RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
January 24, 2013 at 10:37 am
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Quote:Wish I could say the same about how you reached your conclusion. A very lazy google search would bring up a wiki and dozens of articles - including a NYT article, which was mined for one quote earlier- where he specifically and unequivocally states that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we're releasing it into the atmosphere, and that this should warm the climate. He has a theory (that competing theory bit we'll get to in a moment) as to how all of this is handled by our rock, but at no point does he dispute that our activities have effects. His view, Aract, is that the earth is capable of counteracting the warming that we cause...... Again, he is a not an AGW skeptic, but a catastrophic AGW skeptic. He disputes the predictive power of the models offered up, not the science. What may have happened here (and this happens often) is that you've bought into the propaganda that anyone who is skeptical of any part of the predictive models we see being advanced politically is a "climate science denier". It's easier to call someone a climate science denier (imply that there are a nut - essentially) than it is to address a persons criticisms of a predictive model. You wanted an AGW skeptic, Lindzen is not such a person - though there has been an effort to paint him as such - by the very people who would dismiss your criticisms out of hand, and unfortunately it seems to have worked......
Incorrect, although I see how you reached this conclusion. Like 99% of sceptics, he believes that the GW trend is real, and also believes that the EGHG's may have a small contribution. His view is that the trend is probably naturally derived.
Quote:Of course you don't need one, but it's useful in attempting to explain or describe the same demonstrable fact that your opponents are attempting to explain or describe - which is precisely what he was doing in. In his case, it was the iris hypothesis. Again, Lindzen does not make the claim that AGW is not credible, he doubts the predictive power of the models offered by what he considers climate alarmists. I'll say this again because it clearly isn't sinking in. Lindzen -does not- make the claim that AGW is not credible, quite the opposite...as his hypothesis was an explanation of how the earth would react to this warming by essentially lowering it's sensitivity. Just so I don't have to cover this ground again with you, the iris hypothesis -in a nutshell- is that as we continue to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (and even in the absence of our activities, case in point), the AGW that we would expect from this will at some point be curtailed slowed and counteracted as the atmosphere responds (acting as an iris - you'll allude to this later perhaps without realizing it when you ask me about IR absorption, which is part but not all of his iris pie) to these activities. That climate-apocalypse will not occur. -NOT- that AGW is not credible, but precisely -because it is-. In his view acellerating the rate at which we release greenhouse gases, for example, would merely accelerate the rate at which we achieve the proposed iris effect - which is one of the reasons it got so much heat. Again, Lindzen is not your man, find someone else. Good luck with that - and you'll need it, because when you really get down to brass tacks the issue of contention is generally not whether or not human activities have an effect on their environment, but the extent and consequence of those (often relative again to human activities). Cause and effect, the level of effort required to double think one's way around this is staggering.
You don't need a "competing theory"... it isn't a competition. You simply evaluate the scientific theory at hand. Whether his specific theory is discredited or not has zero relevance to whether AGW is credible or not.
Quote:This "thesis" has already been tested, starting waaaay back in the 1600's continuing on to the 1820's by Jan Baptista van Helmont and Joseph Fourier (the discoverers of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect respectively). Continuing on until the late 1800s the basis of all of this was expanded upon, observed, experimented with, repeated, passed review, and holds to this very day. Something tells me that you won't be shaking the foundations of climate science here on AF but I'll bite anyway.
OK.
1. If the evidence and the science is robust, then show me what the global climate change trend over the last 150 years would be without human activity? Where's the graph that shows the recreated anthropogenic-free climate change over the last 15 decades?
2. Actually the data shows the raw global mean surface temperatures, many of which get adjusted (normalized) before being given to climate scientists, much of the original raw data is now unverifiable/unavailable. It is generally accepted that the data shows a clear 0.7 degree warming trend in the 20th century, but the data itself, says nothing it's just data.
3. Do we? Show me the exact breakdown of the GHE then. H2O 90%, 95%? Can you really pin it down exactly? CO2 absorbs nearly all the IR in its absorption window, thus you need much more CO2 to increase the effect, no? Where is the evidence for positive-feedback?
