
There is near universal agreement among climate scientists on the atmospheric physics that predicts several degrees of global warming solely because of human released CO2.
I'm sure Lindzen would disagree, as well as the others at the ICCC this week, but let's say we allow that -> imagine that no matter what CO2 we pump out, the maximum effect will be an additional 2C, period, whether it happens in 1 year or 100 years. Where's the problem with that?
I'm not going to type it in here just because you can't be bothered to read it yourself.
Hey, just wanted to give you a chance to cite exactly what you wanted to cite, rather than picking through your references and finding all the ridiculously implausible and indefensible parts to lay around your neck. Do you really want to assume the entire IPCC AR4 Summary as your point of view?
For scientists, the fact that multiple approaches to modeling a system lead to the same overall conclusions increases, rather than decreases, confidence in those conclusions.
Really? The "same overall conclusion"? And what conclusion is that, if there are 23 different models that vary greatly in the magnitude of the changes predicted?
"The main defense of the lying graphic is... "Well, at least it was approximately correct, we were just trying to show the general direction of change.""
Given the confirmation bias exposed by Climategate, I'm actually quite disturbed to see multiple approaches reach the same conclusions as a known falsified one. It speaks very poorly of the quality of the untainted models when they agree so well with one that has been jerry-rigged.
For this reason, some climate scientists insist that the model runs should be called "projections" rather than "predictions" because they are dependent upon guesses as to how successful we will be in limiting CO2 release.
Which, again, is an example of the anti-science policy driving conclusions, rather than letting the data lead where it may. This is the really, really big problem of the IPCC and the warmists in general -> it is a foregone conclusion that reducing CO2 emissions is good, and increasing them is bad. This is a human value judgement based on belief, not an empirical statement based on fact and observation.
I still put out the challenge to you -> given 23 different models cited by the IPCC, what observations will allow us to winnow it down to the one model which is correct?
There are indeed multiple versions of gravitation theory, of which Newton's is just one
g = GM/R^2
What's the other one? General relativity? And what kind of discrepancy do you get between the two, let's say for Mercury's orbit? What's the order of magnitude of that discrepancy compared to the 23 models you figure are all about the same?:)
Man, the longer this goes on, the deeper you dig your hole:)
Both are examples of physical models that make hard predictions.
Far from it. AGW is a physical model that is riddled with ad hoc adjustments so that no observation can possibly falsify it. Newton's gravitation, on the other hand, makes real predictions without ad hoc adjustments for anomalous observations (and we're talking teeny tiny adjustments at the edges of physical extremes when it comes to differences between observation and newton's laws).
So it is safe to say that runaway global warming is not predicted, but also not completely excluded.
Wow. That's a really hard and fast prediction. You think you could stick by that one?:)
It doesn't really matter. All reasonably plausible models lead to the same concerns
Really? What concerns would that be? 10m of sea level rise over 100 years? More hurricanes? Disappearing himalayan glaciers by 2035?
Imagine if there were 23 versions of gravitation laws, of which Newton's was just one. Would you seriously expect us to accept the assertion that they're all reasonably plausible?
The models calculate what the effect on temperature will be of a particular amount of CO2 release. But they are models of physics, not the human mind;
Actually, I think you have that one backwards -> they're models of the human mind, not physics. They represent a classical armageddon end of the world religion, that can only be avoided by penance paid to a higher power.
The IPCC is a summary of the conclusions of the most expert climate scientists across the world, so it is appropriate to give it a high weight.
After seeing Climategate, you're expecting me to give it high weight? Sorry charlie, but they lost their credibility when they worked against any data that would contradict them, and any arguments that might refute them.
A plausible model has to be consistent with historical and prehistorical climate data, the response to "natural experiments" such as volcanic explosions, and conditions on other planets, such as Mars and Venus.
And it's perfectly plausible to assert that there is a very CO2 insensitive climate here on earth. The historical record of rising CO2 and falling temperatures, and very very much higher CO2 and no runaway greenhouse effect, shows a significant amount of data for the idea of a very insensitive system. The AGW models which assert some heightened sensitivity are simply not plausible.
nobody has been able to come up with a model that is consistent with these constraints and does not predict serious warming in response to the anticipated rise in CO2.
