Handbook for AGW sceptics

[TomAiello 26]

Serious question:

Do we have good historical data?

Is it possible to compare (for example) the average of the past 100 years with a 100 year average from 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,991]

>Do we have good historical data?

There are two kinds of historical data. One is instrumental; actual recorded temperatures that someone wrote down. The oldest written records are from 1659. The start of worldwide accurate (and standardized) temperature records started around 1850.

The other kind is proxy data. Tree growth rings, ice layer thicknesses, isotope ratios in snow, coral and stalactites, and crop harvest times (which, due to its importance, is often recorded carefully) all vary with average yearly temperature. These do not directly represent temperature, but can be analyzed to get an accurate estimate of previous temperatures.

[TomAiello 26]

Has anyone done such estimating?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,991]

>Has anyone done such estimating?

Yes, a great many people. There are dozens of such proxy measurements. Here are a few:

[mikkey 0]

On so called consensus, I like the following qoute by Ian Plimer:

Quote

‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’

If you are not too brainwashed by the AGW proponents, you might want to read the linked article.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

The book (by Plimer) the article talks about is the a well reserached argument on the sceptic side of the debate.

Note Plimer is a very resepected scientist (so good luck trying to smear him).

This morning Al Gore was here in Melbourne - jetted in on a private jet -to tell us that the deadly bush fires, the drought etc. was alll caused by global warming. (he gets paid very well for it too)

All of it is complete BS - as most of us who live here do know (we had the same conditions before but we are now so many more people living here that the effects of the same conditions are far more serious - i.e. more people perish in fires, less water available etc.).
Al also repeated the falshood that hurricanes etc. are now more frequent - which simply is not true. Al's tendency to bend and fabricate facts is also one of the main reasons I am a sceptic.

Here is a qoute from the article I think is an important thought:

Quote

One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Here is a qoute from the article I think is an important thought:

Quote

One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

You know it's a piss poor argument when the author starts blaming global warming on a loss of faith in Christianity.

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But when you look at CO2 vs temperature over the past 200 years the trend is pretty clear. (Unless, of course, your job depends on not seeing it.)

Well, yes. Given the correlation it also could seem clear that human activity put an end to the Little Ice Age.

Would you agree that but/for human activity the "Little Ice Age" could have been "the Big Ice Age we're in?" The correlation is there, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

But when you look at CO2 vs temperature over the past 200 years the trend is pretty clear. (Unless, of course, your job depends on not seeing it.)

Well, yes. Given the correlation it also could seem clear that human activity put an end to the Little Ice Age.

Would you agree that but/for human activity the "Little Ice Age" could have been "the Big Ice Age we're in?" The correlation is there, as well.

I think this falls in the "AGW IS GOOD FOR US" category.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

No. I am asking whether or not the correlation is sufficient to point to cause.

I am not saying it is better or worse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[chasteh 0]

Quote

‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’

Popular consensus is no reason to follow a specific argument.

However, neither is unpopular consensus.

We can be highly suspicious of either group.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

No. I am asking whether or not the correlation is sufficient to point to cause.

I am not saying it is better or worse.

Looking at the curves Bill posted, it seems that the little ice age was ending well before the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[billvon 2,991]

>Would you agree that but/for human activity the "Little Ice Age" could
>have been "the Big Ice Age we're in?"

Sure; this warming could be counteracting a cooling trend that would have otherwise been starting. (Since solar output is down slightly that might make sense.)

Of course, most ice ages start over the course of tens of thousands of years, and their rate of onset is around 2 to 10% of the rate of onset of global warming.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking.

Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the
>increased CO2 . . .

Temperature rises when significant heat is introduced to a system otherwise largely in balance. He has demonstrated how a significant amount of heat is being introduced to a system largely in balance. Claiming that that doesn't matter is like claiming that adding insulation to a cold house with a weak furnace cannot make it warmer.

