Global Warming

[Tmaq]

335 words; still no answer.

I've addressed that question many times, and answered it at least once. Why haven't you responded to what I've said as if you can read plain English?

Try again?

Tell you what - I'll give you and the rest of the deniers in attendance a day or two to answer - then I'll answer it for you.

OK, so we've moved beyond your denial that you totally face-planted, and now have started bargaining.

Great. The glacier does move.

-Tom

[vertigo]

I can't find decent information on this isotope ratio business. There should be a study and a graph out there showing the ratio (as I understand it) of carbon-14 to total carbon over time. If this ratio is pertinent, where is the study?

[Tmaq]

I've asked him to describe the model dozens of times.

Maybe that's just too boring - too far beneath his vast knowledge of 'real' climate science - perhaps he'll simply move on to demonstrating how 'almost every' one of the criticisms of the AGW hypothesis are 'easily debunked.'

But it seems like almost every skeptical piece I read is easily debunkable on the basis of what little knowledge of the subject I have (I was an atmospheric physics major at Oxford back in the day). But I'll read through your references before passing judgement on yours.

Here's a whole bunch of them, since I know how much difficulty he has finding something from a previous post;

http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/forum ... f=4&t=8610

I wonder which one he'll debunk...first.

-Tom

[Tmaq]

I can't find decent information on this isotope ratio business. There should be a study and a graph out there showing the ratio (as I understand it) of carbon-14 to total carbon over time. If this ratio is pertinent, where is the study?

I googled this phrase just for laughs; "WHO THINKS THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC" and found all sorts of stuff, including lots of answers.

I expected I'd have to eventually retract my claim about that POLITICAL issue, but, you know, the power of honest curiosity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 184221.htm

It also came up with this about the isotope ratio, but its clearly all mired in some thick jargon and peppered throughout some emails;

http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm

Dunno if you already saw that bit or not.

A bit of a glossary can help, too; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Here's a problem for AGW;

Water vapor is indeed a very potent "greenhouse" gas, in terms of its absorbing and re-radiating outgoing infrared radiation. It is commonly not mentioned as an important factor in global warming, because it is not clear that the atmospheric concentration (as compared with CO2, methane, etc.) is rising. Some (Richard Lindzen at MIT, prominently) have argued that the uncertain potential feedbacks involving water vapor represent a serious shortcoming in models of climate warming.

Here's that first one again, but it includes some of the paper and a graph;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/b ... y-says-no/

For such a demanding little turd, he sure doesn't make much effort at even informing himself.

-Tom

[Tmaq]

Just for fun, I thought I'd bring up some sarcasm that I believe AS once expressed;

Ever heard of Gerald O'Neill? Solar Power Satellites? SPS? O'Neill Colonies?

Its an old idea, c.1969. The only thing holding it up is the price of hauling the equipment into space.

Phew, nothing major holding it up then!

Ironically enough, it was a new semiconductor that provided the semi-recent breakthrough. Though the price to space has been steadily decreasing, a sudden decrease in the amount of equipment needed to operate them made them suddenly economical; it can bring back more resources than get sent up.

The original SPS idea was based on collectors, heat engines, and microwave converters.

Some dude designed a "solar makes microwave directly" semi-conducting material, and the Japanese are jumping on it (or up into space) with both feet.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/japa ... er-arrays/

The article was published exactly one year after your uninformed sarcasm.

So, AS, are you going to admit who you are, or do we just have to trust the word-frequency analysis (as if anyone needs it)?

-Tom

[Atheist Statist]

I can't find decent information on this isotope ratio business. There should be a study and a graph out there showing the ratio (as I understand it) of carbon-14 to total carbon over time. If this ratio is pertinent, where is the study?

Vertigo - I posted a link to this way back but it's kind of buried in Tmaq's avalanche of bullshit:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/

There are some links there to relevant papers. The important ratio is the carbon-12/carbon-13 ratio (those are the two stable isotopes of carbon). Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope that's used in carbon dating (which is a different thing).

[Atheist Statist]

I googled this phrase just for laughs; "WHO THINKS THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC" and found all sorts of stuff, including lots of answers.

I expected I'd have to eventually retract my claim about that POLITICAL issue, but, you know, the power of honest curiosity.

Well at least you're trying (slightly) now. Let's check it out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

So we go to the paper itself. The abstract reads:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

This is actually quite an instructive example. The paper in no way contests any of the AGW consensus, let alone the little issue that you lied to us about. The whole paper even ASSUMES the standard hypotheses - that humans generate co2, that the co2 goes into the atmosphere, then to the oceans, etc etc, to come to its conclusions.

