Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth

[doG]

The question is how much effect are humans having.

Precisely. The OP claims humans are the predominate cause which suggests to me that humans contribute more than anything else. So far I've not seen amy proof to support the claim that humans cause more than any other cause.

[Dr. Dalek]

It looks to be within a few percent of the maximum to me.

 

Why are you asking me? YOU are the one who claimed that we are currently "in the middle of a warming trend." So' date=' you tell me which position you are really taking here. Either it's a big increase or it's not. If we're in the middle we're not done yet. . . . That does not put in the middle, it puts us at the end, maybe. [/quote']

Sorry, "middle of" is just the cliche, I read a book recently that sugested we might be coming to the end of one warming spell and going into a cooling one. I was using "middle of" as the cliche for "being in something."

Sorry, cliches are not appropriate for scientific discusions I will endevor not to use one again.

The graph tells a different story, though, which is what I was pointing out. It has us at a relatively flat temperature over the last few thousand years, . . . . Why is this peak (plateau, really) lasting longer, and not sharp?

There could be a thousand explanations for that platue.

Could be CO₂, natural, or other wise. (I think natural, but you seem not to). Dust levels are at an all time low, so less sunlight is obscured. Maybe that has something to do with the lasting tempeatures.

 

(noisy probably because we have more and better data),

Noisy? What? What are you talking about? This seems not to belong in your paragraph?

 

These guys have the average historical global temp being 17C. What is the current average global temperature? Are we positive that we are not in one of the dramatic shifts seen below?

I tend to think that we were just coming out of a cold spell. Thats what caused all the perceived warming, now we are going back into one if my information is correct.

[Dr. Dalek]

The climate was very warm during the Cretaceous; there was no ice at the poles. Sea level was much higher than today, and large areas of the continental crust were covered with shallow seas; sediment cores also show that temperatures in the deep ocean were as much as 15-20 C higher than today.(Skinner and Porter, 557)

The cretatious period was warm because there was more concentrated land mass to absorb heat from the sun (Pangea, etc),

the Tertiary period, acording to Wikipedia, saw the split of several continants from one another, thus the land masses sperated, and there was more room in between continants for heat to escape into the oceans or be reflected into space.

[RichF]

The cretatious period was warm because there was more concentrated land mass to absorb heat from the sun (Pangea' date=' etc),

the Tertiary period, acording to Wikipedia, saw the split of several continants from one another, thus the land masses sperated, and there was more room in between continants for heat to escape into the oceans or be reflected into space.[/quote']

 

Yup, that makes perfect since; thank you!

[bascule]

We are in the midst of a natural warming trend. Natural forcings dominated during the first half of the 20th century.

 

However, anthorpogenic forcings, primarily CO₂ are now predominant in driving global warming trends.

[Dr. Dalek]

We are in the midst of a natural warming trend. Natural forcings dominated during the first half of the 20th century.

 

However' date=' anthorpogenic forcings, primarily CO[sub']2[/sub] are now predominant in driving global warming trends.

 

Here is another thing that gives me reason to be critical about your argument. Me and the others have pointed out a number of facts and arguments that show at the very least, the asertions reguarding anthropogenic climate forcings are uncertain. Yet you act completely certain almost constantly.

 

Certainty, with or without data, makes for bad science.

In fact it makes for creationism!

[bascule]

Here is another thing that I find wrong with your argument. Me and the others have pointed out a number of facts and arguments that show at the very least, the asertions reguarding anthropogenic climate forcings are uncertain. Yet you act completely certain constantly.

 

No, you merely seek to instill fear, uncertainty, and distrust of climate science in general.

 

The Hansen paper empirically measured the Earth's radiative imbalance using satellite data and calculated the relative strength of various forcings which impact the climate system. What argument do you have against that? All SkepticLance has been able to trot out to question it is Michaels paper which mistakenly used degrees instead of radians in addition to numerous other errors in his calculations.