4. Again, if we understand it so well show me the trend without anthropogenic EGHE's, thanks.
5. Try again. What caused the MWP? Hint - some say that their computer models reproduce it using solar activity, but Mann is certain that the MWP was localized and not global, who is right?
1. Any graph that shows the carbon levels in our atmosphere relative to time and temp is such a graph. The main difference between man made warming and natural cycles is clearly not warming (as both are capable of this) but the lag time in carbon levels - and thus the acceleration and magnitude of that warming due to the greenhouse effect. What they call "forcing". It would be difficult to determine what could have been -as it always is- but it's fairly easy to determine what was. You seem to think that you're having an argument over whether or not warming can be a part of a natural cycle - you aren't (unless you'd like to argue with yourself, then by all means, have at it). Neither myself, nor to step back a moment Lindzen is having this argument with you or anyone else. Pick any graph you like. Now, would you kindly find me a graph that shows the free lunch scenario? Of course not, because you are well aware that this would be absurd.
2. Numbers get bigger, numbers get smaller, this is what data "says", but you didn't really want to argue over my choice of words or anything did you? You had a healthier objection I'm sure........
3. Yes we do, it's called the greenhouse effect, which again, has been understood for well over 200 years, has stood up to scrutiny more pertinent and well informed than what little you're attempting to offer - and has long since passed into the territory of a fact. You can stuff as many words and requests into this criticism as you like, but please understand that you are arguing against the greenhouse effect - so at least give me something to chew on. As far as positive feedback, are you looking for some specific feedback on one process or the overall shebang? The overall shebang is easier, as our climate warms more greenhouse gases are released - this occurs (and has occurred) regardless of whether the warming is man made or natural. It's just chemistry, it doesn't care who's holding the switch....
4. Again, pick any graph you like, the difference will be in the lag time of carbon (some other stuff we can have fun with, but this is the most visible and widely talked about).
5. In what way would you argue against the greenhouse effect by reference to the medieval warm period? For the very last time, you aren't having an argument over whether or not warming can be achieved naturally (unless, again, it;s with yourself) but whether or not the current warming we see is an effect of a natural cycle or our activities. Focus.
Quote:I'm guessing that part of this is a typo and driving through that. Were you under the impression that the only thing operating in the greenhouse effect (or GW) was ir absorption by carbon? In any case, in good faith, when you hear explanations of ir absorption you've missed something. When carbon absorbs radiation - it doesn't just go away. Eventually the molecule releases that radiation and this is where increased levels of carbon can cause some trouble. When it releases that radiation another carbon molecule (which as you have mentioned - is pretty damned good at absorbing radiation) can pick it up, and the initial molecule is free to absorb some more. The overall amount of radiation being absorbed at any given moment does not have to increase - so long as enough radiation is being retained (and this is the property that garners gases capable of acheiveing this the title of "greenhouse gas" - though not all greenhouse gases operate on this effect) the insulative effect -as far as carbon is concerned- is a much more useful greenhouse function of this gas (and as far as IR alone is concerned water vapor handles that nicely - of course we don't really want to reduce the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere, and it would be fairly difficult to do so, comparative to co2). You can imagine why retention of radiation leads to an increase in temperature yes? This is utilized to great effect in greenhouse operations via CO2 supplementation. Not only does photosynthesis speed up greatly in the presence of said gas - the temperature of the greenhouse rises and becomes more uniform (also more resistant to exterior ambient air temp). This of course ties back into all of the above, in that we understand this effect and it's causes so well (and we should, shouldn't we - we've had 200 years or so to work it out) that it's not just people in labs checking instruments...but farmers in overalls leveraging the same.....
And as I've pointed out, CO2 already manages to catch the vast majority of the IR that it is capable of absorbing, it would absorb barely any more CO2 if you trebled the level! How can it keep producing more and more warming without more and more IR absorption????
I've gotta say amigo, for an attempt to "pick apart" a post......that was dismal.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
