Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results., page 11

Pages: << 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 12:32 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by stanguilles7

I stated that one cant simplify science into soundbites, and that saying 'its been warm before' is not a realistic refutation of climate science.

You haven't presented any "climate science" to refute. I simply began the process of offering up scientific data by which an actual discussion can be had. I haven't accused you of anything other than imprudently castigating another member for doing the same thing you've been doing.

No refutations of any "climate science" has been made by me, nor has any "climate science" been presented by you.

Why don't you stop engaging in soundbites and actually present some climate science?

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 12:40 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
\ happened exactly like he said , bam proof.

This has never happened with APG, LITERALLY everything that happens they claim proves it. Yet at no time has a criteria for establishing proof been set.

This is false. Increased greenhouse effect from anthropogenic addition of gases predicts

a) more such gases observed in the atmosphere
b) increased infrared flux from IR emissivity
c) stratospheric cooling and "falling" (in particular this one directly distinguishes greenhouse gases from increased solar forcing!! www.realclimate.org...)
d) increased polar vs equatorial increase
e) enhanced nighttime vs daytime temperature increases

All of these are specifically connected with the particular physics of increased greenhouse gases as opposed to other mechanisms of climate change and are falsifiable.

All are experimentally observed facts.

The patterns of observations do not fit observed data unless anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases (above the natural baseline) are included, and they dominate the changes in the data.

This is alarming in science as every theory must have a set standard of criteria that if not met make the theory invalid. With APG, the only thing they promise is to see with clear perception what "will" happen in a long off future that never comes. As evidence of this, I grew up in the 80s, in the 90s they said that we would see the signs right now and all would see it to be true. Well where are the signs? I don't see them!

So because you don't see them doesn't mean that the scientists who do this for a living don't see them.

They do. In reality, the observational evidence has turned out pretty much the way that the mainstream predictions ten or 20 years predicted that they would.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 12:50 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by mbkennel

Where does the heat that sustains us all come from? From within? Does the earth warm us from its internal heat, with our atmospheric blanket keeping us warm? NO, if that were the case we wouldn't have seasons. We have seasons because our planet rotates on a 23 degree axis. This fact alone should have let you know how much the sun effects our climate.

Now I have just established a known fact that the sun controls climate at a grand scale that only involves earths orbit around it correct?

I will assume you agree and move on.

Ergo we know the earths climate is controlled primarily by the sun. I in my first paragraph established another known fact, the suns output is not steady, it changes at least in a 11 year cycle.

Would you agree with these facts?

Yes, the seasonal variation is driven by changes in angle and electromagnetic flux.

The variation in the solar cycle is small and directly observed.

Once again I will assume so and move along.

So is it that hard of a stretch to make the connection for you that the sun has ups and downs and that as the primary controller of our climate, has the most effect above anyother factor on our climate?

Now having established the fact that the most likely source of any supposed "global warming" is easily identifiable and outside our ability to effect, what's the big deal besides greenies/ econazis trying to tax us for their own gain?

Because the experimental evidence shows otherwise. The Sun has been measured with precision instruments for decades and the pattern of fluctuations shows no trend and no clear influence in the last 50 years on climate, as opposed to greenhouse gas increase.

Your notion that the Sun is important is true, but it is only a starting point for scientific investigation as "something to look in to", in addition to the greenhouse forcing. Both were known physics many many decades ago. Since then there has been a large amount of work and experimental observation.

It is total electromagnetic radiation received by the surface which is the dominant influence on climate. The Sun contributes nearly all of it, of course, but this amount is very stable. The question is what is causing the variation.

The variation is caused in large measure due to human-induced changes int he atmospheric composition which changes the infrared properties of the atmosphere. This is experimental fact.

It is an experimental fact that the patterns of climate change seen are not commensurate with the physical hypothesis that Sun forcing has increased, because then equator would get hotter than poles, day hotter than night, and stratosphere would get hot, in contradistinction to the experimentally observed facts.

You are a few decades too late to the debate.