 

Again, I challenge you to find one recent, peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal which makes the argument that natural forcings are predominant over anthropogenic ones. I keep asking for one of you to produce this. All SkepticLance has to say on this matter is that he doesn't have to, and he'll just continue doubting the scientific validity of the claim even though there are no scientific arguments for the opposing position.

 

Certainty, with or without data, makes for bad science.

In fact it makes for creationism.

 

Creationism ignores the science and the scientific concensus. That's exactly what you're doing.

[Dr. Dalek]

No, you merely seek to instill fear, uncertainty, and distrust of climate science in general.

Look let's make it clear that there is no conspiracy here!

 

The Hansen paper empirically measured the Earth's radiative imbalance using satellite data and calculated the relative strength of various forcings which impact the climate system. What argument do you have against that? All SkepticLance has been able to trot out to question it is Michaels paper which mistakenly used degrees instead of radians in addition to numerous other errors in his calculations.

I'm doing reasearch as we speak.

 

Creationism ignores the science and the scientific concensus. That's exactly what you're doing.

Scientific concensus is not empirical evidence! If it was, the French scientifc establishment would still be saying it's impossible for meteors to fall from the sky!

Furthermore your concensus could easily be an illusion caused by groupthink, a common psycological phenominon.Here is a basic description of Groputhink from Wikipedia

[bascule]

Scientific concensus is not empirical evidence!

 

You're ignoring that the scientific concensus is coupled with empirical evidence of their position and a complete lack of scientific arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's a triple threat.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

You're ignoring that the scientific concensus is coupled with empirical evidence of their position and a complete lack of scientific arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's a triple threat.

 

That is a remarkably cheeky statement to make considering I have asked you repeatedly for empirical evidence, and all you have been able to come up with is the result of calculations and computer models!

[bascule]

bascule said :

 

You're ignoring that the scientific concensus is coupled with empirical evidence of their position and a complete lack of scientific arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's a triple threat.

 

That is a remarkably cheeky statement to make considering I have asked you repeatedly for empirical evidence' date=' and all you have been able to come up with is the result of calculations and computer models![/quote']

 

The Hansen paper is based on empirical data from satellite observations. Yes, Hansen does calculations from the data in order to ascertain the state of Earth's radiative imbalance. If you have a problem with his methodology, you should state it. Instead, you seem to simply ignore any values derived from empirical data via calculation.

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

The problem, as the 2003 convention pointed out, is that the global climate system is so complex that simple calculation does not cut it. We have an enormously compicated system of positive and negative feedbacks, with forcings of temperature up and down, and with numerous known and unknown parameters affecting results.

 

You failed to answer my posting on the USNA models. The chosen model predicted 5.5C increase in temperature for the US during the 21st Century, while it missed predicting the known temperature rise of the 20th by 300%.

 

Yet you expect us to TRUST these models????????

[Dr. Dalek]

You're ignoring that the scientific concensus is coupled with empirical evidence of their position and a complete lack of scientific arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's a triple threat.

There are strong arguments for the opposing veiwpoints, I've been using those arguments to support my veiwpoint that climate science is uncertain, and that natural causes for warming are likely explanations.

I honestly don't know with pure certainty whether my asertions are right or not. But I've been supporting them with facts!

You've been ignoring those facts and figures!

When I dissagree with one of your points I say why! When you disagree with mine you go back to the "anthropogenic" this and "FUD" that!

 

What does "FUD" even mean? Whatever it means it seems like it would be rude and entirly unproffesional.

[swansont]

Noisy? What? What are you talking about? This seems not to belong in your paragraph?

 

The data from the most recent times is noisier than the rest of the graph; this gives an appearance of there possibly being more fluctuations, and also gives the illusion that the more remote times were smoother transitions. However, I think this is merely due to there being more data from the recent past.

 

This makes it a little more difficult to ascertain any recent trends (spans of hundreds of years) from that graph.

[swansont]

bascule.

