AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[captain morgan]

We've had this discussion previously and we have conflicting fundamental positions, it's pointless to continue. The fact is, unless I subscribe to your position, the studies/research/science that you've offered requires me to make giant leaps of faith.

The reference you made to not needing to understand the "system" in order to fit into the parameters of that system is interesting to say the least. Using your medical advances reference, you'll notice that the fact that as medical science barely understands the workings of the brain is reflected in the reality that brain-related diseases have not enjoyed anywhere close to the same advances as other non-brain related issues.

In terms of statistics, if your theories are dependent on stats, well, you are either already sunk or you are years away from legitimacy.

 

[Tonington]

The fact is, unless I subscribe to your position, the studies/research/science that you've offered requires me to make giant leaps of faith.

No, all that is required is that you read the research. Even attempting to understand it first before you quibble about my choice of words.

Using your medical advances reference, you'll notice that the fact that as medical science barely understands the workings of the brain is reflected in the reality that brain-related diseases have not enjoyed anywhere close to the same advances as other non-brain related issues.

Yet we don't know everything about diabetes, yet we still can know meaningful things that save lives, because we can assess cause and effect without knowing everything. We don't know everything about biochemistry, yet we can produce vaccines to eradicate an entire disease.

You said we can't show cause and effect without knowing the workings of the whole system. That is absurd. Vaccines, drugs, I wouldn't even say we know half of what there is to know, but we can still show cause and effect. We don't even have widespread DNA vaccines (third generation vaccines) yet for humans. We're working on them at work, we have working fish vaccines that use plasmids instead of attenuated or inactivated virus.

In terms of statistics, if your theories are dependent on stats, well, you are either already sunk or you are years away from legitimacy.

I never said the theories were dependent on stats. Theories are dependent on replication of results, robust results. You said we can't say anything meaningful unless we know everything, and that is simply untrue.

 

[captain morgan]

No, all that is required is that you read the research. Even attempting to understand it first before you quibble about my choice of words.

I have read it and my assessment still stands - the components that you've forwarded do not tie together. standing alone, sure, I have no problem with them, but the you expect me to take the leap of faith in correlating A with B with C, etc when those studies are (essentially) independent of each other (and the system).

Yet we don't know everything about diabetes, yet we still can know meaningful things that save lives

Apples and oranges... We know enough about physiology and diabetes that advances can be made... Employ the brain-related disease in an analysis and you'll find that advances in that area are no where near the success rates of things like diabetes... That has everything to do with the depth of understanding of the brain, let alone of the condition/disease.

You said we can't show cause and effect without knowing the workings of the whole system.

Science does not know near enough such that the gaps can be worked through... I asked you about providing retroactive explanations of past glaciation actions. You responded with a cursory explanation (which is all anyone can do), but you were unable to say "why" it happened (ie, explain the components/actions, etc.).

there is no way that anyone can make any kind of measured, definitive and conclusive statements about cause (as it relates to AGW) without having a much greater understanding of the system as a whole.

I'll use my automotive example again: Just cause you know how to install a fan belt, does not equate to knowing how to build an entire engine.

I never said the theories were dependent on stats. Theories are dependent on replication of results, robust results. You said we can't say anything meaningful unless we know everything, and that is simply untrue.

You stated that unknowns could be accounted for through statistical methods.... That alone is utter reliance.

 

[Tonington]

I have read it and my assessment still stands - the components that you've forwarded do not tie together. standing alone, sure, I have no problem with them, but the you expect me to take the leap of faith in correlating A with B with C, etc when those studies are (essentially) independent of each other (and the system).

There is no correlation involved. They are puzzle pieces that fit together. I'm expecting you to be able to assimilate multiple facts at the same time. It stands to reason, that if the atmosphere is not emitting as much radiation back to space, that the Earth warms. It stands to reason, that if we can isolate the spectra where the radiation is being absorbed, then we can identify the cause of the warming. It stands to reason, that if the isotope signature precludes all but sources of combustion, that we have very few causes left capable of satisfying the above criteria. And finally, we have the glaciation cycles. As the deniers love to point out, glaciation ends with temperature rising before carbon dioxide. In this case carbon dioxide is rising first. Humans are burning more carbon, altering the use of land, the atmosphere is losing oxygen, and we're releasing gigatonnes of stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Every year.

