AGW Grudge Match

AGW Grudge Match

Slim Chance

#61

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 23rd, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You are way out there...I have posted studies and observations to support my position. You have simply denied them. You're a denier.

A denier!?... Please, oh please take it back… I promise that I won’t cross you and Suzuki ever again!

Btw - Your references had no connection to the topic. (Relative measures)

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Did you understand what a scholarly debate was when I challenged you?

Scholarly debate or not, your initial references still didn’t have any relative connection.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I very clearly early on stipulated that the earth has experienced past episodes, but you haven't done anything but spin your tires since then.

.. And yet you fight me at every turn attempting to dismiss this reality as it isn’t “peer reviewed” or necessitates stats… Your next comment is a testament to this.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Without showing any calculations or evidence which would confirm this...

I am fighting you on this now in order to prevent you from using it as a crutch at a later date… This is exactly what I am talking about re: reality – Documented episodes are not enough unless you have some theoretical framework to lean-on.

Regardless, I believe that your frustrated admittance is the best I can achieve and will suffice in closing that loop-hole.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

We do possess a functioning base of knowledge of the climate system. The strawman is that in order to make useful predictions, or useful observations, that we must know everything.

Really?... Your initial references provide a disclaimer about the hydrological cycle and the dynamic that it has on the actual topic… No understanding of one of the most basic drivers of the system (most important according to the IPCC). Has been studied for centuries and is terrestrial-based and they still find a need for a disclaimer.

Yeah…. A real wealth of understanding.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Like I said, your position on this is ludicrous. Do you deny that vaccines improve the immune response in patients too? We don't know everything about the human body, or the immune system, but we know enough to say that immunization works.

You’re sinking fast and very soon I’ll happily hand you a bag-of-bricks to help you on your way.

Nice, oversimplified and inappropriate example, by the way… You and Anna ought to get together and brain-storm some ideas for other mysteries.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Here's causality:

1.Greenhouse gases trap radiation, this is a given.
2. We've increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, well documented.
3. The result is a radiative imbalance, the planet warms until the radiation going out equals the radiation coming in. This result follows from the first two points.

That is a causal relationship.

… And the sources would be? Have you forgotten that this debate is about anthropogenic GW? Perhaps you skipped that day in your scholarly debate class, eh?

You and your references can’t even identify the various sources. The scholarly solution is to attribute everything to anthropogenic sources – here’s your direct quote to this effect:

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well, we know that grrenhouse gas concentrations are going up. We know that we're the source.

How scholarly.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So you dispute the sources of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Where do you think it is coming from?

See following post

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I'll say again, what you have is a belief.

Add in “Founded in reality and supported by history” and you will be accurate

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You point to the geologic record, despite the fact that we are not talking about a geologic time frame at all. You talk about the geologic record, but you don't identify which cycle it is you think is causing change. You talk about quantifying, yet do none for yourself, let alone cite someone who has.

RE: quantifying, see following post.

So what is the “approved” time frame?

I will not be constrained by adhering to an artificial restriction.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

No, I'm saying you don't need to know everything about a dynamic system to deliver useful results or inferences about that system.

Useful results and definitive causation are not interchangeable elements.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I don't like your position because you state you believe something, then don't give any observations to support your alternative hypothesis. See, what I'm doing is what skeptics do.

So… Observations confirmed by the geological record aren’t scholarly enough?

You gotta be kidding.

Slim Chance

#62

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 23rd, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You, have given no references. You talk about quantifying but you haven't shown why the observations I quoted cannot be true.

Start Here: I will provide an overview shortly.

S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Globa1 Current Greenhouse Gas ConcentrationsCarbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy). Oak Ridge, Tennessee (updated October, 2000).

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change; IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: On the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma; Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy - Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance.Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

--
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
--
--
Robert Grumbine

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance.Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada

Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65

Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

Slim Chance

#63

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 23rd, 2010

This is how the data from the above references play out.

According to the aforementioned research, the amount of the greenhouse effect that can be directly attributed to anthropogenic sources equates to approx. 0.28% if water vapor is considered in the equation and apporx. 5.53% if water vapor is absent from the equation.

Water vapor contributes around 95% towards the greenhouse effect experienced: 99.99% of the water vapor is of natural source as are CO2, CH4, N2O.

The breakdown is as follows: Anthropogenic Origin / Natural Source (to 3 decimal places)

Water vapor (not droplets) - 0.001% / 99.99%
CO2 - 3.225% / 96.775%
CH4 - 18.338% / 81.662%
N2O - 4.933% / 95.067%
CFC's and misc. gasses / - 65.711% 34.289%

Clearly these gasses represent only one contributory element that operates in the "climate system" as whole... The papers accommodate all of the requirements that you have identified as compelling and go further in terms of representation of multi-nation, governmental research facilities.

So... It would seem that the "science" is not terribly parallel on the subject.

Regardless, I have sourced some interesting papers that relate to reflection of the infrared spectra with a highly plausible cause-effect relationship being attributed to sand/dust/particulate from the Sahara Desert being deposited in various locations around the globe.. Coincidentally, this event (according to carbon dating) is correlated directly to events of mass extinction.

Figured that I'd give you a heads-up on that. bear in mind that I am not going to hang my hat on that solitary study - it will be accompanied with other relevant studies.

Slim Chance

#64

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 23rd, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Here's a good indication that something unnatural is going on. A record of carbon dioxide from ice cores. The x-axis is years before present, the y-axis atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Seems well outside the normal envelope for the last ~420,000 years. Yeah....must be a natural cycle, not.

Has this screen shot been peer-reviewed by multiple screen-shot experts?

Tonington

#65

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

You can replicate it yourself. Vostok ice cores and the concentration in the atmosphere today.

Outside the normal cycles of the last 420,000 years...

I will get to the rest when I get home from work.

Tonington

#66

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Also, if you're going to lift material from a website, you should cite it.

--

Slim Chance

#67

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Also, if you're going to lift material from a website, you should cite it.

--

I did.... I read through each of the cited examples at it's conclusion. The above link provided an excellent overview. However, if you prefer, I can find a number of unrelated studies from something like Google Scholar and make broad associations and let the reader connect the dots

Slim Chance

#68

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You can replicate it yourself. Vostok ice cores and the concentration in the atmosphere today.

Outside the normal cycles of the last 420,000 years...

I will get to the rest when I get home from work.

Let me nip this in the bud in advance:

RE: Vostok ice cores, please see:

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change
R M Carter

FIG 1 - Atmospheric carbon dioxide, temperature and methane levels for the last 420 000 years as reconstructed from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (after Petit et al, 1999). Note the remarkable coincidence of timing of variations in atmospheric temperature (middle curve) and the two greenhouse gases. In terms of cause and effect, however, it is apparent at higher resolution that the changes in temperature precede the changes in carbon dioxide by about 800 years (eg Mudelsee, 2001).

FIG 2 - Reconstruction of paleo-atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 1800 years inferred from stomatal density in fossil pine needles (Tsuga heterophylla), northwestern USA (after Kouwenberg, 2005, Figure 5.4). Black line: three-point running average, based on 305 needles per data point; grey shading: error estimate. Open diamonds and squares indicate, respectively, measurements from the Taylor Dome and Law Dome ice cores, Antarctica. The ice core data represent generalised averages, and appear not to preserve the decadal-centennial changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide indicated by the stomatal measurements.

