Debunking the AGW Theory?

[LakeEffectKing]

why are skeptics always so damn kooky?

lol

[Mallow]

Completely irrelavent, you could never prove the Sun revolves around the earth, because we've been in space and know its not true.

Because he did not do the physican analysis himself, you can only hold those responsible who did.

As in, using basic laws of Therodynamics to conduct an expirment of the emissivity of Co2

You missed the point.

it's entirely possible he misunderstood or misrepresented the citations he uses.

Exactly. Or even that he represented the citations he uses correctly to support an incorrect conclusion. Citations are necessary in scientific papers, but all the citations in the world aren't going to save a broken premise. Hence implying that those cited were somehow "co-authors" of the paper, as Bethesda seemed to want to do, is pretty silly.

[k***]

implying that those cited were somehow "co-authors" of the paper, as Bethesda seemed to want to do, is pretty silly.

my thesis has over 150 co authors...i rule

[tacoman25]

Hansen isn't a kook by any stretch of the imagination.

He is an activist who gets arrested for his activism. Not the way to establish a reputation as an unbiased, objective scientist. Especially considering the programs he's involved in.

[Mallow]

It was his 1988 prediction, Scenario A

Point being, science changes whe regarding Hypothesis.

Worst-case scenario, from 1988, WITHOUT the error bounds. So it was a complete and utter misrepresentation, as I thought. (It's kinda like trying to use the coldest, snowiest GFS ensemble member at hour 384 that didn't verify to show that the GFS ensembles are useless)

So why did you post it?

But most Likely, it isn't.

Remember, he didn't write this paper alone.

Says who? And for all intents and purposes, he did write the paper alone. He's the sole author. He seems to have had help from another kook, and cited several other papers (be they kooky or real science).

[Mallow]

my thesis has over 150 "co authors"...i rule

FYP

[BethesdaWX]

yes, he did, with a little assistance on one issue by that Anderson wacko.

there are no co-authors listed.

There were 20 international scientists who contributed, if there was an error, it would most likely have been spotted

These physicists Inlue Joe Postma And Anderson.

[Snow_Miser]

I'm enjoying the show..!

[LakeEffectKing]

Worst-case scenario, from 1988, WITHOUT the error bounds. So it was a complete and utter misrepresentation, as I thought.

So why did you post it?

Says who? And for all intents and purposes, he did write the paper alone. He's the sole author. He seems to have had help from another kook, and cited several other papers (be they kooky or real science).

Are there any skeptical scientists out there that aren't kooks to you???

[BethesdaWX]

Worst-case scenario, from 1988, WITHOUT the error bounds. So it was a complete and utter misrepresentation, as I thought.

So why did you post it?

Says who? And for all intents and purposes, he did write the paper alone. He's the sole author. He seems to have had help from another kook, and cited several other papers (be they kooky or real science).

Scenario B is only 0.1C lower Whats your point?

We're -0.1C now on the UAH, & -0.8C on the RSS, so the graph will look somewhat the same. We have not warmed in the past decade.

[tacoman25]

Worst-case scenario, from 1988, WITHOUT the error bounds. So it was a complete and utter misrepresentation, as I thought.

Error bounds or not, his overall guess from 1988 has clearly proven too high. How high is debatable, but it's not debatable that he was at the very least somewhat off.

Not to mention the numerous statements he has made that have proven to be too extreme.

[Mallow]

Are there any skeptical scientists out there that aren't kooks to you???

You, for example.

Sorry, a hypothesis that claims CO2 has a net cooling impact strikes me as one that's proposed by a kook. There are some issues (cosmic rays, for example) where I'm not comfortable/knowledgeable enough to assert something like that about the author, but you have to have a filter for ridiculous claims like these.

[BethesdaWX]

Hansen FTW!!! :thumbsup:

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then

[Mallow]

Scenario B is only 0.1C lower Whats your point?

We're -0.1C now on the UAH, & -0.8C on the RSS, so the graph will look somewhat the same. We have not warmed in the past decade.

Don't you have any COMPLETE graphics? Ones with error bounds and which are updated through at least 2010? And preferably from predictions made after 1988?

Or better yet, remind me why we're talking about this again.

Error bounds or not, his overall guess from 1988 has clearly proven too high. How high is debatable, but it's not debatable that he was at the very least somewhat off.