There is no missing source of carbon dioxide here. In fact if you add up the historical accounting of human energy consumption, there is enough carbon dioxide to push the atmosphere to a concentration well above the 392 ppm we're at now. It would be closer to 500 ppm. It's not that high because the oceans-as well as the terrestrial biosphere are taking that carbon in- are absorbing that carbon dioxide, and acidifying in the process.

There is nothing left to explain this except industrial combustion of fossil fuels.

Apples and oranges... We know enough about physiology and diabetes that advances can be made... Employ the brain-related disease in an analysis and you'll find that advances in that area are no where near the success rates of things like diabetes... That has everything to do with the depth of understanding of the brain, let alone of the condition/disease.

No, it is not apples and oranges. You said
"That said, the "system" must be fully understood before anyone is capable of claiming cause & effect as it relates to the system... There is absolutely no way around this reality. "

Now you're just moving goal posts, again. That we must know everything fully to make meaningful and true discoveries is simply not true. There is no apples and oranges. You said there is 'absolutely no way around this'. Yet everything we've ever learned about the universe around us has been in a system where we do not know the full workings of the system. We don't have that kind of knowledge for any natural system around us, yet we know a great deal more than we did without science, can assess the causes of events just fine, and have made great advances because of such study.

I'll use my automotive example again: Just cause you know how to install a fan belt, does not equate to knowing how to build an entire engine.

Yeah, umm you're actually making my point for me. I'm not the one who says you need to know everything about the engine to actually make correct interpretations about it.

I don't need to be able to build an entire engine to know that a squeaky alternator belt needs to be tightened or replaced...

You stated that unknowns could be accounted for through statistical methods.... That alone is utter reliance.

I said everything else goes into the error term. If my signal is so strong that everything else doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter that I don't know what accounts for 0.8 % of the variation in the data. My variable of interest, and the blocked variables account for the other 99.2%. The 0.8% could be from a variety of factors that we will never know, or that are so numerous, that there are no gains to be made by further attempting to control all of the variability.

That's not reliance. It's insignificant. If you had any idea how the scientific method works, you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things.

And they are ridiculous.

 

[captain morgan]

There is no correlation involved. They are puzzle pieces that fit together.

Good analogy... Running with it, your scenario represents a puzzle that is missing most of the pieces... makes it kinda tough to complete the puzzle, don't it?

I'm expecting you to be able to assimilate multiple facts at the same time. It stands to reason, that if the atmosphere is not emitting as much radiation back to space, that the Earth warms. It stands to reason, that if we can isolate the spectra where the radiation is being absorbed, then we can identify the cause of the warming. It stands to reason, that if the isotope signature precludes all but sources of combustion, that we have very few causes left capable of satisfying the above criteria. And finally, we have the glaciation cycles. As the deniers love to point out, glaciation ends with temperature rising before carbon dioxide. In this case carbon dioxide is rising first. Humans are burning more carbon, altering the use of land, the atmosphere is losing oxygen, and we're releasing gigatonnes of stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Every year.

Great.. If these are the magical factors that are driving the warming trend today, what was responsible for those multiple episodes millenia ago when the swings were much greater and man wasn't around to be blamed?

See the catch-22 here? Accurately identify and explain that system and you risk uncovering the non-anthropogenic causation that is responsible for this contemporary episode... Don't identify and explain the system and you are left with inadequate and incomplete theories based on conjecture.

If your theory/science/research is accurate and (truly) comprehensive, it will provide explanation/causation of those prior periods of glaciation.. The reality, is that contemporary science cannot do this, but wants so badly to claim mastery over assessing causation today.

Sorry Tonnington, there is no way around this.

There is no missing source of carbon dioxide here. In fact if you add up the historical accounting of human energy consumption, there is enough carbon dioxide to push the atmosphere to a concentration well above the 392 ppm we're at now. It would be closer to 500 ppm. It's not that high because the oceans-as well as the terrestrial biosphere are taking that carbon in- are absorbing that carbon dioxide, and acidifying in the process.

.. And?

BTW - I assume that the acidifying process is a reference to the oceans. As the temperature rises, the capacity of the water to maintain CO2 in suspension falls... Call it nature's regulator if you will and even allowing for a lag in time, we can now point to the oceans as a major emitter of CO2.

There is nothing left to explain this except industrial combustion of fossil fuels.

