Is Climate Change Causing Uptick in Storms?

At 5/18/2012 8:30:43 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:

Correction: it's 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Care to explain how that's inconvenient to my point, genius?

YES! Because 99.9% of all species didn't go extinct at one time in the geologic record.

No, but 96% did and it had NOTHING to do with AGW! Again: how is that inconvenient to my point.

I know geology is so inconvenient. But the point I was making was that the End Permian extinction event was one in which many scientists think global warming played a role and it was one in which 95% of earth's life forms were decimated.

Not an impact event, anoxia, volcanism...maybe it was the dinos and their REALLY big SUVs!

The fact that you can't differentiate between THAT point and your point about 99.9% of all species says a huge amount.

You seem to see GW even in your soup! To the man with a only hammer, every problem seems to be a nail.

Which would that be? The one where the MS in Math and Statistics couldn't even get the name of the statistical test right? (He called it "component analysis", but statisticians call it "Principal component analysis"), well I don't see my clock being cleaned right at this moment (as of last check it's 10-8, advantge me).

"Principal component analysis" vs "component analysis" WOW! Take about form over function...As far as getting more votes vs clock cleaned, I hope I don't have to explain that one to you too.

No I was referring to your point about 99.9% of the species extinct. Which has nothing to do with the point I was making about the End Permian Extinction.

It has as much to do with the Permian-Triassic extinction as AGW does.

Well, to be fair to me, I do have a BS, MS and PhD in geology (organic geochemistry and coal were my things), worked at one of the leading oceanographic research facilities that you might read about occasionally in the debates on global warming (although I wasn't involved in the CO2 studies or global temp studies, I did meet some of the players), and I have worked as a chemist for the past 15 years, so I'm not wholly in the dark on the science.

Seems to me that you are enlightened about "organic geochemistry and coal" but not necessarily AGW. On the flip side, I never said that you were wholly in the dark on the topic of AGW.

I am not a climatologist, but at least I can read some of the science with something of a background. I don't know what other debators' background is.

Roy (I think) has MIT credentials...but you'd have to check with him. Regardless, as you mentioned, it is not your "expertise."

At 5/20/2012 2:43:11 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:

The most positive you can be is to not mudsling.

How is it mudslinging to say to someone who has no scientific understanding of the topic that their "skepticism" is probably not grounded and hence they cannot take the mantle of "skeptic" in service to science?

It's fine to hold an opinion about someone, but, by mudslinging, all you are doing is showing weakness toward your own position, since, if those were your real thoughts, you wouldn't waste your time. I am confident based on your attitude that you're aware of the thin ice your position stands on.

You're not alone, so I don't hold this problem to you, but rather the entire AGW alarmist community since they hold your insecure attitude.

Again, I take no credit. I'm just the messenger, so slinging mud at me because I'm not something I never claimed to be is fruitless on your part.

I am not slinging mud at you. If you rely on critiques that are largely disavowed by the majority of scientists and don't have an underlying factual basis apparent then I am in no way mudslinging to say this is not good "skepticism". Certainly not the kind of skepticism we value in science.

Once again, relying on the power of the majority controlled by politics and government grants. Suddenly, the data doesn't become so important as blind faith in the dogma and those who feed into it.

I can be skeptical of many things which I don't understand. That does not make it a virtue on my part. Nor does it make the scientists who ignore me unvirtuous because they are supposed to value "skepticism".

Just because someone doesn't have a scientific background in a subject does not mean they lack understanding of the core issues. The data collected is widely available to the public.

Scientists, by nature, are supposed to be skeptical. It's how the scientific discipline has become so powerful at predicting things with great accuracy. Without that skepticism, there is no science. The problem is that government grants and university money are all trying to find evidence for man made global climate change. Since there is little to this claim, and since results equal future funding, and since the money is so enormous, it does affect the science.

Of course, not all scientists agree, which we have seen with NOAA's postings.

At least one of the lines in the paper indicates very short terms of time only a few decades or less.

Decades was about where I was getting at when it comes to being adaptable. If we can adapt to disasters that have already hit so esily, we can certainly find solutions to more nippy climate for a few parts of the world in a few decades.

It's just more alarmist logic, and even the writer of the article uses it.

Yeah. Suddenly a world expert on this stuff is someone you blow off? Weren't you the one who said we all rely on experts in this discussion? Wally Broecker has been around the block quite a bit.

I don't care what kind of an expert you are, making a suggestion as to what people should do and why we should be scared is alarmist logic. Interpreting the data is fine, formulating hypotheses is fine, but alarmist logic supposed to be fit for media outlets is not fine. Science is not supposed to be dogmatic.

This is another standard skeptic cannard. It's not like we should ignore global climate change because there are OTHER issues to deal with. Arguably if the vast majority of the world's climate professionals think its real and think it could have serious impacts and our ability to deal with it may be "time-limited", it must be prioritized highly.

No evidence we can change it. Little evidence that we even cause it. No evidence the warming will continue. This is why the United States voted down Kyoto twice. The few skeptics who dare speak out against this dogma presented their work and testimony to congress.

And those parts are what the 3% of the world's climate scientists use to leverage doubt for the skeptic cause.

As they should.

Without the tropospheric hotspot, there is no AGW. This is the master key prediction. The troposphere actually shows no evidence of greenhouse warming caused by increased levels of CO2.

Strangely enough there's so much data that about 97% of the world's climate researchers and experts feel this is real science. But it's not 100% so I guess we'll have to wait.

What data? I have yet to see any piece of data that shows that CO2 is directly responsible for global heating. Skeptics, on the other hand, have the data and use it. AGW alarmists just have the pretend "consensus" and the "majority." They argue these to death, but where is the data?

In fact, in none of these threads do I see AGW people post data sets. All that I've ever seen are the ice cores and the hockey stick. Hockey Stick has been eliminated from the IPCC report, and the Ice Cores show no evidence that CO2 is capable of causing temperature changes.

Because the skeptics who are not scientists SURELY will find the smoking gun soon! SURELY!

It's the sun, albedo, and other feedbacks. We have our answer, and that's supported by over a thousand of years of data.

Since you earlier said we all rely on experts in this debate, can I ask why you now wish to deny the work of the vast majority of experts in this field?

I don't deny their work, I just deny their conclusions and think they are politically based, and that they blow up the small amount of evidence there is to say that it overwhelms everything else. Truth is, there is not even close to enough evidence

Seems to me you want doubt for doubt's sake. That's good. It has worked for creationists for decades. Unfortunately it doesn't really work when time might be running out for us to do something.

I've posted countless data sets by skeptics. Data that shows a direct cause-effect relationship between the Sun and Temperature where Temperature lags solar activity, and I'm sure you're already aware of ice core records where CO2 lags temperature.

I'd like to see where is "overwhelming evidence" is for humans causing global climate change through CO2 other than simply saying "the majority believe it, so it must be true."

I'd like to see which piece of satellite data directly supports warming through CO2, and what up-to-date proxy records show temperature correlating with CO2 levels. Not theory, not physics, but direct,observed and collected evidence.

I am confident based on your attitude that you're aware of the thin ice your position stands on.

LOL! I'll put up my BS, MS and PhD in geology and 15 years of experience as a chemist against whatever you have. :)

You're not alone, so I don't hold this problem to you, but rather the entire AGW alarmist community since they hold your insecure attitude.

It's not "insecurity" it's annoyance. I'm not insecure about the old age of the earth but I get annoyed at seeing YEC's talk trash about science they don't even begin to understand.

Once again, relying on the power of the majority controlled by politics and government grants. Suddenly, the data doesn't become so important as blind faith in the dogma and those who feed into it.

Please. When you guys have to resor to "Conspiracy theories" you have to know you've lost. If your science is so tight then why does it require "conspiracy theories" to bolster it?

