But you didn't. You refused to answer the question. The only thing I can conclude is that you are not willing to concede that seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. Rather it has something to do with currents.
Ok. The record shows that you are not willing to concede that seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. I will not try to convince you of this most basic fact. You are also unable to specify what you believe does cause the seasons - except that it has something to do with the oceans. We are getting nowhere on this. Let's move on.
You're misstating your position again - you don't believe that seasons are *caused* by tilt, you believe they are *defined* by tit.
Nope. My original statement was exactly this: I believe seasons are caused by the fact that axis is tilted wrt orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer. There is no way that restating the position can be considered misstating the position. I pointed out that it was so well accepted a position that it is included in the definition of season. Then you started to waffle and are now trying to reframe the debate, but you still continued to argue that seasons were not primarily caused by tilt with respect to axis. So, what do you believe causes the seasons? This is not difficult. Either you believe the seasons are caused by tilt wrt axis or you believe they are caused by... what? Complete the sentence or concede! You are making yourself look foolish by continuing to argue!
So you didn't know what caused the seasons but were willing to argue that it wasn't whatever I suggested. Big deal. Everyone makes mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them.
You are right. There is some speculation that x-rays may seed clouds. It is not yet clear that this is the case. If it is, it is not yet clear whether this would act as a positive or negative forcing. This would depend on where the clouds formed - low clouds warm while high cool. Are there other potential impacts of x-ray/magnetic fluctuations?
I have no idea why you are dancing around this point here. I believe that the seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. That is the sentence that you took objection to. You do not believe that the seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. You believe that the seasons are caused by.... what? Or do you actually not object at all to that statement?
Wow. You are all over the place. I believe the seasons are caused by the fact that the Earth's axis is tilted with respect to its orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer. You disagreed with the above statement and said it had something to do with ocean currents. You later suggested that tilt changing over time may have played a part. I'm still really confused as to what you think causes the seasons, although it sounds like you are ready to back down and admit that I was right after all. That perhaps it is not so difficult for us to tease out the cause even though whether is a chaotic system. Can you just complete the following sentence: I believe that seasons are caused by...
Try to keep it down to a sentence or two at most. This really shouldn't be all that complicated.
This is not an insignificant amount of energy. It is equivalent energy of about 25000 nuclear bombs per hour. This is enough energy that many strong cycles in a row will overcome the thermal inertia of the Earth and oceans and warm the planet. Inversely, a number of very quiet cycles will cool the planet. So the magnitude of the solar cycles has been a pretty good predictor of global temperatures for a long time.
The confounding factor is that now anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (those greenhouse gasses that we have added to the atmosphere) are contributing about 2.5 W/m^2 to the planet. This is now dwarfing the contribution by the solar cycles - especially considering that the solar cycle is only at a maximum once every 11 or so years while the contribution from greenhouse gasses is constant. As Gavin Schmidt notes in the article:
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability.... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference." - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill
Will it get cooler if there is an extended period of low to no solar activity? Yes, there is strong evidence of that based on previous examples (Maunder and Sporer minimums for example). Will the cooling completely counteract the greenhouse gas warming? Good question.
Not likely at this point. A strong solar maximum will provide about an additional 1 W/m^2 at it's height (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png) This is not an insignificant amount, but the cycle is only at it's maximum for a couple of years/decade. Currently the energy from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is measured at about 2.5 W/m^2. For this reason the dwindling solar output has had little effect on the temperature trajectory. As Gavin Schmidt notes in the article:
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability.... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference." - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill
You *said*, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit." You argued as if you had said "I believe that the seasons are defined by the earth's axial tilt with respect to it's orbit."
The latter is true because the former is true. No matter. You have your own theory and I respect that. So you believe that seasons are caused by minor changes in the axial tilt but are primarily caused by ocean currents. Would you be willing to speculate how much of a role each plays? Is it something like 40/60 or more like 10/90?
I wish I had mod points. You are absolutely right. The scientists in the article agree. From the article "the swings in solar activity that they've studied so far have had little or no impact on temperatures or other climate indicators - and they don't expect to see a big impact even if the sun goes quiet for a decade or longer"
Apparently the title "Big Drop In Solar Activity Expected to Have No Impact On Temperatures" didn't have the same impact - even if it is truer to the article.
