AGW Grudge Match

AGW Grudge Match

Slim Chance

#1Mar 14th, 2010

Tonnington; As per our agreement to pursue a formal approach to this debate, here is the thread in which this can be accomplished.

I have cut/paste the principle positions that we each had outlined in late February. I ask that you review this and confirm the statement or make the necessary changes prior to getting down to brass tacks.

Feb 28th: Caveats

The discussion be focused on establishing that anthropogenic sources (carbon dioxide) are a significant contributor to climatic changes... To be more specific, these sources must be significant enough such that curbing these anthropogenic sources will - absolutely and measurably - alter the climatic system in a corrective manner.
Obviously, you are welcome to choose any reference sources you wish, however, the credibility of those sources are fair game. As this is an area of particular interest for myself, I will question any such sources with the onus being on me to identify and highlight the flaw(s).
You can submit any number of research papers as reference (obviously), but it is your responsibility to clearly tie everything together with an eye to satisfying caveat # 1. That said, if you elect to adopt a strategy of submitting a couple of thousand of reference points and holler "eureka!" like some idiot did earlier, then I will respond in kind in forcing the contributor to clearly articulate the individual results and provide the applicable conclusions.

Below are the respective statements that we both wish to support/refute:

Slim Chance:
To make it absolutely clear, my position is that I believe that the climate changes the Earth is experiencing are a part of the natural cycle that the globe has experienced for millennia. I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

Tonnington:
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. I will provide evidence from observations that confirms the expected results from an enhanced greenhouse effect. To show that the observed climactic changes are consistent, climate model results will be validated and used to show that the observations are an artifact of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and are not primarily the function of a known signal from a source of natural variability in the climate system.

Slim Chance

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 14th, 2010

The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe. Studies of core samples from recovered in anaerobic environments provide a clue to paleoclimatic conditions hundreds of thousands of years in the past. There are a myriad of studies that confirm the existence of significant periodic climate change in the form of periodic episodes of glaciation and recession. Clearly, these episodes represent cooling and warming trends during those periods.

Recent sampling of stalagmites recovered from blue holes in the Bahamas in the sub-tropical Atlantic gyre provide evidence of no fewer than 5 episodes of climate change in the last 80,000 years. Similar studies undertaken by Japanese researchers that extracted core samples from Lake Biwa , detail the paleomagnetic stratigraphy from the Pleistocene era. These findings confirm “continuous changes of the palaeoclimate during the time since the latest Pliocene or early Pleistocene”. Analysis of the cores yield results that illustrate the significant fluctuations in temperature to a period of 400 M years BP.

(National Geographic Society, Expeditions Council, Exploring the Bahamas Underground: Blue Holes and Biodiversity Conservation. 07/01/2008 – 12/31/2009 [Nancy Albury, Tom Illiffe, Brian Kakuk, Dave Steadman, Peter Swart, Keith Tinker])

(Palynological Study on 200 meters Core Sample of Lake Biwa in Japan; Norio Fuji, Shoji Horie
(Comm.b y Teiichi KOBAYASMHI.J , . A., Sept. 12, 1972))

What is established at this point is that there is a confirmed geological record of past episodes of significant climate change, the causes of which can only be speculated upon. Although many plausible theories exist, the one variable that can be utterly dismissed is the potential for anthropogenic sources as a significant, measurable and tangible factor.

At this point, it is essential that you provide your opinion on the principal statement that has been made, particularly as it relates to the anthropogenic contribution in the aforementioned studies.

Tonington

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 14th, 2010

Amongst those who do not believe that human industry could possibly alter our climate, the primary response is that the climate always changes, and that this is entirely natural. The climate does often change, but to interpret that the changes we see now are natural requires data confirming this to be the case.

In the atmosphere, the causes that drive these changes are referred to as forcings. Changes in incoming solar irradiance, orbital changes which alter the angle of the sun’s rays, changes in the reflectivity of the surface of the planet, volcanic dust in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; all have signatures, and all can be measured as a radiative forcing on the climate system.

The first aspect I will touch on is the fingerprint issue. The fingerprint of a greenhouse warming is evident in our climate system. Satellites are measuring a cooling stratosphere, at the same time that the troposphere warms:

This chart clearly illustrates the fingerprint issue. The spikes that appear are from major volcanic events. When the dust that is spewed out into the upper atmosphere cools the troposphere, the solar energy that would have passed through to the lower atmosphere bounces back into space, passing the column of air in the stratosphere twice. This warms the stratosphere, and cools the troposphere.

