These emitted gases have already influenced the very system it is claimed the models cover for the baseline case. Thus there is no possiblity of empirically testing the baseline models..the data is already influenced by the presence of the emitted CO2.
True enough that we can't do controlled experiments to verify. We also, in many cases, can't do experiments to verify events far away from us in the cosmos. And yet seeing how a model matches or doesn't match observations can tell us if we are on the right track or not.
From the IPCC Third Assessment Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
Modeled v Observed
The graphs show that anthropogenic climate forcing ( = greenhouse gas loading) so overwhelms the natural factors that that alone creates an extremely good correlation between the model and the observations.
The National Academy of Sciences ( http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) has this to say in regard to other influences:
"Greenhouse gases and tropospheric aerosols varied little from A.D. 1 to around 1850. Volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were likely the most strongly varying external forcings during this period, but it is currently estimated that the temperature variations caused by these forcings were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas forcing since the mid 19th century.
Climate model simulations indicate that solar and volcanic forcings together could have produced periods of relative warmth and cold during the preindustrial portion of the last 1,000 years. However, anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are needed to simulate late 20th century warmth."
Quote:
what is the intention of using "denialist" or "denier", instead of skeptic or non believer or some other word? Seems to me the intent is to choose a word describing one's opponents in a poor light.
I agree that this sort of arguement doesn't deal with the issue.
Goat - we welcome your healthy skepticism - however that skepticism seems rather one sided.
When someone is skeptical of the findings of an Exxon funded 'scientist' you get rather defensive. It goes both ways.
I appreciate your opennes, but in the past i've noticed that my arguments sometimes are taken in ways that I didn't actually make a case for!
I think if you look closely at my argument in those areas, I comment on the idea that who funds what, is more important than the objective content of the study in question.
Attacking exxon funded scientists because exxon funds them, is insupportable method for rejection of studies. Attacking their data on the basis of it's objective flaws, *regardless* of the payer, is good method.
I object to these "who pays" approaches to argument over data or studies because they contain irrational ideals and science itself can sort out the results without any concern over who paid.
If it cannot, then we it is perfectly acceptable to examine who is paying for warming research, and ask what agenda they have...and *everyone* has an agenda.
This is the point of science..weeding out agendas and misperceptions using objective method, is it not?
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
0
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Ray, I appreciate your style and non confrontational approach to discussing this subject, even as we disagree on the outcome of what is being examined. heart of the point in question, and I am too lazy to go sign up for yet another web account in another place just to post some pics.
This is excellent evidence we can all be productive and open even in disagreement, (instead of using derisive labels for example.) You made some points, you present some pictures supporting those points, I like it. Anyway, on with the show.
I am glad you showed those graphs because it points specifically to the issue I have with these contentions..the unforced case post 1950ish. There is zero empirical evidence, let me repeat...*zero*, that the grey line is anywhere they claim it is the unforced case graphs for that period (and maybe longer as someone pointed out). Yes, I am repeating myself as per a couple other posts (maybe more than a few ), but looking at the graphs shows the amount of conjecture and latitude granted when you have absolutely no way of testing that model.
The unforced model line in the first graph is non falsifiable. The forced model line in the second one, is non falsifiable. In the third case, the model line is based on the sum of two other, completely non testable results.
Only the red line in any of the graphs represents actual, empirical, measured, real world data. If they are wrong about the unforced case, that line could be anywhere...if was above the red line, we'd be doing global cooling with emissions...but we can't tell. If was coincident with the red line, emissions would have no effect..but we cannot tell.
All we have is the fact that we are adding CO2 (and a smattering of other gases), and the *contention* that it must heat things...but with no way to tell if these contentions are *real*, because they are certainly not falsifiable in the system. The point that this series of graphs make is that human plus natural causes equals observed...but the basis for all interim values other than the empirical ones have no basis in separate, actual empirical measurement for that period. There is no way whatsoever to check the models for these sub cases.