Ok. Now that we have nailed #4 down, let's tackle #2.
My position was: I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit.
Your position was: I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor. You mentioned that currents likely played a greater role in causing the seasons.
So would you agree to the following summary of your position: I believe that tilt plays a role, but that ocean currents are the dominant cause of the seasons
Ok, I think what you are saying is that your interpretation of Occam's razor doesn't generalize to other chaotic systems. But previously you had said that this was "particularly, how we could possibly apply it to chaotic systems." Are you backing down on that statement?
If so, would you agree with this statement? For climate in specific, Occam's razor requires that we attribute the cause to unknowns because admitting ignorance is simpler. Even though all known observations are explained by known forces, there are likely things that have not been observed that cannot be explained without unknown forces.
Alternatively, perhaps your own words put it best: I do understand Occam's Razor... By admitting our ignorance of "natural forces", we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying.
Ok, so you agree that the trend over the last century is upward but you feel that selecting all data from all reconstructions is cherry picking... interesting. You agree that they are all in agreement but you still feel there has been tampering. Perhaps the authors of all reconstructions are in cahoots?
This project was funded and executed largely by Argentinia. The U.S is in a sad place when Americans are chanting "he'll no we can't!" and Argentina (of all places) is picking up the slack.
you are no doubt right, however there will be challenges either way. According to NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt a realclimate.org:
Aquarius retrievals are based on passive microwave technology and rely on the fact that salinity affects the thermal emission properties of the ocean surface. This effects are quite subtle, and the range of variability is relatively small, so it has taken many years for the technology to catch up to the need. This is however a first attempt to do this from space, so challenges will undoubtedly remain.
You had previously stated that your understanding of Occam's razor led you to conclude that current warming is due to i) "a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified"
You stated: ii)"By admitting our ignorance of natural forces, we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying"
You said that this was the correct interpretation of Occam's razor - iii)"particularly, how we could possibly apply it to chaotic systems."
Can you answer yes/no to each of the following questions:
A) Do you stand by these original statements?
B) Would you agree: "Natural forces that have not been identified"[i] and "natural forces that we admit ignorance of" [ii] could be considered unknown forces?
C) Do you agree (as you state above) that admitting ignorance is simpler than attributing warming to known forces [i/ii](even if the known forces are sufficient to cause the observed warming). Occam requires that we take the simpler of the two even if it is less satisfying.[ii]
D) If you agree with the above then would you stand by the following summary: For chaotic systems[iii], Occam's razor requires that we attribute the cause to unknowns[i/ii] because admitting ignorance is simpler [ii]. Chaotic systems are by their nature unknowable.
Ok, I think that we are close to agreeing on your understanding of these issues. Perhaps if we tackle them one at a time. #4 is probably the easiest since it is a series of yes/no questions. You have implied the answer in previous posts but you have never come right out and answered. If you could answer yes or no to each of the following three questions then we could consider this item closed.
Points 1-3 - you have made no material change to the original statement that I posted. You stand by your original statements on all three an no clarification seems to be required. Occam's razor states that we should attribute observations to the unknown. Ocean current is a major driver of the seasons. Core heat is just as likely to be driving the current warming as CO2. Agreed?
As for # 4, it seems that you are back pedaling on this one. Will you now admit that the trend is upward, that the reconstructions corroborate each other, and that there is no reason to invoke conspiracy theories in regard to any of the temperature reconstructions?
1) Occam's Razor: You had stated given the two choices, "...primarily driven by CO2" and ".. a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified", the simpler one is the "natural forces" hypothesis." That is, Occam would rather attribute the warming to forces we don't know of than forces we know cause warming. Do you still stand by this?
2) Perhaps if you elaborated on your currents theory of seasons. Why do the currents push the heat towards the sunny side of the Earth?
3) Perhaps if you elaborated on your theory of core heat global warming. Why did the Earth store its heat for 1000 years only to release it now? How come current measurements show 0.075? Your theories are fascinating. I am sure people will want to hear more about them.