Sure they have, you just don't like them. And please, enough with the "serious warming" talk -> what does that *really* mean? 2C over 100 years? 6C? A return to the MWP?
What do you find difficult to understand about comparison of causal physical models to data? Newton's theory of gravitation is a causal model
Newton's theory of gravitation is a model that can be tested and falsified by observation. Catastrophic AGW on the basis of a small increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere is typified by predictions covering all the bases -> more hurricanes? global warming. less hurricanes? global warming. more snow? global warming. less snow? global warming.
Comparing Newton's gravitation theory to AGW is quite a stretch, even for you:)
What they do say is that the atmosphere becomes less efficient as a radiator of the heat energy absorbed from the sun, such that the temperature has to be greater--much greater--in order to radiate away the energy absorbed by the clouds.
Okay, so what is it exactly that you believe -> is it possible for use to have runaway global warming on earth based on, let's say, increasing CO2 levels tenfold, or is there a saturation point at which CO2 is no longer a factor? I think maybe the biggest problem I'm having with you is that you're using terms of direction and magnitude without actually giving a specific magnitude for your belief.
One thing that you might learn is that the maximum temperature increase is not limited by saturation, but by the fact that that CO2 is not projected to increase indefinitely, due to replacement of CO2 generating technologies with carbon-neutral technologies.
I call horse pucky. You couldn't have predicted pagers, cell phones, or even fax machines back in the 1920s, and you expect to predict technologies to come in the next 100 years? Bullspit.
The fact of the matter is that the ice core record does show a saturation effect, and that is something the IPCC simply fails to recognize...no wonder, considering the strong action taken against any argument or data that doesn't agree with the "consensus":)
Sorry, you've already violated the assumptions upon which the ideal gas law is founded--a fixed volume container with perfectly rigid, perfectly insulated walls. No excuses.
The point is that we're well within an order of magnitude, much less any reasonable measurement error, to be able to use the ideal gas law as a sanity check. And it checks out.
Taken another way, your worshipped models of climate already violate the assumptions upon which we know climate exists today (being unable to predict precipitation levels in places like the sahara, for example), yet you want me to accept those much more generous assumptions and decide to decimate the promise of cheap energy for the vast bulk of humanity.
Seriously, you can't possibly expect me to accept your models as a sanity check if you can't at least consider the ideal gas law as a good place to start for a sanity check on temperature and pressure.
They hid their projections in the Technical Summary in a section entitled "Projections of Future Changes in Climate"
Ah, let's take a look:
"A set of coordinated, standard experiments was performed by 14 AOGCM modelling groups from 10 countries using 23 models."
23 models. Which one is the correct one?
Oh, and it gets even better:
" A loss of policy-relevant information would result from combining probabilistic projections. For these reasons, projections for different emission scenarios are not combined in this report."
How wonderful. Let's throw away data because it will help us be more "policy-relevant". Doesn't this offend the scientist in you?
Or how about this:
"This Working Group I assessment does not evaluate the plausibility or likelihood of any specific emission scenario. {10.1, 10.3}"
Wow. Great stuff. No idea what the plausibility or likelihood of ANYTHING is, but we've got to listen to them because the SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
Did you read the IPCC AR4? Really, be honest, did you read it cover to cover, or just skim it? Or did you just rely on some news anchor telling you about it?
No, once again, these models are not statistical models; they are causal models based upon the known physics.
[snip]
So far, nobody has been able to come up with any model that is consistent with this body of data and does not predict substantial temperature increases due to the CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere.
Wow, have your cake and eat it too -> they're not statistical models, but they're somehow "consistent with this body of data"?
So what's your definition of "substantial", and what's your prediction of maximum temperature increase (saturation point)?
Even the most cursory examination of the equation should give you a clue: What is the volume of a planet's atmosphere? Why isn't there a term for gravity? How can a planet that radiates energy to space be regarded as a perfectly insulated box? One can, of course, build models that deal with these complexities, but it takes work and computation, not simply parroting an equation out of a textbook with no real notion of its meaning.
For volume, we take a representative sample at a given altitude (say 1m^3), so that remains a constant. So you've essentially got a relationship between pressure, the amount of gas and the temperature. Unless you're saying that we can somehow violate this relationship by saying we can increase the temperature without either increasing the pressure or reducing the amount of gas, you're missing the point.