I realize this exegesis adds nothing resolution wise to our discussion, but the presentation of the graphs and the component model outputs is a good example of the variables I was discussing. The claimed IPCC temperature delta from the 'unforced' case is *explicitly* and necessarily based on that case, and in the first graph you can see why my critiques apply. Shift the grey line up to match the red one, bingo, we are causing nothing..and there is no way to tell, none, if this is not the correct way to interpret that red line.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
0
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
You see Ray there is really no point in discussing this issue with the browns because any piece of evidence can be quibbled with and failing that they will just shift the subject take offense or require even more
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
0
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
I just heard on KJR sports radio (for Gods sake) that they've measured (some how) that the ice on Mars and Earth are melting at the same rate!
Ok, start explaining how we're responsible for that....
Now this puzzles me! This Mars correlation, I mean. The conclusions of scientists with regard to global warming is questioned because their data, both historic and current, is questioned.
And yet data from Mars isn't questioned as long as it supports a desired viewpoint.
I can do better than that, MC. The graphs show a classic representation of what happens when surface temperatures are taken near population centers (where most weather and atmospheric stations are located) - you get an abnormally false high on the chart, especially in more recent years when more land development has occurred. These need to be normalized because thermal radiation from hard surfaces tends to throw off thermometers somewhat and calibration is necessary to correct the effect. A great example of this is any local commercial bank sign that indicates the time of day and current temperature. I remember seeing one in the Tri-Cities once that read 123 degrees F when it was really 104 out (a hot day for July in Richland). The sign was black, was in the direct sunlight, and obviously had a thermometer in it to report the temp. but couldn't register properly because of the background heat.
Another problem is the accuracy of thermometers in the first place. Measurements taken prior to 50 years ago are probably worthless, or at least not valid enough to stake scientific claims on.
The other concern I have is the claim that sun and volcanic activity can explain the other warming trends from 1 to 1850 AD. Volcanic activity hasn't reflected the Roman Empire Warming because events were sporadic throughout these times. If volcanic activity does affect global warming then Mt St Helens, Redoubt, and Pinatubo should all be included in this recent surge in earth's temps. The sun is attributed to the 1,500 year cycle, explains the ice ages, and also explains the Roman warming period. And it should also get most, if not all, of the credit for our current warming trend. Expect it to last another 300 years.
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
0
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
And yet data from Mars isn't questioned as long as it supports a desired viewpoint.
Ray, similar warming on Mars is easily explained if the Sun and its changes in activity are the cause of global warming and cooling cycles. I don't expect the earth to be the only planet susceptible to changes in solar flares and the solar wind.
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
0
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
You see Ray there is really no point in discussing this issue with the browns because any piece of evidence can be quibbled with and failing that they will just shift the subject take offense or require even more
I find it amazing discussion of the very basis for the measurement of the warming delta itself is considered a quibble..especially when this quibble is over a principle that is the dividing line between what is knowable and what isn't.
It's not like I'm discussing whose brand of thermometer took some baring sea air temp measurement in 1937, or saying this peruvian glaciers outflow went up not down in 1998.
My 'quibble' concerns the innate basis of predicting or measuring the amount of 'extra' warming *itself*. I'm having a difficult time reconciling the idea that someone claiming to be concerned with good science ignoring that a central, crucial, basic element of a theory they claim is true...cannot actually be tested.
Look at what you are telling us...discussing the values subtracted from currently observed empirical measurements, and used to derive the amount of human caused heating, which form the very basis for which we are supposed to change and redirect the lives of billlions of human beings..... cannot actually be measured or verified for a theory whose proponents admit they know less about most factors than they do more about most factors...and concern is a quibble. A trifle.
The *root* value used to generate the figures used to justify action, can never be tested and has never been tested...no biggie!
Me, I'd think that would merit discussion or concern far more than arguing how much it snowed in Munich last winter, or some other real quibble over local microclimates.
(As for taking offense, I'm not sure why you're surprised someone is offended, when you intentionally use disparaging terms.)
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
0
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Oh good now comes the mock rage at being called a brown from someone who has opposed any environmental initiative or wilderness area and supported every proposal for mining for the history of this board.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
0
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Odd, since I support most wildernesses in WA and am agnostic on the Wild Sky. You seem to take recognition that people lose their preferred accesses to their activities and surprise that posters engage in poor winner behavior, as blanket opposition.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
0
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
MC, lets focus on the issue and not each other, OK?