HSThompson69 is showing the trend in tornado events and using it to prove that there is no trend in any extreme weather events. Of course, that does not follow.
1) Re: Occam's Razor - This directly contradicts your earlier statements. I'm glad to see you have come around on this one.
2) Re: Currents cause seasons - I still don't think you have a good grasp on this one.
3) Re: 0.075 W/m^2 can cause observed warming but 2 W/m^2 cannot possibly - I'm still not convinced.
4) Re: Determining directions of temperature - Although you have demonstrated how to cherry pick, I think your preconceptions are colouring your ability to read the graph.
Keep in mind that the parent (hsthompson69) has some rather peculiar views on climate and science in general.
He believes that
1) Occam's Razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right - and the easiest answer is usually "we don't know".
2) Seasons are primarily caused by atmospheric and oceanic currents pushing the heat to the sunny side of the world rather than because the Earth's axis is tilted wrt its orbit causing one side of the Earth to get more sun.
3) The current warming can be explained by the 0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but that the ~2 W/m^2 measured warming from anthropogenic CO2 (or roughly the equivalent energy of 56,000 nuclear bombs every hour) is vanishingly insignificant. He seems to think that the earth has been stock piling the 0.075 W/m^2 from the core and is only now releasing it through mt. st. Helen.
You stated, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit."
Your problem words here are "believe" and "caused" -> they have *nothing* to do with a tautological definition.
I believe that is the cause because it's bleeding obvious, and so well accepted that it is part of the definition of seasons.
The rhetoric was flawed.
On the contrary! By defending the straw man you adopted it's position!
You can't help a crazy man see how crazy he is, but by letting him talk you can show everyone else. And boy did HSThompson69 talk! He believes that seasons are probably primarily caused by ocean and atmospheric currents. This is where his understanding of Occam's razor leads him. He doesn't consider that he now has to explain why the currents should always push the heat towards the sunny side of the earth. Perhaps heat is attracted to the sun? Or maybe he was just listing all of the factors that contribute to temperature at any given time... Although I'm not sure what that has to do with the seasons. And surely he would have listed his other pet theory regarding heat bursts from the Earth's core. And he would have also listed CO2 and ENSO and he most certainly would have listed other stuff that we just don't even know about. Then when asked how much the Earth's tilt contributes to the seasons he would have been able to conclude "Why, we just can't tell! There are too many confounding factors! Plus factors that we don't even know we don't know!".
Luckily it will be obvious to the average grade schooler reading this that the true answer is "All of it" - because the average grade schooler knows what the word seasons means.
You might have well said, "the State of California is called the State of California"
I know! And then to complete the analogy, you would have said "Well, we can't be certain. It was once the province of California and the borders have changed over time, and/and/and" Priceless!
We don't have to disregard any physical laws. Just take for example Mt. St. Helens -> over the past ten millennia, you could measure all of its activity, and put an average daily energy level on it.
You are getting closer! Keep going! To steer you in the right direction: Would we notice the equivalent of 56,000 nuclear bombs/hour leaking from Mt. St. Helens? What would cause it to leak out now in the last 100 years? Do the answers to each of these questions raise 10 more? Will the answers to each of those raise 10 more? Keep following your "logic" until you have found a reason to doubt at least 10 laws of physics. This will be fun!
As the temperature of a black body increases, the emission of infrared radiation back into space increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature. This keeps the gain under 1. How can you conclude that CO2 is not the primary driver of the current warming without knowing the basics of climate science? Ignorance and arrogance seem to make great partners.
Yes, another good question. Not one to which there is no answer.
So, let's be clear - now you admit that we don't know the relative magnitude of CO2 forcing
Oh dear. I've confused you with a double negative. When someone says "not without" it means "with", not "really without". The "not" negates the "without" rather than enforcing it.
Magically differing behavior of a gas in the atmosphere depending on the century is not basi
Yes. That is the definition of summer. No matter how hot the winter, it will never become summer. To dispute this is ludicrous.
Well, with your definition...
