Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

I have read the IPCC report. It is chock full of data on global warming, but has precious little on evidence that the dominant driver is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

Have you any such empirical evidence?

[herpguy]

Bascule, save some debating for me!

 

I might use the following in my next reply in the debate that SkepticLance and I are in.

 

Have you any such empirical evidence?

SkepticLance, you continue to ask this question, but you have shown no evidence against it. Bascule continues to supply evidence, and he shows you why it's worth something. Maybe you just don't understand it (see signiture).

 

SkepticLance.

Have you any such evidence against the theory that AGGs are the dominent driver of global warming?

[SkepticLance]

herpguy,

As someone who has followed my postings in the debate, and also in other threads, you should realise by now that I am not asserting either side of the argument. My position is simply that no-one knows. In fact, I think it is somewhat arrogant to push too strongly one view or the other.

 

In short, we simply do not have enough hard data to say that it is proved that human activity is the dominant driver of global warming. On the other hand, we cannot say too certainly that it is due to natural forces.

 

My private view (unproved) is that global warming is driven by a number of factors, of which human release of greenhouse gases is just one. Of course, I could be wrong. We need data, one way or the other.

 

I have been reading arguments for and against for about ten years. The question I always ask is : "Where is the empirical evidence?"

In this, I am quite constant in my approach.

[bascule]

In short, we simply do not have enough hard data to say that it is proved that human activity is the dominant driver of global warming.

 

Yes, we do.

 

My private view (unproved) is that global warming is driven by a number of factors, of which human release of greenhouse gases is just one. Of course, I could be wrong. We need data, one way or the other.

 

Of course global warming is driven by a number of factors, and most of your arguments overlook this completely. These factors are known as "climate forcings". There are natural and anthropogenic forcings. This is basic climate science knowledge. How much research have you actually done?

 

Here is a breakdown of climate forcings from the IPCC report. Some of these are better understood than others. However, the role of greenhouse gasses is well understood:

 

 

As you can see, anthropogenic forcings cause both warming and cooling effects on the climate system. Reflective aerosols, for example, cause a dimming effect (i.e. "global dimming"), particularly sulfates. As you can see, the biggest driver is CO₂. The vast majority of CO₂ comes from anthropogenic sources.

 

I have been reading arguments for and against for about ten years.

 

Yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of the nature of climate forcings. Why is this?

 

The question I always ask is : "Where is the empirical evidence?"

 

In thousands upon thousands of scientific papers. I linked one of them (the one my ex-boss did) for you. Are you going to read it, or are you going to pretend it doesn't exist then keep asking for evidence?

 

Here's the IPCC report:

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

 

Please read "The Scientific Basis". It extensively documents the empirical evidence you claim doesn't exist.

 

In this, I am quite constant in my approach.

 

Your approach is no different from a creationist asking for empirical evidence of evolution, then ignoring it when it's provided.

 

I'd like to stop this for now, at least until you're done with your debate with herpguy. As he said, I should probably leave some debating for him.

 

But seriously, can you actually read the IPCC report?

[Dr. Dalek]

As you can see, anthropogenic forcings cause both warming and cooling effects on the climate system. Reflective aerosols, for example, cause a dimming effect (i.e. "global dimming"), particularly sulfates. As you can see, the biggest driver is CO₂. The vast majority of CO_{2[/sub'] comes from anthropogenic sources.?}

 

_{No it dosn't, Man made CO2 only represents about 3% of the total CO2 released annulay the rest being natural. There is a very big and obvious hole in your facts.}

 

_{http://www.ujae.org/globalwarming/Presentations%20on%20GW/slideshow%20january%202002.pdf}

_{Page 16}

[Pseudoswallo]

I also agreee that too much emphasis is put on global warming, and that it is also used as a catch-all exuse for any change in nature.

Also, I do not believe that humans are particularly adaptable, simply that our technology alows us to survive where we normally could not.

I have also seen a number of articles showng a graph of the overall temperature on Earth throughout its history, and humans first appeared near the beginning of a plateau, right near the bottom of the chart. So the rise in temperature, while it may exist, has very little to do with us. I shall be sure to post a link if and when I find the articles.

Also, I say also too much.

[bascule]

No it dosn't' date=' Man made CO[sub']2[/sub] only represents about 3% of the total CO₂ released annulay the rest being natural. There is a very big and obvious hole in your facts.

 

http://www.ujae.org/globalwarming/Presentations%20on%20GW/slideshow%20january%202002.pdf

Page 16

 

Your source on this is "Unions for Jobs and the Environment"? And not a scientific paper but a slideshow. And who do they cite as a source? IPCC 1995. Plus you're completely misinterpreting the graph.