Slim Chance

#69

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Opps... The graphs did not copy over...

Tonington

#70

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

Let me nip this in the bud in advance:

RE: Vostok ice cores, please see:

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change
R M Carter

FIG 1 - Atmospheric carbon dioxide, temperature and methane levels for the last 420 000 years as reconstructed from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (after Petit et al, 1999). Note the remarkable coincidence of timing of variations in atmospheric temperature (middle curve) and the two greenhouse gases. In terms of cause and effect, however, it is apparent at higher resolution that the changes in temperature precede the changes in carbon dioxide by about 800 years (eg Mudelsee, 2001).

And? This is actually an argument that suggest we aren't experiencing anything normal. The record clearly shows long increases in temperature before carbon dioxide rises, but we know that isn't what has happened in the last 800 years.

Nip nothing.

Tonington

#71

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

I did.... I read through each of the cited examples at it's conclusion. The above link provided an excellent overview. However, if you prefer, I can find a number of unrelated studies from something like Google Scholar and make broad associations and let the reader connect the dots

You didn't reference the website...you took material directly from it without attributing the authors. There is a word for that. Plagiarism.

I mean, can you even explain what the relevance of -- is to the point you're trying to make? Can you tell me where the 5.53% and 0.28% figures come from? Which study? Which calculations?

Just so we're clear, what point is it you are trying to make about carbon dioxide levels? That it isn't from industrial activity? The contribution to the greenhouse effect? Which is it?

If I wanted someone to just rip stuff from the net without knowing what they're citing, I would have challenged Walter.

Slim Chance

#72

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You didn't reference the website...you took material directly from it without attributing the authors. There is a word for that. Plagiarism.

Kinda like your most recent screen-shot?.. I can't recall the citations, so am I to assume that the research, data and development of the graph are yours?.. Shame on you for that unabashed plagiarism...

That said, neither one of us is submitting original thought and as such, any talking points represent a summary of many opinions forwarded by others... Until you are capable of original research, data, modeling and discussion, you are guilty of the same.

That said, cut the BS, get off of your high-horse and stop acting like a fool.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I mean, can you even explain what the relevance of -- is to the point you're trying to make? Can you tell me where the 5.53% and 0.28% figures come from? Which study? Which calculations?

.. Oh, we're supposed to provide such?

First business at hand, I was responding to this, or have you forgotten already:

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well, we know that grrenhouse gas concentrations are going up. We know that we're the source.

Onto the demand for calculations: When you responded to my question about the origin of the various ghg's that contribute into the system, the answer I received was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Not part of my references at all, this is a given to most people

... It's a given is it?...

And now you demand the fundamental bases be provided... Kinda like my incessant questions to you about the underlying assumptions on the statistical models?

Which is it to be?

BTW - the following is/has been discredited, I'll provide the reference to the study that addresses this exact area later... (thought you should know)

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

The oceans (the largest carbon reservoir) are taking up carbon dioxide, not giving it off, and we know it can't be coming from plants as the terrestrial biosphere was net neutral until about 1980, when it became a carbon sink as well. The isotopic ratio confirms the source is industrial. Plants have low Carbon 13/Carbon 12 ratios, what we find in the atmosphere is that ratio is increasing. If the source is from plants, the C13/C12 ratio could not be increasing.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Just so we're clear, what point is it you are trying to make about carbon dioxide levels? That it isn't from industrial activity? The contribution to the greenhouse effect? Which is it?

The sources of GHG's including, but not limited to CO2 are largely (majority) contributed from non-anthropogenic sources... I though it was a given

**(Special mention to water vapor as it is the biggest driver of the entire global warming mechanism)

Tonington

#73

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 24th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

Kinda like your most recent screen-shot?..

No..I made that in Excel.

Quote:

I can't recall the citations, so am I to assume that the research, data and development of the graph are yours?.. Shame on you for that unabashed plagiarism...

I said it was about 420,000 years of Vostok Ice cores. I never said I took the cores personally. Whereas you said that you would provide an overview. You didn't prepare that overview, it was done by someone else. Me plagiarizing would be to take a graph from somewhere else, and anothers work, and say it was mine. Is that what I did?

Quote:

That said, neither one of us is submitting original thought and as such, any talking points represent a summary of many opinions forwarded by others... Until you are capable of original research, data, modeling and discussion, you are guilty of the same.

Research is also parsing the literature and formulating coherent ideas. This is exactly what I thought we were doing...I guess I assumed too much on your behalf...

Quote:

That said, cut the BS, get off of your high-horse and stop acting like a fool.

All I'm asking is that you properly cite things.

Exactly what did you think I meant by a scholarly debate? What does that even mean to you?

Quote:

.. Oh, we're supposed to provide such?

Well, let's put it this way. I had to find content for you before you addressed it. You addressed two of my references after I gave you a URL for the html format of the papers.

Why can't you do the same?

Quote:

First business at hand, I was responding to this, or have you forgotten already:

Onto the demand for calculations: When you responded to my question about the origin of the various ghg's that contribute into the system, the answer I received was:

My full answer was:

Quote:

The oceans (the largest carbon reservoir) are taking up carbon dioxide, not giving it off, and we know it can't be coming from plants as the terrestrial biosphere was net neutral until about 1980, when it became a carbon sink as well. The isotopic ratio confirms the source is industrial. Plants have low Carbon 13/Carbon 12 ratios, what we find in the atmosphere is that ratio is increasing. If the source is from plants, the C13/C12 ratio could not be increasing.

Read --, and --.

It's pretty clear.

If you want more to read for how we know this, you can also read a series of well referenced-posts on this subject here:
--
--
--

Or if you don't fancy that, read about the changes in atmospheric oxygen content due to combustion, here:
--

Quote:

... It's a given is it?...

Where do you propose it's coming from?

Quote:

And now you demand the fundamental bases be provided... Kinda like my incessant questions to you about the underlying assumptions on the statistical models?

I specifically asked you what assumptions it was that concern you about statistical models. You haven't yet mentioned what your problem is, just pointed out the obvious that if the assumptions are violated that the results are suspect. So, which assumptions, for which models, and for which of the references I provided?

I'm pretty accommodating, but you have to be specific.

Quote:

Which is it to be?

Well, I asked you specific questions, and you dodge. You ask me specific questions, and I gave you an explanation, and even two papers which you could read through.

I guess what I want is some reciprocation here.

Quote:

The sources of GHG's including, but not limited to CO2 are largely (majority) contributed from non-anthropogenic sources... I though it was a given

From where? Please explain, from where? It is not a given at all, in fact it's directly at odds with the references I gave you for NOx's, CO2, and CH4.

Water vapour is important, but it's transient. It's entirely dependent on the temperature in the atmosphere. It changes with temperature. If you put more moisture in than the air will hold, it forms water droplets and drops out. That gives it a very short residence in the atmosphere, while other gases like carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere for many, many years.

Totally different than carbon dioxide. You can't saturate the air with carbon dioxide. It doesn't have the same anomalous properties that water does.

Quote:

**(Special mention to water vapor as it is the biggest driver of the entire global warming mechanism

Quote:

)

Special note: the natural greenhouse effect is not the same as the enhanced greenhouse effect from human pollution.

Slim Chance

#74

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 25th, 2010

I can’t believe that we’re having this exchange re: plagiarism. Based on your recent focus on plagiarism I thought that it would be beneficial to provide some perspective and grounding on this “scholarly debate” of ours.