Not to mention the numerous statements he has made that have proven to be too extreme.

Nobody's denying any of that.

[BethesdaWX]

You, for example.

Sorry, a hypothesis that claims CO2 has a net cooling impact strikes me as one that's proposed by a kook. There are some issues (cosmic rays, for example) where I'm not comfortable/knowledgeable enough to assert something like that about the author, but you have to have a filter for ridiculous claims like these.

I never said I agreed with this study.

However, when one resorts to defending Hansen....

[BethesdaWX]

Don't you have any COMPLETE graphics? Ones with error bounds and which are updated through at least 2010? And preferably from predictions made after 1988?

And remind me why we're talking about this again.

Nobody's denying any of that.

Satellite starts in 1979.

Point is Science Changes the More we Learn, understandings change. We know nothing regarding GCR's, know less if potential changes in GCC in tandom with ocean cycles, how the Suns Magnetic Aspect and the earths Weakening Magnetic Field May affect climate. The NAO correlation is just a start.

The Science of AGW needs to Change more, and it will. It always does.

[BethesdaWX]

I thought you wanted this thread to discuss the article in the first post? why are you taking it off topic?

Because you said hansen wasn't a kook.

Umm, yeah

[Mallow]

Satellite starts in 1979.

Point is Science Changes the More we Learn. We know nothing regarding GCR's, potential changes in GCC in tandom with ocean cycles, how the Suns Magnetic Aspect and the earths Weakening Magnetic Field May affect climate.

The Science of AGW needs to Changemore, and it will. It always does.

If you want to see AGW science change for the better (in other words, if you want us to understand it more thoroughly), posting kooky articles is not the way to go about it. Sorry, but if you don't have the parsing capability to realize that an article that claims that CO2 has a net cooling impact in the Earth's atmosphere (i.e. more CO2 = colder global temperatures) is kooky, I personally think you need to learn to parse better.

There's a reason this wasn't published in a respected scientific journal, and it's not because of some perceived unfair bias against anti-AGW positions.

(And WTF does "satellite starts in 1979" have anything to do with anything? My problems were with the lack of the most UP-TO-DATE info, and the use of Hansen's EARLIEST--aka least refined--paper. As you said, science changes... and even Hansen has had to accommodate these changes.)

[BethesdaWX]

why did you bring Hansen in this thread to begin with?

You did actually, I was giving an example circumstance.

Point is, He is a Kook, and there will be Kooks on Both sides of the debate.

But because they are Kooks, that doesn't mean their science is wrong or right....well, Hansen's predictions have sucked balls so far. We'll see if that changes.

[BethesdaWX]

If you want to see AGW change for the better (in other words, if you want us to understand it more thoroughly), posting kooky articles is not the way to go about it. Sorry, but if you don't have the parsing capability to realize that an article that claims that CO2 has a net cooling impact in the Earth's atmosphere (i.e. more CO2 = colder global temperatures) is kooky, I personally think you need to learn to parse better.

There's a reason this wasn't published in a respected scientific journal, and it's not because of some perceived unfair bias against anti-AGW positions.

(And WTF does "satellite starts in 1979" have anything to do with anything? My problems were with the lack of the most UP-TO-DATE info, and the use of Hansen's EARLIEST--aka least refined--paper. As you said, science changes... and even Hansen has had to accommodate these changes.)

Here is RSS up to date. Again, where is our supposed Rapid AGW? Its going the other way now.

When Science Fails, we need to make revisions. Its getting to that point now.

[k***]

someone needs to jump in and save bethesda

[Mallow]

Here is RSS up do date. Again, where is our supposed Rapid AGW? Its going the other way now.

0.145k/decade (which is, of course, one of the lower estimates, and doesn't include the poles) is still warming.

But that's not the debate in this thread. And that doesn't even address the issue of misleading graphics. It's a pretty weak attempt at a patch to address one of the three concerns I had.

[LakeEffectKing]

You, for example.

Sorry, a hypothesis that claims CO2 has a net cooling impact strikes me as one that's proposed by a kook. There are some issues (cosmic rays, for example) where I'm not comfortable/knowledgeable enough to assert something like that about the author, but you have to have a filter for ridiculous claims like these.

Well thanks for that!