 

Please read chapter 3 of the IPCC (2001) report

 

Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO₂ content is caused by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O₂ is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO₂ (combustion consumes O₂). Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of ¹⁴C, and depleted content of ¹³C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Third, the increase in observed CO₂ concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.

[Dr. Dalek]

Plus you're completely misinterpreting the graph.

Explain this further please, . .

[bascule]

Explain this further please, . .

 

It's moot anyway. The source they use corroborates my claim.

[Dr. Dalek]

It's moot anyway. The source they use corroborates my claim.

 

If the source they use collaberates your claim than how come you said:

 

Your source on this is "Unions for Jobs and the Environment"?

 

You seem to be sending mixed messages. You have obviously implied an opinion that the source is not credable then you say that any argument based on that information is moot because the source they cite supports you?

If IPCC has credable information then can't someone suggest an alternate interpritation of it?

Now please explain how, if at all, I'm misinterpriting the graph.

[bascule]

Now please explain how, if at all, I'm misinterpriting the graph.

 

The graph is not about natural vs. anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. How's that?

 

If you're going to challenge my assertion, please find a scientific paper.

 

This is really getting tedious. You're trying to argue against me using something which cites the same source as I do, and that source clearly states that increases in CO₂ are anthropogenic in origin.

 

Unless you can find another source, you're flat out wrong.

[Dr. Dalek]

The graph is not about natural vs. anthropogenic CO_{2[/sub'] emissions. How's that?}

_{Wikipedia Definition of Anthropogenic is as follows:}

_{Anthropogenic effects or processes are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to effects or processes that occur in the natural environment without human influences.}

_{The graph on page 16 obviously says "Man Made". Which is "derived from human activities"}

 

_{If you're going to challenge my assertion, please find a scientific paper.[/Quote]}

_{I will find a scientific paper.}

 

_{This is really getting tedious. [/Quote]}

_{I don't quit!}

_{You're trying to argue against me using something which cites the same source as I do,[/Quote]}

_{So if your source is as trustworthy as you think it is then why can't I? Data and information can have multiple interpretations. Especially information that is based on surveys of natural phenomenon rather than controlled experimental data.}

_{. . and that source clearly states that increases in CO2 are anthropogenic in origin.[/Quote]}

_{What is stating is subject to debate, opinion, and bias. Both of us have bias so don't even think of refuting my opinion with that argument.}

 

_{Unless you can find another source, you're flat out wrong.}

_{There is little certainty in the world, unless your selling something. . .}

[bascule]

The graph on page 16 obviously says "Man Made". Which is "derived from human activities"

 

However it's comparing the effect of water vapor to all other greenhouse gasses. The subject at hand is whether the increase in CO₂ is coming from primarily natural or anthropogenic sources.

 

In other words, that graph has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

 

And it's all you presented.

 

You're back at square one.

 

Meanwhile, I've presented an entire chapter of the IPCC report which documents evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is primarily anthropogenic in origin. Why don't you start by reading that?

 

Data and information can have multiple interpretations.

 

Why don't you leave the interpreting of graphs to the experts, since clearly they confuse you?

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

Quite often in arguments like this one, it turns out that misinterpretation is the cause of the disagreement.

 

I think others are saying that non-anthropogenic sources create most greenhouse gases. Correct.

 

I think you are saying that anthropogenic sources create most of the recent INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Also correct.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

Here's the IPCC report:

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

 

Please read "The Scientific Basis". It extensively documents the empirical evidence you claim doesn't exist.

 

bascule,

I have seen this before, and been through it before. Like your graph of armospheric forcings, it is NOT empirical evidence. It is a mix of basic theory, and the results of calculations.

 

Empirical evidence is NOT seen in general writings like this. It is best seen in peer reviewed articles showing the clear cut results of specific experiments and observations. That is what I am after. Not a hotch potch mixture like the IPCC writings.

[bascule]

I said I was done, but you're infuriating

 

Empirical evidence is NOT seen in general writings like this

 

Yes, those tables and tables of data are just pulled out of their ass.

 

Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO₂ content is caused by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O₂ is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO₂ (combustion consumes O₂). Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of ¹⁴C, and depleted content of ¹³C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Third, the increase in observed CO₂ concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.

 

That isn't empirical evidence either!

 

Seriously SkepticLance, you're worse than a Creationist who claims there's no evidence of evolution.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

but you're infuriating

 

bascule.

As I have said before, the main cause of argument is misunderstanding.

You are attacking points I have never made. For the record, I accept the following :

1. The world is warming.

2. Greenhouse gases are increasing, and the increase is due to human effort.

3. Greenhouse gases increase the insulating effects of the atmosphere.

4. Ergo, human activities probably cause at least some of the global warming.

 

bascule,

please don't argue these points with me. I have already conceded them.

 

What I am asking for is the next required step, and definitely required by good science.

