AGW denial is anti-science

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".

Unprecedented warming.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".

Unprecedented warming.

How is that proof of causality? What rate of increase would you call unprecedented? Who's data on that would you accept that you don't currently accept?

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".

Unprecedented warming.

How is that proof of causality? What rate of increase would you call unprecedented? Who's data on that would you accept that you don't currently accept?

It’s not proof of causality, it would be a cause for concern for me though.

I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.

I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

It’s not proof of causality, it would be a cause for concern for me though.

I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.

I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)

Coincidental that you choose a ridiculous level of warming that would be impossible to experience?

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

It’s not proof of causality, it would be a cause for concern for me though.

I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.

I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)

Coincidental that you choose a ridiculous level of warming that would be impossible to experience?

No, I chose a rate and duration of regional warming that would be remarkable. Have a look at the high resolution proxy temp records we have. You need to understand what is possible before you declare the impossible.

[AshVX220]

kerplunk said:

To restate, here's how I see it.

Me - causal link in hand, radiative forcing from increasing GHGs studied and quantified by calculation, and warming correlation observed.

You - hand waving in the air about cycles.

Ball is in your court to demonstrate causal link lacking, or put more meat on the cycles bone - handwaves don't cut it. This is my 'sceptical' truth.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 17th February 11:47

More proof, if it were required, of a lack of understanding of science....you can't prove a negative, it is up to the science to show a cause, the cause has not been shown, it has been hypothesised.

[kerplunk]

I note you said 'regions' - you need global warming precedents not redistribution of heat precedents. The planet is warming by all metrics - troposhere, surface and ocean heat content, ie the earth is retaining more of the sun's energy. Sounds like you're referring to Dansgaard-Oeschger events which had a hemispherical see-sawing characteristic.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".

Unprecedented warming.

How is that proof of causality? What rate of increase would you call unprecedented? Who's data on that would you accept that you don't currently accept?

It’s not proof of causality, it would be a cause for concern for me though.

I think warming in any region of about 1.5C per decade, for 5 decades in a row would be unprecedented.

I’d accept any unadjusted data from regularly calibrated instruments that measure in a reasonable way (so averaged over a reasonable timeframe...one second maximum temperature spikes would be ignored)

It's not an example of causality though and that's what I'm after. Those moaning about no proof of causality might like to explain what they would accept as proof and who they would accept it from.

Your 1.5C warming per decade for 5 decades or 7.5C over 50 years being required before you believe the earth is warming is hilarious, sorry. You may as well say that you are never going to believe in global warming.

As for unadjusted data, well for a myriad of reasons you can't have that. A quick Google will explain.

One second spikes seems to be an arbitrary figure? What about 2 second spikes? 10 second spikes? At what point do you consider the reading bona fide?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

I note you said 'regions' - you need global warming precedents not redistribution of heat precedents. The planet is warming by all metrics - troposhere, surface and ocean heat content, ie the earth is retaining more of the sun's energy. Sounds like you're referring to Dansgaard-Oeschger events which had a hemispherical see-sawing characteristic.

Ok KP- given the properties of CO2 how does additional CO2 in the atmosphere add to Ocean heat content - I'd like your explanation on this one.

[kerplunk]

AshVX220 said:

kerplunk said:

To restate, here's how I see it.

Me - causal link in hand, radiative forcing from increasing GHGs studied and quantified by calculation, and warming correlation observed.

You - hand waving in the air about cycles.

Ball is in your court to demonstrate causal link lacking, or put more meat on the cycles bone - handwaves don't cut it. This is my 'sceptical' truth.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 17th February 11:47

More proof, if it were required, of a lack of understanding of science....you can't prove a negative, it is up to the science to show a cause, the cause has not been shown, it has been hypothesised.

lol well there's proof that tunnel-visioned deniers love quoting out of context - that sentence clearly refers to the preceding sentences one of which refers to calculations of radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases - hence I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. If you want to claim the causal link is lacking you need to address the evidence FOR the causal link. Otherwise you may as well be claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine. - anyone can make claims.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

I note you said 'regions' - you need global warming precedents not redistribution of heat precedents. The planet is warming by all metrics - troposhere, surface and ocean heat content, ie the earth is retaining more of the sun's energy. Sounds like you're referring to Dansgaard-Oeschger events which had a hemispherical see-sawing characteristic.