We're looking for a sanity check here, and although you can add in those terms of gravity and radiation, they still fix a range bounded in general by PV = nRT.
Where do you suppose that the energy that is absorbed by those clouds goes? Just magically vanishes?
Some of it radiates down, some of it radiates up. At the boundaries of the atmosphere, the radiation out escapes, and you have the whole "hot air rises" convection routine that transports heat from the high pressure surface to the lower pressure outer atmosphere. None of it gets magically stuck in the lower atmosphere to cause a "runaway" greenhouse effect.
The paper describes the development of a method for deriving surface temperature based upon radiance. A worthwhile thing to do, but not at all what we are talking about.
It's what I was talking about. If you're interested in the troposphere, I'm assuming you mean this:
The IPCC report certainly discusses the concept of a runaway greenhouse--it just doesn't predict it. Which you'd know if you'd actually read it
Sigh. So tell me tgibbs, exactly what does the IPCC *predict*? Apparently I can't just read it plainly and assume that their citations actually mean what they say they mean -> do you have the IPCC-guide-to-what-they-really-predict-and-what-they're-just-"mentioning"-for-entertainment-purposes?
And I'll admit, I haven't read every appendix, but I'll bet you a nickel I've read more of it than you have:)
Very much like the creationists who are full of bogus arguments against "darwinism," but have never even read Darwin, much less a modern textbook in evolutionary biology.
The lady doth protest too much. Remember, the creationists are in the same camp as the warmists, attributing any gaps in knowledge to a higher power.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, were it so simple. Your observation of increasing temperatures, on any scale, be it from day to day, season to season, year to year or decade to decade, does not show that it is caused by humans.
Be more specific. We're talking about a theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, not any momentary global warming or cooling that happens as a matter of natural variation.
No, evolution is falsifiable. The so-called theory of catastrophic AGW is not falsifiable, and is definitely not science.
How about this -> would historic evidence of rising CO2 but lowering temperatures falsify the theory of catastrophic AGW? If not, why not?
Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis (find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian period, for example). The theory of catastrophic AGW is a tautology -> more snow means global warming. less snow means global warming. This is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Conflating the theory of evolution with AGW is a disservice to the understanding of science -> they aren't even in the same ballpark.
Call me crazy, but actually, your chance of dying of cancer is probably due to doing something you *think* is healthy, but really isn't -> like eating carbohydrates.
Check out this guy's lecture on the "diseases of civilization" that would appear whenever carbohydrates got introduced into the diets of indigenous folk:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
There's a good chance that by eating all those whole grains and cereals that have been touted as "healthy", you've been setting yourself up for cancers of all sorts.
I guess in order to make that claim, we've got to have some hard numbers on what externalities you're talking about, and have some discussion about why those costs aren't already factored in. My guess is that they're debatable in both identity and magnitude (if CO2 is a good thing because it improves plant growth, this is a positive externality, but if you believe that CO2 is a bad thing because the himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, that's a negative externality...the arguments there can get pretty arbitrary very quickly).
That being said, let's say for sake of argument you're right, and we're somehow deferring the costs of cheap energy -> once you put in a carbon tax, you're hoping beyond hope that once the money is in the hands of the government, it will be used efficiently and effectively to work towards reducing the costs of energy. I'm not sure if that's even possible to imagine, but YMMV.
Except your ounce of prevention on DDT killed 40 million african babies. Just because you're worried, and just because you have some bright idea on how to fix your anticipated problem, doesn't mean that your proposed fix isn't going to screw the pooch worse than your wildest imagination.
The same precautionary principle under the lead of Ancel Keys and his infamous "7 countries study" led to the low-fat/low-calorie dogma that has been the cause of the epidemics of obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases. If we had just laid off the carbs, we'd be doing fine now.
No need, my friend, greenhouse gardeners work all day in 5000ppm CO2, with no ill effects :) But if you'd like to wear the breathing apparatus just for a fashion statement, please, don't let me stop you :)
http://books.google.com/books?id=eEy9ftsCqtoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=greenhouse+gardening+CO2+levels+5000ppm&source=bl&ots=dq3Uzcf5tP&sig=AFQiopaSiY8Okmb5HSfC4sOAzbo&hl=en&ei=1Zf1S76GIISGswOI8sWIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Why forced? There's nothing stopping us, with our level of technology, from moving things around and adapting to whatever environmental conditions that come upon us.
