[Merged] AGW without HADCRUT3

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 03:59 PM

Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts.

What is left?

Everything.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...2010/normalise

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 04:00 PM

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...2010/normalise

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 04:02 PM

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...2010/normalise

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts.

What is left?

Everything.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...2010/normalise

If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you.

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sparky

If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you.

Ignore reality if you like. But there it is, Sparky. Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement.

That is Science.

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 04:12 PM

Even the slopes of the trend lines are in good agreement;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro.../to:2010/trend

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 04:17 PM

Okay. Show me conclusive proof that this warming period is man-made and not just another incidental warming period like the MWP.

lomiller · 23rd November 2009, 04:33 PM

The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP.

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP.

And that is conclusive proof? Sounds more like conjecture to me.

lomiller · 23rd November 2009, 04:39 PM

If you think back about a month some people here were up in arms about this statment by NOAA

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

apparently since the HadCRU data showed 1998 as very slightly higher NOAA was somehow negligent by reporting findings based on the GISS numbers. Seems those same people now think HadCRU is the devil and should be ignored...

lomiller · 23rd November 2009, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sparky

Sounds more like conjecture to me.

The perhaps you should look up the word conjecture. Those are two simple statements of fact based on the best available peer reviewed research.

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

The perhaps you should look up the word conjecture. Those are two simple statements of fact based on the best available peer reviewed research.

Unacceptable. The issue of "peer-review" is now quite up in the air based on latest developments as you already know. Show me hard data proving that it is man-made.

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 04:47 PM

This is called "moving the goalposts" because no matter what standard of proof is proffered, it will be rejected as "inconclusive."

This of course flies in the face of the fact that most science is exactly as sound a basis as AGW - no proof is actually ever conclusive. All results can be attacked by new data and new analysis, and all we can ever achieve is consensus.

What we have here for AGW is an especially strong case;

1. The effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 was predicted 182 years ago by the French mathematician Joseph Fourier. (You've heard of him, correct?)

2. We see this effect in the atmospheres of other planets, and it agrees with predictions in those cases.

3. We have excellent results that show that atmospheric CO2 is regularly increasing, and that this rate of change is increasing.

4. We have excellent isotope data to show that the carbon entering the atmosphere was from a fossil source. So much so that recent radiocarbon age measurements have to be scaled on a table that takes this into account.

5. We have an observed warming trend that matches theoretical predictions for this amount of CO2 rise.

6. We have glaciers melting worldwide at rates that agree with those observed warming trends.

7. We are seeing the range of certain plants move steadily towards the poles.

So, not "conclusive" but that is an improper standard for scientific debate.

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 04:52 PM

So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk.

ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3.

Sparky · 23rd November 2009, 05:00 PM

I'm leaving the day job and I have to go to my bar for a few hours. I'll be back later.

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sparky

So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk.

ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3.

There are a zillion (OK, I'll be honest, only 0.87 zillion) sources.

Google is your friend.

I gave you three sources for #5 that are not HADCRUT3 related at all, see graphs above.

The rest of this is not dependent on temperature data at all. (The critters can't read temperature data, and the ice is dumb.)

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 05:20 PM

Why we know CO2 increases are due to human activity;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2009...ioxide-levels/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html

Graph from the latter source;

a_unique_person · 23rd November 2009, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts.

What is left?

The world wide conspiracy?

BenBurch · 23rd November 2009, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The world wide conspiracy?

Hey, they pay me really well, so who am I to complain!

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 09:35 AM

Crop hardiness zones moving north in North America;

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 11:32 AM

Venus greenhouse effect;

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Expre...PY808BE_0.html

Merko · 24th November 2009, 11:51 AM

Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Merko

Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.

Oh, I don't plan to, I am just pointing out that EVEN if you do, you do not invalidate AGW.

Eyeron · 24th November 2009, 12:20 PM

Guys guys guys, there is no such thing as scientific data to prove AGW. AGW is and invention of cultists to attack capitalism by the left.

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Guys guys guys, there is no such thing as scientific data to prove AGW. AGW is and invention of cultists to attack capitalism by the left.