As I think you know, I was a true blue believer for many years, at Albany and several years after. But what has always been part of me is "challanging" (or being skeptical of) those aspects of science that seemed to be overzealous in conclusiveness. While in school, the hypothesis of AGW had been kept from political forces. That changed....and even though I was "a believer" I didn't like the tact that seemed to transition to a snowballing "aren't you people listening to us" mode.

And though I certainly don't deny much of the evidence for AGW, by challanging my own beliefs, I learned that as scientists, we can NEVER let a group think, quasi-ideological force persuade us from challanging all that we learn from others....whether that is from one side or the other. AGW, on it's own, is a very difficult hypothesis to prove outright, given the complexities inherent to such a system. Thus, it leaves open an idividual to arbitrarily use evidence to varying degrees to validate their own beliefs, once it crosses into the stronger forces of ideological persuasions.

[BethesdaWX]

0.145k/decade (which is, of course, one of the lower estimates) is still warming.

But that's not the debate in this thread. And that doesn't even address the issue of misleading graphics. It's a patch to address one of the three concerns I had.

Over the past decade+, there has been net cooling on RSS and UAH, when the trend was supposed to be a +0.18C/decade. UAH includes the poles, RSS includes most of the N pole, None of the S pole which has been COOLING

My whole point in posting this smash hit thread, was that science is uncertain, and that changes will be made, and need to be made.

[Mallow]

Well thanks for that!

As I think you know, I was a true blue believer for many years, at Albany and several years after. But what has always been part of me is "challanging" (or being skeptical of) those aspects of science that seemed to be overzealous in conclusiveness. While in school, the hypothesis of AGW had been kept from political forces. That changed....and even though I was "a believer" I didn't like the tact that seemed to transition to a snowballing "aren't you people listening to us" mode.

And though I certainly don't deny much of the evidence for AGW, by challanging my own beliefs, I learned that as scientists, we can NEVER let a group think, quasi-ideological force persuade us from challanging all that we learn from others....whether that is from one side or the other. AGW, on it's own, is a very difficult hypothesis to prove outright, given the complexities inherent to such a system. Thus, it leaves open an idividual to arbitrarily use evidence to varying degrees to validate their own beliefs, once it crosses into the stronger forces of ideological persuasions.

Agreed on all counts, but I think you'd agree that there's some point at which you have to say "this makes no physical sense, and other aspects make the claim seem fishy to begin with (like not being published in a peer reviewed journal, as one of the many examples). This can be pretty readily dismissed." I certainly believe "papers" like this fall under that category. It just doesn't pass the initial "BS" test.

[BethesdaWX]

the first time his name appears in this thread is in one of your posts.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to Any of his work, I was giving an example circumstance.

[Mallow]

Over the past decade+, there has been net cooling on RSS and UAH, when the trend was supposed to be a +0.18C/decade. UAH includes the poles, RSS includes most of the N pole, None of the S pole which has been COOLING

My whole point in posting this smash hit thread, was that science is uncertain, and that changes will be made, and need to be made.

No, your whole point (as evidenced by your initial post and first several responses citing the paper as "physics") was that you thought that this might actually have some validity and the CO2 might actually have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. If that's not what you were trying to say early on in the thread, then you didn't do a very good job it.

If these basic laws of physics are correct, then they may have debunked AGW.

[BethesdaWX]

but you didn't post science in the first post in this thread.

posting nonsense doesn't move the debate forward. furthermore, it is apparent from your posts in this thread that you don't understand what you read. you mistook references to other papers in the Sullivan blog as a statement of co-authorship, you imputed dozens of co-authors to a single authored document, and you show zero discernment in evaluating whether this was legit.

Completely and utterly Incorrect A person and/or their credentials isn't science, case closed.

The work he presented was not "made up", unless you can prove he made it up. Since natural laws of therodynamics are used, you'd need to find ot where he incorrectly mis-anaylzed.

[BethesdaWX]

wtf is an "example circumstance"?

An example of a potential situation

[BethesdaWX]

No, your whole point (as evidenced by your initial post and first several responses citing the paper as "physics") was that you thought that this might actually have some validity and the CO2 might actually have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. If that's not what you were trying to say early on in the thread, then you didn't do a very good job it.

I never said I agreed with it, I said if he is correct. I'm looking for a rebuttal to it.

If I see one, I'll post it.