My definition? This is not MY definition. This is THE definition. Yes, I stated something that was true by definition. Yet even without understanding what season meant, you supposed that perhaps currents were largely responsible for them. When I pointed out that what I said was true by definition, you still argued against. You supposed that a really warm winter may actually be summer. The point was meant to be rhetorical. It was meant to show that your understanding of Occam's razor leads you down these rabbet holes. You ended up having to redefine season in order to justify your explanation.
To think that 0.075, averaged say, over millennia, cannot make a difference if the actual effect comes in large spikes rather than an even flow, is to be willfully ignorant.
Go on. I'm interested in which physical law you will need to disregard first in order to show that this could happen. My bet is on entropy.
That's a flat out lie. We know that sensitivity (to all forcings) is small, because we can observe negative feedback patterns that stop climate from irreversibly going to either super cold or super hot.
Eh no. We have seen very wild swings from glaciation to interglacial periods. We know that the gain is less than one due to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law so there will never be a runaway warming or cooling.
it still begs the question, what is the *relative* strength of CO2 to other forcings.
Yes, another good question. Not one to which there is no answer. Certainly one that you should have asked before you decided that CO2 could not be responsible for the current warming.
Previously CO2 was a feedback, and now it is both a driver and a feedback. That's circular reasoning, and a special pleading.
It's basic physics and frankly should be obvious.
I'll assert to you that CO2 doesn't care *where* it came from before it has a physical effect on temperature.
Duh! But where it comes from does matter in terms of how it got there. Did it get there as a feedback to warming? Or did we put it there? How do you not know this most basic stuff and still have such a strong opinion? Is it possible that the less someone knows the more sure of themselves they become?
Still not willing to look at a graph of rising temperatures and acknowledge that the temperatures are rising? Very strange indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
But you didn't. You refused to answer the question. The only thing I can conclude is that you are not willing to concede that seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. Rather it has something to do with currents.
Ok. The record shows that you are not willing to concede that seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. I will not try to convince you of this most basic fact. You are also unable to specify what you believe does cause the seasons - except that it has something to do with the oceans. We are getting nowhere on this. Let's move on.
You're misstating your position again - you don't believe that seasons are *caused* by tilt, you believe they are *defined* by tit.
Nope. My original statement was exactly this: I believe seasons are caused by the fact that axis is tilted wrt orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer. There is no way that restating the position can be considered misstating the position. I pointed out that it was so well accepted a position that it is included in the definition of season. Then you started to waffle and are now trying to reframe the debate, but you still continued to argue that seasons were not primarily caused by tilt with respect to axis. So, what do you believe causes the seasons? This is not difficult. Either you believe the seasons are caused by tilt wrt axis or you believe they are caused by... what? Complete the sentence or concede! You are making yourself look foolish by continuing to argue!
So you didn't know what caused the seasons but were willing to argue that it wasn't whatever I suggested. Big deal. Everyone makes mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them.
You are right. There is some speculation that x-rays may seed clouds. It is not yet clear that this is the case. If it is, it is not yet clear whether this would act as a positive or negative forcing. This would depend on where the clouds formed - low clouds warm while high cool. Are there other potential impacts of x-ray/magnetic fluctuations?
Here feulner and rahmstorf have modeled the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minimums with reasonable accuracy. They then used the model to project the impact of another extended minimum this century: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
This is just one paper and is certainly not the final answer, but it is interesting nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I have no idea why you are dancing around this point here. I believe that the seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. That is the sentence that you took objection to. You do not believe that the seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. You believe that the seasons are caused by.... what? Or do you actually not object at all to that statement?
Wow. You are all over the place. I believe the seasons are caused by the fact that the Earth's axis is tilted with respect to its orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer. You disagreed with the above statement and said it had something to do with ocean currents. You later suggested that tilt changing over time may have played a part. I'm still really confused as to what you think causes the seasons, although it sounds like you are ready to back down and admit that I was right after all. That perhaps it is not so difficult for us to tease out the cause even though whether is a chaotic system. Can you just complete the following sentence: I believe that seasons are caused by...
Try to keep it down to a sentence or two at most. This really shouldn't be all that complicated.
It is complicated I will admit. There is an apparent contradiction, but both are actually right.
