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:
AGW Grudge Match
- Thread starter Slim Chance
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Refuting my citations is not proving a negative. You, are mistaken.
What is incidental about measuring the outgoing long-wave radiation, and the spectral lines of absorption in the atmosphere? Please expand on this.
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...
As well if not better than yourself
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.
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.
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).
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.
... 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.
Again, it supports the notion that the mechanisms were at work in the absence of man and continue to operate despite man's impact.
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.
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.
that will be addressed as this is an area directly related to the 2 refernces I have mentioned above.... All in good time.
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.
Any peer review must be suspect given the huge evidence of fraud. Peer reviewed science means little in the west these days.
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...
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).
Nonsense. This is pure ignorance, and not in any way supported by empirical evidence.
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.
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?
Name one assumption that would be a problem for testing attribution of climate change.
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 Here.
Again, same thing, here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, how many times do you want to beat this dead horse? I stipulated that they exist. Now try to do something with it...
Done.
No, to refute what I have cited. That is what I am asking.
Refuting references is not proving a negative. This is becoming obtuse...
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?
It's not an ideal, it's a fact.
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.
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.
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):
http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/621/2010/bg-7-621-2010.pdf
Is anyone here working in the field of climatology?
I'm slowly picking my way through this paper (terminology sometimes gets the best of me):
http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/621/2010/bg-7-621-2010.pdf
Is anyone here working in the field of climatology?
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.That will be happening right now.
In terms of your falsifiability requirement; I notice that you have no compunction in forwarding insultingly simplistic positions without regard for the infinitely dynamic system in which your 1 or 2 little components reside.
Yeah... Tell me again about "proving" a cause-effect relationship.
I don't need to illuminate the error in your position based on falsification of data - although the chances are that the ethically and morally proponents of your position have been documented to stoop to that action.... Read on and you'll get a taste of
what's to come.
Science doesn’t “prove” – That’s your position then?... This being the case, I can state quite confidently that your entire position is without support in any way shape or form.
I should have known that you'd fall back to a position that splits hairs on semantics rather than deal with the core issue at hand.... I am fully expecting you to set-up your excuses for not "proving" your point based on something as watery as semantics.
Typical.
.. Then show me the models that are comprehensive - can explain the past and provide a reasonable forecast of the future... Can't do it can ya?
Mind you, I do enjoy the part about confirming observations relative to the “known” components…. That will work great if your model is comprised exclusively of known variables.
I’ll say it again for your benefit; in terms of this discussion, science doesn’t know “what” they don’t know and science doesn’t fully understand everything they are able to recognize.
Easy.. I see you assume a practice of preferential logic that is entirely selective in your "statistics" and then applies it as fact.
It's never occurred to you to seek info on the underlying assumptions. It's never entered your mind that those assumptions dictate the very outcome of the results?... You've made this perfectly clear that you have no comprehensive understanding of statistical modeling, nor have you ever developed a statistical model on your own.
Put simply - you do not comprehend the finer points as they relate to statistics.
See above... To add to my above observation - statistics are no substitute for facts/knowledge or information.
You are free to apply whatever techniques and compensatory measures to account for unknowns, inadequate sample sizes and outside variables. However, if 500 ducks died in a tar sands tailings pond, it is exactly 500 – not 469.2 ducks nor 544.9 ducks. Hopefully this gives you a glimpse into the difference between statistics and reality as it relates to applying stats to a model that incorporates (essentially) an infinite number of variables.
Sorry, but "reality" trumps stats everyday... You'd be wise to accept that fact.
Causation – in a definitive and complete manner... Or haven't you figured that out yet?
Got it... Thanks... Just as I suspected, I could have employed just the abstract.
As far as the concern about my not commenting on the studies - I responded a day ago regarding my request... If this somehow escaped your memory, I specifically made reference to a word doc that covered this issue... Your comment that I haven't done anything with "it" was answered in advance.
Wrong… This is the quintessential flaw in your position and ironically illustrates my point about your heavy reliance on statistics.
You do NOT know that it is completely due to anthropogenic source(s). Your position absolutely relies on the assumption that humanity is the source and therefore is the sole variable that is causing the fluctuations.
