hodgy0_2

ahh the old conspiracy argument - I wondered how long it would take you to finally get to that (like most CT'rs you will have zero evidence)

show a scientific paper that does not support AGW (please not a gish gallop list – you tried that)

incidentally your Gish Gallop list had Richard Tol listed - he is a lead author on the IPPC reports - he does not deny AGW

but whislt you’re at it


I asked you regarding your belief that

How you do you come to that – where is the science to back that claim

I asked you to provide evidence that CO2 would not perform the same way in the atmosphere as in the Lab – you have not done so

You simply deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere

Here’s my evidence - this is what NASA (amongst every singe scientific body on earth) say about CO2

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

here’s how they know, they have satellites in space measuring CO2 and the amount of longwave radiation it absorbs

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/wea...001-photo.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...e/balance2.php

“Wielicki says that he and his team collected and merged data over a 22-year period from a number of satellites that measure both solar and thermal radiation reflected by and emitted from the atmosphere over the tropics. They brought together older data from Nimbus 7, which was one of the earliest satellites to measure radiation over the Earth, and the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), which has kept a continuous record of the Earth’s radiation since 1985. New data sets were also used from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments that fly aboard the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) as well as the newer Terra satellite (Wielicki et al. 2002).”

they do real tests in the atmosphere , real measurements in the atmosphere - collect real data from the atmosphere - which you can even download (anyone can I can provide the link), so why don't do that - prove them wrong and earn a Nobel Prize

a good summary of how the greenhouse affect is measured is summarised here

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/ - not by a blogger, or science wannabe - but a NASA scientist

Now for people who don’t know NASA are the guys who can send a spacecraft to Pluto to send data back regarding it’s atmosphere. But Jonc asserts thet can’t do that to Earths

Where is YOUR evidence that CO2 in not a greenhouse gas (as you state in the post above) and where is the evidence that CO2 does not have the same physical properties in the atmosphere that in the lab

and your simple "feeling" that because CO2 forms a small part of the atmosphere it must by definition therefore have a small affect is just that - a "feeling"

so simply post your evidence

Tidgy

The problem is mate that scientific research about it is typicly funded by each side of the argument and funnily enough the conclusions contradict each other.

Is global warming happening, all agree yes, are humans affecting it, jury is still out.

and there in lies the problem

hodgy0_2

well what are the conclusions of the other side? - in the scientific literature - not the denier blogs littered around the internet

science is not done on the internet - contrary to what you may have been led to believe

if the jury is still out - point to what could be causing the rapid warming in the last 35 off years

point to the scientific papers that have an alternative hypothesis

point to any world scientific body that dispute the central tenets of AGW

yes you always get a few outlier scientist - the Tobacco lobby had loads, over a 30 year period, all telling us that the Jury was out on the tobacco/cancer debate

that scientific argument was settled in the mid sixties - but the tobacco companies dragged it out for 30 years

(even the tobacco company scientists knew privately, - just like the Exxon scientist knew about AGW privately in the 80's and 90's)

the jury maybe still out for a tiny minority

Geezer

No, because homeopathy is junk science, but the example I gave is real, documented and testable. Try it

Tidgy

Can you prove it hasn't happened before?

jonc

Hodgy, if anyone is guilty of "gish gallop" have a look at your posts!! Please don't misquote me or try and put what I've typed out of context or put words in my mouth to try and support your argument. Nowhere did I say that CO2 was not a GHG. Your links for the absorption of longwave radiation does not in any way identify that CO2, out of the many GHGs, is solely responsible for any changes, in fact nowhere does it quantify CO2's contribution to the changes and your link to NASA's Earth Observatory site doesn't even specifically mention CO2 at all. Even if you take this study, of the 22 years observed, the gradual changes only occurred in the last ten years. Just as you contend that climate change science observes over many decades, shouldn't you also apply this rule to this study too? Problem is all too often, articles and studies are misrepresented and misquoted to support the protagonists point of view and untruths and character assassinations are used to try and discredit all those who oppose or even question the "consensus".