Correct, Comrade!

Let's all sing The Internationale!

davefoc · 24th November 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sparky

If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you.

I wasn't too happy with that spin on the issue either.

Knee jerk development of opinions based on partisan views is a real phenomena though and in this particular case most of the criticism of AGW theories does seem to come from the right when the political leaning can be identified of the critics.

However, why a particular group tends to favor one view over another is a very different issue than a discussion of the merits of the view. BenBurch's opening post is going to lead to a conflation of the two issues I suspect.

MattusMaximus · 24th November 2009, 12:41 PM

Thanks for all the links Ben, I am glad to see someone has started this thread.

Originally Posted by Merko

Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.

True, but if a credible investigation reveals scientific impropriety, then under the bus they go! The key word there is "investigation" - the GW-deniers seem to think that simply spamming the Internet with a bunch of cherry-picked & out-of-context emails constitutes an investigation

Quote:

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.

This is something that worries me as well. Will the GW-deniers start to target top climate scientists in general in this manner? Of course, there is an interesting remedy to that...

File FOIA requests on all of the top GW-deniers themselves and their communications, websites, blogs, etc.

Now wouldn't the results of that be interesting?

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Thanks for all the links Ben, I am glad to see someone has started this thread.

You're Welcome.

Just my bit to counter the idiocy I see daily.

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 02:10 PM

Ah! Here is the page I really wanted to find;

http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 03:51 PM

Addressing point 6, glaciers, source Wikipedia;

AlBell · 24th November 2009, 04:00 PM

Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?

That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above.

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Few dispute the GW part. ...

BTW, MOST denialists seem to dispute that. In fact, why care about HADCRUT3 at all if you don't dispute that? Because 100% of that is about temperature. If you stipulate that the world is warming, its off the table.

AlBell · 24th November 2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Originally Posted by AlBell

Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?

That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above.

Do I conclude the answer is "none of the exhibits you've provided here" demonstrate the "mostly A" part of AGW?

I'm reasonably sure the various models are what you take as proof that CO2 is the culprit.

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Do I conclude the answer is "none of the exhibits you've provided here" demonstrate the "mostly A" part of AGW?

I'm reasonably sure the various models are what you take as proof that CO2 is the culprit.

Learn to read, because I did say which.

AlBell · 24th November 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Learn to read, because I did say which.

Here are your words

"That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above. "

Where do you say which?

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 05:04 PM

The isotope graph. It shows that we put the carbon there.

The carbon rise does not prove "A" - just that carbon rose. We know that GW is caused by carbon and the other greenhouse gases, but we need to source the gases. The exotic chemicals are no problem to source, agricultural fumigants do not occur in nature, but the CO2 you source with isotope ratio and this proves a fossil origin of the rise.

AlBell · 24th November 2009, 05:27 PM

True. So the answer, if models are ignored, is "none".

BenBurch · 24th November 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

True. So the answer, if models are ignored, is "none".

No. Not what I said at all and I will thank you not to deliberately misrepresent my words.

AlBell · 24th November 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No. Not what I said at all and I will thank you not to deliberately misrepresent my words.

The isotope graph says nothing. You have the correlation - causation hurdle to jump before anything is said about the A part of AGW. And that problem just opens the door to other equally difficult problems, not least of which is the actual temperatures during the MWA and to a lesser extent LIA.

If you wish your words to not be misrepresented perhaps you should actually say what you mean.

23rd November 2009, 04:04 PM	#4
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	Originally Posted by BenBurch Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts. What is left? Everything. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...2010/normalise If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:17 PM	#7
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	Okay. Show me conclusive proof that this warming period is man-made and not just another incidental warming period like the MWP.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:33 PM	#8
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	__________________ War, war never changes...