I guess the question is, should we initiate our own horrendous calamities upon the population of the earth in some vain attempt to stabilize climate we can't possibly control, or should we focus our efforts on adapting to whatever the future may hold?
The theory of abiotic oil holds that rapidly rising streams of compressed methane gas reach the crust from the mantle, and when they strike pockets of high temperature they condense into heavier hydrocarbons like crude oil.
http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef9006017?cookieSet=1
Well, apart from the brief moment in 7th grade when I thought the world would be forever changed by cold fusion, I think the proper statement is "what people need is cheap energy", not necessarily compared to alternatives but compared to their incomes. Conservation is actually a wonderfully effective way to increase productivity, but more productivity usually leads to more economic activity and population growth, which leads to a net increase in CO2 or whatever side effects of energy you may have.
Of course, here's where I have to trot out the obligatory "what about nukes" line, but I'll admit as much of a free market liberal I am, I'm not sure if I'd condone the complete deregulation of the nuclear power plant industry.
Now, it's certainly possible that an alternative to petroleum products will become cheaper and more attractive than petroleum itself, but once that moment comes, no government impetus will be necessary -> the profit motive will deal with that very nicely. In the mean time, any subsidies or tariffs to try to guide people in the "right" direction really only serves to reduce wealth, and you end up with fraud like you did in Spain (http://www.expansion.com/2010/04/19/empresas/energia/1271712211.html for those who understand Spanish).
The joys of malaria that have killed 40 million african children over the past 40 years came to you thanks to the blackballing of DDT by radical environmentalists back in the 60s and 70s. If you're worried about malaria, it's not the temperature that should concern you, it's the irrational demonization of life saving chemicals like DDT.
Walk into a real greenhouse with 5000ppm CO2, and get back to me with your observations.
Google for "abiogenic oil". Petroleum didn't come from fossils, it's a naturally occurring product from the inner layers of the earth -> it was never part of the biosphere. If you doubt it's possible, just imagine where all the natural gas out on Saturn's moon Titan came from (it's atmosphere is about 1.4% methane).
That being said, the earth has experienced periods of much higher temperatures (which have been particularly beneficial to life in general and humans in specific), and tremendously higher CO2 levels. Even if you grant that CO2 levels have risen due to human activity, the assertion that this will cause an increase in temperatures significantly, or that any significant increase in temperature would be detrimental, do not automatically follow.
What's really weird is that anyone would consider atmospheric gases, WHICH ALL PLANTS NEED TO BREATHE, as "effluent".
Seriously, how did the parent get modded Insightful?
Assuming you meant "If it is indeed..." -> show me a mathematical climate model that is consistent with historical and prehistorical climate evidence, as well as climate on other planets (like Mars' disappearing ice caps without any human CO2 emissions). Go ahead, pick any one of the 23 cited by the IPCC. I await your citation with glee :)
And let's not forget the powerful, wealthy interests who stand to lose financially from the end of CO2 trading schemes too :) Look, let's not pretend that there are monied interests on both sides of this equation, it's just being dishonest with yourself.
Really? Did you read the comment response from the IPCC? It certainly didn't mention any adjustments to fix the final draft in a way that would be acceptable.
Really? Wow, that's a bold statement given the absolute lower depths which Phil Jones and his buddies plumbed in the pond of ethics. I suppose if one were incredibly generous, one could write it off to incompetence, but I think any honest reading of the material shows clearly that these guys were so convinced that they were right, that any action, no matter how unethical on their part, was justified by the ends.
First efforts? This thing is a work of years, and the very obvious hard coding of a spurious warming trend to adjust measurements is right there in black and white. It's fairly obvious that the code was created specifically to create trends which did not exist, and HARRY, god bless his soul, was honest enough to call it out for what it was -> garbage.