The problem' date=' as the 2003 convention pointed out, is that the global climate system is so complex that simple calculation does not cut it. We have an enormously compicated system of positive and negative feedbacks, with forcings of temperature up and down, and with numerous known and unknown parameters affecting results.

 

You failed to answer my posting on the USNA models. The chosen model predicted 5.5C increase in temperature for the US during the 21st Century, while it missed predicting the known temperature rise of the 20th by 300%.

 

Yet you expect us to TRUST these models????????[/quote']

 

If you've posted a link to the details of the model I've missed it. The details of the input parameters have to be known in order to assess it; any model has to assume future values (e.g. of CO₂) and these values must be estimated. So, did this model make aggressive or conservative estimates?

 

A link I gave earler (post 94) mentions how Hansen's model from his 1988 paper gave three estimates based on different parameters. Was the Canadian model doing the same thing?

[doG]

Again' date=' I challenge you to find one recent, peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal which makes the argument that natural forcings are predominant over anthropogenic ones. I keep asking for one of you to produce this. All SkepticLance has to say on this matter is that he doesn't have to, and he'll just continue doubting the scientific validity of the claim even though there are no scientific arguments for the opposing position.

 

 

 

Creationism ignores the science and the scientific concensus. That's exactly what you're doing.[/quote']

He's right. he doesn't have to. You haven't provided the evidence to back up your claims. You said:

 

2. Anthropogenic forcings are the primary cause

 

Again' date=' there's been little scientific debate about this for quite sometime. The debate lies entirely within the specifics. But anthropogenic forcings outnumber natural forcings in both scope and intensity[/quote']

 

as well as:

 

We are in the midst of a natural warming trend. Natural forcings dominated during the first half of the 20th century.

 

However' date=' anthorpogenic forcings, primarily CO[sub']2[/sub] are now predominant in driving global warming trends.

 

Now, where is your supporting evidence that anthorpogenic forcings are greater than natural forcings from say natural methane or increased solar activity in the '90's? Where is your evidence that anthorpogenic CO2 is greater than natural CO2? Where is your evidence that anthorpogenic contributions are greater even than that caused by the increased water vapor from a warmer climate resulting from any possible increased solar output. Where are your charts showing the amount of forcings from other causes to prove that they are not predominate.

 

To claim that anthorpogenic forcings outnumber natural forcings in both scope and intensity places the burden on you to produce the data to prove that your claim is true, not on others to disprove it. That sounds like the old "God is real because no one can disprove him" argument. You might as well claim that leprechauns and goblins are real too if you're going to claim that they are until someone can disprove them.

[swansont]

How many times does bascule have to refer you to various peer-reviewed papers before the cries of "you haven't presented any evidence" stop? They contain actual measurements and data. Read them, and then discuss/critique.

[doG]

How many times does bascule have to refer you to various peer-reviewed papers before the cries of "you haven't presented any evidence" stop? They contain actual measurements and data[/i']. Read them, and then discuss/critique.

Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings from anthorpogenic CO2 drive warming more than increased solar activity? Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings drive warming more than increased solar activity, natural methane and natural CO2 combined, i.e. anthorpogenic forcings are predominate?

[swansont]

Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings from anthorpogenic CO2 drive warming more than increased solar activity? Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings drive warming more than increased solar activity, natural methane and natural CO2 combined, i.e. anthorpogenic forcings are predominate[/b']?

 

I saw a bar graph in post 54 that purported to show exactly that.

[bascule]

All right, I think I'm done again. This is just going around and around in circles of me providing papers and our gaggle of skeptics ignoring it, as well as me asking for any recent peer-reviewed paper published in a major journal which argues that natural forcings are predominant, and our gaggle of skeptics failing to provide any such papers.

 

As far as I'm concerned this argument isn't going anywhere.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont.

You said you failed to get my evidence for the USNA graph. Here it is again.

 

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/18500012879.jpg&s=f10

 

Sorry about the quality. I had to scan it from paper copy and upload to the putfile site.

 

You will see that there are a series of models. The Canadian model, chosen for the USNA report, is the most exaggerated, and is shown by the dark black line.