You can claim that there is a mechanism that is countering that proven effect; indeed, many have been looking for such a mechanism and there are several candidates. That, however, is a somewhat different discussion than the jam-your-fingers-in-your-ears approach.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the
>increased CO2 . . .

Temperature rises when significant heat is introduced to a system otherwise largely in balance. He has demonstrated how a significant amount of heat is being introduced to a system largely in balance. Claiming that that doesn't matter is like claiming that adding insulation to a cold house with a weak furnace cannot make it warmer.

You can claim that there is a mechanism that is countering that proven effect; indeed, many have been looking for such a mechanism and there are several candidates. That, however, is a somewhat different discussion than the jam-your-fingers-in-your-ears approach.

Don't put words in my mouth, Bill. I never claimed the CO2 didn't matter, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd answer THE FUCKING POST THAT I TYPED and not some generic "denier" argument you imagined.

SHOW. ME. THE. LINK. Otherwise, all you have are theories.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking.

Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe.

Which one of these facts do you deny?
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration?
That thermodynamics works?

The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking.

Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe.

Which one of these facts do you deny?
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration?
That thermodynamics works?

The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit?

What part of "prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2" was too difficult for you to understand?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking.

Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe.

Which one of these facts do you deny?
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration?
That thermodynamics works?

The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit?

What part of "prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2" was too difficult for you to understand?

Three links. Read them.

[billvon 2,991]

> I never claimed the CO2 didn't matter . . .

I didn't claim that you said that. You said to prove that the temperature is rising because of the increased CO2, which is what my post addressed. The temperature rise is caused by increasing CO2 levels, and this is demonstrable through measuring incoming energy (sunlight) measuring CO2 levels (simple measurement) and the effect CO2 has on re-radiation of infrared (a fairly simple lab experiment.) You can argue that there are other factors increasing or decreasing temperatures in addition to the CO2 forcing, of course.

>answer THE FUCKING POST . . .

No need to become angry.

[chasteh 0]

>SHOW. ME. THE. LINK. Otherwise, all you have are theories

God damned theories, being the core of all empirical knowledge and all.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is dead simple:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
Thermodynamics works.

With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking.

Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe.

Which one of these facts do you deny?
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration?
That thermodynamics works?

The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit?

What part of "prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2" was too difficult for you to understand?

Three links. Read them.

Ok, you admit there's no proof, then. Would have been easier just to say "it's theorized that there is a connection", but hey, whatever works.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Ok, you admit there's no proof, then. Would have been easier just to say "it's theorized that there is a connection", but hey, whatever works.

Read the links.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> I never claimed the CO2 didn't matter . . .

I didn't claim that you said that. You said to prove that the temperature is rising because of the increased CO2, which is what my post addressed. The temperature rise is caused by increasing CO2 levels, and this is demonstrable through measuring incoming energy (sunlight) measuring CO2 levels (simple measurement) and the effect CO2 has on re-radiation of infrared (a fairly simple lab experiment.) You can argue that there are other factors increasing or decreasing temperatures in addition to the CO2 forcing, of course.

Funny, I must have missed all those new conferences saying "CO2 proven as the cause of global warming".

I've never stated there wasn't an indirect effect - I am asking for proof that CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures, the same as I have for the LAST 4 YEARS.

Where's the proof?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Read the links.

Wouldn't it be more polite to summarize, in your own words, the underlying points?

Simply repeating "read the links" makes it sound like you are either unwilling or unable to state your position for yourself, but rather just take someone else's view on faith.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,991]

>Funny, I must have missed all those new conferences saying "CO2
>proven as the cause of global warming".

Not really that new. The IPCC has been saying that with greater and greater certainty since 1990. In 1990, they stated that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. Their latest statements are:

- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

>I am asking for proof that CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures, the
>same as I have for the LAST 4 YEARS.

>Where's the proof?

See above.

(BTW, to be technically correct, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary drivers of temperature increase, of which CO2 is the major component.)