Just because someone doesn't have a scientific background in a subject does not mean they lack understanding of the core issues. The data collected is widely available to the public.

Actually it kinda does. I mean no offense here. I'm not a climatologist but I've got a LOT of science under my belt. When I read the scientific case and when I read the skeptic case the science seems more compelling.

Why? Because I understand what scientist are saying to some greater or lesser extent because I use the same type of reasoning in my science.

As an example: a couple years back I was in a debate with a "skeptoid" who claimed there was cooling from 1998-2003. But then you read what Phil Jones said in the BBC interview he clearly explains the statistical inferential techniques about interpretting a trend. Statistically the trend was indifferentiable from slope = zero. I understand some of the statistics in that statement. It is not simple and one without training my be easily set off by the wording (as my interlocutor was). It was clear this guy had no idea what an "F-test" for slope was.

But the point is not that people without scientific training are "idiots", nor do I lack respect for them as people. What I do lack respect for is the use of ignorance to bolster opinion on science one doesn't understand. That's a brand of hubris I find offensive.

Scientists, by nature, are supposed to be skeptical. It's how the scientific discipline has become so powerful at predicting things with great accuracy. Without that skepticism, there is no science. The problem is that government grants and university money are all trying to find evidence for man made global climate change. Since there is little to this claim, and since results equal future funding, and since the money is so enormous, it does affect the science.

And again, I will repeat: skepticism without firm background in the science one is skeptical of is next to useless. It is an "opinion" without merit one way or the other.

Decades was about where I was getting at when it comes to being adaptable. If we can adapt to disasters that have already hit so esily, we can certainly find solutions to more nippy climate for a few parts of the world in a few decades.

And again I will remind you what the researcher who wrote the paper said. It wasn't as rosy as your view. And since that guy is a pretty well known high-power researcher with decades of world-class experience under his belt I'm probably less likely to take your word over his.

I don't care what kind of an expert you are, making a suggestion as to what people should do and why we should be scared is alarmist logic. Interpreting the data is fine, formulating hypotheses is fine, but alarmist logic supposed to be fit for media outlets is not fine. Science is not supposed to be dogmatic.

You are fighting common sense here. The scientists are telling you in no uncertain terms this is serious and we need to start acting on it. Just like if thousands of doctors said to you: "YOU have an agressive cancer you need to get treated NOW or it might be too late! Things could get bad for you!"

Would you call it "Dogmatic" to then go in for treatment?

No evidence we can change it.

Well, that's just wrong. If we debate long enough we might be unable to make the changes we need, but as has been pointed out to you and others: there's abundant evidence that humans have had a measurable impact on the global climate and we know exactly how. So how can you not understand what we should do to "fix" the problem?

Little evidence that we even cause it.

Except for:
1. Carbon isotopic signatures
2. What a known greenhouse gas is
3. How the Greenhouse effect works
4. Common sense (who else is burning tons and tons of fossil fuel on earth every day?)
5. Numerous attribution studies
6. The collective opinion of just about every climate professional on earth.

Oh, but on the "con" side there's always a couple bloggers and a few skeptical scientists. That's good.

Without the tropospheric hotspot, there is no AGW. This is the master key prediction. The troposphere actually shows no evidence of greenhouse warming caused by increased levels of CO2.

FIrst off: the tropospheric hotspot is NOT a unique greenhouse effect signature. It is seen on short time scales (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu...) so at least we know that the models are correct with regards to greenhouse warming (the hot spot is due to the lapse rate and "latent heat" from water condensation in the atmosphere).

There are three satellite data sets which show varying results: UAH, RSS, and UWA. UWA shows the hotspot where the other two show different trends with elevation. The most likely explanation for these differences is MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY. (http://www.climatescience.gov...)

While there may be some question around the long term hot spot, it seems hardly to undercut the core hypothesis since on short term scales our understanding of the lapse rate seems reasonably solid.

What data? I have yet to see any piece of data that shows that CO2 is directly responsible for global heating.

This statement is clearly hyperbole. What you probably meant was that in your lack of scientific training you wish to deny standard physics.

The "greenhouse effect" is non-controversial (at least since the middle 19th century) and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so to make that claim you are showing a failure to get the proper training.

If you would like an explanation of how O=C=O bonds work and how they absorb IR I recommend this paper:
http://orgchem.colorado.edu...

Here's a simple explanation of the Greenhouse Effect:
http://www.aip.org...

Skeptics, on the other hand, have the data and use it. AGW alarmists just have the pretend "consensus" and the "majority." They argue these to death, but where is the data?

Please in these discussions with you I've provided you nothing but data and legitimate scientific publications.

In fact, in none of these threads do I see AGW people post data sets. All that I've ever seen are the ice cores and the hockey stick. Hockey Stick has been eliminated from the IPCC report, and the Ice Cores show no evidence that CO2 is capable of causing temperature changes.

I have posted almost exclusively scientific publications and citations in my discussions with you and others on here and I've only been here a short while!

I don't deny their work

Except you just said, and I quote: " What data? I have yet to see any piece of data that shows that CO2 is directly responsible for global heating" (vide supra)

, I just deny their conclusions and think they are politically based,

and you infer this from the publications? Because it isn't there. So you must be inferring it from something other than the science.

This statement is clearly hyperbole. What you probably meant was that in your lack of scientific training you wish to deny standard physics.

I meant that I have never seen data in any of my many years that is direct evidence for CO2 based warming causing global temperatures to rise as they have.

The "greenhouse effect" is non-controversial (at least since the middle 19th century) and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so to make that claim you are showing a failure to get the proper training.

I learned about the greenhouse effect in high school, as most of us have.

I'm sorry to say, believer-oid, but the data does not show that the greenhouse effect is causing current warming. AGW alarmists failed to predict the tropospheric temperatures, which are not in line with greenhouse warming. If AGW is correct, and that the greenhouse effect is responsible for current warming, then we would see heating in the troposphere greater than that of the surface.

In the very least, the data does not show this. Surface and the theoretical hotspot warming are going on at the same rate according to weather balloon data.

Again, key word "data."

I have it, so I attack the science.

I guess your argument for AGW and the evidence I have asked to be presented are that "cbrhawk1 has no training in this issue. Therefore, CO2 is boiling the atmosphere." That is what I gather, anyhow.

Guess if that's how you want to go about it. I'm a bit ... less dogmatic. I seek answers, not to be right.

Guess that's the harsh life of a skeptic.

If you would like an explanation of how O=C=O bonds work and how they absorb IR I recommend this paper:
http://orgchem.colorado.edu...

Ddn't need one. How CO2 works isn't even part of my argument.

Here's a simple explanation of the Greenhouse Effect:
http://www.aip.org...

Never argue the greenhouse effect existed.

Skeptics, on the other hand, have the data and use it. AGW alarmists just have the pretend "consensus" and the "majority." They argue these to death, but where is the data?

Please in these discussions with you I've provided you nothing but data and legitimate scientific publications.

On the thermohaline circulation, but not on evidence for AGW itself. If you can point to where you have posted one chart that relates to AGW and the evidence for it, then I apologize. Put it in PM if you don't want to wate thread space providing it.

I have posted almost exclusively scientific publications and citations in my discussions with you and others on here and I've only been here a short while!

I've seen you reference people, not data, and only one or two publications.

I don't deny their work

Except you just said, and I quote: " What data? I have yet to see any piece of data that shows that CO2 is directly responsible for global heating" (vide supra)

I don't deny that their data collection measures are within boundaries of being ethical and faithful. I just think, as I've said, their conclusions are wrong.

, I just deny their conclusions and think they are politically based,

and you infer this from the publications? Because it isn't there. So you must be inferring it from something other than the science.

I infer on this from places such as NOAA that say the science isn't complete enough to predict future climate. I infer this from looking at multiple datsets from both sides, being on both sides of the argument, and realizing AGW's case has went down drastically in the past ten years.