23rd November 2009, 04:36 PM	#9
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	Originally Posted by lomiller The MWP had ~0.4 deg C worth of warming over 300 years. We’ve had that in the last 25, what we are seeing now is nothing like the MWP. And that is conclusive proof? Sounds more like conjecture to me.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:39 PM	#10
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	If you think back about a month some people here were up in arms about this statment by NOAA http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html apparently since the HadCRU data showed 1998 as very slightly higher NOAA was somehow negligent by reporting findings based on the GISS numbers. Seems those same people now think HadCRU is the devil and should be ignored...
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	__________________ War, war never changes...

23rd November 2009, 04:07 PM	#5
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by Sparky If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you. Ignore reality if you like. But there it is, Sparky. Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement. That is Science.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:41 PM	#11
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	Originally Posted by Sparky Sounds more like conjecture to me. The perhaps you should look up the word conjecture. Those are two simple statements of fact based on the best available peer reviewed research.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,344	__________________ War, war never changes...

23rd November 2009, 04:45 PM	#12
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	Originally Posted by lomiller The perhaps you should look up the word conjecture. Those are two simple statements of fact based on the best available peer reviewed research. Unacceptable. The issue of "peer-review" is now quite up in the air based on latest developments as you already know. Show me hard data proving that it is man-made.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:47 PM	#13
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	This is called "moving the goalposts" because no matter what standard of proof is proffered, it will be rejected as "inconclusive." This of course flies in the face of the fact that most science is exactly as sound a basis as AGW - no proof is actually ever conclusive. All results can be attacked by new data and new analysis, and all we can ever achieve is consensus. What we have here for AGW is an especially strong case; 1. The effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 was predicted 182 years ago by the French mathematician Joseph Fourier. (You've heard of him, correct?) 2. We see this effect in the atmospheres of other planets, and it agrees with predictions in those cases. 3. We have excellent results that show that atmospheric CO2 is regularly increasing, and that this rate of change is increasing. 4. We have excellent isotope data to show that the carbon entering the atmosphere was from a fossil source. So much so that recent radiocarbon age measurements have to be scaled on a table that takes this into account. 5. We have an observed warming trend that matches theoretical predictions for this amount of CO2 rise. 6. We have glaciers melting worldwide at rates that agree with those observed warming trends. 7. We are seeing the range of certain plants move steadily towards the poles. So, not "conclusive" but that is an improper standard for scientific debate.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 04:52 PM	#14
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk. ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Last edited by Sparky; 23rd November 2009 at 04:57 PM.

23rd November 2009, 05:00 PM	#15
Sparky Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 437	I'm leaving the day job and I have to go to my bar for a few hours. I'll be back later.
	__________________ Do you know that Nintendo is a simultaneous 4-player cube that rotates on startup every day it is started on earth? You are Sony stupid and unable to know Nintendos's 4-Player Game Cube Creation! - GameCube GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 05:03 PM	#16
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by Sparky So? Provide me sources on all of this and then we'll talk. ETA: I should also add that you shouldn't use any source that can potentially be traced back to HADCRUT3. There are a zillion (OK, I'll be honest, only 0.87 zillion) sources. Google is your friend. I gave you three sources for #5 that are not HADCRUT3 related at all, see graphs above. The rest of this is not dependent on temperature data at all. (The critters can't read temperature data, and the ice is dumb.)
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

23rd November 2009, 06:34 PM	#18
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sitting in the ghostly glow of an LCD screen Posts: 27,434	Originally Posted by BenBurch Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts. What is left? The world wide conspiracy?
	__________________ "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." SH Roberts " Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." Monbiot "I am not the fine man you take me for"

23rd November 2009, 06:35 PM	#19
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by a_unique_person The world wide conspiracy? Hey, they pay me really well, so who am I to complain!
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 09:35 AM	#20
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Crop hardiness zones moving north in North America; http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 11:32 AM	#21
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Venus greenhouse effect; http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Expre...PY808BE_0.html
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 11:51 AM	#22
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,336	Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason. Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,336

24th November 2009, 11:58 AM	#23
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by Merko Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason. Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again. Oh, I don't plan to, I am just pointing out that EVEN if you do, you do not invalidate AGW.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 12:20 PM	#24
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Guys guys guys, there is no such thing as scientific data to prove AGW. AGW is and invention of cultists to attack capitalism by the left.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