Solar output increases by about 1 W/m^2 when at the maximum of its cycle - as illustrated here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png
This is not an insignificant amount of energy. It is equivalent energy of about 25000 nuclear bombs per hour. This is enough energy that many strong cycles in a row will overcome the thermal inertia of the Earth and oceans and warm the planet. Inversely, a number of very quiet cycles will cool the planet. So the magnitude of the solar cycles has been a pretty good predictor of global temperatures for a long time.
The confounding factor is that now anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (those greenhouse gasses that we have added to the atmosphere) are contributing about 2.5 W/m^2 to the planet. This is now dwarfing the contribution by the solar cycles - especially considering that the solar cycle is only at a maximum once every 11 or so years while the contribution from greenhouse gasses is constant. As Gavin Schmidt notes in the article:
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. ... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference." - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill
Will it get cooler if there is an extended period of low to no solar activity? Yes, there is strong evidence of that based on previous examples (Maunder and Sporer minimums for example). Will the cooling completely counteract the greenhouse gas warming? Good question.
Not likely at this point. A strong solar maximum will provide about an additional 1 W/m^2 at it's height (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png) This is not an insignificant amount, but the cycle is only at it's maximum for a couple of years/decade. Currently the energy from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is measured at about 2.5 W/m^2. For this reason the dwindling solar output has had little effect on the temperature trajectory. As Gavin Schmidt notes in the article:
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. ... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference." - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill
You *said*, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit." You argued as if you had said "I believe that the seasons are defined by the earth's axial tilt with respect to it's orbit."
The latter is true because the former is true. No matter. You have your own theory and I respect that. So you believe that seasons are caused by minor changes in the axial tilt but are primarily caused by ocean currents. Would you be willing to speculate how much of a role each plays? Is it something like 40/60 or more like 10/90?
I wish I had mod points. You are absolutely right. The scientists in the article agree. From the article "the swings in solar activity that they've studied so far have had little or no impact on temperatures or other climate indicators - and they don't expect to see a big impact even if the sun goes quiet for a decade or longer"
Apparently the title "Big Drop In Solar Activity Expected to Have No Impact On Temperatures" didn't have the same impact - even if it is truer to the article.
Ok. Now that we have nailed #4 down, let's tackle #2.
My position was: I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit.
Your position was: I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor. You mentioned that currents likely played a greater role in causing the seasons.
So would you agree to the following summary of your position: I believe that tilt plays a role, but that ocean currents are the dominant cause of the seasons
If so, would you agree with this statement? For climate in specific, Occam's razor requires that we attribute the cause to unknowns because admitting ignorance is simpler. Even though all known observations are explained by known forces, there are likely things that have not been observed that cannot be explained without unknown forces.
Alternatively, perhaps your own words put it best: I do understand Occam's Razor... By admitting our ignorance of "natural forces", we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying.
Ok, so you agree that the trend over the last century is upward but you feel that selecting all data from all reconstructions is cherry picking... interesting. You agree that they are all in agreement but you still feel there has been tampering. Perhaps the authors of all reconstructions are in cahoots?
Was 1934 the warmest year ever?
Uh, no. Not even close.
By what series?
None of them. Did you even look at the graph? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
This project was funded and executed largely by Argentinia. The U.S is in a sad place when Americans are chanting "he'll no we can't!" and Argentina (of all places) is picking up the slack.
you are no doubt right, however there will be challenges either way. According to NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt a realclimate.org: Aquarius retrievals are based on passive microwave technology and rely on the fact that salinity affects the thermal emission properties of the ocean surface. This effects are quite subtle, and the range of variability is relatively small, so it has taken many years for the technology to catch up to the need. This is however a first attempt to do this from space, so challenges will undoubtedly remain.
The following is a link to a blog set up by NASA scientists. It describes what the satellite will see and why it is important. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/the-age-of-aquarius/
Let's tackle #1 next.
You had previously stated that your understanding of Occam's razor led you to conclude that current warming is due to i) "a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified"
You stated: ii)"By admitting our ignorance of natural forces, we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying"
You said that this was the correct interpretation of Occam's razor - iii)"particularly, how we could possibly apply it to chaotic systems."
Can you answer yes/no to each of the following questions:
A) Do you stand by these original statements?