Nevertheless the paper has generated excitement among deniers because it points out that AIRBORNE FRACTION has not changed significantly. They don't know the difference between the airborne fraction of anthropogenic co2 and the co2 LEVEL in the atmosphere. Do you?

It also came up with this about the isotope ratio, but its clearly all mired in some thick jargon and peppered throughout some emails;

http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm

But what is that thick jargon discussing? It is discussing ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Duh.

A bit of a glossary can help, too;

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

It can help destroy your claim, yes.

Is that it? Want to try again?

WHO THINKS THAT THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC?

(hint: there's one guy that you're missing)

[Tmaq]

I googled this phrase just for laughs; "WHO THINKS THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC" and found all sorts of stuff, including lots of answers.

I expected I'd have to eventually retract my claim about that POLITICAL issue, but, you know, the power of honest curiosity.

Well at least you're trying (slightly) now.

Well, that's nice to hear from you - perhaps one day I'll aspire to reach your consistently trying level.

Perhaps you;d like to try to explain what you found so convincing, as I sense you want to do.

The paper in no way contests any of the AGW consensus

Uh, sorry. You lost me there with that...jargon.

Would you be so kind as to elucidate this 'consensus' you mentioned?

Perhaps once I know the (correct) consensus, then I'll be more adroit at applying that OTHER standard you prefer?

, let alone the little issue that you lied to us about.

You're saying I deliberately represented as true something I knew to be untrue? Or vice-versa?

Or did you 'accidentally' equivocate a mistake you can't seem to identify or explain for a nefarious intent you used your jedi mind-reading powers to 'discover'...the way a politician might do?

The whole paper even ASSUMES the standard hypotheses

Oops, there was that bulls...er, jargon again.

You really need to start explaining yourself if you honestly expect people to respond like you've explained yourself.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you found so convincing?

, etc etc, to come to its conclusions.

"And then I thought some more, and prayed some more, and the more I prayed, the more sense it seemed to make!"

Again, there isn't much point to discussing the science until you start using the right standard of judgment.

Conclusions that come to themselves is convenient! Where have I heard of that stratagem before?

Oh, right - from DOGMATIC EVIDENCE-FREE traditions of 'thought.'

Nevertheless the paper has generated excitement among deniers

Uh, sorry. I know, I know...that glossary didn't really cover all the intro stuff, and I took my degree when...things were different.

What do the 'deniers' deny, exactly? I just want to have at least, you know, some idea what you are talking about, as I've been pointing out for approximately the entire time you've been discussing it with me.

because it points out that AIRBORNE FRACTION has not changed significantly.

As I recall, part of the dogm...er, hypothesis, was that the fraction would increase because of the inputs from humans - that the CO2 was 'building up' in the atmosphere, and various projections were being made about the airborne concentration increasing 'catastrophically' because it was staying there instead of driving the carbon cycle faster. That's the source of that "Day After Tomorrow" 'bifurcation' model, right? Did you learn a different one in school, or what?

That the airborne fraction hasn't increased debunks a large chunk of the 'catastrophic' model I remember first thinking was a load of horseshit. Such models in fact attract more funding, as has been amply documented, and the vast majority do not qualify as science in the 'falsifiable theory about reality' sense. They start by ASSUMING AGW, they do not TEST it, the way SCIENTISTS do. Your consistently occultish and snarky attitude strongly suggests that you don't know how to make empirical judgments, even if you were to decide to try.

Unless I'm way off base, that paper showed it to be likely that the various sinks all increased their operation approximately proportional to the relevant concentrations, which is entirely reasonable and plausible. And as I recall, that disproved a piece of the dogma. Putting the goal posts on wheels constitutes protecting a hypothesis, not testing it; a political, not scientific endeavor.

That's why I keep asking you to explain what you found so convincing, if you want to talk about the AGW theory with, you know, some conviction.

I could be totally off base about lots of things. More data is always coming in, and its often steeped in jargon. There is also the fact that the frankly occult nature of much of the research means you, with a bit more 'inside' knowledge, might easily outexplain anyone else here about how this-or-that idea has been vetted by being empirically tested.

Perhaps if I asked someone who knew better to explain what they found so convincing...

They don't know the difference between the airborne fraction of anthropogenic co2 and the co2 LEVEL in the atmosphere. Do you?

Perhaps if I asked someone who knew better...

It also came up with this about the isotope ratio, but its clearly all mired in some thick jargon and peppered throughout some emails;

http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm

But what is that thick jargon discussing? It is discussing ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Duh.

Yes, it was rather dumb of you to think anyone believed that THE TOPIC was different, in addition to overlooking the obvious point that the jargon made it difficult to know WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING SAID, which is what someone who was honestly curious, like me or vertigo, would care about.