See above comment re: oceans

No, it is not apples and oranges. You said
"That said, the "system" must be fully understood before anyone is capable of claiming cause & effect as it relates to the system... There is absolutely no way around this reality. "

Now you're just moving goal posts, again. That we must know everything fully to make meaningful and true discoveries is simply not true. There is no apples and oranges. You said there is 'absolutely no way around this'. Yet everything we've ever learned about the universe around us has been in a system where we do not know the full workings of the system. We don't have that kind of knowledge for any natural system around us, yet we know a great deal more than we did without science, can assess the causes of events just fine, and have made great advances because of such study.

i was being generous and you'll noticed by my capitulation in moving from full understanding to (basically) functional understanding that I've moved the goal-posts closer to you.

That a problem or would you prefer that I stick with full/complete understanding?

Yeah, umm you're actually making my point for me. I'm not the one who says you need to know everything about the engine to actually make correct interpretations about it.

You are the one saying it Tonnington.

I don't need to be able to build an entire engine to know that a squeaky alternator belt needs to be tightened or replaced...

But knowing how an engine works sure helps a helluva lot if the you are attempting to explain how engines work (other than just the belts)... And make no mistake, that is where the alarmist position fails - utterly.

No one (and by that I mean gvts and individuals) is prepared to "take one's word" for it that the science is sound when there is no possible way to define the climatic system in a manner that is capable of identifying all of the input factors.

I said everything else goes into the error term. If my signal is so strong that everything else doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter that I don't know what accounts for 0.8 % of the variation in the data. My variable of interest, and the blocked variables account for the other 99.2%. The 0.8% could be from a variety of factors that we will never know, or that are so numerous, that there are no gains to be made by further attempting to control all of the variability.

And who determines what "strong" is? How can one even assess a judgement of relativity when you can't even identify the components of the system?

It morphs into the realm of pure subjectivity at that point, doesn't it?

That's not reliance. It's insignificant. If you had any idea how the scientific method works, you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things.

And they are ridiculous.

Then abandon the stats then if they are tha insignificant. Like that'll happen anytime soon.

Like I said last time, you're either sunk or years away from legitimacy.

 

[Tonington]

Good analogy... Running with it, your scenario represents a puzzle that is missing most of the pieces... makes it kinda tough to complete the puzzle, don't it?

Yeah, so you say. All of the puzzles we have are probably mostly missing. It doesn't matter. We learn new things incrementally, and we know enough now to identify the cause of the warming.

Great.. If these are the magical factors that are driving the warming trend today, what was responsible for those multiple episodes millenia ago when the swings were much greater and man wasn't around to be blamed?

They aren't magical, they are what they are.

Go back and read the posts. Milankovitch, which is orbital forcing.

If your theory/science/research is accurate and (truly) comprehensive, it will provide explanation/causation of those prior periods of glaciation.. The reality, is that contemporary science cannot do this, but wants so badly to claim mastery over assessing causation today.

No...identifying the cause now isn't dependent on identifying causes of mutually exclusive events. But, a big but, our understanding of those past events does help us to place limits on the system, by knowing the constraints. How is it you can't understand this?

BTW - I assume that the acidifying process is a reference to the oceans. As the temperature rises, the capacity of the water to maintain CO2 in suspension falls... Call it nature's regulator if you will and even allowing for a lag in time, we can now point to the oceans as a major emitter of CO2.

Yes it is a reference to the oceans. I've explained this to you before, the solubility is not solely dependent on the temperature. It's also dependent on the partial pressure of the gas above the gas-liquid interface. So when more gas is added, the partial pressure increases, and more gas dissolves into the liquid.

The temperature rise is small compared to the change in partial pressure. Do the math, what percentage has the temperature changed by? What percentage has the partial pressure changed by. Partial pressure is orders of magnitude larger than the temperature change. The ocean is becoming a larger sink of carbon. When the carbon dioxide dissolves, it becomes carbonic acid. That's acidifying the ocean. And there are huge problems associated with lowering the pH of a basic ocean.

You are the one saying it Tonnington.

Yes, I am the one saying that we don't need to understand the full workings of the system as you said. It's demonstrably wrong.

But knowing how an engine works sure helps a helluva lot if the you are attempting to explain how engines work (other than just the belts)... And make no mistake, that is where the alarmist position fails - utterly.

How would you know? You don't even read the links I give you. You can't even get the basics of what science is, and how it is performed.