Where are global temperature data with high enough temporal resolution to determine if what we have experienced since 1850 is unusual/remarkable?

Some scientists believe Dansgaard-Oeschger events caused the little ice age 400 to 200 years ago. There is no solid scientific explanation for what causes these events, and they involve pretty damn rapid temp changes.

This has already been discussed on the science thread, if I remember correctly.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I note you said 'regions' - you need global warming precedents not redistribution of heat precedents. The planet is warming by all metrics - troposhere, surface and ocean heat content, ie the earth is retaining more of the sun's energy. Sounds like you're referring to Dansgaard-Oeschger events which had a hemispherical see-sawing characteristic.

Where are global temperature data with high enough temporal resolution to determine if what we have experienced since 1850 is unusual/remarkable?

Some scientists believe Dansgaard-Oeschger events caused the little ice age 400 to 200 years ago. There is no solid scientific explanation for what causes these events, and they involve pretty damn rapid temp changes.

This has already been discussed on the science thread, if I remember correctly.

If some scientists believe Dansgaard-Oeschger events caused the little ice age then that also implies they believe the LIA wasn't a globally synchronous event which undermines the theory that recent GLOBAL warming is just a recovery from the LIA.

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 18th February 12:49

[Kawasicki]

Dansgaard-Oeschger events may also occur in global synchronous timing.

Some scientists believe LIA was also global.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Dansgaard-Oeschger events may also occur in global synchronous timing.

I'd be interested to read about that.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

I note you said 'regions' - you need global warming precedents not redistribution of heat precedents. The planet is warming by all metrics - troposhere, surface and ocean heat content, ie the earth is retaining more of the sun's energy. Sounds like you're referring to Dansgaard-Oeschger events which had a hemispherical see-sawing characteristic.

Ok KP- given the properties of CO2 how does additional CO2 in the atmosphere add to Ocean heat content - I'd like your explanation on this one.

(missed your post)

Same way the surface warms I think - delayed cooling.

Naturally having been around for a while I'm aware of sophistimicated arguments that it's a physical impossibility

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

(missed your post)

Same way the surface warms I think - delayed cooling.

Naturally having been around for a while I'm aware of sophistimicated arguments that it's a physical impossibility

Not sophisticated at all - IR does not penetrate the surface of the oceans - if anything it can only assist in increasing evaporation hence decreasing ocean temperatures. OHC is more likely a measure of sunlight (and volcanic) energy in the past that ocean circulation drags back to the measurable levels many years after the "warming" (clear sky) events and shouldn't be lumped in or expect correlation with current CO2 levels (except when measuring CO2 levels due to outgassing/sequestering).

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

(missed your post)

Same way the surface warms I think - delayed cooling.

Naturally having been around for a while I'm aware of sophistimicated arguments that it's a physical impossibility

Not sophisticated at all - IR does not penetrate the surface of the oceans - if anything it can only assist in increasing evaporation hence decreasing ocean temperatures.

My equally simple take is - if you accept IR increases evaporation that means IR is heating the surface. Delayed cooling of the shortwave-heated layers beneath the surface to the atmosphere follows from there. That's as far as I go with this - more in-depth analysis of the physics can be found elsewhere.

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

(missed your post)

Same way the surface warms I think - delayed cooling.

Naturally having been around for a while I'm aware of sophistimicated arguments that it's a physical impossibility

Not sophisticated at all - IR does not penetrate the surface of the oceans - if anything it can only assist in increasing evaporation hence decreasing ocean temperatures.

My equally simple take is - if you accept IR increases evaporation that means IR is heating the surface. Delayed cooling of the shortwave-heated layers beneath the surface to the atmosphere follows from there. That's as far as I go with this - more in-depth analysis of the physics can be found elsewhere.

Shame really as it's quite interesting in here!

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Dansgaard-Oeschger events may also occur in global synchronous timing.

I'd be interested to read about that.

Still interested.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

My equally simple take is - if you accept IR increases evaporation that means IR is heating the surface. Delayed cooling of the shortwave-heated layers beneath the surface to the atmosphere follows from there. That's as far as I go with this - more in-depth analysis of the physics can be found elsewhere.

Erm you do know evaporation causes cooling don't you?