If AGW people provide me with DIRECT evidence that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise at the amounts we see today, or that CO2 is even capable of initiating and feeding back changes as we see today, then I will certainly jump back over on the other side.

I love the environment, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about any line of research. That's how it's supposed to be, but with all of the mudslinging from you and others going on, I guess it's more important to hold up a more brightly colored and larger flag than the opposition.

Sad.

I meant that I have never seen data in any of my many years that is direct evidence for CO2 based warming causing global temperatures to rise as they have.

Well, let's see if I can help you on this front:

I'd start with the IPCC WG1 (working group 1) which utilizes independently generated peer reveiwed scientific publications (remember the IPCC itself does not do research) to establish the data and provide the basics for you.

Start with the AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch...

Navigate to the WG1 report (Physical Science Basis):
http://www.ipcc.ch...

Chapter 3 establishes the changes we note:
http://www.ipcc.ch...

The list of REFERENCES are attached:
http://www.ipcc.ch...

Chapter 9 is probably where you want to start for ATTRIBUTION (how we know what is responsible for the warming):
http://www.ipcc.ch...

Finally Chapter 9 Section 7 is a summation of the attribution:
http://www.ipcc.ch...

There is literally a TON of data here.

I learned about the greenhouse effect in high school, as most of us have.

So then you'll understand why CO2 is an important molecule in that factor.

I'm sorry to say, believer-oid, but the data does not show that the greenhouse effect is causing current warming.

Well, then, I guess the vast majority of climate professionals are simply wrong, eh? You better get to publishing.

Sadly the Attribution studies cited above would tend to disagree with you.

AGW alarmists failed to predict the tropospheric temperatures, which are not in line with greenhouse warming. If AGW is correct, and that the greenhouse effect is responsible for current warming, then we would see heating in the troposphere greater than that of the surface.

In the very least, the data does not show this. Surface and the theoretical hotspot warming are going on at the same rate according to weather balloon data.

Didn't I already address this issue? And give you a citation (that was co-authored by Christie! So I don't know how much more balanced you can get!)

I guess your argument for AGW and the evidence I have asked to be presented are that "cbrhawk1 has no training in this issue. Therefore, CO2 is boiling the atmosphere." That is what I gather, anyhow.

No, not at all! That's kind of why I've been providing robust citations that read against your positions. I'm providing you with data in opposition to your points.

Guess if that's how you want to go about it. I'm a bit ... less dogmatic. I seek answers, not to be right.

Guess that's the harsh life of a skeptic.

You say that, but I really don't see much that you ahve posted that indicates anything other than information from non-standard, non-scientific sources.

You raise the standard skeptic lines which are quite easy to find counterpoints to that rely on solid, robust science explanations.

Ddn't need one. How CO2 works isn't even part of my argument.

Well it better be. Or is the "Basic" information too annoyingly boring to deal with? We wanna get to the conspiracy stuff!

You see it all boils down to basics at its core. When you run an FTIR in any chem lab you'll do a background spectrum. If there's no nitrogen flush in the chamber you see a nice big peak from CO2 absorption. That's an indication that energy is going into something. It has to be preserved. Where does the energy go?

But you want hard data, so let's look at some. What about changes in the OUTGOING IR from the earth's atmosphere over time?

Here's an article by Harries et al, 1997: http://www.nature.com...

it discusses the changes in outgoing IR from earth's surface as measured from space between 1970 and 1997. A copy of the important graphic is here (loathe as I am to reference a blog, they do host a copy of the citation and the important graph):
http://www.skepticalscience.com...

This is called a "Difference spectrum" and indicates that between 1970 and 1997 there has been a significant INCREASE in the absorption of IR due to CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere.

Now on it's face this is almost TOO basic (and it has been confirmed by a couple of other research groups), but it gets to the heart of the issue.

CO2 is increasing, we know that. We also know (through a wide variety of paleoclimate and modern analyses) what the climate sensitivity is for CO2 (it's pretty robustly where we need it to be to make sense of anthropogenic warming) and we know that H2O is a great feedback mechanism.

All of the basics are just plain simple chemistry you learn in Chem I and II.

I've seen you reference people, not data, and only one or two publications.

What kind of semantic game is this? Are you unable to read the citations? Citations have data, explanations etc.

If you would like I have in the past in other debates run numbers and done some statistics, but it is much easier to rely on the work that is out there that you claim you've neveer seen.

I don't deny that their data collection measures are within boundaries of being ethical and faithful. I just think, as I've said, their conclusions are wrong.

And so far every point you've raised in objection to their conclusions has a pretty solid response (which I've attempted to provide on a case-by-case basis)

If AGW people provide me with DIRECT evidence that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise at the amounts we see today, or that CO2 is even capable of initiating and feeding back changes as we see today, then I will certainly jump back over on the other side.

When I hear that I think this sounds a LOT like a creationist who simply wants to see a dog turn into a crocoduck. It doesn't work that simply. That's why it takes reams and reams of studies to prove it out as robustly as it is.

But it can be understood on a more simple level, just not "proven".

1. Direct evidence is that CO2 is a KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS. Incontrovertible.
2. Direct evidence comes from the fact that humans are one of the largest producers of excess CO2 (outside of the natural carbon cycle) these days (unless you think Bonobos are chimps are burning a lot of coal).
3. Direct evidence is noting that the isotopic signature of the CO2 in the atmosphere is shifting EXACTLY like one would expect from the mass burning of fossil fuels.
4. Direct evidence comes from understanding the CARBON CYCLE in detail and knowing the difference about how excess CO2 is removed from the atmosphere using the carbon cycle versus how excess H2O is removed from the atmosphere using the hydrologic cycle.
5. Direct evidence is modelling that shows that without anthropogenic factors included we CANNOT effectively "hindcast" the temperature changes we've seen:
http://www.grida.no...

What more do you want?

How many "transition fossils" does it take?

I love the environment, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about any line of research.

You keep goin gback to "dogmatic". Do you think people who believe in gravity are acting "dogmatically"? Could it be that the science is enough to convince them something likely up here?

At 5/22/2012 2:49:17 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:

I meant that I have never seen data in any of my many years that is direct evidence for CO2 based warming causing global temperatures to rise as they have.

Well, let's see if I can help you on this front:

I'd start with the IPCC WG1 (working group 1) which utilizes independently generated peer reveiwed scientific publications (remember the IPCC itself does not do research) to establish the data and provide the basics for you.

(IPCC)

The confidence of their conclusion doesn't meet the confidence of their individual sections. Ocean temperature changes are only predicted by simulations, and air/surface temperatures of TAR do not agree with NASA's satellite data.

So then you'll understand why CO2 is an important molecule in that factor.

CO2 absorbs heat. Light bulbs emit heat. But, when you turn on a light bulb, you aren't going to catch on fire, if you see the point being made about CO2.

Well, then, I guess the vast majority of climate professionals are simply wrong, eh? You better get to publishing.

Sadly the Attribution studies cited above would tend to disagree with you.

It's a few sources of data, yeah, but the IPCC even admits to extreme variability, poor sampling. And, in the case of the troposphere example you keep throwing out, inconsistent data that gives us little of what we are looking for as of yet.

Didn't I already address this issue? And give you a citation (that was co-authored by Christie! So I don't know how much more balanced you can get!)

Whatever the article, and there are a number of them written about the same balloon and satellite data, none of the data sets agree. Some show cooling, some show static, some show slight warming but not sufficient, and one shows a few signs of of a hotspot.

No, not at all! That's kind of why I've been providing robust citations that read against your positions. I'm providing you with data in opposition to your points.

I am happy you did. Thanks.

You say that, but I really don't see much that you ahve posted that indicates anything other than information from non-standard, non-scientific sources.

I always knew you Europeans had something against NOAA and NASA. Jaelous bastards!