When greenhouse gases are increasing, the effect is similar. Incoming solar energy passes through the stratosphere, and then bounces off the surface of the planet. On the way back up, due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, more and more of the outgoing long wave radiation will be trapped. The Earth then has to warm to go towards thermodynamic equilibrium. Since less radiation is escaping to space, the stratosphere will cool.

Natural mechanisms of warming will not have this signature. An enhanced greenhouse is the only one which traps outgoing radiation, the only one which can explain how the temperature trends can be moving in opposite signs in the upper and lower atmosphere.

The second aspect is the confirmation of the energy balance. As above, there appears to be evidence of a greenhouse warming. Other sources of investigation can confirm this. Satellites measuring the outgoing radiation have found evidence of the enhanced greenhouse effect (1,2,3). These satellite studies are confirmed by ground-based measurements(4,5,6). Thus, the earth must warm(7).

Attribution studies are the experiments where researchers input various factors and evaluate the models for consistency with observations. These experiments have confirmed the observations of a warming planet, and the fingerprint of the current climate shift, including temperature, precipitation, circulation patterns, etc.

The anthropogenic signal has been detected in the world’s oceans, consistent with expected changes due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (8). In fact, a review of the literature on attribution finds that the anthropogenic signal is found in such variables as: the surface temperature in global, hemispheric, and regional scales, ocean heat content, atmospheric circulation, atmospheric temperature, and even tropopause height (9).

It’s clear from these attribution studies, that absent the anthropogenic signal, the climate would have experienced reduced warming in the early 20th century, and cooling thereafter. This is clearly not what has happened, and given the results we have only one physically consistent and empirically supportable explanation, which is that the contribution of humans to the greenhouse effect is the primary driver which is now driving our climate.

It’s not enough to examine the paleoclimate and proclaim that the cycles and circumstances of the past are what are now driving the climate. Statements like that require evidence, for which there is none. The physics of the major forcings clearly indicate a climate driven by anthropogenic sources (10).

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.

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

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.

6.Wayne F.J. Evans. --

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tonington

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 14th, 2010

Didn't convert from MSOffice very well...

Ron in Regina

AGW Grudge Match

Mar 14th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Didn't convert from MSOffice very well...

It looks just fine to me. I'd love to see this debate on this Thread to remain
in the format that it has started in. Good job to both of you.

darkbeaver

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 14th, 2010

Yes, very civilized thus far.

Slim Chance

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Numerous theories have been forwarded to offer explanation regarding the dramatic fluctuations observed throughout the geological record including massive volcanic eruptions to possible meteor hits. What all these theories have in common is that they are all founded on a natural source/causation and they all seek to explain dramatic, rapid changes. What is absent in all of these theories is any form of input from an anthropogenic source.

Macro cycles are evidenced in the geological record (see following reference). These macro cycles are comprised of shorter “micro” cycles. These cycles can be measured in seconds/minutes (if one wished), days, weeks, years, decades, etc… Below is a reference point of accumulated climate data for many/most Canadian cities. The records stretch back many years. This will serve as an example.

--

Choose a location that you feel is representative and search the historical data. Analysis will yield a result that illustrates the “micro” cycles of the system. When these results are superimposed over the geological paleoclimatic record, the result is that the localized (in any region), cyclical fluctuations represent trending “micro cycles within macro cycles”.

Point of comment: There has never been a moment in time wherein the climate conditions on the globe as a whole have repeated themselves – identically… I will refer back to this point at a later date.

Tangible environmental impacts are recorded in the geological record. These changes were a byproduct the natural cycles during those times. Some of the highlights are as follows:

The Pleistocene

Early Pleistocene 1.8 MYBP - 750,000 YBP (MIS 20-36)

·Matuyama-Brunhes polarity reversal 750,000 BP marks Early/Middle boundary

Middle Pleistocene 750,000-130,000 YBP (MIS 6-19)

·MIS 6 & 8; Illinoian Glacial

possibly more severe than Wisconsin glaciation
~150 m drop in sea level; major land bridges exposed

·MIS 7; interglacial

warm climates & dense vegetation in North America & Europe
little continental erosion or marine sedimentation
formation of paleosols
sea level higher than today

Late Pleistocene 130,000-10,000 BP

·Sangamon Interglacial MIS 5e or all of MIS 5

MIS 5 (130,000-75,000 YBP) or just substage 5e (130,000-115,000 YBP)
midlatitudes slightly warmer than today
sea level slightly higher than today
widespread paleosols

(--)

Also see Pollen diagram showing the relationship among warm, cool and cold climatic elements from every horizon in Lake Biwa.: (Palynological Study on 200 meters Core Sample of Lake Biwa in Japan; Norio Fuji, Shoji Horie (Comm.b y Teiichi KOBAYASMHI.J , . A., Sept. 12, 1972))

The highlighted text likely sounds all too familiar relative to the debate on AGW today… These are the threats that are being directly associated with AGW. As you can see, these actions have been occurring hundreds of thousands of years.

petros

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

I have one questuion for the author.