If you took just $7 Billion, which would be a small fraction of the cost incurred if the Kyoto Protocol was ever fully implemented, you could cut Malaria related deaths and starvation in half throughout the world. Global warming is projected to help against starvation by about 2% in developing countries due to increased farming; but would add to the deaths from Malaria by 3%. Where are your priorities?
MtnGoat:
You can develop a baseline of earth temperatures for a given location through ice core samples. This was done in two locations in Greenland and one in Antarctica with all three results matching each other. You can also determine when warming trends happened on earth through sedimentation deposits on the ocean floor. During earth's warmest cycles, glacial borne rocks and debris were carried by floating glaciers and dropped on the ocean floor as far south as Britain. The ice core samples that were studied were nearly 2 miles long for each location and indicated warming and cooling trends going back 25,000 years. Presence (and absence) of Oxygen isotopes gave a direct correlation to warmer and cooler temperatures on earth for their respective years. There's more here:
ncpa.org
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
0
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
The graphs show a classic representation of what happens when surface temperatures are taken near population centers (where most weather and atmospheric stations are located) - you get an abnormally false high on the chart, especially in more recent years when more land development has occurred. These need to be normalized because thermal radiation from hard surfaces tends to throw off thermometers somewhat and calibration is necessary to correct the effect.
Very true! And, of course, the climatologists who have gathered this data are also well aware that the temperature readings respond to their surroundings.
The National Academy of Sciences was asked by Congress to assess scientific efforts in this field and in 2006 published the findings which you can download from this page. It explains the methology used and the results in reconstructing the last 2000 years of surface temperatures.
I quote from the findings:
As
land use has changed (e.g., from forest to urban), many thermometers in the land air
temperature record have responded to the changes in the thermal properties of their
surroundings,These types of problems
are estimated to introduce a potential error (95 percent confidence) of ~0.10°C
for the earliest decades of the global and Northern Hemisphere average temperature
values (Folland et al. 2001b). In the most recent decades, improved coverage and better
knowledge of instrumental biases, such as the effects of urbanization, reduce the error
range to ~0.04°C (Brohan et al. in press).
I won't bore you with the charts, but the report is well worth reading for those interested in how the data was arrived at.
RayD, this is great information but disappointingly incomplete! The National Acadamies gathered temperature information the same way that other climatologists used, but they stopped at 900 AD claiming the confidence of the proxies was inadequate to go back further than that. Then they state that the last few decades are warmer than anything seen in the previous millenium. Duh! It's a 1,500 year cycle. You'd have to go back before 600 AD to catch the next peak in the timeline. If they went back in time with just the temps from the ice core samples, the blue line in the graph that is far more normalized than the others, they would see the peaks and valleys of the 1,500 year climate cycle.
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
0
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
MC, lets focus on the issue and not each other, OK?
Veiled personal attacks like this misrepresentation are weak efforts. Calling someone brown would only be construed as focusing on each by someone overly sensitive or someone who's data might possibly be just as incomplete as those that he disputes. OK?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
), but looking at the graphs shows the amount of conjecture and latitude granted when you have absolutely no way of testing that model.
The unforced model line in the first graph is non falsifiable. The forced model line in the second one, is non falsifiable. In the third case, the model line is based on the sum of two other, completely non testable results.
Only the red line in any of the graphs represents actual, empirical, measured, real world data. If they are wrong about the unforced case, that line could be anywhere...if was above the red line, we'd be doing global cooling with emissions...but we can't tell. If was coincident with the red line, emissions would have no effect..but we cannot tell.
All we have is the fact that we are adding CO2 (and a smattering of other gases), and the *contention* that it must heat things...but with no way to tell if these contentions are *real*, because they are certainly not falsifiable in the system. The point that this series of graphs make is that human plus natural causes equals observed...but the basis for all interim values other than the empirical ones have no basis in separate, actual empirical measurement for that period. There is no way whatsoever to check the models for these sub cases.
I realize this exegesis adds nothing resolution wise to our discussion, but the presentation of the graphs and the component model outputs is a good example of the variables I was discussing. The claimed IPCC temperature delta from the 'unforced' case is *explicitly* and necessarily based on that case, and in the first graph you can see why my critiques apply. Shift the grey line up to match the red one, bingo, we are causing nothing..and there is no way to tell, none, if this is not the correct way to interpret that red line.