You raise the standard skeptic lines which are quite easy to find counterpoints to that rely on solid, robust science explanations.

It is easy to find ounterpoints, but it's more about the lack of data than the data. Though, I'd say that history and lack of consistent evidence are on the side of non-AGW at this point, given the current 12 year trend and the history of of solar-temperature correlatiom

Well it better be. Or is the "Basic" information too annoyingly boring to deal with? We wanna get to the conspiracy stuff!

Do you expect me to argue against CO2 absorbing heat? It's not part of my argument because it's not a contention o mine. Read the light bulb example above.

You see it all boils down to basics at its core. When you run an FTIR in any chem lab you'll do a background spectrum. If there's no nitrogen flush in the chamber you see a nice big peak from CO2 absorption. That's an indication that energy is going into something. It has to be preserved. Where does the energy go?

Energy gets cycled back into the Earth. It's happened throughout its history. There are always times where the Earth absorbs and radiates more heat against a given mean. The Earth wasn't just this static balanced thing until we started burning coal. It's always changing.

But you want hard data, so let's look at some. What about changes in the OUTGOING IR from the earth's atmosphere over time?

Here's an article by Harries et al, 1997: (link)
it discusses the changes in outgoing IR from earth's surface as measured from space between 1970 and 1997. A copy of the important graphic is here (loathe as I am to reference a blog, they do host a copy of the citation and the important graph):

I can't read the part of nature that actually justifies much of anything since it says I have to pay, but, the actual change in radiated energy is 2.5W/m^2. That's not a whole lot of energy

(spectrum analysis description)

The wavelengths of light that CO2 absorbs aren't the issue and aren't being contested. This is just you giving out facts instead of making an argument, facts that are ot disputed by no one who rationally debates this subject.

Now on it's face this is almost TOO basic (and it has been confirmed by a couple of other research groups), but it gets to the heart of the issue.

CO2 is increasing, we know that. We also know (through a wide variety of paleoclimate and modern analyses) what the climate sensitivity is for CO2 (it's pretty robustly where we need it to be to make sense of anthropogenic warming) and we know that H2O is a great feedback mechanism.

There is no evidence to climate sensitivity to CO2 simply because temperature increases CO2 content. Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans.

All of the basics are just plain simple chemistry you learn in Chem I and II.

The basics of science are that, when hypothesis doesn't meet data, you formulate a new hypothesis.

If you would like I have in the past in other debates run numbers and done some statistics, but it is much easier to rely on the work that is out there that you claim you've neveer seen.

I don't claim I haven't seen it. I'm just asking for work that is rationally irrefutable.

And so far every point you've raised in objection to their conclusions has a pretty solid response (which I've attempted to provide on a case-by-case basis)

Solid responses do not mean correct responses. You provided me with a lot on the issues surrounding the warming, but little to actually justify it until this post.

When I hear that I think this sounds a LOT like a creationist who simply wants to see a dog turn into a crocoduck. It doesn't work that simply. That's why it takes reams and reams of studies to prove it out as robustly as it is.

There's been a lot of studies done on it. I don't deny the hard work many people have put in, but, the evidnce just isn't as strong as all of us, even I, thought it was. It's just not a strong theory anymore.

But it can be understood on a more simple level, just not "proven".

1-4

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that increased CO2 concentrations are probably caused by humans.

5. Direct evidence is modelling that shows that without anthropogenic factors included we CANNOT effectively "hindcast" the temperature changes we've seen:
http://www.grida.no...

First of all, a 'model' is evidence for nothing. Models are used to make predictions. If you were to use the model as evidence, it fails because it hasn't predicted the slight cooling since 1999.

Secondly, the "there is no other possible cause" argument is similar to a lot of arguments against God. It is claimed that God is the absence of knowledge. Well, here we are with CO2, and we claim that our lack of knowledge makes the evidence irrefutable that CO2 has causing warming for half of the 20th century.

We don't have complete proxy data sets, ocean sampling is poor, air temperature measurements are prone to huge errors and noise resulting in no consistent data sets.

Rather than cry "CO2" Let's just say "I don't know" until we get consistent results.

You keep goin gback to "dogmatic". Do you think people who believe in gravity are acting "dogmatically"? Could it be that the science is enough to convince them something likely up here?

You can do experiments yourself to prove gravity. We have yet to see consistent evidence of AGW though. To say there is no debate or that it

It's a few sources of data, yeah, but the IPCC even admits to extreme variability, poor sampling. And, in the case of the troposphere example you keep throwing out, inconsistent data that gives us little of what we are looking for as of yet.

you claim you want data, I give you data and suddenly it's not enough. How many transition fossils do you need?

I always knew you Europeans had something against NOAA and NASA. Jaelous bastards!

Wrong nationality.

It is easy to find ounterpoints, but it's more about the lack of data than the data.

More semantics games?

Energy gets cycled back into the Earth. It's happened throughout its history. There

That's kinda the point.

There is no evidence to climate sensitivity to CO2 simply because temperature increases CO2 content.

What do you mean no evidence? How about this citation?

http://www.nature.com...

How about this one?

http://www.iac.ethz.ch...

Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans.

So you just opted to IGNORE the post over here: http://www.debate.org...

where I gave you a refernce that shows CO2 leading?

You see this is why I find skeptic debates disingenuous because, like creationsts, demand something then ignore it afterwards.

There's been a lot of studies done on it. I don't deny the hard work many people have put in, but, the evidnce just isn't as strong as all of us, even I, thought it was. It's just not a strong theory anymore.

You see, the tell-tale give away to me that you are really not up to the task to make this claim is shown by the previous statement. In another thread you said "I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way.", I provided one to you at that time. Now you say: "Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans."

So you'll forgive me for being skeptical that you really do have a grasp of all sides of the debate I think you simply demand things until you find something someone can't provide you and you use it as evidence that all the answers are not there. Even if you have to IGNORE what people have shown you. It is an interesting approach.

First of all, a 'model' is evidence for nothing. Models are used to make predictions.

Oh, fail! If you had ACTUALLY looked at the citation I provided you'd note this was HINDCASTING, ergo it isn't "making a prediction" it is developing a physical model and running the numbers FROM THE PAST to see if the same type of actual temperature change occurs in the model as occured in the past. It's a method they use to not only develop ATTRIBUTION type studies but also to test the robustness of the models.

See? Do you see how I could become skeptical of your actual acquaintance with the details?

(On in case you are tempted to launch into how models aren't science, don't even try. You're talking to a scientist here. I know better.)

If you were to use the model as evidence, it fails because it hasn't predicted the slight cooling since 1999.

So can you tell me how far off a model that was doing hindcasting up to 2000 was from the "slight cooling" since 1999?

And again, do you know what a "statistically significant trend" is? It has a real life technical meaning. It is predicated on a very specific type of statistical test. Can you tell me what the value and associated P-Value is of this so-called "slight cooling since 1999" is?

I'm waiting.

We don't have complete proxy data sets, ocean sampling is poor, air temperature measurements are prone to huge errors and noise resulting in no consistent data sets.

We need more TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!

Rather than cry "CO2" Let's just say "I don't know" until we get consistent results.

But you see, there will never be enough "results" for some people. YOu know, people who demand numbers but when shown data simply choose to ignore it and claim they have never been shown the data? Those kind of folks.

you claim you want data, I give you data and suddenly it's not enough. How many transition fossils do you need?

It's data, ye, but it's not irrefutable data. I didn't say all data was equal to absolute proof. But, I will give you the fact that it is potential evidence if the inconsistencies both in data sets and the data wthin the set are removed.

Wrong nationality.

My apologies, but not cosidering NOAA and NASA scientists? Gotta give more credit than that now.

Energy gets cycled back into the Earth. It's happened throughout its history. :There

Not all of that energy reflects in surface and atmospheric temperatures, though, and natural limits will always push temperatures the other way.