You state; "The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe."

What is the name of this "natural cycle"?

Without naming the "natural cycle" you've already lost the debate.

Lets go through a few which are NOT currently limiting factors
Milankovitch is a bust, Sunspots (solar EM) are also a no go, Chandler's wobble doesn't gooble, la Lune is out of tune? Nope?

So what's the "natural cycle'? Without naming one this attempt at a science on science thread just died.

AnnaG

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

If one doesn't think anthropogenic manipulation of climate is possible and climate change can only be "natural" how would one recognise anything else even if it was caused by humans? I don't think it's possible for them to see it.

Ron in Regina

#10

AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

If one doesn't think anthropogenic manipulation of climate is possible and climate change can only be "natural" how would one recognise anything else even if it was caused by humans? I don't think it's possible for them to see it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

Slim Chance:
To make it absolutely clear, my position is that I believe that the climate changes the Earth is experiencing are a part of the natural cycle that the globe has experienced for millennia. I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

AnnaG, I think the two of you are decsribing two different things. Significant enough &
can only be "natural" being two different things...it doesn't look like Slim Chance is saying,
"can only be "natural".

Petros, I too, didn't see a name for the Natural cycle Slim Chance is describing.
Does it have to have a name? If it is unnamed (yet?), does it mean it's unreal?

AnnaG

#11

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina

AnnaG, I think the two of you are decsribing two different things. Significant enough &
can only be "natural" being two different things...it doesn't look like Slim Chance is saying,
"can only be "natural".

I wasn't pointing fingers, but since you brought it up, I do think the Slim has blinders on, yes. He states that humans haven't had a significant impact on climate, but obviously, the "experts" don't even agree whether we have or not, so how could non-experts say definitively? And I don't think the experts agree because even they don't know enough about climate yet.
IMO, we do impact our climate significantly, but that's just my own opinion from what evidence I've seen.

Tonington

#12

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

The highlighted text likely sounds all too familiar relative to the debate on AGW today… These are the threats that are being directly associated with AGW. As you can see, these actions have been occurring hundreds of thousands of years.

The climate responds to perturbations, which have associated forcings. A forcing is measured as watts per square meter.

1. You haven't said yet which natural factors you think are forcing the climate, you've identified evidence of natural forcings in the past and events but you haven't connected the dots.
2. You haven't identified what the associated forcings with those phenomena(on) are, today or in the past.
3. You haven't provided any support against the observed energy budget, forcings, climatic fingerprint, or attribution studies I mentioned.
4. Therefore to maintain that it is a natural event without evidence is an untenable position.

Slim Chance

#13

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by petros

I have one questuion for the author.

You state; "The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe."

What is the name of this "natural cycle"?

Without naming the "natural cycle" you've already lost the debate.

Lets go through a few which are NOT currently limiting factors
Milankovitch is a bust, Sunspots (solar EM) are also a no go, Chandler's wobble doesn't gooble, la Lune is out of tune? Nope?

So what's the "natural cycle'? Without naming one this attempt at a science on science thread just died.

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet. These factors all combine to manifest themselves in an expression that is observable.... Does it have a formal name? Does it matter? Considering that the thrust of my argument is based on the notion that "I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems." It really doesn't matter what you decide to call it, does it?

What I have provided so far is proof that massive fluctuations in the climate/weather/surface conditions/rates of growth/etc, etc, etc, have occurred on multiple occasions in the absence of mankind... To pretend that it doesn't exist because a name hasn't been attached is without merit.

This is only part of the base of the argument that I am forwarding.

Tonington

#14

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet.

In other words, untestable. You can't produce a hypothesis to test against mechanisms which are unknown.

Again, to claim this is more likely than a physical explanation we have that is consistent with known physics is fallacious. It's not logical, and not a supportable assertion.

Quote:

Does it have a formal name? Does it matter?