You're trying to build an analogy here, asserting that the 23 different IPCC models are all equally valid since we have several models of gravitation which are also equally valid. Your analogy fails because the scales at which theories of gravitation diverge are orders upon orders of magnitude greater in difference than the differences between your supposedly 23 different, yet completely correct models of CO2 based warming.
If you've got 23 models, and at this point all of them are roughly the same in worth according to you, then you've almost definitely got a confirmation bias going on (or not nearly enough data to be able to discern between right and wrong).
Don't tell me, were you convinced by a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth"? :)
No, I'm the one saying that humans are natural, and can't possibly be affecting global climate by adding trace amounts of plant food into the atmosphere measured in parts per million. You're the one attributing superhuman powers to people :)
HA! Sorry, the Church of Global Warming is religion -> I'm a card carrying member of Atheists United, and you're the Southern Baptist here :)
Okay, give my your falsifiable prediction. What observations in the temperature record, past or present, would falsify your theory?
Oh, wait, you're gonna do that whole "more snow == global warming" and "less snow == global warming" dance, right? :)
Political agenda? Hey man, I just asked you hard questions, and you couldn't answer them without acting like a radical environmentalist libtard so convinced of their righteousness that they can't see their own religious beliefs for what they are.
Really? What happened, did you see a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth"? :)
Still looking for your clue-hat? The problem is that not knowing which original data was licensed from where is a loss of information. Ever hear of traceability? CRU lost it.
Verified? ROTFLMAO! Did you hear the part when Phil Jones admitted that not a single person who ever peer-reviewed their stuff EVER asked for the data?
CRU findings have certainly been contemporaneously parroted by other warmists, but that's a long cry from verification.
Again, dear lady, you protest too much, and obviously hate in yourself what you purport to hate in others.
Remember, it's creationist/warmist :)
Well, it would definitely be interesting to determine the exact physical mechanism which has created the sawtooth saturation pattern in the ice core records - it's most likely a matter of the physical properties of CO2 and the limits of its transference of heat to other gases, and the reaction of water to increase temperatures (evaporation), causing a maximum heat level possible. Here's are some interesting pieces on that:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Sure, how about this opinion, stated very clearly by Andrew Lacis:
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=17
"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
Bull pucky. Both of the whitewash inquiries specifically avoided addressing the real issues, and you're a man enough to admit that.
Have you read the Climategate emails? Or the HARRY_README.TXT? Be honest :)
Whoa, unjustified generalization alert! The scales at which gravitational theories diverge are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude greater than the scales that climate predictions (i'm sorry, "projections") are made on. If you were going to measure earth's climate change the same way you're comparing gravitation, you'd be talking in geologic time scales versus human time scales, and FWIW, none of the models have any way of reconciling with the geologic time scale history of the planet, much less give us any ability to predict future geologic time scale events.
Look, it's obvious you're a smart guy, but how is it you've got such a blind spot on this? Is it just an emotional attachment to the idea of environmentalism? Was it just that the warmists got to you first? You're not the only obviously intelligent person I've seen taken in by this, but it drives me bonkers to see an otherwise rational person making the same kind of arguments creationists do
You see, now you've got the essence of the Church of Global Warming -> humans are supernatural beings that can affect the global climate in significant ways by altering a trace atmospheric gas measured in parts PER MILLION!
Your God of the gaps argument simply holds no weight.
Oh, don't be modest, your blind faith and emotional instability are a wonder for all to see! :)
Sure you are. You've identified evil humanity and the trace gas and plant food CO2 as the cause of the world's woes in the most arbitrary and capricious manner. The thought that it is even possible for you to be wrong is but a fantasy, since you make no predictions that can be falsified by observations. If that isn't arbitrary, then nothing is.
Well, I can certainly tell when it's punching you in the face, and you're looking pretty beat up right about now :) Say a couple of Hail-Gore's at your Church of Global Warming, and you'll get over it though :)
Ah, the lady doth protest too much! You hate in others what you hate in yourself, and it must drive you nuts to be the same sort of believer that a creationist is with your AGW faith :)
Still waiting for your falsifiable hypothesis, if you can even think of one :)
Phil Jones admitted losing the original data. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
Put on your clue-hat, you're missing it. The whole point of CRU was that it made all of these predictions and projections based on manipulating data that they now cannot account for. While certainly some of the raw data can be found in the original locations from whence it came, we can't tell from whence it came.