B) Would you agree: "Natural forces that have not been identified"[i] and "natural forces that we admit ignorance of" [ii] could be considered unknown forces?
C) Do you agree (as you state above) that admitting ignorance is simpler than attributing warming to known forces [i/ii](even if the known forces are sufficient to cause the observed warming). Occam requires that we take the simpler of the two even if it is less satisfying.[ii]
D) If you agree with the above then would you stand by the following summary: For chaotic systems[iii], Occam's razor requires that we attribute the cause to unknowns[i/ii] because admitting ignorance is simpler [ii]. Chaotic systems are by their nature unknowable.
Ok, I think that we are close to agreeing on your understanding of these issues. Perhaps if we tackle them one at a time. #4 is probably the easiest since it is a series of yes/no questions. You have implied the answer in previous posts but you have never come right out and answered. If you could answer yes or no to each of the following three questions then we could consider this item closed.
#4) When you look at the following graph, you are able to conclude: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14 [woodfortrees.org]
A) The trend is upwards
B) The five series are in agreement with each other
C) Therefor there is no reason to believe that any of them have been tampered with
Points 1-3 - you have made no material change to the original statement that I posted. You stand by your original statements on all three an no clarification seems to be required. Occam's razor states that we should attribute observations to the unknown. Ocean current is a major driver of the seasons. Core heat is just as likely to be driving the current warming as CO2. Agreed?
As for # 4, it seems that you are back pedaling on this one. Will you now admit that the trend is upward, that the reconstructions corroborate each other, and that there is no reason to invoke conspiracy theories in regard to any of the temperature reconstructions?
1) Occam's Razor: You had stated given the two choices, "...primarily driven by CO2" and ".. a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified", the simpler one is the "natural forces" hypothesis." That is, Occam would rather attribute the warming to forces we don't know of than forces we know cause warming. Do you still stand by this?
2) Perhaps if you elaborated on your currents theory of seasons. Why do the currents push the heat towards the sunny side of the Earth?
3) Perhaps if you elaborated on your theory of core heat global warming. Why did the Earth store its heat for 1000 years only to release it now? How come current measurements show 0.075? Your theories are fascinating. I am sure people will want to hear more about them.
4) I don't think anyone will agree that the Earth is not warming, but they should take a look for themselves before judging you: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
HSThompson69 is showing the trend in tornado events and using it to prove that there is no trend in any extreme weather events. Of course, that does not follow.
1) Re: Occam's Razor - This directly contradicts your earlier statements. I'm glad to see you have come around on this one.
2) Re: Currents cause seasons - I still don't think you have a good grasp on this one.
3) Re: 0.075 W/m^2 can cause observed warming but 2 W/m^2 cannot possibly - I'm still not convinced.
4) Re: Determining directions of temperature - Although you have demonstrated how to cherry pick, I think your preconceptions are colouring your ability to read the graph.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide.
He believes that
1) Occam's Razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right - and the easiest answer is usually "we don't know".
2) Seasons are primarily caused by atmospheric and oceanic currents pushing the heat to the sunny side of the world rather than because the Earth's axis is tilted wrt its orbit causing one side of the Earth to get more sun.
3) The current warming can be explained by the 0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but that the ~2 W/m^2 measured warming from anthropogenic CO2 (or roughly the equivalent energy of 56,000 nuclear bombs every hour) is vanishingly insignificant. He seems to think that the earth has been stock piling the 0.075 W/m^2 from the core and is only now releasing it through mt. st. Helen.
4) He cannot conclude from the following link which direction the slope is in, or whether the five temperature reconstructions show the same results: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
You can find out about these and more interesting ideas from HSThompson69 at the following link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2174026&cid=36300426
You stated, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit."
Your problem words here are "believe" and "caused" -> they have *nothing* to do with a tautological definition.
I believe that is the cause because it's bleeding obvious, and so well accepted that it is part of the definition of seasons.
The rhetoric was flawed.
On the contrary! By defending the straw man you adopted it's position!