If you wish to disprove anthropogenic caused warming and to establish it's due to something else, it certainly does matter.

Quote:

"I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems."

Which my post addressed directly. It gave evidence for carbon dioxide and other increasingly abundant greenhouse gases causing warming, by direct measurements of longwave outgoing radiation, by direct evidence of radiative cooling in the atmospheric slab above the troposphere, with detailed experiments which isolate known factors, and test those. Unknown factors always go in the error term, because we do not know about them, and cannot control them. To show that something is significant, it must be clearly important in spite of the error term.

Quote:

What I have provided so far is proof that massive fluctuations in the climate/weather/surface conditions/rates of growth/etc, etc, etc, have occurred on multiple occasions in the absence of mankind...

And humans died of natural causes before we invented guns. This is an irrelevant fact.

Slim Chance

#15

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

The climate responds to perturbations, which have associated forcings. A forcing is measured as watts per square meter.

Agreed...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

1. You haven't said yet which natural factors you think are forcing the climate, you've identified evidence of natural forcings in the past and events but you haven't connected the dots.

I am looking at this from a different angle, that being humanity's "forcings" are not strong enough to alter the climate in the manner that is being assumed by groups like the UN/IPCC, specifically wherein curbing man's CO2 in the UN/IPCC prescribed manner will correct/reverse or stabilize the climate.

As far as the identification of which natural forcings I am referring to, the answer is all of them.. Anything that is not directly caused by mankind from volcanic eruptions (as you pointed-out) to the CO2 contribution of a gnat's respiration to massive meteors that hit the Earth.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

2. You haven't identified what the associated forcings with those phenomena(on) are, today or in the past.

What I hav provided is direct, irrefutable evidence that these fluctuations have occurred in the past in the absence of man on multiple occasions. These fluctuations of the natural cycle have been so severe that glaciers (in some cases - over 1 km thick) have advanced to envelope the better part of an entire continent. Conversely, the recession of these episodic ice ages articulates the severe warming that had the net effect of melting the glaciers.

In the end, it is the product of many mechanisms but the common, underlying factor is that it does not include the input from man.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

3. You haven't provided any support against the observed energy budget, forcings, climatic fingerprint, or attribution studies I mentioned.

I will get into that.. On that note, I can say that you have not offered any input on the contributions I have forwarded.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

4. Therefore to maintain that it is a natural event without evidence is an untenable position.

I find your comment remarkable. To begin, this "debate" is still in its infancy, however, considering that the most basic reference points I have provided (and I am not anywhere close to being finished) are absolutely incontrovertible as is the fact that they occurred without any conceivable form of anthropogenic input - Yet, you are able to conclude that there is no argument supporting the "natural event" suggestion.

I'm a little curious though... You suggest that there is no evidence: Are you stating that episodic continental glaciation never happened, nor did the warming periods that forced the glacial recessions?

The above is a pivotal point and we will need clarity on your position as it will have a strong impact on my direction.

Tonington

#16

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

I will stipulate that the climate has changed before, without the aid of man. That was never in doubt...

petros

#17

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote:

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet. These factors all combine to manifest themselves in an expression that is observable.... Does it have a formal name? Does it matter?

So it's something you believe in? Do others believe in it too?

petros

#18

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I will stipulate that the climate has changed before, without the aid of man. That was never in doubt...

I wonder if man has something to do with 90% of the ocean being killed off too? The ocean is far far bigger than the atmosphere so I bet it must be a lot harder to screw up. What do you figure T?

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Tonington

#19

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

I'd wager considerable money on that bet, lol.

darkbeaver

#20

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Climate change has been good to the part of Nova Scotia I live in. I can't remember a warmer March or an easier winter for that matter.100% of the earths climate is electrically driven someone should work that into their argument or I'm afraid the debate will not even be about functioning physics. There's nothing like electric current to force things along.

Slim Chance

#21

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 16th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by petros

I wonder if man has something to do with 90% of the ocean being killed off too? The ocean is far far bigger than the atmosphere so I bet it must be a lot harder to screw up. What do you figure T?

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I suppose that you believe that mass extinctions have never occurred? - Oh, let me guess, it was just limited to the land animals that could be corralled on an arc.

Last edited by Slim Chance; Mar 16th, 2010 at 11:56 PM..

Slim Chance

#22

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 17th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

In other words, untestable. You can't produce a hypothesis to test against mechanisms which are unknown.Again, to claim this is more likely than a physical explanation we have that is consistent with known physics is fallacious. It's not logical, and not a supportable assertion.