Yes these scientists do carry out real tests, take real measurements, collect real data. That's why the article concludes:

So what would you say is greater contributor here, man or nature? Even these scientists and unsure of the effects of longwave absorption on long term climate change, but you still pass this off as evidence to try and support your argument.

Look, we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Again, what I'm questioning is not the effects of CO2 in general, but the effect in the amount of CO2 that is man-made has on climate change and whether a reduction of an arbitrary percentage in CO2 will have any tangible affect in limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees C. I see no evidence that this arbitrary reduction will do what the politicians/pro AGW say it will do, the burden of "proof" isn't for me to provide since you can't prove a negative. You've presented articles and links as evidence to support this view point, as a skeptic I can only refute what is presented if I remain unconvinced and at the moment I'm unconvinced.

Geezer

How many people studied radiation before Marie Curie?
How many people people were developing antibiotics before the 1930s?
How many palaeontologists were there in the 17th century?
How many........
Because it's quite important?
They obviously have funding from somewhere, you think climate science is free?
This is somewhat flawed logic, that because predictions may not be 100% accurate, that it is all incorrect.


Well, it depends on your definition of huge. No one, to the best of my knowledge has predicted a 20 degree rise, which I would say is huge. In the context of damaging, then the figure would probably be a lot lower. There has been a rise in temperature, anyone who denies it's getting warmer is, quite frankly, an idiot. Of course, the question of why it is getting warmer is one that you may wish to debate.
Again, define huge.
Well, they do!
Because extreme weather events are the result of a changing climate?
Whilst I accept that some facets of government policy take advantage of climate change, to say that only bodies who tow the line receive funding is paranoia.

Martin2005

I'm not sure you have to be 'convinced', you just need to apply some common sense, and look at the balance of probabilities based upon the best science available.
If we have to be 100% convinced before acting then it might be too late.

jonc

I agree, but looking at the probabilities, I think we're far from being anywhere near 100% and common sense tells me to question what's been presented.

hodgy0_2

lol, yes it does precisely because CO2 absorption of Long wave radiation occurs at different wavelengths than other GHG - that is the "signature"

that is the physics

so they DO know that CO2 blocks outgoing radiation - they measure it

you deny this - I don't put words into you mouth you said it

you stated the radioactive absorption could be measured in the lab but not in the atmosphere

but NASA do just that



now show me your source for your statement

I quote

"for. However, try finding documented tests of CO2 in the same concentration as that of earths atmosphere producing the same behavior.
"

jonc

If you're only interested in documented and testable science, tell me this:

Over the past 150 years, temperature has risen 0.8 degrees C. How much of that is due to man made CO2? All of it? Are you able to quantify the amount of rise due to man made CO2?

hodgy0_2

if Alcazar wants to avail him self of the fact around Sea Level rises he can - there are plenty of sources

the simple fact is that sea levels have risen dramatically (it is the rate of change scientist are interested in) in the last 30 years

and the physics are very simple - most of the sea rise is attributable to something called "thermal expansion" - it is the science that makes thermometers work, as a liquid heats up it expands



http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/


google it


he wont find any scientist saying "huge" - he may find Al Gore say it - but then he is not scientist, he may find it in the Media, but then they misrepresent the science both ways - again Science is not conducted in the pages of newspapers

hodgy0_2

just to add the scientist also know that it is human emitted CO2 not natural background C02

how do they now - because of the physics - human produced CO2 has a different "thumbprint", a different chemical composition to other forms of naturally occurring C02

they measure it, they observe it

Geezer

I can't tell you that. I doubt any climate scientist can either. However, that isn't really the point.


Are you saying that because you cannot tell me how many species have gone extinct due to human activity, as opposed to how many would have gone extinct since the rise of man means that we are not having any effect on other species on the planet?


How many deaths in London were due to the smog? If you can't quantify it, it mustn't be related, right?


I am not an AGW advocate as much as you may think. I wasn't so much a denier, but I was much more skeptical in the past, but I have found the arguments for are more persuasive.