24th November 2009, 12:23 PM	#25
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by Eyeron Guys guys guys, there is no such thing as scientific data to prove AGW. AGW is and invention of cultists to attack capitalism by the left. Correct, Comrade! Let's all sing The Internationale!
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 12:33 PM	#26
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by Sparky If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you. I wasn't too happy with that spin on the issue either. Knee jerk development of opinions based on partisan views is a real phenomena though and in this particular case most of the criticism of AGW theories does seem to come from the right when the political leaning can be identified of the critics. However, why a particular group tends to favor one view over another is a very different issue than a discussion of the merits of the view. BenBurch's opening post is going to lead to a conflation of the two issues I suspect.
	__________________ The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

24th November 2009, 12:41 PM	#27
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Thanks for all the links Ben, I am glad to see someone has started this thread. Originally Posted by Merko Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason. True, but if a credible investigation reveals scientific impropriety, then under the bus they go! The key word there is "investigation" - the GW-deniers seem to think that simply spamming the Internet with a bunch of cherry-picked & out-of-context emails constitutes an investigation Quote: Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again. This is something that worries me as well. Will the GW-deniers start to target top climate scientists in general in this manner? Of course, there is an interesting remedy to that... File FOIA requests on all of the top GW-deniers themselves and their communications, websites, blogs, etc. Now wouldn't the results of that be interesting?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

24th November 2009, 02:07 PM	#28
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Thanks for all the links Ben, I am glad to see someone has started this thread. You're Welcome. Just my bit to counter the idiocy I see daily.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 02:10 PM	#29
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Ah! Here is the page I really wanted to find; http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 04:00 PM	#31
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196	Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins. Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196

24th November 2009, 04:08 PM	#32
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by AlBell Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins. Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A? That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW. EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Last edited by BenBurch; 24th November 2009 at 04:09 PM.

24th November 2009, 04:19 PM	#33
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by AlBell Few dispute the GW part. ... BTW, MOST denialists seem to dispute that. In fact, why care about HADCRUT3 at all if you don't dispute that? Because 100% of that is about temperature. If you stipulate that the world is warming, its off the table.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 04:37 PM	#34
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196	Originally Posted by BenBurch Originally Posted by AlBell Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins. Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A? That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW. EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above. Do I conclude the answer is "none of the exhibits you've provided here" demonstrate the "mostly A" part of AGW? I'm reasonably sure the various models are what you take as proof that CO2 is the culprit.
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196

24th November 2009, 04:38 PM	#35
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by AlBell Do I conclude the answer is "none of the exhibits you've provided here" demonstrate the "mostly A" part of AGW? I'm reasonably sure the various models are what you take as proof that CO2 is the culprit. Learn to read, because I did say which.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 04:54 PM	#36
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196	Originally Posted by BenBurch Learn to read, because I did say which. Here are your words "That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW. EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above. " Where do you say which?
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196

24th November 2009, 05:04 PM	#37
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	The isotope graph. It shows that we put the carbon there. The carbon rise does not prove "A" - just that carbon rose. We know that GW is caused by carbon and the other greenhouse gases, but we need to source the gases. The exotic chemicals are no problem to source, agricultural fumigants do not occur in nature, but the CO2 you source with isotope ratio and this proves a fossil origin of the rise.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 05:27 PM	#38
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196	True. So the answer, if models are ignored, is "none".
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196

24th November 2009, 05:31 PM	#39
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Originally Posted by AlBell True. So the answer, if models are ignored, is "none". No. Not what I said at all and I will thank you not to deliberately misrepresent my words.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

24th November 2009, 05:46 PM	#40
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196	Originally Posted by BenBurch No. Not what I said at all and I will thank you not to deliberately misrepresent my words. The isotope graph says nothing. You have the correlation - causation hurdle to jump before anything is said about the A part of AGW. And that problem just opens the door to other equally difficult problems, not least of which is the actual temperatures during the MWA and to a lesser extent LIA. If you wish your words to not be misrepresented perhaps you should actually say what you mean.
AlBell Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 196