Untestable? Exactly how do you propose to test this? How do you propose to provide comprehensive, scaled tests to support your position?

The fact is that any "test" to support either my position or your position would be so rife with assumptions and speculation - let alone the reality that only a minuscule number of the relevant variables could possible be factored-in - it would be useless... Any functional "test" is an impossibility at this point in time.

That said, what I have to back up my position are numerous events that dictate that these fluctuations have occurred in the past as a function of the existing natural mechanisms affecting the climate... That in itself is concrete evidence that the system exists in some form and yields tangible results.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

If you wish to disprove anthropogenic caused warming and to establish it's due to something else, it certainly does matter.

You are mistaken... My role is not to disprove anything. I deliberately assumed a generalized position that stated that the Earth is subject to cycles/systems/mechanisms (you choose whatever word you like) that generate fluctuations that are currently being blamed on anthropogenic sources.

The geological record provides irrefutable evidence - You are asking me to prove a negative.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Which my post addressed directly. It gave evidence for carbon dioxide and other increasingly abundant greenhouse gases causing warming, by direct measurements of longwave outgoing radiation, by direct evidence of
radiative cooling in the atmospheric slab above the troposphere, with detailed experiments which isolate known factors, and test those. Unknown factors always go in the error term, because we do not know about them, and cannot control them. To show that something is significant, it must be clearly important in spite of the error term.

Your post did no such thing. It provided incidental evidence at best... The comments and reference points not measured relative to anything except themselves. Regardless, I will tackle those issues in a later post in the next day or so.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

And humans died of natural causes before we invented guns. This is an irrelevant fact.

your response to my comment:
"What I have provided so far is proof that massive fluctuations in the climate/weather/surface conditions/rates of growth/etc, etc, etc, have occurred on multiple occasions in the absence of mankind..."

An irrelevant fact?.. Are you serious?.. This is the crux of the issue.

Last edited by Slim Chance; Mar 17th, 2010 at 01:19 AM..

Tonington

#23

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 18th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

Untestable? Exactly how do you propose to test this? How do you propose to provide comprehensive, scaled tests to support your position?

Do you know how science works? The first step is to formulate a hypothesis. If the physics are unknown, and you can't even postulate a theory, then you can't even attempt to design a study to test that hypothesis, let alone analyze the results.

Quote:

The fact is that any "test" to support either my position or your position would be so rife with assumptions and speculation - let alone the reality that only a minuscule number of the relevant variables could possible be factored-in - it would be useless... Any functional "test" is an impossibility at this point in time.

You don't have the statistical background to support this assertion. This is supposed to be an academic debate by the way. You haven't responded to any of my arguments, or shown that the tests they perform are unrealistic.

If you wanted to test that it's solar irradience, that can be done. If you want to test that it's internal variability like ENSO, you can test that. If you want to test that it is an unknown variable, you can't make any attribution with this position. You can't observe and document something that is unknown. Essentially that makes your position completely groundless.

I on the other hand have clearly stated what I think the observations mean. I have cited evidence, that is peer reviewed investigations with clearly repeatable and robust results.

Quote:

That said, what I have to back up my position are numerous events that dictate that these fluctuations have occurred in the past as a function of the existing natural mechanisms affecting the climate...

Right...not an issue. I already stipulated this to be the case. This is not evidence that any one of those mechanisms is the dominant forcing in our current climate shift.

Quote:

That in itself is concrete evidence that the system exists in some form and yields tangible results.

Again, nobody denies this to be true, and it doesn't support any particular mechanism. There are greenhouse warmings in the past as well you know...

Quote:

You are mistaken... My role is not to disprove anything. I deliberately assumed a generalized position that stated that the Earth is subject to cycles/systems/mechanisms (you choose whatever word you like) that generate fluctuations that are currently being blamed on anthropogenic sources.

Here's part of your opening statement:

I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

I have provided evidence of exactly that which you do not support. You haven't presented any evidence to refute this, or explain why you think that in light of results like those I referenced, your position is still sound.

You have to refute it. That is how science works. If you do not, and continue to say you don't support the observations, then you're sticking your head in the sand. Sorry, but that's the way science works.

Quote:

The geological record provides irrefutable evidence - You are asking me to prove a negative.

Refuting my citations is not proving a negative. You, are mistaken.

Quote:

Your post did no such thing. It provided incidental evidence at best...