To start, neither of us are climate scientists that are developing any original thought or theories in this area. The only strategy that either one of us is capable of pursuing is to source applicable research that supports our respective positions… That said, every contribution is based on the thoughts/research/ideas and efforts of someone else.

So, unless you are prepared to reference each and every point numerically and provide an associated list of citations at the conclusion of each and every post, then by definition, everything will be subject to being considered plagiarized or represent a copyright infringement…

As it stands right now, you are transforming this entire discussion into nothing more than a game of dress-up that places more emphasis on the perception of "correctness" rather than the free exchange of ideas.

For the record - I never claimed the info as mine; also, the overview was in my own words - contrary to your earlier claim that it was cut/paste. Further, the format of which plagiarized material is presented is immaterial – that includes excel.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Well, let's put it this way. I had to find content for you before you addressed it. You addressed two of my references after I gave you a URL for the html format of the papers.

2 options here:
1.Provide full access to the concepts being discussed (scholarly debate and all).
2.Don't provide the content
Choose which option appeals to you; just don't hand me the "formal scholarly debate" nonsense, I have a life outside of this.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

My full answer was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

If you want more to read for how we know this, you can also read a series of well referenced-posts on this subject here:
--.

The ideal I identified related to our specific comment that "we know we are the source".. I have no idea where you got your recent idea from.

RE: the link, I have found a suitable reference of my own.

Further, this claim has been discredited in terms that the data re: isotopic analysis was inappropriately skewed and no longer represents a realistic analysis… I will provide you with the direct reference when I get to my other computer.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I specifically asked you what assumptions it was that concern you about statistical models.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with statistical analysis when applied in an appropriate manner. In the context of this issue, statistics play a primary role of substitution of input as opposed to offering any form of stability.

In the scope of addressing climate science, there are more "unknowns" than "knowns". In this case, employing stats is nothing more than a crutch. The techniques required to compensate for all of the inadequacies dilutes the confidence to the point of absurdity.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I guess what I want is some reciprocation here. .

That’s more than fair - Before I proceed any further, I will provide my input relative to the studies you have submitted.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Water vapour is important, but it's transient. It's entirely dependent on the temperature in the atmosphere. It changes with temperature. If you put more moisture in than the air will hold, it forms water droplets and drops out. That gives it a very short residence in the atmosphere, while other gases like carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere for many, many years. .

Here’s the quintessential question: Is the hydrological cycle the driver that morphs into a self-fulfilling prophecy or caused by anthropogenic sources?

This goes directly to the notion that we don’t know what we don’t know, let alone understand what we have identified.

I don’t have the definitive answer, but I can point to multiple episodes in the past that have no anthropogenic signal involved.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Totally different than carbon dioxide. You can't saturate the air with carbon dioxide. It doesn't have the same anomalous properties that water does. .

Where does the source originate? I don’t dispute the your statement, but it is meaningless (re: issue of AGW) if we can’t confidently identify the source.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Special note: the natural greenhouse effect is not the same as the enhanced greenhouse effect from human pollution.

We have yet to prove, conclusively, that the human component is causing the phenomenon.

Tonington

#75

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 25th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

To start, neither of us are climate scientists that are developing any original thought or theories in this area.

So? You passed off someone else work as your own.

Quote:

The only strategy that either one of us is capable of pursuing is to source applicable research that supports our respective positions… That said, every contribution is based on the thoughts/research/ideas and efforts of someone else.

Yes, and I cite the references I read. Just like I did in school when I pass in reports. Just like I do at work when I submit reports.

Quote:

So, unless you are prepared to reference each and every point numerically and provide an associated list of citations at the conclusion of each and every post, then by definition, everything will be subject to being considered plagiarized or represent a copyright infringement…

No, you're not getting it, but that's fine. This point is stale.

Quote:

2 options here:

Quote:

1.Provide full access to the concepts being discussed (scholarly debate and all).
2.Don't provide the content.

I have given you every reference you asked for.

Quote:

The ideal I identified related to our specific comment that "we know we are the source".. I have no idea where you got your recent idea from.

Yes, we know we are the source. Have you found a new source of carbon emissions? The oceans are gaining carbon dioxide. The biosphere is low in the isotopic ratio which is increasing in the atmosphere. Not physically possible to be derived from plants.

So, where is it coming from?

Quote:

RE: the link, I have found a suitable reference of my own.

You can give me the author and title...

Quote:

Further, this claim has been discredited in terms that the data re: isotopic analysis was inappropriately skewed and no longer represents a realistic analysis… I will provide you with the direct reference when I get to my other computer.

How is it inappropriately skewed?

Quote:

Generally speaking, I have no problem with statistical analysis when applied in an appropriate manner. In the context of this issue, statistics play a primary role of substitution of input as opposed to offering any form of stability.

So in other words, when I ask you to specifically name your issue with the assumptions of any model, from any study, you can't point to anything specific. I didn't give you a single reference which depended on a statistical model. Every reference is derived from physical relationships. Statistics were used to analyze the observations, but that's standard.

Quote:

In the scope of addressing climate science, there are more "unknowns" than "knowns". In this case, employing stats is nothing more than a crutch. The techniques required to compensate for all of the inadequacies dilutes the confidence to the point of absurdity.

No it doesn't. A statistical analysis considers what portion of the variance is attributed to the treatment effects the researcher controls. Uncontrolled variables, or "unknowns" are in the error. Obviously.

One is signal the other is noise. If the signal is strong enough, then the unknowns don't really matter.

We don't know all of the laws of physics, but that doesn't stop us from flying an airplane. That doesn't stop us from creating drugs to prevent illness. That doesn't prevent us from predicting reasonably well when Haley's Comet will come around next time.

There is nothing absurd about it. It works. The technology you are using was developed without knowing everything, and using statistical analysis to evaluate experiments and observations.

Quote:

Here’s the quintessential question: Is the hydrological cycle the driver that morphs into a self-fulfilling prophecy or caused by anthropogenic sources?

Poorly phrased. Try again.

The hydrological cycle interacts with other cycles and physical phenomena. Water doesn't just change on it's own. It responds to perturbations.

The relevance of the hydrological cycle to the study you nabbed that from is that at the time of that study, the water vapour feedback from a warming planet was still uncertain. Since then, there have been a few big breakthroughs in understanding this feedback.

They're very likely --

Quote:

Thus, although there continues to be some uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.

and the same results -- as well.

Quote:

This goes directly to the notion that we don’t know what we don’t know, let alone understand what we have identified.

More like you grabbed onto the first thing that looked like a good reason to ignore the rest of the study.

Quote:

I don’t have the definitive answer, but I can point to multiple episodes in the past that have no anthropogenic signal involved.

What does this have to do with the transient nature of water vapour in the atmosphere. Here's a question which will perhaps make the issue clear for you. What percentage of the atmosphere is water vapour? Is it a discrete number, or a range?

Maybe a wikimedia graph will help you understand:

Water vapour content in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature, and pressure.

Quote:

Where does the source originate? I don’t dispute the your statement, but it is meaningless (re: issue of AGW) if we can’t confidently identify the source.

The source is physics. You want to read about relative humidity, dewpoint, and the moist adiabatic lapse rate. As to the atmosphere holding carbon dioxide, I ignored carbon dioxide snow, because it's not relevant to this discussion. If you can read phase diagrams, -- will be clear:

Quote:

We have yet to prove, conclusively, that the human component is causing the phenomenon.