 

What is the empirical evidence that human activities are the dominant cause of global warming?

 

Please don't quote me another document that is full of generalities. I want something specific. I have already seen examples of what I am asking for, albeit very weak evidence, so I know it exists. So far, the empirical evidence I have seen is too weak to do more than confirm point 4 above.

 

You claim to be an expert of global warming. You should then be able, at least, to find the empirical evidence I already knows exists. Yet you evade the question. Why?

[Dr. Dalek]

Why don't you leave the interpreting of graphs to the experts' date=' since clearly they confuse you? . . . . However it's comparing the effect of water vapor to all other greenhouse gasses. The subject at hand is whether the increase in CO[sub']2[/sub] is coming from primarily natural or anthropogenic sources.

I'm not confused your looking at page 17!!!! 17 is water vapor, 16 is Natural vs Man Made. I clearly typed 16.

That is 16 out of 27 pages, including the title page!

http://www.ujae.org/globalwarming/Presentations%20on%20GW/slideshow%20january%202002.pdf

Page 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bascule]

I'm not confused your looking at page 17!!!! 17 is water vapor' date=' [b']16 is Natural vs Man Made[/b]. I clearly typed 16.

That is 16 out of 27 pages, including the title page!

http://www.ujae.org/globalwarming/Presentations%20on%20GW/slideshow%20january%202002.pdf

Page 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dr. Dalek, I was going by the numbers at the bottom of the page.

 

As SkepticLance pointed out, I'm talking about increases in CO₂. That graph is in reference to atmospheric CO₂ as a whole.

[bascule]

What is the empirical evidence that human activities are the dominant cause of global warming?

 

So what is it that you're asking to be evidenced? That CO₂ is the primary forcing affecting the Earth's radiative imbalance?

 

Please don't quote me another document that is full of generalities.

 

The IPCC report is full of hundreds of tables of very specific information.

 

You claim to be an expert of global warming.

 

When have I ever claimed that? I worked for a climate science research group for 5 years studying global warming with a number of different GCMs and mesoscale atmospheric models. However I certainly do not have a degree in atmospheric science.

[Dr. Dalek]

As SkepticLance pointed out, I'm talking about increases in CO₂. That graph is in reference to atmospheric CO_{2[/sub'] as a whole.}

_{Then dosn't that indicate that Man isn't effecting the atmosphere all that much if the total content of CO2 is only 3% man made?}

[Dr. Dalek]

I havn't found a scientific paper yet (they all require I pay for the article)

But I did find an interesting article from the The National Center for Public Policy Reasearch.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html

 

But I'm guessing someone here will find reason to question the source.

[SkepticLance]

Dr. Dalek.

The article you quote need not be queried, as to source or any other point. It says that there is no consensus on global warming. If we take my own skepticism as the point on which consensus is lacking, then your article is absolutely correct.

 

There is, of course, consensus on points of fact, such as that the world is warming and that carbon dioxide is increasing. It is when we go from fact into deduction, that consensus disappears. I don't think anyone will dispute this point.

 

I have come to the conclusion that bascule has not, in fact, any empirical evidence to support his assertions, except such data as supports the points we all agree on anyway.

 

Studies of glaciers shrinking, which is supposed to be one of the most sensitive measures of global warming, shows no difference in warming rate on average over 200 years. Yet warming caused by human activities is supposed to have begun about 1910. I am still searching for any convincing empirical evidence to show that human activity has somehow, suddenly, become the big influence. Ditto for evidence that it is going to drive the world into disaster. I think we had better give up on bascule. He has not got the data required.

[bascule]

I have come to the conclusion that bascule has not, in fact, any empirical evidence to support his assertions, except such data as supports the points we all agree on anyway.

 

I've come to the conclusion that you selectively ignore information which corroborates the scientific consensus: that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for shifting the Earth's radiative imbalance.

 

You still haven't told me what "empirical evidence" you find lacking. Do you seriously contend that we lack scientific knowledge that CO₂ is the primary climate forcing affecting the radiative imbalance of Earth's climate system?

 

I think we had better give up on bascule. He has not got the data required.

 

I think I should write you off as a lost cause. You lack a basic understanding of elementary climate science. You ask for evidence, then ignore it when it is presented. You're no better than a creationist who ignores evidence of evolution when presented and continues to spout that it has no scientific basis.

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

I hope we have not got to the stage of insulting each other. I did not say you were ignorant or stupid - merely lacking the data to answer my query.

 

I am not to be compared to creationists. They have no scientific backing. I can, however, name a number of climatologists who espouse the view I also hold. My quibble with the position held by yourself is just that we have not been presented with the proper scientific data to support it. If I am wrong, then show me, by presenting me with the proper scientific evidence, realising that deduction, and computer modelling is not, by itself, enough.