Why do you think that I’ve set the base-line for climatic variations in referring to historical episodes?.. It is documented proof that causation (historical) can be directly attributed to non-anthropogenic sources.
GHG's are going up?... Relative to which point in time? Relative to what sources?
Oh, that's right... As I stated clearly in an earlier post, you are prone to making statements that promote hypotheses that are measured relative to themselves only (or over a wee, tiny period of time)....
So, let's see how you respond to the question:
GHG's are going up relative to "what"; And how do you directly correlate that to anthropogenic global warming?
You can't, without relying heavily on partial statistical models that based on overly generous assumptions - AND - are incapable of describing the entire overall system/mechanisms.
Don't know everything?... In the scope that global climatic systems are intrinsically affected by both terrestrial and non-terrestrial variables (possibly only a minuscule fraction that have even been identified), let alone having a comprehensive understanding of those mechanisms that have been identified and studied - the big statement that you bet the farm on is "meaningful predictions"?
You're only fooling yourself Tonnington.. Not even the amoral fraudsters at the CRU or Suzuki himself swallow that bilge.
Your position takes no account of realism... Your first 2 reference points will be discussed in the following post
You have no provided anything that suggests you are correct… Consider the first 2 reference points as an example.
(M410_15e 355..357) (Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present)
These studies analyze the outgoing long wave radiation and link them to greenhouse gases. What neither of them have isolated, is the anthropogenic component… Excepting one reference study that considers speculative, anthropogenic volumes of Carbon Monoxide, these studies have nothing concrete to say about anthropogenic global warming.
.. Or, it is effective in illustrating that a stock market actually exists… The stock market can’t crash if it doesn’t exist, right?
You don’t like my reminding you of these multiple events as it provides a wonderful, natural and repeating baseline for cyclical climatic fluctuations.
In answer to your question of how many times I will bring this up – the answer is that it will be forwarded every time that you seek to employ grandiose statistical models that attempt to refute the past…. See above
See above and following post… Your references do not isolate sources of supposed ghg’s (1 exception being Carbon Monoxide which is not considered a major ghg)
.. Notwithstanding the multiple, historical episodes?..
That’s hilarious – really.
Why does it matter if man was around?.. Well, in a nutshell - this discussion is about anthropogenic GW… Emphasis on ANTHROPOGENIC.
I really hope that you’re not hitching your wagon to “there’s a first-time for everything”… That’s really sad.
As per your earlier concern, I’m happy to analyze your first 2 reference points.
Let’s get started shall we?
First, a quote from your previous post that represents a major flaw in your position:
We don't know this - YOU don't know this either.... You need to rely on this tremendous assumption as do the 2 studies in question.
Now, onto the studies… One of the first disclaimers in the study reads as follows:
“But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes-most importantly the hydrological cycle-that are not well understood.”
(Sound familiar regarding science doesn’t know “what” they don’t know and science doesn’t fully understand everything they are able to recognize?)
This is an extremely important deficiency on 2 levels:
“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.”
AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?
The next area of concern relates to this portion of the studies:
“We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3“.
How are the authors able to distinguish between emissions of CO2, CH4 and O3 from anthropogenic sources and natural sources? The answer is that there is no recognition of this in either paper.
This is a major deficiency. Without this relative measure, it is without merit to simply assume that all/most/some, etc are generated exclusively by man.
The sole accomplishment of both studies is to analyze the outgoing long wave
radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Not only is there no direct link that seeks to study the relationship of the obfuscation of outgoing long wave radiation with anthropogenic sources, one can also question their sample size. But, I’ll leave that point for next time.
Let’s get started shall we?
First, a quote from your previous post that represents a major flaw in your position:
We don't know this - YOU don't know this either.... You need to rely on this tremendous assumption as do the 2 studies in question.
Now, onto the studies… One of the first disclaimers in the study reads as follows:
“But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes-most importantly the hydrological cycle-that are not well understood.”
(Sound familiar regarding science doesn’t know “what” they don’t know and science doesn’t fully understand everything they are able to recognize?)