I think that we still have much to learn about climate science, and I can see how some of that drives deniers. I also see carbon trading as somewhat suspicious, if they want to reduce it, reduce it. Trading off against other nations seems a cop out to me, but hey ho.


But, whether you are a believer, skeptic or a denier, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is a sensible thing to do. It is a finite resource, it is a polluter (whether you believe in AGW or not). To force novel technologies that give us cheap, renewable energy will only be driven by making the current system unattractive, as unpalatable as that may be.


Of course, the other main problem is the ever expanding human population. If humans really are the cause of climate change, then reducing carbon emissions alone is not the answer. That doesn't mean to say you should stop trying to address part of the problem because you can't address all of it.

jonc

Why don't you read carefully the you quoted? It clearly states "carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases”, that's right, other greenhouse gases not just CO2. You’re again misrepresenting what’s printed.

Again nowhere do I deny any of CO2’s properties and again you’ve misquoted me and out of context; I never said CO2 can be measured in a lab and not in the atmosphere, what I said was that I’ve not found documented lab tests for CO2 that determines its absorptive properties performed again in concentrations as found in the atmosphere. There is a big difference between the denying accuse me of and me not finding these documented tests. Since you ask me to provide a source, again you’re asking me to prove a negative. The burn of proof lies with the person who say these tests as I’ve stated exists. Much like religion, the burden of proof doesn’t lie with person who doesn’t believe in a God, but with the preacher who says God exists.

jonc

BINGO! But somehow they're able to say yep, 40% reduction in CO2 will do so and so.

Just to add, I wholly agree with you with regards to our understanding of climate science, pollution, fossil fuels and human population.

hodgy0_2

the thing is geezer, I too was a sceptic, or I suppose to be more specific I just didn't know - one way or the other

I was just as much a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect as anyone else looking into something for the first time

and what became pretty obvious to me, pretty quickly when I did finally look into it

was the "faux" skeptics or simply deniers used the same modus operandi has every other CT’er and peddler of pseudo-scientific nonsense

the actual active movement was actualy very small – in the case of AGW deniers, a few extreme US right-wing think tanks (Heartland Institute, CFACT, Marshall Institute, Cato Institute The NIPPC ) pretty much all the noise came from these organisation - and all heavily connected with the fossil fuel industry, and they all peddle the same stories like a merry go round, linking to each other endlessly to create an illusion of “quantity”

now that’s fine if the science is good – but they actually rarely produce any – that’s the reason why it is not in the IPCC

they simply “kick” the actual science – they are to science what “tyre kickers” are too second hand cars, they don’t come up with alternative theories to explain the recent dramatic rise in temps

like all CT’rs/science deniers they cherry pick the data – the use of the famous El Niño event in 1998 is a classic example of this cherry picking


when they get data they don’t like – like recent sea temp data from NOAA they simply say it is fabricated (like every CT’r)

they use simple strawman tactics – misrepresenting the opponent position


well we are experiencing a massive El Niño at the moment – which WILL push the temps to an all time high my bet is that in 4 years when the earth cools a bit from the all time high (due to natural variability) they will start peddling the “earth is cooling” myth

In short I have debunked enough pseudo science and CT’s in my time to know when I am being played

Whenever you looked through an argument on a blog the AGW proponent would post links to Science done by Climate scientist, the deniers would post to op ed’s on denier blogs – the asymmetry of what is deemed as evidence is astounding – and when you read it (which I do) it is usually rubbish or does not quite say what the deniers say it says

And then when you realise that most of the prominent climate scientist also doubt evolution – well that’s the icing on the cake to me, then when you realise that all the thinktanks mentioned above played a roll in the Tabaco companies denial of the tobacco / cancer link – it is a slam dunk

Doubt is there product – doubt the science doubt the data

No I don’t say we know everything re Climate Change (nor do climate scientists), there are uncertainties, as in any discipline – that’s why the IPCC are careful to give higher and lower ranges for all the predictions – and it is by very nature consensual