What is incidental about measuring the outgoing long-wave radiation, and the spectral lines of absorption in the atmosphere? Please expand on this.

Quote:

An irrelevant fact?.. Are you serious?.. This is the crux of the issue.

Quite serious. It's irrelevant because:
1) No serious person denies that the climate changes.
2) Humans are a blip on the geologic record, so we shouldn't be expected to have a discernible influence on events that manifest on geologic time scales.
3) This lack of human influence, and evidence of climate change by non-human influences is just that, nothing more. You can't extrapolate from these. Which is what my comment about natural death and gun related deaths was meant to highlight...

Slim Chance

#24

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 19th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Do you know how science works?

As well if not better than yourself

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

The first step is to formulate a hypothesis. If the physics are unknown, and you can't even postulate a theory, then you can't even attempt to design a study to test that hypothesis, let alone analyze the results.

Excellent overview: As such, i will ask you a second time, regarding your comment about testability; How do you propose to prove that your references/hypotheses (relative to AGW) considering that they must fit in with the infinite number of variables that impact our global climatic system?

As I mentioned, based on the current degree of understanding, available technologies and base knowledge - it is impossible to do so with any degree of confidence or sense of realism.

Science does not exist in a vacuum. Testing a variety of individual hypotheses. generating individual results and later assuming that the interaction of those individual hypotheses/results is a simple summing of the numbers is not a reflection of reality... There is a dynamic component wherein those variables may not (ie. will) interact in a manner that is not a simple summing of the results.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

You don't have the statistical background to support this assertion. This is supposed to be an academic debate by the way. You haven't responded to any of my arguments, or shown that the tests they perform are unrealistic.

My background in statistics is likely more advanced than yours, so much so, that the first questions that the very first question that must be asked when reviewing any statistical reference relates to the underlying assumptions upon which the model is based. Without such an understanding, the numbers are irrelevant.

So, in the context which you made the above comment, I can support the contention that the capacity to:

"test" to support either my position or your position would be so rife with assumptions and speculation - let alone the reality that only a minuscule number of the relevant variables could possible be factored-in - it would be useless... Any functional "test" is an impossibility at this point in time."

as a general statement is, in fact, entirely accurate.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

If you wanted to test that it's solar irradience, that can be done. If you want to test that it's internal variability like ENSO, you can test that. If you want to test that it is an unknown variable, you can't make any attribution with this position. You can't observe and document something that is unknown. Essentially that makes your position completely groundless.

True... I do need to ask you a question first. I have reviewed the first few references that you initially provided and I am only able to source the abstracts related to those studies

(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.)

Can you supply me with a link to a publication that provides greater detail or is the abstract sufficient?

In terms of your contention that "You can't observe and document something that is unknown. Essentially that makes your position completely groundless."

You (your position) is far deeper into that conundrum than am I. How is it remotely possible that you can make a cause-effect statement relative to AGW when the scientific community does not know "what" they don't know, they also don't completely understand what they do know (in terms of all components related to climate and this issue).

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I on the other hand have clearly stated what I think the observations mean. I have cited evidence, that is peer reviewed investigations with clearly repeatable and robust results.

Do not take offence to this, but what you think the observations mean and what they are may be 2 different things... The goal is to prove - not to guess.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Right...not an issue. I already stipulated this to be the case. This is not evidence that any one of those mechanisms is the dominant forcing in our current climate shift.

... But it IS evidence that these mechanisms and resulting effects occurred without an anthropogenic component.... That's kind of an important distinction in this discussion.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Again, nobody denies this to be true, and it doesn't support any particular mechanism. There are greenhouse warmings in the past as well you know...

Again, it supports the notion that the mechanisms were at work in the absence of man and continue to operate despite man's impact.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Here's part of your opening statement:

I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

I have provided evidence of exactly that which you do not support. You haven't presented any evidence to refute this, or explain why you think that in light of results like those I referenced, your position is still sound.

You have to refute it. That is how science works. If you do not, and continue to say you don't support the observations, then you're sticking your head in the sand. Sorry, but that's the way science works.

Please respond to my request regarding the 2 references.. My refutation will follow immediately upon having an understanding of the entire study OR you agreeing to employ the abstract as a suitable contribution.

I have a response prepared in MS Word, but want to confirm via reading the entire document... Please advise.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Refuting my citations is not proving a negative. You, are mistaken.