This is an extremely important deficiency on 2 levels:
- The forcing reference you submitted has a direct link to “several feedback processes such as the hydrological cycle. The authors of the study recognize that these components are not understood. This being the case and in the context of our discussion, it is a giant leap of faith to:
- Assess significant causation to anthropogenic sources.
- Assuming that the “other” feedback processes are of lesser importance and have a limited or non-existent relationship is egregious and presumptuous.
- Water vapour (ie hydrological cycle) is, by far and away, the most “important” greenhouse gases affecting the system. The specific quote is from the IPCC report and is as follows:
“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.”
AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?
The next area of concern relates to this portion of the studies:
“We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3“.
How are the authors able to distinguish between emissions of CO2, CH4 and O3 from anthropogenic sources and natural sources? The answer is that there is no recognition of this in either paper.
This is a major deficiency. Without this relative measure, it is without merit to simply assume that all/most/some, etc are generated exclusively by man.
The sole accomplishment of both studies is to analyze the outgoing long wave
radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Not only is there no direct link that seeks to study the relationship of the obfuscation of outgoing long wave radiation with anthropogenic sources, one can also question their sample size. But, I’ll leave that point for next time.
Ok.
Not part of my references at all, this is a given to most people, but I'll explain why.
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 Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research, and Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems.
It's pretty clear.
So, you're going to create a strawman that because we don't know precisely what the bounds are for some feedbacks, that we can't know anything useful?
Non-sequitur. And completely unrelated to measurements of outgoing long-wave radiation confirming that the earth is heating because of a radiative imbalance.
Fail.
The relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature is what they referred to when they mentioned the hydrologic cycle. Again, non-sequitur to observations of an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
Your problem is that you're using this one study in isolation. That's the significant error here. See above for anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide.
Not at all. You're not even addressing the study, you're addressing the introduction of their paper, and a fact which all climate scientists acknowledge. Do you have anything to say about the observations of the energy imbalance?
Water vapour concentration changes directly with temperature. Important for total contribution, and unimportant for the growing radiative forcing. If you read the IPCC report a little further, they make that point clearly.
All greenhouse gases.
They don't, others have. See above for carbon dioxide. For ozone changes, read anything you like in the literature about stratospheric ozone destruction, like this review article:
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION: A REVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND HISTORY
As for methane, it's a mixture of natural and anthropogenic sources. Read:
Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability
Because that wasn't their intended purpose in that study, others have done this work. Science is incremental, you don't reinvent the wheel with every study...
I didn't expect you to be unaware of human pollution altering atmospheric chemsitry...
I'm not assuming that, I'm assuming that you knew that. Anyways, you have some more reading now. Not a bad thing.
That's why I posted more than two references in my first post. You really shouldn't respond unless you've read the whole work. One study by itself is naked...
One can hire an "expert" to say what ever they want. All it takes is the right amount of cash.
WHile I don't believe humanity has had near the effect on global warming the gloom and doomers claim I do agree with them that we must improve our husbanding of the planet. I just don't want the economy destroyed in the process. The biggest fear is that at some point they will be telling the truth about a problem and will be ignored because they have told so many lies so many times about so many things.
Well then no-one can ever trust anyone because there's always someone around with more cash.
I really doubt the economy would be destroyed by everyone going green if speculation, corporate greed, real estate bubbles, etc. can't destroy it.
Besides, we really don't have a choice. If we screw up the planet too much, we'll die. And we don't have a clue where that "Screw up the planet too much" line is so we wouldn't know when or if we crossed it.
If that's the case won't the experts have all the cash eventually ? :lol:
How about you show me the same, and then explain how your model makes it likely that this is all the result of some natural cycle.
It's time for you to answer some questions, I've been indulging your selective parsing. Time for you to reciprocate.
If this is your position, then nobody can say anything useful about anything at all. Not a very good position considering the successes of modern science.
Good point. All I've seen so far from Slim is that GW is part of a natural cycle and the only evidence shown has been because it has been that way in the past. Well, sorry, but I used to have long hair in the past. That doesn't mean it is long now.