It's like a stock market crash. Gradual rise, ceiling, and steep drop. How climate has usually worked in the past.

That's kinda the point.

There is no evidence to climate sensitivity to CO2 simply because temperature increases CO2 content.

What do you mean no evidence? How about this citation?

http://www.nature.com...

I cannot read the full article as payment is required, so this is little than qualitative analysis without the exact data.

How about this one?

http://www.iac.ethz.ch...

There are no proxy records posted that show that climate has ever changed due to CO2 in the past. There is, again, no evidence that CO2 has driven any period of temperature rise in the last 250 years.

Also, this article relies heavily on alarmist logic, rather than just presenting the data. This bias leads me to discredit his conclusions based on an obvious bias on the subject on his part, especially as it pertains to asking for UN related politics to get involvd, which should be out of the scope of an informative article.

Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans.

So you just opted to IGNORE the post over here: http://www.debate.org...

Key word: consistent, or lack of consistency in the case of AGW as I pointed out in that same tread

where I gave you a refernce that shows CO2 leading?

You gave one example out of millions of years of study that shows that Warming does lead. As I said, consistency.

You see, the tell-tale give away to me that you are really not up to the task to make this claim is shown by the previous statement. In another thread you said "I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way.", I provided one to you at that time. Now you say: "Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans."

One period of time does not equal consistency. What you referred to was the warming from an ice age (forgot what period it was, Pleistocene?).

Because I'm talking about consistency, and I'm not cherrypicking one piece of data and amplifying it, my statements are consistent.

So you'll forgive me for being skeptical that you really do have a grasp of all sides of the debate I think you simply demand things until you find something someone can't provide you and you use it as evidence that all the answers are not there. Even if you have to IGNORE what people have shown you. It is an interesting approach.

I don't ignore, you just misinterpret my words, as you don't analyze key words and context (which leads to awful errors that I have to correct). I've fully acknowledge what you have put into this debate.

First of all, a 'model' is evidence for nothing. Models are used to make predictions.

Oh, fail! If you had ACTUALLY looked at the citation I provided you'd note this was HINDCASTING, ergo it isn't "making a prediction" it is developing a physical model and running the numbers FROM THE PAST to see if the same type of actual temperature change occurs in the model as occured in the past. It's a method they use to not only develop ATTRIBUTION type studies but also to test the robustness of the models.

I'm very aware of what you meant. Again, you're showing entirely too much emotion over big mistakes of meaning.

The evidence isn't the "model" the evidence is the past events. The model itself isn't the evidence. The model attempts to explain changes in the past and project them into the future, but models can only use approximate data, and can ever take everything into account.

See? Do you see how I could become skeptical of your actual acquaintance with the details?

What I see is you constantly getting fussy because you want to put words into my mouth that simply aren't there, then you simply blow up. Chill out and think about what I'm saying a sec first

(On in case you are tempted to launch into how models aren't science, don't even try. You're talking to a scientist here. I know better.)

I am going there.

Models are dangerous and they've made awful predictions about climate in the past. Look at the 1990 IPCC report, the 1997 (I think?) IPCC report (hockey stick), then the 2007 IPCC report (omission of hockey stick and acknowledgement of past temperaure variation).

Also, look at predictions of climate change back in the 80s and 90s for the year 2010.

No, models are not science. They are helpful and useful for making predictions, but it's the predictions that make the model valid. The model itself doesn't prove anything.

If you were to use the model as evidence, it fails because it hasn't predicted the slight cooling since 1999.

So can you tell me how far off a model that was doing hindcasting up to 2000 was from the "slight cooling" since 1999?

I'm talking about models that use past information to predict the future. It was predicted that temperatures would continue to rise something that clearly hasn't happened.

I find graphs from "An Inconveniet Truth" an absolute laugh what he said about 2050.

And again, do you know what a "statistically significant trend" is? It has a real life technical meaning. It is predicated on a very specific type of statistical test. Can you tell me what the value and associated P-Value is of this so-called "slight cooling since 1999" is?

It's not shown in the satellite data set, so I don't know. I don't claim to be an expert at calculating specifics in statistics, but, any idiot can see the 12 year running trend of 5 year averages being slightly lower thanthe 1998 max.

We need more TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!

I mean more spots with better sampling data, a more complete proxy record for short, medium, and long term trends, etc...

Rather than cry "CO2" Let's just say "I don't know" until we get consistent results.

But you see, there will never be enough "results" for some people. YOu know, people who demand numbers but when shown data simply choose to ignore it and claim they have never been shown the data? Those kind of folks.

I find this funny considering articles you post show where so much information is not known.

NOAA says there is not enough data to make future climate predictions, satellite data show a very wide range of temperature changes the last century,

http://www.iac.ethz.ch...
the feedback graph show lots of categories in the red and white, meaning knowledge of climate feedbacks is largely unknown.

Yeah, there are enough results for some people, just not in the case of AGW. Get better coverage and better reliability of proxy data, air temperature readings. Lots of things need to be improved.

At 5/23/2012 3:54:13 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It's data, ye, but it's not irrefutable data.

Now you are sounding like a creationist. You want "irrefutable data"? Sorry that doesn't exist. I ra

There are no proxy records posted that show that climate has ever changed due to CO2 in the past.

Well, again, NOAA appears to hold a different opinion from yours:
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. " (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...) <--they even have a nice ice core graph for you there!

But I forget...are they part of the "Conspiracy"?

There is, again, no evidence that CO2 has driven any period of temperature rise in the last 250 years.

Well, I tried to show you how the data for the last 140 years works only when anthropogenic factors were used along with natural factors but you blew that off. So I'm not sure what you need here.

You gave one example out of millions of years of study that shows that Warming does lead. As I said, consistency.

I thought I also mentioned HENRY'S LAW to you. Maybe when you get to a chemistry class and they cover that topic you can revisit this debate. CO2 can lead and lag. I don't know why you want it to be only one way or another. More science education will definitely help.

I don't ignore, you just misinterpret my words

So when you say

"I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way."

and I provide one only to have you later have to change your demands to "consistent" data:

"Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans"

But then you go back and say:
"There are no proxy records posted that show that climate has ever changed due to CO2 in the past"

Sounds like you are forgetting to play your word games. Because I have shown you at least one. Now I've even provided you with another one from NOAA.

But I suspect that you'll work your semantic magic and move the goal posts around again.

The evidence isn't the "model" the evidence is the past events. The model itself isn't the evidence. The model attempts to explain changes in the past and project them into the future, but models can only use approximate data, and can ever take everything into account.

The model I cited did not make future predictions. Why do you keep making that error?

The point of the model I cited was an EXPLANATORY point.

Climate models are PHYSICAL models which means they have to be built out of underlying basic concepts and the goal is make them as robust as possible. The goal also being to understand how the various factors work. The way that is tested is hindcast. The resulting information is not presented here to say anything about the future but to hopefully get it into your head that the basic PHYSICAL MODEL PARAMETERS do a pretty good job with the inputs to "recreate" temperature trends in the past!

Why am I spending so much time explaining this to you?

What I see is you constantly getting fussy because you want to put words into my mouth that simply aren't there, then you simply blow up. Chill out and think about what I'm saying a sec first

"Getting fussy"? That's nice. You see I take science very seriously. I worry over trying to understand the details. So if you are not getting "fussy" over the details then one of us is doing science wrong.

No, models are not science. They are helpful and useful for making predictions, but it's the predictions that make the model valid. The model itself doesn't prove anything.

So wrong on so many, many levels. Let me help you.

Models are extremely useful in science. All aspects of science. Models range from simple concepts like "F=ma". You want to know how a mass is going to accelerate under a given force you rearrange the equation and plug it in.

In my job as a scientist I work with "statisitical models" which are not quite the same as the physical models of climate, but will help you understand how far off you are.