 

Why did they choose this particular model over all the others shown, which were less extreme? At the time, they reported to Vice President Al. Gore, who had set himself up Mr. Global Warming Messiah. It is normal human nature to do what you think your boss wants you to do. It would be very obvious that Al. Gore would prefer the most extreme model to support his extreme views. And so, his underlings would seek to supply him with the most extreme model.

 

In this case, the fact that the Canadian model exaggerates 20th Century warming by 300% is the clearest possible indication that it is WRONG!

[doG]

I saw a bar graph in post 54 that purported to show exactly that.

Nope. That lumps all the CO2 together, all the methane, all soil and dust, all black carbon, etc. while trying to show that only sun and volcanoes are natural forcings. Why doesn't it show how much of the CO2, methane, soil and dust, etc. occur naturally, i.e. non-anthropogenic? That chart does not truly reflect anthropogenic vs natural forcings.

 

The OP said, "Anthropogenic forcings are the primary cause". That statement is not supported by that chart, we're still waiting for evidence that does support it.

[swansont]

Nope. That lumps all the CO2 together' date=' all the methane, all soil and dust, all black carbon, etc. while trying to show that only sun and volcanoes are natural forcings. Why doesn't it show how much of the CO2, methane, soil and dust, etc. occur naturally, i.e. non-anthropogenic? That chart does not truly reflect anthropogenic vs natural forcings.

 

The OP said, "Anthropogenic forcings are [b']the primary cause[/b]". That statement is not supported by that chart, we're still waiting for evidence that does support it.

 

The legend claims that it is listing increases of anthropogenic sources. Your answer seems to be simply, "no, it's not." Do you have peer-reviewed sources that give different data?

[swansont]

Swansont.

You said you failed to get my evidence for the USNA graph. Here it is again.

 

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/18500012879.jpg&s=f10

 

Sorry about the quality. I had to scan it from paper copy and upload to the putfile site.

 

You will see that there are a series of models. The Canadian model' date=' chosen for the USNA report, is the most exaggerated, and is shown by the dark black line.

 

Why did they choose this particular model over all the others shown, which were less extreme? At the time, they reported to Vice President Al. Gore, who had set himself up Mr. Global Warming Messiah. It is normal human nature to do what you think your boss wants you to do. It would be very obvious that Al. Gore would prefer the most extreme model to support his extreme views. And so, his underlings would seek to supply him with the most extreme model.

 

In this case, the fact that the Canadian model exaggerates 20th Century warming by 300% is the clearest possible indication that it is WRONG![/quote']

 

 

No, what I said was I was looking for the inputs to the model; I can see the result. That would give some error bars, at least. But I also pointed out it was moot, since local fluctuations can be much larger and thus harder to predict. You can be inaccurate locally and not globally, i.e. you can have local cooling even when the average temperature increases. (e.g. the southeast US temperatures did so over the last 100+ years, even as the US average temperature increased. see here) Anyway, some of that info I found at the usgcrp website, here

 

I don't see where you get 300%. Your graph doesn't actually agree with the one in the actual national assessment web report; "For the 20th century, the models simulate a US temperature rise of about 0.7 to 1.9ºF, whereas estimates from observations range from 0.5 to 1.4ºF" I don't get 300% out of that.

[doG]

The legend claims that it is listing increases of anthropogenic sources. Your answer seems to be simply, "no, it's not." Do you have peer-reviewed sources that give different data?

All I said is that it does not show a comparison of anthropogenic vs natural forcings. The OP claimed anthropogenic forcings are predominate, i.e. greater than natural forcings. That claim requires a bottom line comparison which I haven't seen yet. There is no doubt that anthropogenic forcings have increased as man has progressed in his industrial endeavors but is the forcings of man truly the greatest forcings of all. I'm not convinced the data that takes into account all of the variables even exists to make that claim. Do we even know all of the variables? Global warming is real, I just don't agree with the claim that we are the biggest cause.