You can't seam to grasp this. Science does not prove. There is never 100% certainty in anything.

For example, how much is a kilogram. If you measure 1 kg, are you 100% certain that you have 1 kg?

Tonington

#76

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 26th, 2010

In case you still haven't watched Richard Alley's keynote speech at the fall AGU meeting, you probably should. It contains the most up to date answers to many of your questions.

--

It's especially good for a video of a presentation. Slides are presented right next to the video of him speaking, which is very good, most presentations on video cut away to view the slides.

Worth a look.

Slim Chance

#77

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 29th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So? You passed off someone else work as your own.

….But, I see that yo’re not above it, as is evidenced in this post

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Yes, and I cite the references I read. Just like I did in school when I pass in reports. Just like I do at work when I submit reports.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

No, you're not getting it, but that's fine. This point is stale.

No, it’s actually getting quit interesting – I notice that you haven’t properly cited a number of you submissions in this very post.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Yes, we know we are the source.

THE source, eh?

How about some research to back it up?

Looks like you’re in error

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So in other words, when I ask you to specifically name your issue with the assumptions of any model, from any study, you can't point to anything specific.

I’ve made multiple attempts, yet you lack to necessary base knowledge. If you had any basis of understanding of statistical modeling, you wouldn’t be asking this novice question. Regrettably, there are no formal research papers that I can cite that deal specifically with recognizing those with insufficient knowledge in the area.

Consider enrolling in a beginner stats course. You’ll need that to move into the mid-level courses and eventually into the advanced stream at which point you will develop the knowledge.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I didn't give you a single reference which depended on a statistical model. Every reference is derived from physical relationships

Time to wake to reality. Your physical relationships are entirely dependent on corrective statistical techniques. Much like the reference points that offered the advanced disclaimer that they didn’t understand the hydrological cycle… Get it yet?... How do you think that the researchers in the aforementioned study eliminated water vapor from the equation?

It looks as if you have given references that depend on advanced statistical models.. Care to rephrase this error or perhaps you’d prefer to continue to build on this glaring error that you appraised of on numerous occasions.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

One is signal the other is noise. If the signal is strong enough, then the unknowns don't really matter.

You can’t even get your own facts straight on the references that “don’t depend on a statistical model”, yet somehow you feel you can stipulate which unknowns matter and which don’t.

This is really hilarious… And extra scholarly.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

We don't know all of the laws of physics,

Correct

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

but that doesn't stop us from flying an airplane. That doesn't stop us from creating drugs to prevent illness.

What sad, simple and entirely unrelated little examples… No failures/crashes in learning about flight I suppose? How about you pointing to the historical medical-related logic in medieval times that determined that drilling holes in peoples heads to allow the “bad humors” to escape?

Science had an understanding then to.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Poorly phrased. Try again.

Phrased just fine – clearly there is insufficient comprehension abilities on the readers part.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

The hydrological cycle interacts with other cycles and physical phenomena. Water doesn't just change on it's own. It responds to perturbations.

Gosh, thanks for the heads-up on that….. Would this anything like the dynamic interaction that I might have mentioned –oh, a couple hundred times now?

You may be slow, but you get there eventually… At least you’re catching up.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

They're very likely --

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

and the same results -- as well.

What kind of citation is this?!... You will approach this in a scholarly manner and cite the references correctly!

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

If you can read phase diagrams, -- will be clear:

I see that you have not cited this information. Plagiarism and copyright infringement is entirely unacceptable in a scholarly debate.

Is this form academic and professional dishonestly the same that you brag about applying at our work too?

Shocking! Utterly shocking!

Slim Chance

#78

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 29th, 2010

Analysis of the preliminary references you sumitted:

1. John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges. 2001. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature, 410: 355-357.

2. Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries. 2004. Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. Proceedings of the Society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers, Vol. 5543, 164, doi:10.1117/12.556803.

… And?
Both of the aforementioned studies provide no direct link to anthropogenic sources... That’s it.

In the event that you seek to extrapolate a proposed relationship based on the analysis of isotopic analysis 0f 12-C &13-C, see:

*Carbon cycle modeling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad

And:

“In fact, the lower stratosphere is cooling substantially (by about -0.5K per decade)5, so the warming trend seen at the surface is expected to diminish with altitude and change into a cooling trend at some point in the troposphere. Even so, it has been suggested that the cooling trend seen in the satellite data is excessive4,7,8. The diffculty in reconciling the information from these different sources has sparked a debate in the climate community about possible instrumental problems and the existence of global warming4,7,”

*Effects of orbital decayon satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends
Frank J. Wentz & Matthias Schabel

3. Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, and Mark Ringer. ----
“In each case, the concentrations of CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and HCFC-22 used within HadGEM1 at the relevant times”

This study offers no relationship of any warming trend with any anthropogenic sources of CO2, CH4, O3 or N2O. CFC’s are far too insignificant in the AGW debate to offset he major components – also, water vapor is not incorporated in the model – considering that water vapor is the biggest driver in the system, the inclusion of this study in the context of this discussion is pointless.

This study is an extension of the Griggs and Harries, 2007; Harries, et al and is subject to the same failings as references 1&2.

If any potential relationship to GW is to exist, the sample size is inadequate and subjective.

“To reduce the variability seen in the spectrum, cloud-free spectra are used. A two step process was used to identify clouds in the spectra [Harries, et al., 2001]. The first step is to filter out thick clouds by comparing the brightness temperature at 1127.7 cm-1 (most transparent part of spectral range) with the skin temperature from the NCEP reanalysis. Differences greater than 6 K between the NCEP skin temperature and observed brightness temperature were flagged as cloudy [Haskins, et al., 1997]. The second step removes spectra with residual contamination from ice clouds. This is done by exploiting the difference in absorption coefficient in ice and water between the 8 um and 11 um bands. [Ackerman, et al., 1990]”

These actions affect the reliability of the results. The natural processes are subjectively omitted which skew the results to eliminate any opportunity to analyze the dynamic interaction(s).

4. Kaicun Wang and Shunlin Liang. 2009. Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.

So what? Where is the connection to anthropogenic sources?.. This discussion is exclusively about anthropogenic GW.

There’s that pesky water vapor again… Do none of our studies recognize the impact of water vapr?

According to Marty et al, 2002; “The atmospheric flux of longwave radiation is emitted predominantly by clouds, water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone. The flux varies mostly with the cloud amount and cloud optical depth, mean cloud emitting temperature, as well as integrated water vapor content (Marty et al., 2002).”

*(Testing longwave radiation parameterizations under clear and overcast skies at Storglaci¨aren, Sweden J. Sedlar1 and R. Hock, April 27, 2009)

Further: “However, such models are not applicable when vertical profile data of temperature and moisture are lacking”
*(J. Sedlar and R. Hock: Testing longwave radiation parameterizations at Storglaci¨aren).

--

5. Rolf Philipona, Bruno Dürr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, and Martin Wild. 2004. Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03202. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765.

From the document: ”Water vapor had the greatest influence and it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature lessened by this circumstance”

Conclusion of AGW is based on uncorroborated data from IPCC that have no founding in the relative CO2 emissions from both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources. Further, water vapor is identified as the largest contributor, yet the doc offers simply honorable mention and does not quantify it’s dynamic contribution.