You are asking me to disprove anthropogenic GW.. based on my position, that is asking me to prove a negative. Further, it is the AGW movement that has made the claims that anthropogenic sources are causing GW.. The onus is on you, not me.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

What is incidental about measuring the outgoing long-wave radiation, and the spectral lines of absorption in the atmosphere? Please expand on this.

that will be addressed as this is an area directly related to the 2 refernces I have mentioned above.... All in good time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Quite serious. It's irrelevant because:
1) No serious person denies that the climate changes.
2) Humans are a blip on the geologic record, so we shouldn't be expected to have a discernible influence on events that manifest on geologic time scales.
3) This lack of human influence, and evidence of climate change by non-human influences is just that, nothing more. You can't extrapolate from these. Which is what my comment about natural death and gun related deaths was meant to highlight...

Considering that you started your post with a question regarding if I knew how science works - it is highly disappointing that you stick to the ideal that massive fluctuations in the Earths (climate) history (in the absence of man) is irrelevant.

The fact is that any model and any hypothesis MUST fit into the known and understood mechanisms in which it seeks to analyze.

You are fast painting yourself into a corner in this discussion. At the time when you respond to my questions regarding the refernce studies, it will begin to become more clear.

AnnaG

#25

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 19th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by petros

I wonder if man has something to do with 90% of the ocean being killed off too? The ocean is far far bigger than the atmosphere so I bet it must be a lot harder to screw up. What do you figure T?

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It's just natural fluctuations.

darkbeaver

#26

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 19th, 2010

Any peer review must be suspect given the huge evidence of fraud. Peer reviewed science means little in the west these days.

Tonington

#27

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 20th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance

As well if not better than yourself

Then prove it. You can't submit a hypothesis which is untestable. That violates the requirement of falsifiability.

My statement can be falsified. You could try to show that the satellites are in error, or that radiative transfer is wrong, or that there is no warming occurring as would be expected given the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

But you haven't done that...

Quote:

Excellent overview: As such, i will ask you a second time, regarding your comment about testability; How do you propose to prove that your references/hypotheses (relative to AGW) considering that they must fit in with the infinite number of variables that impact our global climatic system?

Problem number one, science doesn't prove. If you know science better than me, you would know that. Proofs come from math, and math doesn't necessarily emulate reality. Science makes conclusions based on what is more likely. There is no other known mechanism to produce a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. We have measured the outgoing infrared radiation, and the re-radiated radiation.

They are consistent. If you would like, you can test for goodness of fit (chi-square statistics).

Quote:

As I mentioned, based on the current degree of understanding, available technologies and base knowledge - it is impossible to do so with any degree of confidence or sense of realism.

Nonsense. This is pure ignorance, and not in any way supported by empirical evidence.

Quote:

Science does not exist in a vacuum. Testing a variety of individual hypotheses. generating individual results and later assuming that the interaction of those individual hypotheses/results is a simple summing of the numbers is not a reflection of reality... There is a dynamic component wherein those variables may not (ie. will) interact in a manner that is not a simple summing of the results.

Yes...you're talking about models now. Coupled models. With feedbacks. Attribution studies are models...they confirm the observations and predictions based on the known radiative physics.

Quote:

My background in statistics is likely more advanced than yours, so much so, that the first questions that the very first question that must be asked when reviewing any statistical reference relates to the underlying assumptions upon which the model is based. Without such an understanding, the numbers are irrelevant.

How can you even presume that your statistical understanding is more advanced than mine? This is definitely a groundless assertion. Try to remember that I asked you to a scholarly debate...

So, with that in mind, what assumptions are you concerned with? Normality? Constant variance? Independent observations? No confounding variables? Is it the population the samples come from? Coefficient of determination? What is your problem?

Quote:

So, in the context which you made the above comment, I can support the contention that the capacity to:

"test" to support either my position or your position would be so rife with assumptions and speculation - let alone the reality that only a minuscule number of the relevant variables could possible be factored-in - it would be useless... Any functional "test" is an impossibility at this point in time."

Name one assumption that would be a problem for testing attribution of climate change.

Quote:

True... I do need to ask you a question first. I have reviewed the first few references that you initially provided and I am only able to source the abstracts related to those studies

(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.)

If you don't have journal access, and haven't tried emailing the author (this will often get you the .pdf) just read the HTML form when you search it on google scholar, ie --.

Quote:

(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.

Again, same thing, --.

Quote:

Can you supply me with a link to a publication that provides greater detail or is the abstract sufficient?

The abstract will only show you a condensed version of what was done, how it was done, and the conclusions. Depends what you're going to do with it. I'll note that you haven't actually commented on any of the other studies or findings yet.