The observed facts are commensurate with an increase in greenhouse forcing, and this increase has been directly measured as well, and the change in atmospheric chemistry has been measured and it has been proven to be a consequence of human emission of previously fossilized greenhouse gases plus some other synthetic ones.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 01:48 AM by inverslyproportional

reply to post by mbkennel

So ya you quoted me, but you overlook the importance of my statement. In science every single theory has to have an exact set of criteria that either prove or disprove said theory.

There are not now, nor have there ever been a set criteria that PROVES APG. This was done intentionally, so as to make it impossible to disprove. You can't disprove somthing that doesn't happen, as in you can't disprove their criteria as none are set. So you can't disprove the theory, as there really is no theory to disprove in the first place.

For example, in elementary school we had a science fair. I wanted to find out if X was real. To do this, first I make a hypothesis, then I make an outlined set of criteria that if met proves X is real. If they are not met in any way at any time by myself or anyone who replicates my experiment, then X is not real.

The above is what we call the scientific method, google it if you don't believe me. No criteria has ever been set to either prove or disprove APG, which makes it unscientific, ergo not science.

Which still brings me back to square one, this is political rhetoric and nothing more.

After further review, I conclude using the scientific method this is an exercise in the futile. I will bid you good night sir as there is obviously no amount of logical discourse to be had from our further interaction.

Just because of my curious nature though, exactly what would it take to convince you? If you can't think of anything than that in itself is a telling realization.

edit on 31-7-2012 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 02:09 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by mbkennel

So ya you quoted me, but you overlook the importance of my statement. In science every single theory has to have an exact set of criteria that either prove or disprove said theory.

Not that simple. The theory has to fit in with other parts of accepted theory and explain observational and experimental data better than alternatives.

There are not now, nor have there ever been a set criteria that PROVES APG. This was done intentionally, so as to make it impossible to disprove. You can't disprove somthing that doesn't happen, as in you can't disprove their criteria as none are set. So you can't disprove the theory, as there really is no theory to disprove in the first place.

Again, this is false. There are specific, observable physical consequences related to the specific physical mechanism of increased greenhouse forcing. There are quantitative estimates and consistency checks. These have been observed. What do you think people have been doing for the last 50 years in the field? It's perfectly falsifiable and other mechanisms could have been potentially explanatory. Facts turn out a certain way.

There is a strong theory based on known chemistry and physics, just as for all sorts of other physical processes which have not generated political opposition. There is mindless pseudo-skepticism on this, and not on auroral physics, for example, because the consequences of the observations and theory lead to politically inconvenient inferences.

In a nutshell, for humans to be responsible for increased climate change from greenhouse gases you need to observe

1) quantitatively significant increase in such gases, in situ, in the atmosphere, quantitatively commensurate with emissions. (yes, experimental data show so)

2) a physical mechanism relating this change to changes in electromagnetic radiation which changes atmospheric boundary conditions (yes, experimental data show so)

3) predictions from the change in this greenhouse effect upon patterns of climate change consistent with the dominance of this mechanism over other potential forcing mechanisms (yes, experimental data show so)

what more do you want? What observations & experiments would be convincing?

What is the differential diagnosis of greenhouse forcing from X (alternate explanation) and what do the experimental and theoretical computations show?

edit on 31-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 08:15 AM by Boomer1941

reply to post by mc_squared

"Berkeley team"...Berkeley says it all...more data manipulation huh?

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 08:21 AM by rickymouse

Just because there are people who desire to profit extensively off of climate change doesn't mean that this Global warming thing isn't real. People try to profit off almost everything. You can't deny the existence of global warming by using greed or power hungry as a reason. We'd have to deny the existance of everything happening in the world if we did that

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 11:02 AM by Studenofhistory

It's time to put this fallacy to rest once and for all.