6.Wayne F.J. Evans. --

This study assumes that O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 are generated from anthropogenic sources…. This is not he case, unless of course you can prove such.

From the doc: “With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases.”

Where is the proof? How is it quantified? There isn’t even any form of mention that natural sources might contribute into the system.

CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3 are primarily anthropogenic in nature, but are not considered relevant (significant) enough to force climate.

This is the most absurd contribution yet.

7. Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.

Doc focuses on aerosols and sulfates: These are small players in the AGW issue… Too small in the grand scheme.

From the doc:“About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space.”

Show me the confidence levels from the period between 1950 and 1970 when there were no satellites to make such observations. If the pre-1970 data is reliant in surface measures how do they propose to provide a sense of equilibrium between the pre and post satellite periods?... Lemme guess, over-generous statistical models?

From the doc: “between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates…”

Best estimates?.. From the IPCC – what a joke, Show me facts, not assumptions, extrapolations and best guesses.

8. Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, and Reiner Schnur. 2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science, Vol. 292, 270-274. doi: 10.1126/science.1058304.

Founded on estimated anthropogenic sources… You clearly stated earlier in the thread that the sources are, factually anthropogenic… How is it that this study employs unconfirmed estimates?

Where are these estimates? Where is there any reference to the relativism between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources?

From the doc: “Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years.”

Self-fulfilling prophecy… Narrow sample size offers no relative comparison to any period that experienced changes in the oceans on a pre-anthropogenic basis.

9. The International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group. 2005. Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: a review of recent advances. Journal of Climate, Vol. 18, 1291-1314. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3329.1.

From the doc: “Disclaimer - ‘…makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed… ‘

Off to a really great start there, eh? If the researchers lack any form of confidence in their offering, I can’t see this as being a compelling argument.

Some pretty big assumptions in the modeling. I guess that we now understand why the authors required such a broad disclaimer, don’t we.

Possible effects of snow cover?.. Goes directly towards long wave outgoing radiation spectra.

From the doc: “Results confirm previous conclusions that about 50% of the decadal pre-anthropogenic Northern Hemisphere temperature variance can be attributed to a direct response to solar and volcanic variability (Crowley et al. 2004).”

Have identified 2 non-anthropogenic sources, which is infinitesimally more than the other references you’ve hung your hat on, yet the list of non-anthropogenic sources is woefully incomplete and serves to over-simplify a highly complex issue.

From the doc: “The IPCC TAR concluded that “... most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC 2001). This assessment was made with a very broad range of evidence, including evidence from a number of optimal detection studies using several different coupled climate models.”

The IPCC is recanting many of the previously held positions…. His assumption is erroneous and speculative….. Evidently more reason that the authors have a need for a disclaimer.

“The reference to the Brazilian rainforest can be found in Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report, the same section of AR4 in which claims are made that the Himalayan glaciers are rapidly melting because of global warming. Last week, the data leading to this claim were disproved as well, a scandal being labeled “glacier-gate” or “Himalaya-gate”

--

20 pgs into the doc and we see it is fully reliant on generous assumptions and relies extensively on old (now revised) IPCC docs.

10. Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, Caspar M. Ammann, Julie M. Arblaster, T. M. L. Wigley, and Claudia Tebaldi. 2004. -- Journal of Climate, Vol. 17, 3721-3727.

I’ll get to this one later.

Tonington

#79

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 29th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

THE source, eh?

How about some research to back it up?

How many times would you like me to post them? If you just ignore it I don't really see the point in this exercise. But here they are again:

Ghosh, P. and Brand W.A., 2003. -- International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228, 1-33.

Schimel, D.S., House, J.I., Hibbard, K.A., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Braswell, B.H., Apps, M.J., Baker, D., Bondeau, A., Canadell, J., Churkina, G., Cramer, W., Denning, A.S., Field, C.B., Friedlingstein, P., Goodale, C., Heimann, M., Houghton, R.A., Meillo, J.M., Moore III, B., Murdiyarso, D., Noble, I., Pacala, S.W., Prentice, I.C., Raupach, M.R., Rayner, P.J., Scholes, R.J., Steffen, W.L., and Wirth, C., 2001. -- Nature, 414, 169-172.

You also ignored the blog posts which themselves are well referenced:
--

and

--

and

--

Quote:

Looks like you’re in error

How do you figure that?

Quote:

I’ve made multiple attempts, yet you lack to necessary base knowledge. If you had any basis of understanding of statistical modeling, you wouldn’t be asking this novice question. Regrettably, there are no formal research papers that I can cite that deal specifically with recognizing those with insufficient knowledge in the area.

Knock it off. Either you can specifically name an assumption from those papers that you think is suspect or you can't. I've taken graduate level statistics classes, so I'm pretty certain I'll be able to at the very least find some information about your beef.

So, enough talk. Out with it already. If this passes one more time, then I'm just writing this discussion of statistical analysis off as being without merit on your part.

Quote:

Consider enrolling in a beginner stats course. You’ll need that to move into the mid-level courses and eventually into the advanced stream at which point you will develop the knowledge.

Leave the trolling in other threads please. I have taken introductory, intermediate, and graduate level statistics.

Name your beef.

Quote:

Time to wake to reality. Your physical relationships are entirely dependent on corrective statistical techniques.

How about one example?

Quote:

Much like the reference points that offered the advanced disclaimer that they didn’t understand the hydrological cycle…

Can you name me one branch of science where the entire system is catalogued and understood? There would be no point if we knew everything.

It's humorous to note that you ignored my follow-up of the relevance of the water vapour feedbacks the introduction to that paper talked about.

Since the publishing of that paper, the feedbacks are much better understood, try:

Dessler, A.W., and Sherwood, S.C., 2009. -- Science, 323, 1020-1.

Quote:

Get it yet?... How do you think that the researchers in the aforementioned study eliminated water vapor from the equation?

Cloud amounts are determined in a number of ways. One is called the clear-sky index method, which you'll find discussed in this paper:

Marty C., and Philipona, R., 2000. Clear-sky index to separate clear-sky from cloudy-sky situations in climate research. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(17), 2649-2652.

Another is a longwave cloud effect, where longwave net radiation is subtracted of cloud-free skies is subtracted from all weather skies, which is discussed in an older paper:

Charlock, T.P., and Ramanathan V., 1985. --Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 1408-1429.

Quote:

What sad, simple and entirely unrelated little examples…

Entirely related. Science works even when we don't know everything. If it didn't, then there would be no science at all. Sorry if you can't grasp that, but that's reality, and if you worked in a science related field at all, you would get that.

You're essentially saying that because we don't know everything, that we can't know anything. Which is completely and utterly false.

Quote:

Science had an understanding then to.

That wasn't science, not as we know it. Calling that science proves to me how out of touch you are with how science actually works.

Quote:

Gosh, thanks for the heads-up on that….. Would this anything like the dynamic interaction that I might have mentioned –oh, a couple hundred times now?

Quote:

You may be slow, but you get there eventually… At least you’re catching up.

I never said it wasn't a dynamic system...water vapour feedbacks are part of the reason why climate sensitivity is high.

Quote:

What kind of citation is this?!... You will approach this in a scholarly manner and cite the references correctly!

It's a hyperlink bringing you to the source. I did all the work for you, since you don't seem capable of finding them yourself...