Imagine a pile of 100,000 sticks. CRU made its conclusions based on 100 of those sticks, but has no idea which 100 sticks it was now, since they deleted the data. Hell, Phil Jones couldn't even find his mythical data sharing agreements which kept him from releasing their data supposedly!
You really think you can defend this guy?
But, thanks to shoddy work at the CRU, we have no idea which original licensors were used, or what subsets of data from them were used. This is the same sort of malarkey CRU was trying to pull when they said "oh, you can get our public data from other sites!", when in fact, understanding *which* station data they were using was the important part. You're missing the forest for the trees.
So sayeth the high muckity muck hkmwbz of the Church of Global Warming! Keep digging, you'll find your brains somewhere buried in the ground :)
Let me finish that statement for you, and see if you still agree with it:
There is near universal agreement among climate scientists on the atmospheric physics that predicts several degrees of global warming solely because of human released CO2.
I'm sure Lindzen would disagree, as well as the others at the ICCC this week, but let's say we allow that -> imagine that no matter what CO2 we pump out, the maximum effect will be an additional 2C, period, whether it happens in 1 year or 100 years. Where's the problem with that?
Hey, just wanted to give you a chance to cite exactly what you wanted to cite, rather than picking through your references and finding all the ridiculously implausible and indefensible parts to lay around your neck. Do you really want to assume the entire IPCC AR4 Summary as your point of view?
Really? The "same overall conclusion"? And what conclusion is that, if there are 23 different models that vary greatly in the magnitude of the changes predicted?
I refer you to The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, p. 76: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
"The main defense of the lying graphic is ... "Well, at least it was approximately correct, we were just trying to show the general direction of change.""
Given the confirmation bias exposed by Climategate, I'm actually quite disturbed to see multiple approaches reach the same conclusions as a known falsified one. It speaks very poorly of the quality of the untainted models when they agree so well with one that has been jerry-rigged.
Which, again, is an example of the anti-science policy driving conclusions, rather than letting the data lead where it may. This is the really, really big problem of the IPCC and the warmists in general -> it is a foregone conclusion that reducing CO2 emissions is good, and increasing them is bad. This is a human value judgement based on belief, not an empirical statement based on fact and observation.
I still put out the challenge to you -> given 23 different models cited by the IPCC, what observations will allow us to winnow it down to the one model which is correct?
g = GM/R^2
What's the other one? General relativity? And what kind of discrepancy do you get between the two, let's say for Mercury's orbit? What's the order of magnitude of that discrepancy compared to the 23 models you figure are all about the same? :)
Man, the longer this goes on, the deeper you dig your hole :)
Far from it. AGW is a physical model that is riddled with ad hoc adjustments so that no observation can possibly falsify it. Newton's gravitation, on the other hand, makes real predictions without ad hoc adjustments for anomalous observations (and we're talking teeny tiny adjustments at the edges of physical extremes when it comes to differences between observation and newton's laws).
Wow. That's a really hard and fast prediction. You think you could stick by that one? :)
Really? What concerns would that be? 10m of sea level rise over 100 years? More hurricanes? Disappearing himalayan glaciers by 2035?
Imagine if there were 23 versions of gravitation laws, of which Newton's was just one. Would you seriously expect us to accept the assertion that they're all reasonably plausible?
Actually, I think you have that one backwards -> they're models of the human mind, not physics. They represent a classical armageddon end of the world religion, that can only be avoided by penance paid to a higher power.
After seeing Climategate, you're expecting me to give it high weight? Sorry charlie, but they lost their credibility when they worked against any data that would contradict them, and any arguments that might refute them.
And it's perfectly plausible to assert that there is a very CO2 insensitive climate here on earth. The historical record of rising CO2 and falling temperatures, and very very much higher CO2 and no runaway greenhouse effect, shows a significant amount of data for the idea of a very insensitive system. The AGW models which assert some heightened sensitivity are simply not plausible.
Sure they have, you just don't like them. And please, enough with the "serious warming" talk -> what does that *really* mean? 2C over 100 years? 6C? A return to the MWP?