Quote:

In terms of your contention that "You can't observe and document something that is unknown. Essentially that makes your position completely groundless."

Quote:

You (your position) is far deeper into that conundrum than am I. How is it remotely possible that you can make a cause-effect statement relative to AGW when the scientific community does not know "what" they don't know, they also don't completely understand what they do know (in terms of all components related to climate and this issue).

Well, we know that grrenhouse gas concentrations are going up. We know that we're the source. We know that the net flux at the top of the atmosphere is positive downward (more coming in than going out). We know that the observed changes in temperature in the stratosphere, and troposphere, are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse. These predictions were made years ago, and are now confirmed by our orbitting and ground based observatories.

Just because we don't know everything, does not mean that we cannot make meaningful predictions, or establish causation. It means that we can make the error terms smaller, and the uncertainty tighter, but that only strengthens the already solid p-values that researchers are getting now.

Your position on the other hand is unknown, impossible to produce predictions to test, and would simultaneously have to negate the known parameters and observations I gave above, while replacing them with something else.

Unlikely.

Quote:

Do not take offence to this, but what you think the observations mean and what they are may be 2 different things... The goal is to prove - not to guess.

The goal is not to prove. I already told you that science doesn't make proofs. My position is consistent with reality. In place of your unknown mechanism, I accept the explanation which is supported by observations, and is falsifiable, and is repeatable.

I take no offense at all to the fact that I could be wrong. Nobody has shown that yet though.

Quote:

... But it IS evidence that these mechanisms and resulting effects occurred without an anthropogenic component.... That's kind of an important distinction in this discussion.

Not really. It's only as important as explaining that the stock market has crashed before during this recession. It tells us nothing meaningful about the why, where, when, or anything else illustrative.

Quote:

Again, it supports the notion that the mechanisms were at work in the absence of man and continue to operate despite man's impact.

Yeah, how many times do you want to beat this dead horse? I stipulated that they exist. Now try to do something with it...

Quote:

Please respond to my request regarding the 2 references.. My refutation will follow immediately upon having an understanding of the entire study OR you agreeing to employ the abstract as a suitable contribution.

Done.

Quote:

You are asking me to disprove anthropogenic GW..

No, to refute what I have cited. That is what I am asking.

Quote:

...based on my position, that is asking me to prove a negative.

Refuting references is not proving a negative. This is becoming obtuse...

Quote:

Further, it is the AGW movement that has made the claims that anthropogenic sources are causing GW.. The onus is on you, not me.

Yes...which is why I ask you to refute my references. My references clearly state that the radiation budget is producing warming, that the predictions of where that energy will be trapped has been documented in the spectral lines predicted, and it has been documented that it is remaining within our atmosphere. Now the onus is on you to say what is wrong with these studies (and there are more than just those I cited).

Also, you still haven't made your case for why it's a natural cycle...notwithstanding previous glaciations/interglacials.

Is there anything coming on that front? Maybe something with a p-value at least?

Quote:

Considering that you started your post with a question regarding if I knew how science works - it is highly disappointing that you stick to the ideal that massive fluctuations in the Earths (climate) history (in the absence of man) is irrelevant.

It's not an ideal, it's a fact.

Quote:

The fact is that any model and any hypothesis MUST fit into the known and understood mechanisms in which it seeks to analyze.

Obviously. Maybe this will clarify it for you, why does it matter if man was around or not? What relevance does that have? There is a first time for everything, and it can't very well have happened if the situation never existed.

Quote:

You are fast painting yourself into a corner in this discussion.

Less talk, more walk. This is shaping up to be far less than I had hoped for...you haven't given me a single scholarly publication yet...I hope your next reply is more substantive.

L Gilbert

#28

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 20th, 2010

Judging from how humans have largely affected other sizeable aspects of our planet, I'd not be surprised if we've largely affected our climate, as well.

I'm slowly picking my way through this paper (terminology sometimes gets the best of me):

--

Is anyone here working in the field of climatology?

Tonington

#29

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 20th, 2010

No, but I work in biotech, and I know a thing or two about marine algaes (we need them to feed to larval fish and shellfish).

L Gilbert

#30

Re: AGW Grudge Match

Mar 20th, 2010

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

No, but I work in biotech, and I know a thing or two about marine algaes (we need them to feed to larval fish and shellfish).

I knew what you are messing with. Just wondered what other people's "expertise" was in and if any had anything to do with climatology.

Similar Threads

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