Yes, CO2 is rising and yes, fossil carbon in the atmosphere is rising and yes oxygen is dropping but that is only relevant if rising global temperatures (of which there hasn't been a new record high since 1997) are caused by rising CO2. The link below shows quite clearly that ice core samples reveal that CO2 lags behind air temperatures. Since the cause always has to precede the effect, CO2 can NOT possibly be causing rising air temperatures. If the two are connected at all, then rising air temperatures are causing rising CO2 levels and the oceans are the mechanism whereby this happens. Every planet in our solar system is getting warmer (says NASA). Are we to assume that humans are causing those planets to heat up too?

CO2 lags air temperature changes

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 12:29 PM by MysticStrummer

Yes. It's time to put this denier fallacy to rest once and for all. It's well known that CO2 lags behind temperatures. CO2 doesn't start the rise in temperatures. CO2 amplifies that rise, which causes more CO2 to be released, which further amplifies the rise in temperatures, which causes more CO2 to be released, which further amplifies the rise in temperatures, and so on. There is no controversy to be found on that subject, much like the subject of natural cycles, but deniers seem to think there is.

www.realclimate.org...

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.dailykos.com...

The link posted by Studentofhistory even says this.

edit on 31-7-2012 by MysticStrummer because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2012 by MysticStrummer because: Added links

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 02:01 PM by mbkennel

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
It's time to put this fallacy to rest once and for all.

Yes, CO2 is rising and yes, fossil carbon in the atmosphere is rising and yes oxygen is dropping but that is only relevant if rising global temperatures (of which there hasn't been a new record high since 1997) are caused by rising CO2. The link below shows quite clearly that ice core samples reveal that CO2 lags behind air temperatures. Since the cause always has to precede the effect, CO2 can NOT possibly be causing rising air temperatures.

That's simplisitic baloney. CO2 directly causes rising temperatures because of the radiative physics of the atmosphere.

Why do you accept indirect analysis of paleoclimate which requires some delicate physical analysis and interpretation by expert scientists, and don't accept the much more robust direct observational evidence using technological instrumentation over the whole planet?

The CO2 emitted that paleoclimate record is NOT the fossil CO2 being dug up. That was CO2 in rocks and ocean. The amount oscillated over many thousands of years between semi-sequestered areas and the atmosphere during climate change---and temperature changes from other effects can cause those to start emitting. The change in solar forcing from astronomical events over tens of thousands of years turn out to be quantitatively very insufficient to explain the observed fluctuations in prehistorical climate. If you add in additional feedback from greenhouse gases, then you get the observed magnitudes---meaning that back in paleolithic times, CO2 was also a greenhouse gas and warmed the planet.

During that whole period, the fossil CO2 in coal was locked, completely inert in the ground. That was there many millions of years earlier. Now humans are digging it out and doing something which is unprecedented since most mammals evolved.

What you should learn from the paleoclimate record is that there are additional sources of CO2 (and methane) not from fossil fuels but which will start to come out and go into the atmosphere as a result of higher temperatures, making the problem even worse. Think of burning coal like igniting "lighter fluid" for the planet, and then the additional sequestered but non-fossil CO2 as, well, slower to ignite coal.
Think of our civilization as a IQ=1 shrimp on the barbie.

If the two are connected at all, then rising air temperatures are causing rising CO2 levels and the oceans are the mechanism whereby this happens. Every planet in our solar system is getting warmer (says NASA). Are we to assume that humans are causing those planets to heat up too?

No. We are to assume that humans are causing Earth to heat up if there is convincing experimental evidence in quantitative accuracy with the proposed mechanism whereby human influence causes additional heating.

There is this evidence. It is very strong now.

edit on 31-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 03:56 PM by winnar

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012

And what is driving these natural cycles?

I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.

edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

We wont answer because its a stupid question. What was driving these natural cycles before mans industrialization and before we even showed up?

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 04:11 PM by winnar

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox

We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?

Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.

Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?

Repeat. over and over. Scientists have not forgotten about the Sun. Obviously if it weren't there climate would be really cold, being in thermal equilibrium with microwave background radiation at 3K instead of 310K.