No one (and by that I mean gvts and individuals) is prepared to "take one's word" for it that the science is sound when there is no possible way to define the climatic system in a manner that is capable of identifying all of the input factors.

You don't define a system by all it's inputs or factors. A system is defined by characteristics. As time goes by we understand more of those characteristics.

What's your definition of a car? I'm sure it doesn't list all of the component parts...

And who determines what "strong" is? How can one even assess a judgement of relativity when you can't even identify the components of the system?

OK, are you even reading what I post? Did you read the difference between what the variable explained in variation, as opposed to the error term? The error term is everything else. Strength in statistics comes from well known tests. There is no subjectivity involved, either the test fails or succeeds.

Signal to noise ratio is one such test.

It morphs into the realm of pure subjectivity at that point, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest. There is no subjectivity at all. Your data will either fail or pass the test.

Then abandon the stats then if they are tha insignificant. Like that'll happen anytime soon.

Like I said last time, you're either sunk or years away from legitimacy.

You just don't understand. The stats tell you which variables are significant, and which are insignificant. It's not the statistics that are insignificant. We simply don't need to know all of the factors to make informed decisions. It's not feasible at all to say that is necessary or required, and it shows your misconceptions of the scientific method.

 

[captain morgan]

All of the puzzles we have are probably mostly missing. It doesn't matter. We learn new things incrementally, and we know enough now to identify the cause of the warming.

Climatic studies being the puzzle with the most missing pieces.

As far as your contention that "we know enough to identify the cause of warming", well, apparently that is not the case as this entire debate is about just that.

They aren't magical, they are what they are.

Go back and read the posts. Milankovitch, which is orbital forcing.

.. And they are all natural sources.

No...identifying the cause now isn't dependent on identifying causes of mutually exclusive events.

I can't believe that you still cling to this, but that is your prerogative... But to clarify, you are saying that you need not know the components, parameters or mechanisms of "these mutually exclusive events" in order to claim mastery and understanding of the components, parameters and mechanisms?

What can I say?

Yes it is a reference to the oceans. I've explained this to you before, the solubility is not solely dependent on the temperature. It's also dependent on the partial pressure of the gas above the gas-liquid interface. So when more gas is added, the partial pressure increases, and more gas dissolves into the liquid.

But temperature is a major factor.

Is the message here that as the pressures rise, it prevents CO2 from exiting the oceans in a gaseous form?

Will that potentially result in more precipitate falling out in the form of CaCO3? If so, CaCO3 is a "salt" (laymans terms), that will result in altering the pH of the oceans.

The other side of the equation is that as the oceans absorb CO2 (and acidify) that loss of CO2 from the atmosphere will result in differential (ambient) pressures which will in turn realize a corresponding absorption/release from the oceans.

.. Not only is this a "chicken or egg" scenario, it also, takes us right back to the "warming" of the waters and their loss of CO2 (in one form or another)... Which causes which and what are the corresponding effects and counter effects?

The temperature rise is small compared to the change in partial pressure. Do the math, what percentage has the temperature changed by? What percentage has the partial pressure changed by.

Again, the direction that you are taking this demands that I assume your scientific philosophy and make later leaps of faith in assessing causation... Alter the underlying philosophy and the causation alters the results as well.

Partial pressure is orders of magnitude larger than the temperature change. The ocean is becoming a larger sink of carbon. When the carbon dioxide dissolves, it becomes carbonic acid. That's acidifying the ocean. And there are huge problems associated with lowering the pH of a basic ocean.

See above: As the water temp increases, it's capacity to hold CO2 in suspension is limited and is released in more than one form... The system balances itself Tonnington (within a range of course).

Yes, I am the one saying that we don't need to understand the full workings of the system as you said. It's demonstrably wrong.

Great, demonstrate it, but employ a realistic comparison or provide a definitive and conclusive model that can not be refuted... 'Til then, I have offered enough examples of conflicting theory that demonstrate otherwise.

How would you know? You don't even read the links I give you. You can't even get the basics of what science is, and how it is performed.

Ahhh, the mantra.... Like I've stated on numerous occasions now, I have read the studies and they do not tie the entire package together.. They have been analyses of individual elements proposed to have an impact within a complex system, but none of them - I repeat - none of them provide any significant (statistical or practical) support for the notion that anthropogenic sources are significantly altering the system.

That said, refrain from lecturing me about "how science works", hell you are suggesting that you need not understand the vast majority of the mechanisms within a system in order to provide a comprehensive understand of 'said' systems (an understanding that doesn't rely heavily on statistical methodologies - remember?).