Quote:

I see that you have not cited this information. Plagiarism and copyright infringement is entirely unacceptable in a scholarly debate.

Quote:

Is this form academic and professional dishonestly the same that you brag about applying at our work too?

I never claimed it was my work, hence no plagiarism. The link brings you to the source.

Anyways, are you satisfied with the different physical properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour? Or do I need to give you more?

Tonington

#80

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1246870

Mar 29th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

… And?
Both of the aforementioned studies provide no direct link to anthropogenic sources... That’s it.

They didn't claim to, they just examined the contribution of some greenhouse gases to the top of atmosphere radiative imbalance. I already provided links earlier that show that human activities are leading to increases of many greenhosue gases.

Quote:

In the event that you seek to extrapolate a proposed relationship based on the analysis of isotopic analysis 0f 12-C &13-C, see:

Quote:

*Carbon cycle modeling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad

What part of that actually refutes the origin of carbon dioxide? It makes claims that the IPCC in 1990 had low-balled the lifetime of carbon dioxide based on mass balances of the C12/C13 ratio, but nowhere did it deny the source of atmospheric carbon dioxide...

Quote:
“In fact, the lower stratosphere is cooling substantially (by about -0.5K per decade)5, so the warming trend seen at the surface is expected to diminish with altitude and change into a cooling trend at some point in the troposphere. Even so, it has been suggested that the cooling trend seen in the satellite data is excessive4,7,8. The diffculty in reconciling the information from these different sources has sparked a debate in the climate community about possible instrumental problems and the existence of global warming4,7,”

Quote:

*Effects of orbital decayon satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends
Frank J. Wentz & Matthias Schabel

The updated and corrected versions of the Microwave Sounding Unit still shows a cooling trend in the stratosphere. See figure 7 on the MSU webpage here:

--

Quote:
3. Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, and Mark Ringer.
Quote:
--

Quote:

--
“In each case, the concentrations of CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and HCFC-22 used within HadGEM1 at the relevant times”

This study offers no relationship of any warming trend with any anthropogenic sources of CO2, CH4, O3 or N2O. CFC’s are far too insignificant in the AGW debate to offset he major components – also, water vapor is not incorporated in the model – considering that water vapor is the biggest driver in the system, the inclusion of this study in the context of this discussion is pointless.

Water vapor is not the biggest driver, it's the largest component, which is a huge difference. And it's not excluded. If you would read instead of cherry pick, in fact just above the sentence you cherry picked is this:

Quote:

Spectra were simulated using the line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM) [Clough, et al., 2005], version 10.3, at a spectral resolution of 0.1 cm-1. LBLRTM was run with user-defined profiles constructed using monthly mean HadGEM1 output fields of specific humidity, temperature, and sea surface temperature from the global circulation model for April, May, and June of 1970 to simulate IRIS spectra. The process was then repeated for profiles from 2006 to simulate TES spectra. In each case, the concentrations of CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and HCFC-22 used within HadGEM1 at the relevant times were also used to provide input to the radiative transfer model calculations. In both cases the profiles above the altitudes provided by the model were padded with standard tropical atmosphere values [Anderson, et al., 1986].

The part I emphasized should have tipped you off first. Second, no global circulation model can work without water. There would be no clouds. No moist-adiabat. No precipitation. And finally, if you would have even bothered to look for the Anderson reference, I found the entire paper at this URL:
--

you would have noticed that Anderson et al. also include water vapour...

Quote:

This study is an extension of the Griggs and Harries, 2007; Harries, et al and is subject to the same failings as references 1&2.

See links in post #34, 73 or 79.

Quote:
“To reduce the variability seen in the spectrum, cloud-free spectra are used. A two step process was used to identify clouds in the spectra [Harries, et al., 2001]. The first step is to filter out thick clouds by comparing the brightness temperature at 1127.7 cm-1 (most transparent part of spectral range) with the skin temperature from the NCEP reanalysis. Differences greater than 6 K between the NCEP skin temperature and observed brightness temperature were flagged as cloudy [Haskins, et al., 1997]. The second step removes spectra with residual contamination from ice clouds. This is done by exploiting the difference in absorption coefficient in ice and water between the 8 um and 11 um bands. [Ackerman, et al., 1990]”

Quote:

These actions affect the reliability of the results. The natural processes are subjectively omitted which skew the results to eliminate any opportunity to analyze the dynamic interaction(s).

They aren't looking to analyze the same dynamic interactions that you're thinking of, surely. As you inquired about earlier, how do you know what the contribution is when greenhouse gas bands have wave numbers that overlap in the observed spectra? What their process above does is filter out the noise. If you're looking for a x-ray signal, do you want to look at the entire spectra your broad-based instrument measures, or do you want to look in a specific window so that the noise is reduced?

4. K
Quote:
aicun Wang and Shunlin Liang. 2009. Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.

Quote:

So what? Where is the connection to anthropogenic sources?.. This discussion is exclusively about anthropogenic GW.

Right. And for that part, please refer to the references in post #34, 73 or 79.

Quote:

There’s that pesky water vapor again… Do none of our studies recognize the impact of water vapour?

No, of course not. Putting more carbon dioxide in the air causes more outgoing long wave radiation to be tarpped in our atmosphere. The result is the temperature goes up. In response to temperature rises, water vapour goes up. Which increases temperatures further.

The water vapour positive feedback is a large part of the warming we experience from our carbon dioxide. It doubles what we would experience without the feedback. I cited this material already...

Quote:

According to Marty et al, 2002;

Quote:

“The atmospheric flux of longwave radiation is emitted predominantly by clouds, water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone. The flux varies mostly with the cloud amount and cloud optical depth, mean cloud emitting temperature, as well as integrated water vapor content (Marty et al., 2002).”

Quote:

*(Testing longwave radiation parameterizations under clear and overcast skies at Storglaci¨aren, Sweden J. Sedlar1 and R. Hock, April 27, 2009)

Further: “However, such models are not applicable when vertical profile data of temperature and moisture are lacking”
*(J. Sedlar and R. Hock: Testing longwave radiation parameterizations at Storglaci¨aren).

Yeah...I'm not denying water vapour as a contributor. I'm denying it as a driver. It's physically impossible for water vapour to be the driver, because water vapour content is a function of temperature and pressure. If you try to add more than the atmosphere can carry, you get rain. The atmosphere responds very quickly to water vapour.

Quote:
5. Rolf Philipona, Bruno Dürr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, and Martin Wild. 2004. Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03202. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765.

Quote:

From the document: ”Water vapor had the greatest influence and it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature lessened by this circumstance”

Conclusion of AGW is based on uncorroborated data from IPCC that have no founding in the relative CO2 emissions from both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources. Further, water vapor is identified as the largest contributor, yet the doc offers simply honorable mention and does not quantify it’s dynamic contribution.

You're quoting the study quoting John Tyndall, from 1861...

It's clear you aren't even reading these papers...the very end of the introduction states:

Quote:

Here we present the changes and trends of radiative fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas increases and temperature and humidity changes measured from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network.

That is a dynamic contribution. I already explained to you how it's dynamic, it's a feedback...

Further in the paper, where the actual results are:

Quote:

On average the final corrected LDRcf,tc,uc measurements show an increase of +1.8 (0. W/m^2 with a 95% significance level at almost all stations. This remaining increase of longwave downward radiation demonstrates radiative forcing that is due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations and feedbacks, and is in reasonably good agreement with the expected +1.58 W/m^2 increase predicted by MODTRAN radiative transfer model calculations.