Newton's theory of gravitation is a model that can be tested and falsified by observation. Catastrophic AGW on the basis of a small increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere is typified by predictions covering all the bases -> more hurricanes? global warming. less hurricanes? global warming. more snow? global warming. less snow? global warming.
Comparing Newton's gravitation theory to AGW is quite a stretch, even for you :)
Okay, so what is it exactly that you believe -> is it possible for use to have runaway global warming on earth based on, let's say, increasing CO2 levels tenfold, or is there a saturation point at which CO2 is no longer a factor? I think maybe the biggest problem I'm having with you is that you're using terms of direction and magnitude without actually giving a specific magnitude for your belief.
I call horse pucky. You couldn't have predicted pagers, cell phones, or even fax machines back in the 1920s, and you expect to predict technologies to come in the next 100 years? Bullspit.
The fact of the matter is that the ice core record does show a saturation effect, and that is something the IPCC simply fails to recognize...no wonder, considering the strong action taken against any argument or data that doesn't agree with the "consensus" :)
The point is that we're well within an order of magnitude, much less any reasonable measurement error, to be able to use the ideal gas law as a sanity check. And it checks out.
Taken another way, your worshipped models of climate already violate the assumptions upon which we know climate exists today (being unable to predict precipitation levels in places like the sahara, for example), yet you want me to accept those much more generous assumptions and decide to decimate the promise of cheap energy for the vast bulk of humanity.
Seriously, you can't possibly expect me to accept your models as a sanity check if you can't at least consider the ideal gas law as a good place to start for a sanity check on temperature and pressure.
Ah, let's take a look:
"A set of coordinated, standard experiments was performed by 14 AOGCM modelling groups from 10 countries using 23 models."
23 models. Which one is the correct one?
Oh, and it gets even better:
" A loss of policy-relevant information would result from combining probabilistic projections. For these reasons, projections for different emission scenarios are not combined in this report."
How wonderful. Let's throw away data because it will help us be more "policy-relevant". Doesn't this offend the scientist in you?
Or how about this:
"This Working Group I assessment does not evaluate the plausibility or likelihood of any specific emission scenario. {10.1, 10.3}"
Wow. Great stuff. No idea what the plausibility or likelihood of ANYTHING is, but we've got to listen to them because the SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
Did you read the IPCC AR4? Really, be honest, did you read it cover to cover, or just skim it? Or did you just rely on some news anchor telling you about it?
Wow, have your cake and eat it too -> they're not statistical models, but they're somehow "consistent with this body of data"?
So what's your definition of "substantial", and what's your prediction of maximum temperature increase (saturation point)?
For volume, we take a representative sample at a given altitude (say 1m^3), so that remains a constant. So you've essentially got a relationship between pressure, the amount of gas and the temperature. Unless you're saying that we can somehow violate this relationship by saying we can increase the temperature without either increasing the pressure or reducing the amount of gas, you're missing the point.
We're looking for a sanity check here, and although you can add in those terms of gravity and radiation, they still fix a range bounded in general by PV = nRT.
Some of it radiates down, some of it radiates up. At the boundaries of the atmosphere, the radiation out escapes, and you have the whole "hot air rises" convection routine that transports heat from the high pressure surface to the lower pressure outer atmosphere. None of it gets magically stuck in the lower atmosphere to cause a "runaway" greenhouse effect.
It's what I was talking about. If you're interested in the troposphere, I'm assuming you mean this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
Dr. Spencer also writes some other interesting stuff here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
Sigh. So tell me tgibbs, exactly what does the IPCC *predict*? Apparently I can't just read it plainly and assume that their citations actually mean what they say they mean -> do you have the IPCC-guide-to-what-they-really-predict-and-what-they're-just-"mentioning"-for-entertainment-purposes?
And I'll admit, I haven't read every appendix, but I'll bet you a nickel I've read more of it than you have :)
The lady doth protest too much. Remember, the creationists are in the same camp as the warmists, attributing any gaps in knowledge to a higher power.
ROTFLMAO!
Really, the EPA?
The EPA?
These guys quote the IPCC like it's the gospel truth, rather than actually handling any of the critiques!
It's quite possible to have an overall climate sensitivity of zero with noise in the signal enough to still have dynamic change.
Oh, but wait, the science is settled, right? :)