You don't define a system by all it's inputs or factors. A system is defined by characteristics.

A "system" is described by it's characteristics and is defined by its components.

What's your definition of a car? I'm sure it doesn't list all of the component parts...

I suppose that this is where our root problem lies.... In my definition, a car is not a paper-clip

OK, are you even reading what I post? Did you read the difference between what the variable explained in variation, as opposed to the error term? The error term is everything else. Strength in statistics comes from well known tests. There is no subjectivity involved, either the test fails or succeeds.

Signal to noise ratio is one such test.

The error term is "everything else"... In teh case of understanding the Earth's climatic system(s), "everything else" in terms of our contempory understand is damned near everything... This is what I'm trying to get across to you. Contemporary science doesn't know 'what they don't know' let alone fully understand what they do know.

There is no subjectivity at all. Your data will either fail or pass the test.

Conveniently based on your fundamental assumptions and scientific philosophy (which we've discussed there are many).

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, ain't it?

You just don't understand.

Yeah.. That must be it.

 

[petros]

What's the link beteween nutations and climate change?

 

[Tonington]

Yeah.. That must be it.

It is. You can't even admit that we don't require full kit knowledge of a system to delineate cause and effect.

You can't even see that the change in temperature of 0.27% compared to a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 36% is what is driving the acidification in the ocean. Charles' law is proportional. Henry's law is proportional. One of those proportions has changed by an amount orders of magnitude larger than the other.

I'm finished talking science with someone who won't try to understand it. It's an effort in futility on my part. I have no idea what kind of science training you have, but it's clear that it is inadequate for you to speak with such authority on what conditions must be met.

What's the link beteween nutations and climate change?

Insolation.

 

[petros]

Insolation.

And? Can climate drive variations in nutations?

 

[Tonington]

No, nutations are impacted by tidal forces. Climate responds to nutations, it can't cause them.

 

[petros]

Really? Keep looking. I know it's new to you but keep looking.

 

[Tonington]

Instead of beating about the bush, why don't you just post what's on your mind.

 

[petros]

Instead of beating about the bush, why don't you just post what's on your mind.

I'll quote you" I post stuff in hopes it inspires someone to look for themselves".

Come on, horse....start drinking!

 

[AnnaG]

The earth in balance eh.. sounds like the type gobbledygook that's intended to obfuscate the obvious fact that there is no evidence AGW is occurring, that none of climate models on which the premise is based have ever been able to predict anything.. that the whole industry of AGW now is flailing about with wilder and wilder fear mongering. Nothing is panning out for them and they look increasingly ridiculous.

So all the machinations of this planet have nothing to do with each other? You're about as scientifically minded as morgan, eanassir, and MHz. That is, not very.

I know it's tough to get your arms around this, Anna, since you such a pliable mark for con artists.. but keep at it.. you might see the light some day.

I know it's tough to get your tiny mind around this, dribble, since you haven't a clue about science, but you might as well resign yourself to being in the lower end of average in the intelligence scale.

 

[Tonington]

Right, except when I post something it's either my understanding of something, or a link to a direct source.

I know what a nutation is. I know why nutations happen.

Why don't you explain how climate can impact the gravity exerted on Earth by the Sun and Moon.

 

[AnnaG]

No, nutations are impacted by tidal forces. Climate responds to nutations, it can't cause them.

Really? Keep looking. I know it's new to you but keep looking.

climate causes nutation - Google Scholar

 

[petros]

Oh goody. Someone who actually looked. Thanks Anna.

Are nutations consistant? Has there been recent changes?

What happened January 8 2005?

 

[AnnaG]

Oh goody. Someone who actually looked. Thanks Anna.

Are nutations consistant? Has there been recent changes?

What happened January 8 2005?

My pleasure, Pet. But I didn't see any of those indicating that climate causes nutations. More like the reverse. Please point one out if you saw one that did.
I can't remember Jan 8 let alone what happened. lol

 

[Tonington]

My pleasure, Pet. But I didn't see any of those indicating that climate causes nutations. More like the reverse. Please point one out if you saw one that did.
I can't remember Jan 8 let alone what happened. lol

Exactly. I see plenty of examples using nutations to predict future climate parameters, but none predicting nutations from climate. The lack of a mechanism to explain such an association is a problem