So, even given the spatial constraints of the study area, this study still produces results consistent with line-by-line transfer calculations.

Quote:
6.Wayne F.J. Evans.
Quote:
--

Quote:

This study assumes that O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 are generated from anthropogenic sources…. This is not he case, unless of course you can prove such.

From the doc: “With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases.”

Where is the proof? How is it quantified? There isn’t even any form of mention that natural sources might contribute into the system.

These are all gases which have been documented to be released increasingly by human activity. Nobody seriously disagrees with that. You can read the entire AR4 Chapter 9 in WG1 to see that.

Quote:

CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3

Quote:

are primarily anthropogenic in nature, but are not considered relevant (significant) enough to force climate.

Right. Their contributions are very small.

Quote:
7. Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.

Quote:

Doc focuses on aerosols and sulfates: These are small players in the AGW issue… Too small in the grand scheme.

Not at all. Aerosols and sulfates could potentially counter all the observed warming to date, but with huge consequences.

Quote:

From the doc:

Quote:

“About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space.”

Quote:

Show me the confidence levels from the period between 1950 and 1970 when there were no satellites to make such observations. If the pre-1970 data is reliant in surface measures how do they propose to provide a sense of equilibrium between the pre and post satellite periods?... Lemme guess, over-generous statistical models?

No, their first line in the abstract is "We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models."

Why don't you do something radical, and actually read...they use surface temperature, ocean heat content, and satellite observations of radiative fluxes. The 20% figure is an estimate from their Figure 6.

Quote:

From the doc:

Quote:

“between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates…”

Quote:

Best estimates?.. From the IPCC – what a joke, Show me facts, not assumptions, extrapolations and best guesses.

It's not an assumption, or guess, it follows from the work they did. Science produces estimates. There is no 100% certainty...you're living in a dream world if you think that a single scientific paper produces anything like a fact. It produces results...

Quote:
8. Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, and Reiner Schnur. 2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science, Vol. 292, 270-274. doi: 10.1126/science.1058304.

Quote:

Founded on estimated anthropogenic sources… You clearly stated earlier in the thread that the sources are, factually anthropogenic… How is it that this study employs unconfirmed estimates?

Where are these estimates? Where is there any reference to the relativism between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources?

The anthropogenic component of rising greenhouse gas levels have been documented by many researchers. You know, you can actually follow the references in papers I cite too. Read the paper...

Quote:

From the doc:

Quote:

“Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years.”

Quote:

Self-fulfilling prophecy… Narrow sample size offers no relative comparison to any period that experienced changes in the oceans on a pre-anthropogenic basis.

So, if there are multiple data sets combined with satellites in the air you accuse them of statistical tricks. If they can go back further, then you say it's not enough.

That's not very objective. In fact you're just grasping at straws now.

Quote:
9. The International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group. 2005.
Quote:
Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: a review of recent advances. Journal of Climate, Vol. 18, 1291-1314. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3329.1.

Quote:

From the doc: “Disclaimer - ‘…makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed… ‘

Off to a really great start there, eh? If the researchers lack any form of confidence in their offering, I can’t see this as being a compelling argument.

Have you read a government science document that didn't include such a disclaimer? I doubt it.

Quote:

Some pretty big assumptions in the modeling. I guess that we now understand why the authors required such a broad disclaimer, don’t we.

Which assumptions do you think are riskiest?

Quote:

Possible effects of snow cover?.. Goes directly towards long wave outgoing radiation spectra.

They were talking about boreholes...

Quote:

From the doc: “

Quote:

Results confirm previous conclusions that about 50% of the decadal pre-anthropogenic Northern Hemisphere temperature variance can be attributed to a direct response to solar and volcanic variability (Crowley et al. 2004).”

Quote:

Have identified 2 non-anthropogenic sources, which is infinitesimally more than the other references you’ve hung your hat on, yet the list of non-anthropogenic sources is woefully incomplete and serves to over-simplify a highly complex issue.

My opening statement:

"My defining statement is this: we've experienced about 0.8°C warming over the last century. The first part of the century was a mixture of anthropogenic and natural variability, while the latter half has been dominated by the anthropogenic signal...."

The part you quoted from the document is consistent with what I said...

Quote:

From the doc:

Quote:

“The IPCC TAR concluded that “... most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC 2001). This assessment was made with a very broad range of evidence, including evidence from a number of optimal detection studies using several different coupled climate models.”

Quote:

The IPCC is recanting many of the previously held positions…. His assumption is erroneous and speculative….. Evidently more reason that the authors have a need for a disclaimer.

You're a tool. I knew eventually you'd do this.

From post #33 :

Quote:

“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect.”

--

So when it's convenient to you, apparently they don't need a disclaimer. I see how it is...

Unbelievable.

Quote:
“

Quote:

The reference to the Brazilian rainforest can be found in Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report, the same section of AR4 in which claims are made that the Himalayan glaciers are rapidly melting because of global warming. Last week, the data leading to this claim were disproved as well, a scandal being labeled “glacier-gate” or “Himalaya-gate”

Quote:

--

The Amazon, that's a funny story. You might like this:

Quote:

In sum:
– Samanta et al data show a drought region green up that is on average indistinguishable from Saleska et al (but they call it NO green up).
– Samanta et al data almost exactly reproduce Saleska et al’s most salient bottom-line result (but they say what we did was not reproducible).
– the Samanta et al paper, based on a three-month drought response, says not one word about long-term climate change scenarios reviewed in IPCC (but they advertise their analysis as “reject[ing] claims” put forward by the IPCC).

Quote:

20 pgs into the doc and we see it is fully reliant on generous assumptions and relies extensively on old (now revised) IPCC docs.

And less than 100 posts into this thread you show that you'll use a source when it's convenient and trash it when it isn't.

Pathetic. I'm through wasting my time with you. Other readers can have a go if they wish, though I'd advise them to save their time.

Quote:

10. Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, Caspar M. Ammann, Julie M. Arblaster, T. M. L. Wigley, and Claudia Tebaldi. 2004.

Quote:

-- Journal of Climate, Vol. 17, 3721-3727.

Quote:

I’ll get to this one later.

Whatever, more of the same disingenuous crap I'm sure.

Slim Chance

#81

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 29th, 2010

… So… No discussion or rebuttal of my submissions then?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

How many times would you like me to post them? If you just ignore it I don't really see the point in this exercise. But here they are again:

Ghosh, P. and Brand W.A., 2003. -- International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228, 1-33.

Schimel, D.S., House, J.I., Hibbard, K.A., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Braswell, B.H., Apps, M.J., Baker, D., Bondeau, A., Canadell, J., Churkina, G., Cramer, W., Denning, A.S., Field, C.B., Friedlingstein, P., Goodale, C., Heimann, M., Houghton, R.A., Meillo, J.M., Moore III, B., Murdiyarso, D., Noble, I., Pacala, S.W., Prentice, I.C., Raupach, M.R., Rayner, P.J., Scholes, R.J., Steffen, W.L., and Wirth, C., 2001. -- Nature, 414, 169-172.

I’ve responded to this. Reposting the same info doesn’t change the synopsis that the study is flawed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You also ignored the blog posts which themselves are well referenced:
--

Blog posts, eh?