Someone who was honestly curious, or honestly trying to be informative, would have recognized and responded to that attitude in one or the other of us, presumably the one he isn't trying to score ideological points with, such as vertigo, instead of pretending that being deliberately insulting would impress anyone.

Perhaps if vertigo asked someone who knew better to explain what they found so convincing...

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

It can help destroy your claim, yes.

Which of 'my' claims was destroyed, exactly?

WHO THINKS THAT THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC?

You've already mentioned two of them, dude.

Look, are you blacking out while you type, or suffering from multiple personality disorder or something? Its very strange the way you can't seem to focus enough to notice that you keep answering your own questions, overlooking my answers, and still demanding an answer from me, even though you've had ample opportunity to discover the relevant point; someone who wasn't 'terribly interested' in a ranting competition wouldn't pursue a patently political question, let alone doing such a stellar job of it.

I don't know what you are trying to prove, but what you are proving is that like most people who trust the AGW hypothesis, you don't speak the language of science, you don't apply the correct standards, you're basically an unreasonable schmuck, you use rhetoric as a substitute for explaining yourself (contrary to the way Dil, Mustang, Franc, and I for multiple examples, have explained ourselves many times upon precisely this topic) and so you are functionally indistinguishable from a theologian promoting their faith.

Like I already said, I'm sold.

If it smells like a goose and steps like a goose....

The issue is and has always been your standards of judgment, as it usually is with AGW protectors; that is why you are demanding an answer for a *political* question about *who,* instead of talking about the *science* by which we might find out *what is true.*

I challenged you upon a totally useless point; the amount of controversy is not how we decide what is true.

It was and always has been rhetorical bullshit and you've gone to the mat with me just to establish...what, exactly? That you apply the wrong standards of judgment, and can't seem to turn it off.

Lets consider the political question, settled, then - I retract my claim that there is "some controversy" about the source of any recent CO2 increases.

(hint: there's one guy that you're missing)

I don't get it. Are you now saying there is some controversy?

Are you going to talk about 'real' scientists, again?

I can hardly wait to see which criticism of AGW you debunk 'easily', now that the vastly more important POLITICAL issues have been settled.

-Tom

[Atheist Statist]

I retract my claim that there is "some controversy" about the source of any recent CO2 increases.

Thankyou. About time.

[Tmaq]

I retract my claim that there is "some controversy" about the source of any recent CO2 increases.

Thankyou.

For what? Letting you win an irrelevant ideological point?

Well...you're welcome, I suppose. I guess I didn't really realize how strongly you felt about it until you'd carried on your impotent tantrum for a week straight and letting it crowd out any concern you had about the more relevant challenges to your various empirical claims.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to address those empirical issues, but I'll list them here for the record in case you decide to start trying to salvage your reputation for being rational;

1) "Almost every" criticism of the AGW dogma is "easily debunked" by you. What are you waiting for?

2) Tell us what you found so convincing about the isotope ratios.

3) Are you going to admit who you are (or perhaps explain why you didn't just use your original userid?)

Just in case you prefer the philosophical issues (perhaps mistaking them for political issues), you can start here;

What does AGW predict can't ever happen?

Equivalently, what data would convince you that AGW was wrong?

-Tom

[vertigo]

That jargon-heavy paper seemed to be discussing the atmospheric half-life of different carbon products, and the ability for the system to recover from a temporary spike. They didn't seem to be talking about the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide per se. So I didn't think it was relevant.

The link AS gave referred to three papers, two of which were, I thought, very vague, and one on tree data that also was a little vague. That 3 of 6 trees showed a correlation between tree ring area and carbon 13 concentration was difficult for me to value.

[Tmaq]

That jargon-heavy paper seemed to be discussing the atmospheric half-life of different carbon products, and the ability for the system to recover from a temporary spike. They didn't seem to be talking about the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide per se. So I didn't think it was relevant.

I couldn't find anything either, but at first it looked like it might describe the isotope ratios.

Do you recognize AS?

-Tom

[vertigo]

Do you recognize AS?

-Tom

What does that mean? If you mean, do I agree that CO2 has increased, yes. The ice core data shows that it has, apparently. And anyway, it makes sense.

[Tmaq]

Do you recognize AS?

-Tom

What does that mean? If you mean, do I agree that CO2 has increased, yes. The ice core data shows that it has, apparently. And anyway, it makes sense.

"Atheist Scientist" has been here before under a different name. This might be his third round.

Just wondering if anyone else recognized him.

-Tom

[Tmaq]

I showed some of my liberal friends this thread for Earth Day.

-Tom