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

Examining the Sun as a driver of climate change was a good question in 1960's and 1970's---the pros thought of all of that, plus many more things, and set out to measure them. At some point with a large amount of effort they got an answer. The answer was not a few people wanted to hear because it conflicts with their political desires, but mother Nature doesn't care about politics.

By the way, look at the scale on the Y axis of the total solar irradiance since 1980. The size of the solar cycle is about 1.5 parts in 1366. There is a slight downtrend, and from 2005 through about 2008 (where the graph ends) an extended low point. Climate has been getting hotter during that time. There is little correlation of observed climate with solar cycles recently.

The second page gives reference to at least two studie (Foster/Rahmstorf,Lean/Rind) which quantitatively estimate effect of Sun on recent climate. Their conclusions are that the effect is negligible to slightly cooling. Observations show a significant warming which is consistent with the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases and lowered aerosol pollution.

edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Ya they havent forgotten about the sun and I am sure they know literally every aspect of the sun and how it affects earth.

But then?

news.softpedia.com...

Why wasnt this known until recently and what else is going on that we dont know about?

Do you smell unicorn piss? What drove the natural cycles 300000 years ago went temperature shot up and then back down? What is driving this cycle roughly every 120k years? Dont think I didnt notice you conveniently separate man from nature earlier either.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 06:53 PM by mbkennel

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012

And what is driving these natural cycles?

I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.

edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

We wont answer because its a stupid question.

It's not a stupid question. The question is what "natural cycles" explain observervations now?

What was driving these natural cycles before mans industrialization and before we even showed up?

Slow changes in solar forcing from astrophysical Milankovitch cycles (orbital changes) coupled with emission of naturally sequestered greenhouse gases. These are longer time scales.

These are not happening at present with any substantial magnitude to explain the current data. The change in solar forcing is measured and shown not to be significant. Next, current data shows that the biosphere is actually absorbing a large amount of the fossil CO2 which we are emitting. This is why the oceans are acidifying. The specific mechanisms which drove Ice Age cycles are proven not to be significant for current climate change.

And besides, denialists also have to explain, quantitatively with physical mechanism, how the added greenhouse gases and their measured increase in IR emissivity will not warm climate.

edit on 31-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 06:57 PM by mbkennel

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox

We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?

Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.

Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?

Repeat. over and over. Scientists have not forgotten about the Sun. Obviously if it weren't there climate would be really cold, being in thermal equilibrium with microwave background radiation at 3K instead of 310K.

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

Examining the Sun as a driver of climate change was a good question in 1960's and 1970's---the pros thought of all of that, plus many more things, and set out to measure them. At some point with a large amount of effort they got an answer. The answer was not a few people wanted to hear because it conflicts with their political desires, but mother Nature doesn't care about politics.

By the way, look at the scale on the Y axis of the total solar irradiance since 1980. The size of the solar cycle is about 1.5 parts in 1366. There is a slight downtrend, and from 2005 through about 2008 (where the graph ends) an extended low point. Climate has been getting hotter during that time. There is little correlation of observed climate with solar cycles recently.

The second page gives reference to at least two studie (Foster/Rahmstorf,Lean/Rind) which quantitatively estimate effect of Sun on recent climate. Their conclusions are that the effect is negligible to slightly cooling. Observations show a significant warming which is consistent with the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases and lowered aerosol pollution.

edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Ya they havent forgotten about the sun and I am sure they know literally every aspect of the sun and how it affects earth.

But then?

news.softpedia.com...

Why wasnt this known until recently and what else is going on that we dont know about?

WTF does that have to do with climate? It is pretty interesting and probably some kind of weak force interaction with solar neutrinos. Effect on climate? As much as an effect on my beer. None.

Estimate quantitatively the magnitude of this effect in radioactive decay and the change in geothermal heating, compared to change in solar forcing from greenhouse effect.

Do you smell unicorn piss? What drove the natural cycles 300000 years ago went temperature shot up and then back down? What is driving this cycle roughly every 120k years? Dont think I didnt notice you conveniently separate man from nature earlier either.