And here I was under the assumption that this was a scholarly debate.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

How do you figure that?

Because you've offered up contradictory "studies” that undermine your position.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Knock it off. Either you can specifically name an assumption from those papers that you think is suspect or you can't. I've taken graduate level statistics classes, so I'm pretty certain I'll be able to at the very least find some information about your beef.

I don’t know how to explain this better – Lord knows I’ve tried dozens of times now.

Let’s try by employing an example:

If all you understand about automobiles is how to inflate a tire, then no amount of statistical modeling, corrective techniques and assumptions will provide you with the knowledge of how to successfully build a contemporary internal combustion engine.

Get it yet?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So, enough talk. Out with it already. If this passes one more time, then I'm just writing this discussion of statistical analysis off as being without merit on your part.

As I expected….

You propose to have an understanding of a few mechanisms
You have an idea of many others (water vapour for example) but do not fully understand them at all
Lastly, you don’t have a clue about all of the actual forces that exist

But somehow, you can magically apply some theoretical statistical techniques and declare that YOU have this depth of knowledge and therefore will declare causation on AGW… This defies any form of logic.

What you want from me is a specific rebuttal of one of the said corrective techniques, etc… The fact is, the flaw in your reliance on stats is that not only do you not know WHAT you’re applying the technique to; you also don’t know HOW MANY variables exist AND you have no knowledge of the INTERACTION of the variables in the equation.

This is your flaw… Call up anyone of your stats professors that educated you in advanced techniques and put the question to them in terms of our debate… They will give you the same answer that I have.

You brought up the examples of airplanes or vaccines – but conveniently omitted the reality that not only are they still learning; there was also a significant learning curve wherein planes crashed and the sera were poisons… Just so you know, those very same statistical models/techniques, etc existed then, BUT IT WASN”T A SUBSTITUTE FOR REAL FACTUAL DATA.

Get it?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Leave the trolling in other threads please. I have taken introductory, intermediate, and graduate level statistics.

Funny.. Truly hilarious – See above

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

How about one example?

Here's one:

"We know we're the source"

and a little later

"The hydrological cycle interacts with other cycles and physical phenomena. Water doesn't just change on it's own. It responds to perturbations."

Sure, great… You just don’t understand them and how they work in this system.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Can you name me one branch of science where the entire system is catalogued and understood?

This debate is about AGW and your confidence in assessing causation, not about other disciplines.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

It's humorous to note that you ignored my follow-up of the relevance of the water vapour feedbacks the introduction to that paper talked about.

… But all of the studies YOU submitted have caveats and disclaimers stating they can’t account for water vapor – the very same studies that suggest that it is the strongest variable in the equation… Perhaps you’ll do the scientific community a favor and forward this compelling factual reality in the above study to those researchers that apparently didn’t get the memo.

Really man, don’t expect anyone to buy this nonsense if the very researchers that you lean on are complete disagreement with you.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Since the publishing of that paper, the feedbacks are much better understood, try:

Dessler, A.W., and Sherwood, S.C., 2009. -- Science, 323, 1020-1.

But you didn't submit that research, did you? What you did submit were studies that had massive disclaimers and admitted lack of knowledge of the system(s).

Does this mean that you wish to restate your entire case?

The big question is; why did you forward incomplete and faulty studies in the first place?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Cloud amounts are determined in a number of ways. One is called the clear-sky index method, which you'll find discussed in this paper:

Great... It's still a chicken-or-egg argument isn't it? Are anthropogenic sources the cause of this event?... I’ll do my best to try and find some paleo-cloud studies to suggest that clouds existed before humanity, but I’m not holding my breath.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Entirely related. Science works even when we don't know everything. If it didn't, then there would be no science at all. Sorry if you can't grasp that, but that's reality, and if you worked in a science related field at all, you would get that.

You're hopeless. "Science" as far as our debate is concerned, knows a tiny fraction of the relevant mechanisms that directly and indirectly influence the system. You are all up in arms because only the zealots are willing to believe your fantasy that you can account for all the variables in a dynamic system by only understanding that tiny fraction.

Science works – in terms of assessing causation in this AGW discussion - when you have an understanding of the majority of the variables. Statistics then offer reasonable confidence in accounting for those few variables that are not understood or accounted for.

At this point, “science” is still feeling its way and developing an understanding. Your mistake is that you believe it to be complete enough to assess causation.

You are mistaken.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You're essentially saying that because we don't know everything, that we can't know anything. Which is completely and utterly false.

Wrong. I'm saying that based on the utter lack of understanding, it is ridiculous to suggest that you can propose causation. You on the other hand are stating that you can understand this issue enough to point to causation despite knowing relatively nothing because you'll apply theoretical statistical adaptations to substitute for this missing knowledge/data.

Admit your mistake and let's move on already.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

That wasn't science, not as we know it. Calling that science proves to me how out of touch you are with how science actually works.

That’s really rich considering the fact you don’t have a clue as to the totality of the mechanisms relative to this issue. The medical practitioners in medieval times likely believed that they were at the cutting-edge and knew enough to prescribe drilling holes in people’s heads.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I never said it wasn't a dynamic system...water vapour feedbacks are part of the reason why climate sensitivity is high.

Then why does your argument absolutely ignore this dynamic interaction. The studies you offered are (for all intents and purposes) are essentially analyzed in their own little vacuum. As I stated in a previous post, I don’t contest the individual theoretical framework of some of the mechanisms you’ve identified – I question their role in the overall system.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

It's a hyperlink bringing you to the source. I did all the work for you, since you don't seem capable of finding them yourself...

You were the one that was pissing and moaning about proper citation techniques. You will also recall that you made a really big stink about plagiarism.

These citations – along with others in your most recent post – reek of the professional deficiencies, plagiarism and copyright infringements.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I never claimed it was my work, hence no plagiarism. The link brings you to the source.

It was bald-faced plagiarism pure and simple… Is that how you work in your professional career too?

Slim Chance

#82

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 29th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I knew eventually you'd do this.

You did know... I made very strong insinuations that I would question your sources at the outset of this thread... What did you think would be the result when you base your "facts" on a group that has been fumbling about retracting their facts as fast as they possibly can.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

So when it's convenient to you, apparently they don't need a disclaimer. I see how it is...

YOU assumed the position that you knew all the answers... YOU declared that anthropogenic sources were responsible for global warming... That position is not compatible with the prevalent disclaimers upon which you founded your position.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

And less than 100 posts into this thread you show that you'll use a source when it's convenient and trash it when it isn't.

You must be joking... I'm not the one that sees fit to offer newer versions of data or studies each time they get clearly rebutted. Had you known your material, you would have forwarded the best materials at the outset.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Pathetic. I'm through wasting my time with you. Other readers can have a go if they wish, though I'd advise them to save their time.

How predictable... You were sunk the moment you resorted to calling me a "denier". Clearly that is the last vestiage of one that no longer can forward a logical argument. I told you this would happen, I told you I'd be handing you a bag of bricks while you were foundering in the water.

So what was it that finally got you to see the folly of your position? Was it the realization that your complete dependence on massive theoritical statistical models was nothing more than a house of cards or was it the knowledge that the relative contributions of anthropogenic vs non-anthropogenic sources was far beyond your ability to explain?

Similar Threads

Match a pair.
by Machjo | Apr 22nd, 2009