In my work I am tasked with understanding what factors in a formulation are responsible for a given result. Perhaps the formulation is too viscous. So I construct a "Designed Experiment" where I take several aspects of the formulation and systematically change them and then measure a variety of "response variables".

I fit this to a "model" using multiple regression. In the end I have a means to understand what factors in the mixing of the formulation or what components of the formulation have the most impact on the viscosity (as an example).

Along with this I have an estimate of the statistical likelihood that this is more than just an artifact of pure random chance. I also, if I have a good stats program, will have something called "Lack of Fit" that indicates whether I have missed some particular variable from the design that still needs to be added in. Perhaps I should used the square of a term, or I have eliminated a cross-term that is needed in the model.

NOW: this model works to help me understand the system I am working in. But it is limited in how far out I can "predict". The boundaries of the model mean I can't just willy nilly start extrapolating out forever. But they may give me a good handle on understanding that if I generally increase chemical X in the formulation at least within a reasonable extension outside of the design space I may expect to see it have a similar effect if I keep increasing Chemical X.

Physical models are bit more complex. Suppose I want to know what will happen if I drop a bowling ball from a 3 story building into the parking lot. Will I be able to estimate how far away it will bounce and how high each successive bounce will be? Can I estimate the force with which it will hit the hood of Bob's car if it makes it over to Bob's car on a certain number of bounces?

These are "predictions" of a sort and presumably I can create a model in which I utilize the mass of the bowling ball, the acceleration due to gravity, the plastic and elastic deformation of the bowling ball, the plastic and elastic deformation of the parking lot surface, the energy for rebounding etc.

Now if I go up to the roof and drop the bowling ball it may not bounce exactly where I predicted (maybe it hit a rock), but the basics are built into the model. It rests with straightforward physics.

Climate modeling is kind of hybrid. It requires a large number of relatively well known, but complex physical phenomenon and a few factors that require "empirical relationships" (ie they don't have a good set of equations to describe the effect) so they take all the data from numerous observations and derive an empirical relationship (which may be not unlike what I did in my "statistical model") that describes the effect without explicitly knowing the underlying physics.

So the really important stuff comes from proving out the model by "hindcasting". Does it do what it is supposed to do? Does it exlain how the climate actually WORKS.

No one claims they know everything, but they know a LOT more than skeptoids give them credit for. And when the science actually works well the skeptoids invoke the mysterious "Conspiracy Factor" to explain why it didn't support the skeptoid POV.

Now you are sounding like a creationist. You want "irrefutable data"? Sorry that doesn't exist.

It can be rationally irrefutable. I personally believe that exists. People don't rationally debate Einstein's equations because, to a great degree, they're rationally irrefutable based on the evidence to support them.

Now, does being rationally irrefutable mean they will never be superceded by better sets of data? of course not! But, you have to admit, there are some accomplishments of science that have created extremely strong pillars that would be tough to knock down.

Well, again, NOAA appears to hold a different opinion from yours:
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. " (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...) <--they even have a nice ice core graph for you there!

It's not a nice graph. It's very low resolution, to be honest. I have a better one.

http://www.skepticalscience.com... (btw, a pro warming website)

Yeah, the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature is, admittedly, complicated. But, almost always you see CO2 reacting to temperature, and not the other way around. This is for increase and decreases in temperature. This leads me to believe that CO2 concentrations are less connected to temperature rises, and only rarely can cause a feedback.

Count for yourself how many times one reacts to the other on the larger temperature trends.

But I forget...are they part of the "Conspiracy"?

It's just a handful of people in the governments that are conspirators. The rest of the people are just trying to make a living.

Well, I tried to show you how the data for the last 140 years works only when anthropogenic factors were used along with natural factors but you blew that off. So I'm not sure what you need here.

Something that conclusively proves that CO2 alone can cause the type of warming that the IPCC says and models predict will happen.

There is no direct evidence of CO2 causing a major climate event. Your paleo graph shows a mix of results nearly always with temperature being the initiator, and, as I have stated repeatedly, proxy records are prone to a good bit of error anyhow, so to say that there was any time that CO2 was the driver is to take a stance from uncertainty.

I thought I also mentioned HENRY'S LAW to you. Maybe when you get to a chemistry class and they cover that topic you can revisit this debate. CO2 can lead and lag. I don't know why you want it to be only one way or another. More science education will definitely help.

You state it as if it is a 50% deal. It almost never leads. And, as I said, when it does, it's possible that it is simply part of the huge error in ice core temperatures.

So when you say

"I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way."

and I provide one only to have you later have to change your demands to "consistent" data:

CO2 leading the way was never a dominant feature in any graph I've seen o climate variation. It's always CO2 lagging while every great once in a while it will change an instant before temperature (like one pixel worth of data). But, as I said, error in results can cover up for much of this.

"Once again, there is no cnsistent evidence for CO2 causing warming of any kind throughout history. It simply says that, when it warms up, CO2 is released from the oceans"

But then you go back and say:
"There are no proxy records posted that show that climate has ever changed due to CO2 in the past"

Those two statements are identical, and I stand by both of them.

Sounds like you are forgetting to play your word games. Because I have shown you at least one. Now I've even provided you with another one from NOAA.

NOAA was likely talking about CO2 feedback, and not CO2 initiation, because their graph and the much higher resolution graph I posted for you tell a very different story than that.

The model I cited did not make future predictions. Why do you keep making that error?

I apologize. I meant most models in general do that.

Climate models are PHYSICAL models which means they have to be built out of underlying basic concepts and the goal is make them as robust as possible. The goal also being to understand how the various factors work. The way that is tested is hindcast. The resulting information is not presented here to say anything about the future but to hopefully get it into your head that the basic PHYSICAL MODEL PARAMETERS do a pretty good job with the inputs to "recreate" temperature trends in the past!

As I said, it's amazing to be able to do that. I'm just saying that any model that can't make predictions about the future isn't very useful at determining what drives climate even if it can account for past trends.

Why am I spending so much time explaining this to you?

We have two very different views on what makes a model important, and these views are extremely polar. I want future predictions, you want it to fit data from the past.

Both are important, but, without the future predictions, it's worthless.

"Getting fussy"? That's nice. You see I take science very seriously. I worry over trying to understand the details. So if you are not getting "fussy" over the details then one of us is doing science wrong.

Well, I live in Arizona, where energy prices are already pretty high. I kinda take this stuff seriously too, you know, considering how much money I have for the month depends on whether or not my country bites the hook of the tree humpers across the pond.

I apologize for talking about my personal stuff, but the difference between you and I is that I think of all people as equal to me, and feel no need to try and bully anyone because of any kind of status I have, which has nothing to do with the argument.

So, don't act like you take this stuff more seriously than me or that you are more concerned about details because you got the same kind of paper from a university as the kind in my bathroom.

Anyhow, since there wasn't enough room in this post for the entire argument, I'll respond to your last bit next post.

No, models are not science. They are helpful and useful for making predictions, but it's the predictions that make the model valid. The model itself doesn't prove anything.

Models are extremely useful in science. All aspects of science. Models range from simple concepts like "F=ma". You want to know how a mass is going to accelerate under a given force you rearrange the equation and plug it in.

Never said they weren't useful. I would never say that.

(about statistical models)
Along with this I have an estimate of the statistical likelihood that this is more than just an artifact of pure random chance. I also, if I have a good stats program, will have something called "Lack of Fit" that indicates whether I have missed some particular variable from the design that still needs to be added in. Perhaps I should used the square of a term, or I have eliminated a cross-term that is needed in the model.

This is where I start to have problems with models being evidence for anything.