And as you say because we don’t know everything does not mean we known nothing, and contrary to what the deniers would have us believe we know quite a lot

hodgy0_2

yes and as I have pointed out they can tell what the other GHG gases are by the chemical fingerprints

and they can even tell the difference between man made C02 and naturally occurring C02

so they test and the document these effects of C02 in the atmosphere - and it matches what they see in the labs

contrary to what you assert below

" No one is questioning the properties of CO2, and when tested in concentrations far in excess of what is in the atmosphere you will get the results the scientists are looking for.However, try finding documented tests of CO2 in the same concentration as that of earths atmosphere producing the same behavior."


they know the TSR entering the atmosphere and they measure the heat escaping and they measure the amount blocked by C02

and they know the difference between the different types of GHG and the different types of CO2

now show me you evidence that back ups your assertion CO2 does not act as a GHG outside the Lab

jonc

I made no such assertion whatsoever. You can choose to misquote me and deliberately misconstrue what I said, but I've already explained to you the situation, I can't make it any clearer. Your continual misrepresentation makes you no better that the deniers and skeptics you lambast.

Now I don't doubt the technology involved in identifying longwave absorption of CO2. Have they quantified the affect it has on climate change? When one of the scientists from your article regarding solar radiation absorption concludes "that even from the start, this phenomenon appeared to be a climate fluctuation unrelated to global warming or greenhouse gases." What is it do you want me to think?

You do feel that you have to labast those who simply questions the science behind AGW? Should we not question it and just sit back and blindly accept all of it?

hodgy0_2

lol, I don't misquote you I quote you word for word

" No one is questioning the properties of CO2, and when tested in concentrations far in excess of what is in the atmosphere you will get the results the scientists are looking for.However, try finding documented tests of CO2 in the same concentration as that of earths atmosphere producing the same behavior."


they don't have to test "far in excess of what is in the atmosphere"

they test the actual levels in the atmosphere

they get the same results as in the lab - contrary to your assertion

show me a misquote

show me a misrepresentation

hodgy0_2

I suspect they would have a pretty good attempt - with the obvious margin of errors stated

look at the graphic at the Bloomberg site I posted earlier

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The whole debate about this has become pretty pointless now. Whatever the science does or doesn't say, it's pretty clear the politics is a done deal, and will be staying that way for the foreseeable future. A cynic might draw parallels with the near-universal worldwide policy on narcotics prohibition, and the perverse and extremely costly side-effects of it that populations in the developed and developing worlds alike have had to endure for decades, but what would be the point? All you can really do is play along, do your best to ignore and socially avoid the most vocal of the people forcing it down your throat, and if you still care by the time the dust settles at the end of it all, mutter a quiet told-you-so to yourself.

boomer

Could you please explain this?

CO2 is, er, chemically, an atom of carbon and a couple of oxygen atoms.

They don't have badges or t-shirts, then are just ATOMS.

So how are the supposedly various CO2s "chemically" different?

mb

Martin2005

Why not look it up before posting?


Carbon from burning fossil fuels has very different isotope composition to the Co2 already in the atmosphere so that's how the KNOW, those damn scientist hey?

jonc

It is to do with isotope carbon-14 or the lack of it in CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. The drop in this isotope and therefore the drop in concentration in atmospheric CO2 will determine the CO2 produced by burning fossils. This method can only be used from 1950s since nuclear testing at that time increased this isotope in the atmosphere. The level of this isotope can only be derived from tree rings as far as I'm aware.

boomer

I know about isotopes (so didn't need to Google anything) - my point was that it is not a "chemical" thumbprint, but an atomic one!

mb

hodgy0_2

Sure, happy to be corrected and apologise for my imprecise use of language

Posting in haste - but no excuses

My point remains the same


The scientist can measure human emitted CO2 as apposed to natural occurring CO2

And contrary to Jonc assertion it behaves in the same way both in the lab and in the atmosphere

jonc

Its not physics either!


You can keep misrepresenting and misconstruing me, it still doesn't make what you say is true!!

hodgy0_2

lol, just answer post #110

hodgy0_2

and again whilst your at it

explain why observing the properties of CO2 in a laboratory, changes the way they behave in the atmosphere

and explain what "context" means