I smell bovine scatology.

The existence of 'natural cycles' in the past does not rule out human influence. Animals went extinct in the past by natural influences. Now what about bison in the 19th century. Does that past history of natural extinctions mean that men with rifles had nothing to do with their near extinction from endemic levels? Obviously not. Same thing is happening with climate.

It takes more effort than emitting a phrase "natural cycles" as an explanation and thinking you're done, as opposed to doing physical science.

It takes specific physical hypotheses backed by long term observational studies and computations which explain data better than other explanations.

And besides, paleoclimate data are indirect influences from proxies, as opposed to current observed data from instruments. The security of what we know is happening now is much better than was was happening then.

edit on 31-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 11:35 PM by pasiphae

reply to post by mbkennel

THANK YOU!!! i know i'm not supposed to just make a post with a thank you in it but i had to say it.

i love the bison analogy.

reply posted on 1-8-2012 @ 05:11 AM by winnar

Originally posted by mbkennel

WTF does that have to do with climate? It is pretty interesting and probably some kind of weak force interaction with solar neutrinos. Effect on climate? As much as an effect on my beer. None.

Estimate quantitatively the magnitude of this effect in radioactive decay and the change in geothermal heating, compared to change in solar forcing from greenhouse effect.

WTF it has to do with climate I dont know. The point was we dont know everything that is going on with the sun. But apparently you know everything.

AGW is bullpuckey. First co2 led warming then it didnt and you people still say its because of a positive feedback. You cant make up your minds. Your science is weak and alarmist. Not only is the science weak but the "climategate" emails among otgher things prove its pretty much made up. You think of yourself as some sort of pseudoscientist but you arent looking at things objectively. You just swallow them up and regurgitate them like a nauseous hooker.

reply posted on 1-8-2012 @ 08:54 AM by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
It's time to put this fallacy to rest once and for all.

Yes, CO2 is rising and yes, fossil carbon in the atmosphere is rising and yes oxygen is dropping but that is only relevant if rising global temperatures (of which there hasn't been a new record high since 1997) are caused by rising CO2. The link below shows quite clearly that ice core samples reveal that CO2 lags behind air temperatures. Since the cause always has to precede the effect, CO2 can NOT possibly be causing rising air temperatures. If the two are connected at all, then rising air temperatures are causing rising CO2 levels and the oceans are the mechanism whereby this happens. Every planet in our solar system is getting warmer (says NASA). Are we to assume that humans are causing those planets to heat up too?

CO2 lags air temperature changes

A new strategy for the left wing loons is to move away from the science of global warming

and just find a way to make it a political argument.

Some new data has arrived concerning the suns effect on our weather and it pours

ice cold water over the heads of those spreading fear & deception about man made

global warming.

reply posted on 1-8-2012 @ 09:00 AM by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012

And what is driving these natural cycles?

I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.

edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

We wont answer because its a stupid question. What was driving these natural cycles before mans industrialization and before we even showed up?

We have had ice ages in the past and we will have ice ages in the future.

We do not have the technology or the means to slow them down or stop them.

- Can we regulate the sun ? -

- Can we regulate geothermal heat from the center of the Earth? -

The warming of the Pacific Ocean?

No.

-----------
However, Al Gore and his minions can use fear and deception to regulate CO2 gases.

reply posted on 1-8-2012 @ 09:21 AM by butcherguy

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Yes, global warming to prevent an impending (read inevitable) ice age would seem to be a good thing, would it not?
I'm still kind of disappointed that I don't have a banana tree growing in my backyard in Pennsylvania yet. I wouldn't mind the shorter trip to the beach when ocean levels rise.

reply posted on 1-8-2012 @ 09:25 AM by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Eurisko2012

Yes, global warming to prevent an impending (read inevitable) ice age would seem to be a good thing, would it not?
I'm still kind of disappointed that I don't have a banana tree growing in my backyard in Pennsylvania yet. I wouldn't mind the shorter trip to the beach when ocean levels rise.