NOW: this model works to help me understand the system I am working in. But it is limited in how far out I can "predict". The boundaries of the model mean I can't just willy nilly start extrapolating out forever. But they may give me a good handle on understanding that if I generally increase chemical X in the formulation at least within a reasonable extension outside of the design space I may expect to see it have a similar effect if I keep increasing Chemical X.

This is where models are useful. I have no problem with what you gather out of this particular conclusion. But, keep in mind that what you are observing is just one possible solution. A completely different person might have a very different model that produces the exact same effect, but may work differently.

(physical models)
Now if I go up to the roof and drop the bowling ball it may not bounce exactly where I predicted (maybe it hit a rock), but the basics are built into the model. It rests with straightforward physics.

Because we're exactly sure of the mechanisms affecting the dropped ball, this would be a model based on few unknown variables. So, given no obstacles, we can measure with extraordinary precision how it will behave.

But, the rock example shows the limitation of models to predict things it hasn't accounted for. And, this goes back to climate models. As one of your papers on feedbacks said, the feedbacks are huge unknowns at this point, as indicated graphically on that paper. In the model, if the rock isn't placed in some way, it will act the same way every time even if you simulate the time and place exactly with the rock variable omitted.

With your physical model example, it's essentially the same thing. Models are great way of understanding potential mechanisms, but only with great predictions can they be used as evidence.

Climate modeling is kind of hybrid. It requires a large number of relatively well known, but complex physical phenomenon and a few factors that require "empirical relationships" (ie they don't have a good set of equations to describe the effect) so they take all the data from numerous observations and derive an empirical relationship (which may be not unlike what I did in my "statistical model") that describes the effect without explicitly knowing the underlying physics.

So the really important stuff comes from proving out the model by "hindcasting". Does it do what it is supposed to do? Does it exlain how the climate actually WORKS.

Again, it just explains one mechanisms, and the models also have to make a lot of assumptions on causal relationships, some of these are not being as understood as you've been saying they are (by the admission of your own sources)

No one claims they know everything, but they know a LOT more than skeptoids give them credit for. And when the science actually works well the skeptoids invoke the mysterious "Conspiracy Factor" to explain why it didn't support the skeptoid POV.

The Ptolemy System worked well too.

Where is that in history?

Just because something works doesn't mean it is the way is. There's a big difference. Yeah, a model might 'work' but it says nothing about the model's correlation with reality.

At 5/24/2012 12:19:32 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

No, models are not science.

Never said they weren't useful. I would never say that.

No, you said:

At 5/24/2012 12:19:32 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

No, models are not science.

(Emphasis added).

Seems like a semantic game you wish to play.

This is where I start to have problems with models being evidence for anything.

Why? Because they require a bit more than just a passing "impression" of information? That they require more like a detailed understanding of science?

This is where models are useful. I have no problem with what you gather out of this particular conclusion.

Why not? What's the difference between what I'm doing here vs what a hindcast model achieves?

But, keep in mind that what you are observing is just one possible solution. A completely different person might have a very different model that produces the exact same effect, but may work differently.

Please provide an example. (I'm curious if you have anything to back this up, I mean, remember: we are talking about a DOE and the results to wind up with associated t-tests on the coefficients and f-tests on the effects along with assessments of robustness of the model, so I'm interested if you can propose to me scenario with some details.

Because we're exactly sure of the mechanisms affecting the dropped ball, this would be a model based on few unknown variables. So, given no obstacles, we can measure with extraordinary precision how it will behave.

You are spending so much time trying to find details that you can disagree with. I will grant the scenario I painted there was physically more "simple", but for much of climate we do know many of the effects quite well! Something as simple as the "lapse rate" which gives rise to some heating at certain heights in the troposphere is predicated on the kind of stuff you learn in Chem I (enthalpy of fusion for water). Granted much of the movement and other materials is extremely complex and requires far more computing power than we used to have, but now days we have lots of computing power.

You see, no matter what I presented to you as an example will fall into the same category for you. You'll agree with IT but not with this other stuff. There's some arbitrary line in the sand you have drawn and have to keep re-drawing numerous times based on the examples given to you.

With your physical model example, it's essentially the same thing. Models are great way of understanding potential mechanisms, but only with great predictions can they be used as evidence.

It seems to me as if you are still missing a couple of the key citations I've made in the past few posts

1. Studies of the models find that the models are getting very good at explaining the climate (Utah study)

2. Hindcasting is how we know how "robust" the model is (the Grida.no citation). You really dislike the hindcast example because you can't understand what the value of it is, but this is precisely the value. In order to claim that the models are a bust you have to overcome the fact that the models can and DO explain how climate works. If they didn't the FIRST thing they'd fail at is the hindcast data. (Are you having trouble with the term "hindcast"? Maybe that's the issue).

Again, it just explains one mechanisms, and the models also have to make a lot of assumptions on causal relationships, some of these are not being as understood as you've been saying they are (by the admission of your own sources)

"one mechanism"? I don't think you are following this at all. Please let me point you to a simple description of how climate models are developed from real scientists who do these models:
http://www.realclimate.org...

The IPCC even gives you some more details on the GCM (General Circulation Models):
http://www.ipcc-data.org...

Now do feel free to find all the "doubt words" in there and leverage that to assume all this science is bad, but it is far and away much better than the desire for total ignorance that the skeptical side seems to be going after.

The Ptolemy System worked well too.

Yeah, until SCIENTISTS started working on it. This is why it is boring to debate Creationists. They know a little about the history of science and they might know a few cases where something went awry so they can use that to question all science forever. But they don't. They only question whatever it is that they disagree with.

Just because something works doesn't mean it is the way is.

The failure of ptolomy's cosmology was that in order to make sense of how things worked increasing levels of complexity had to be added on an ad hoc basis. Ultimately the idea of the heliocentric system earth is part of simplified the system and proved superior. But note the key factors here: the ptolemaic system was undertaken at a time when science was hardly what it is today. To compare the kind of doubt in modern science to the wholesale ignorance of the pre-Copernican revolution is compare apples and oranges.

There's a big difference. Yeah, a model might 'work' but it says nothing about the model's correlation with reality.

Again, (sigh) that's why I put up the HINDCASTING citation. Does it kind of start to make sense yet? What am I missing here to get it through?

At 5/17/2012 9:26:23 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:

At 5/17/2012 5:06:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Aren't 98% of all living species that ever existed extinct? Seems like a normal trend to me. Besides, it's natural selection, no?

That's an interesting view. It seems that when history isn't convenient for some folks they laugh at it.

I'm sure you'll find an anthopogenic reason for it, no doubt.

Why would I? DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE PERMIAN?

LOL! Are you sure you are following the details of the debate when it comes to climate change?

That would be great if one KNEW something rather than THOUGHT something to be true.

As opposed to skeptoids who just "know" all this science they don't really understand is bogus, eh?

It seems that when history isn't convenient for some folks they laugh at it.
That sounds alot like what most scientist are doing to the Word of God.

(about "models aren't science" and semantics)

I stand by that statement.

Archaeologists use shovels, but does that a shovel is a tool just of archaeology? Of course not. Models are just what they are. They are tools used by a variety of crafts, scientific and not scientific. They have their uses and their limitations.

This is what I mean. The models are tools to help in understanding things a potentially making future predictions off of them. The models themselves are not evidence or theory, and certainly don't collect data. Those are the three big things of all scientific disciplines.

Why? Because they require a bit more than just a passing "impression" of information? That they require more like a detailed understanding of science?

No, because scientists add or decrease certain things to make the model work without considering that they may have the relationships wrong, or that there could be the perverbial rock that's knocking that bowling ball the other way (i.e. unknown variables)

Why not? What's the difference between what I'm doing here vs what a hindcast model achieves?

I'm talking about regarding models being used for understanding potential mechanisms.

Please provide an example. (I'm curious if you have anything to back this up, I mean, remember: we are talking about a DOE and the results to wind up with associated t-tests on the coefficients and f-tests on the effects along with assessments of robustness of the model, so I'm interested if you can propose to me scenario with some details.