You can't help a crazy man see how crazy he is, but by letting him talk you can show everyone else. And boy did HSThompson69 talk! He believes that seasons are probably primarily caused by ocean and atmospheric currents. This is where his understanding of Occam's razor leads him. He doesn't consider that he now has to explain why the currents should always push the heat towards the sunny side of the earth. Perhaps heat is attracted to the sun? Or maybe he was just listing all of the factors that contribute to temperature at any given time... Although I'm not sure what that has to do with the seasons. And surely he would have listed his other pet theory regarding heat bursts from the Earth's core. And he would have also listed CO2 and ENSO and he most certainly would have listed other stuff that we just don't even know about. Then when asked how much the Earth's tilt contributes to the seasons he would have been able to conclude "Why, we just can't tell! There are too many confounding factors! Plus factors that we don't even know we don't know!".
Luckily it will be obvious to the average grade schooler reading this that the true answer is "All of it" - because the average grade schooler knows what the word seasons means.
You might have well said, "the State of California is called the State of California"
I know! And then to complete the analogy, you would have said "Well, we can't be certain. It was once the province of California and the borders have changed over time, and/and/and" Priceless!
We don't have to disregard any physical laws. Just take for example Mt. St. Helens -> over the past ten millennia, you could measure all of its activity, and put an average daily energy level on it.
You are getting closer! Keep going! To steer you in the right direction: Would we notice the equivalent of 56,000 nuclear bombs/hour leaking from Mt. St. Helens? What would cause it to leak out now in the last 100 years? Do the answers to each of these questions raise 10 more? Will the answers to each of those raise 10 more? Keep following your "logic" until you have found a reason to doubt at least 10 laws of physics. This will be fun!
We know that the gain is less than one due to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law [wikipedia.org] so there will never be a runaway warming or cooling.
I'm not sure how that follows.
As the temperature of a black body increases, the emission of infrared radiation back into space increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature. This keeps the gain under 1. How can you conclude that CO2 is not the primary driver of the current warming without knowing the basics of climate science? Ignorance and arrogance seem to make great partners.
Yes, another good question. Not one to which there is no answer.
So, let's be clear - now you admit that we don't know the relative magnitude of CO2 forcing
Oh dear. I've confused you with a double negative. When someone says "not without" it means "with", not "really without". The "not" negates the "without" rather than enforcing it.
Magically differing behavior of a gas in the atmosphere depending on the century is not basi
Yes. That is the definition of summer. No matter how hot the winter, it will never become summer. To dispute this is ludicrous.
Well, with your definition...
My definition? This is not MY definition. This is THE definition. Yes, I stated something that was true by definition. Yet even without understanding what season meant, you supposed that perhaps currents were largely responsible for them. When I pointed out that what I said was true by definition, you still argued against. You supposed that a really warm winter may actually be summer. The point was meant to be rhetorical. It was meant to show that your understanding of Occam's razor leads you down these rabbet holes. You ended up having to redefine season in order to justify your explanation.
To think that 0.075, averaged say, over millennia, cannot make a difference if the actual effect comes in large spikes rather than an even flow, is to be willfully ignorant.
Go on. I'm interested in which physical law you will need to disregard first in order to show that this could happen. My bet is on entropy.
That's a flat out lie. We know that sensitivity (to all forcings) is small, because we can observe negative feedback patterns that stop climate from irreversibly going to either super cold or super hot.
Eh no. We have seen very wild swings from glaciation to interglacial periods. We know that the gain is less than one due to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law so there will never be a runaway warming or cooling.
it still begs the question, what is the *relative* strength of CO2 to other forcings.
Yes, another good question. Not one to which there is no answer. Certainly one that you should have asked before you decided that CO2 could not be responsible for the current warming.
Previously CO2 was a feedback, and now it is both a driver and a feedback. That's circular reasoning, and a special pleading.
It's basic physics and frankly should be obvious.
I'll assert to you that CO2 doesn't care *where* it came from before it has a physical effect on temperature.
Duh! But where it comes from does matter in terms of how it got there. Did it get there as a feedback to warming? Or did we put it there? How do you not know this most basic stuff and still have such a strong opinion? Is it possible that the less someone knows the more sure of themselves they become?
Still not willing to look at a graph of rising temperatures and acknowledge that the temperatures are rising? Very strange indeed.