I'll lean back on the Ptolemy system which made predictions about the positions of planets that weren't surpassed until 19th century telescopes started separating themselves. The Ptolemy system relied on an Earth centered Universe with the planets and the sun orbiting in complex patterns to account for some of their wayward movements. This system lasted any hundreds of years and made perfect predictions, and predicted events all the way into the past. It even predicted eclipses!

This was a mathematical model that used past events. It fit past events, predicted the future with extraordinary precision, explained most events we saw in the night sky (with a couple of exceptions).

The problem is that, although this certainly works, it was not connected with reality in he least, and it was only finally debunked over a thousand years later.

This is the very danger overrelying on models. I don't expect it's that drastic with AGW models, but t shows that molding equations to fit past data gives you an understanding of a single mechanism. But, if that mechanism is not connected with reality, it leads you into a very,very dangerous direction.

Also, the theory of continental drift. This isn't necessarily a full model since I don't believe it was ever discerned exactly how this could work, but it was demonstrated that continents could float on heavier rock This, of course, replaced by Plate Tectonics, a theory that, so far, works tremendously and supersedes the previous demonstrations.

You are spending so much time trying to find details that you can disagree with.

I'm just telling you where I disagree. These are positions I've always held about models.

I will grant the scenario I painted there was physically more "simple", but for much of climate we do know many of the effects quite well! Something as simple as the "lapse rate" which gives rise to some heating at certain heights in the troposphere is predicated on the kind of stuff you learn in Chem I (enthalpy of fusion for water). Granted much of the movement and other materials is extremely complex and requires far more computing power than we used to have, but now days we have lots of computing power.

Models using tropospheric hotspots are problematic since weather balloon and satellite data all disagree on the degree of heating in that part of the atmosphere. Only one balloon and one re-assessment agree with heating. Balloon data that doesn't collaborate with ground and satellite data, and re-interpreting incorrect satellite data.

There is no proof of this yet, so any model that uses tropospheric data is making a leaping assumption.

You see, no matter what I presented to you as an example will fall into the same category for you. You'll agree with IT but not with this other stuff. There's some arbitrary line in the sand you have drawn and have to keep re-drawing numerous times based on the examples given to you.

The simple examples you gave are agreeable because we know all of these things to hold true from repetitive experiments.

With climate models, while some things are reliable like winds and currents, some stuff isn't, like volcanic feedbacks, albedo, the absolute effect of cloud cover, ice extent, and other things on one of the paper you gave me regarding feedbacks.

I don't claim we can ever get the models exactly right, but what I'm asking for are solid predictions. I pointed out that scientists aren't as confident as your article said they were (two posts ago).

2. Hindcasting is how we know how "robust" the model is (the Grida.no citation). You really dislike the hindcast example because you can't understand what the value of it is, but this is precisely the value. In order to claim that the models are a bust you have to overcome the fact that the models can and DO explain how climate works. If they didn't the FIRST thing they'd fail at is the hindcast data. (Are you having trouble with the term "hindcast"? Maybe that's the issue).

And, again, just because your model accurately fits the past doesn't mean it is a representation of reality. Ptolemy System.

"one mechanism"? I don't think you are following this at all. Please let me point you to a simple description of how climate models are developed from real scientists who do these models:
http://www.realclimate.org...

I apologize for my miswording of it.

I mean one set of mechanisms. Perhaps that is better. I'm merely pointing out that , again, the accuracy of the model to fit the past means nothing by tself. Again, Ptolemy.

(links)
Now do feel free to find all the "doubt words" in there and leverage that to assume all this science is bad, but it is far and away much better than the desire for total ignorance that the skeptical side seems to be going after.

Not bad, but not satisfactory for such confident conclusions to be drawn.

The Ptolemy System worked well too.

The failure of ptolomy's cosmology was that in order to make sense of how things worked increasing levels of complexity had to be added on an ad hoc basis. Ultimately the idea of the heliocentric system earth is part of simplified the system and proved superior. But note the key factors here: the ptolemaic system was undertaken at a time when science was hardly what it is today. To compare the kind of doubt in modern science to the wholesale ignorance of the pre-Copernican revolution is compare apples and oranges.

Again, AGW science isn't that bad. In fact, it's really not bad, but you do see the same sorts of things put into models to make them work. Add CO2, assume tropospheric temperature, and assume other variables. You have to tweak things to get them to work.

Yeah, the Ptolemy system ad to keep adding complexities, and AGW doesn't necessarily add complexity, but they still do change current variables.

Again, (sigh) that's why I put up the HINDCASTING citation. Does it kind of start to make sense yet? What am I missing here to get it through?

Hard to see where our misunderstanding is taking place.

Your model might work with for conditions in the past up until the present, but, a different model might be able to hindcast accurately in multiple ways with completely different feedback assumptions and variable values.

Hope that clears up our misunderstanding.

At 5/24/2012 2:25:24 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
I stand by that statement.

Archaeologists use shovels, but does that a shovel is a tool just of archaeology? Of course not. Models are just what they are. They are tools used by a variety of crafts, scientific and not scientific. They have their uses and their limitations.

I'm talking about regarding models being used for understanding potential mechanisms.

And I repeat my question: what's the difference?

This was a mathematical model that used past events. It fit past events, predicted the future with extraordinary precision, explained most events we saw in the night sky (with a couple of exceptions).

Ahh, so that's where you are tripping up on the hindcasting stuff. You got it backwards on the example I gave. The idea of hindcasting climate models is you use standard physical models and "test" them. You input all the forcing conditions you know for a block of time and see what trends you generate. Then you compare that to what temperatures REALLY did.

NOTE: with the exception of a few "empirical tunings", the models are built from a priori physical "laws". They are NOT built to "induce warming". They are built to take in the information about the solar input, the various forcing factors and feedbacks and see how the temperature would work.

So it's just the OPPOSITE of the ptolemy example. The Ptolemaic system was built up based only on "observation" and hypothesized the epicycles etc. But the hindcast models are actual physical models which are TESTED against old data to see if the MODEL works.

Not the other way around.

This is the very danger overrelying on models.

Well, except you got this one backwards. The hindcasting data shows you how GOOD the model is. It isn't telling you how the model was made. I thought maybe you were getting hung up on the word "hindcasting". Sorry I didn't make it clearer.

I apologize for my miswording of it.

See, you find me overly pedantic, but that pedantry is how science is done. Sorry to break it to you, but science is painful, often boring details. Technical terms have specific meanings. So language used loosely is poorly done for science.

Again, AGW science isn't that bad. In fact, it's really not bad, but you do see the same sorts of things put into models to make them work. Add CO2, assume tropospheric temperature, and assume other variables. You have to tweak things to get them to work.

But your idea of "tweaking" is probably more loose language and not the kind of detailed "parameterization" that climate scientists do. The parameterization is a means by which empirical relationships that are observed but not fully explained by a single set of equations can be put into the model. It isn't "tweaking" as if to get some answer you want.

Since I can see you didn't really read the link I'll give you some quoted highlights from it:
--------------------------------------------------
Q.Are climate models just a fit to the trend in the global temperature data?
A. No. Much of the confusion concerning this point comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the point above. Model development actually does not use the trend data in tuning (see below). Instead, modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions), and it's intrinsic variability (such as the frequency and amplitude of tropical variability). The resulting model is pretty much used ‘as is' in hindcast experiments for the 20th Century.

Q Do models have global warming built in?
A No. If left to run on their own, the models will oscillate around a long-term mean that is the same regardless of what the initial conditions were. Given different drivers, volcanoes or CO2 say, they will warm or cool as a function of the basic physics of aerosols or the greenhouse effect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope that clarifies some stuff for you. But if you do get the time please do read the link so you'll know what you're debating against.