ben4vols Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 From my perspective, there are two versions of denier. 1) The totally disingenuous. 2) Those whose ideological world view logically and honestly fails to permit an acceptance of AGW. They are subconsciously predisposed to reject anything which, for example, seems to threaten free market capitalism or involves big government intervention.. Could the same not be said of those on the other side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Could the same not be said of those on the other side? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Could the same not be said of those on the other side? I agree with Terry. What do you feel is disingenuous (dishonest) about giving more credibility to research than to rhetoric? And how do you feel ideology has changed radiative physics, or caused the global temperature rise over the past century? Do you feel that the loss of arctic sea ice and the massive melting of glaciers and ice sheets is a political issue? Will sea level rise only affect blue states and not red states? And as for the potential worst case consequences for global warming - if you feel that our food supplies, our energy supplies, our economy, our long-term national security, is rock solid, sustainable, and immune to the consequences of AGW - what do you base your belief on? I'm genuinely curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 No If you think No, then you are being naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I agree with Terry. What do you feel is disingenuous (dishonest) about giving more credibility to research than to rhetoric? And how do you feel ideology has changed radiative physics, or caused the global temperature rise over the past century? Do you feel that the loss of arctic sea ice and the massive melting of glaciers and ice sheets is a political issue? Will sea level rise only affect blue states and not red states? And as for the potential worst case consequences for global warming - if you feel that our food supplies, our energy supplies, our economy, our long-term national security, is rock solid, sustainable, and immune to the consequences of AGW - what do you base your belief on? I'm genuinely curious. I have no problem with research or the continuing of research but to think the more known vocal supporters of AGW (Gore, Mann, Hansen, etc) don't engage in rhetoric is ridiculous. The prominent voices of AGW are mostly of the alarmist variety. The alarmist is doing the AGW side no good. The dire and ridiculous predictions are only driving the average person away because they can see that those predictions aren't coming true. Arctic sea ice is retreating, glaciers are melting, and global temps have risen since the last ice age, I agree with that but what I don't agree with is that man is having any great effect in causing it. Why have temps stagnated over the last 15 years and declined over the last 10? Why have global SST stagnated over the last 17 years? Compare warming periods from roughly 1910-1940 vs 1970-2000. Not much difference. All the while CO2 has continued to steadily rise. As for potential worst case scenario's from global warming...there is no way to predict any of that. We don't even accurately know what man's contribution to the past warming period was yet we want to try to predict dire consequences from something that might not even be happening. It is ridiculous. Even more-so when you consider the economic situation the world is currently in. The flip side of that question is what happens if you push countries and their people to the edge of economic peril to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only to find out 200 years in the future that the warming continued as it had in the past with very little difference made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 If you think No, then you are being naive. What aspect of the science is a lie and which scientists promote it? What is it about the science that could be considered a product of ideology or world view, other than being a product of practicing scientists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I have no problem with research or the continuing of research but to think the more known vocal supporters of AGW (Gore, Mann, Hansen, etc) don't engage in rhetoric is ridiculous. The prominent voices of AGW are mostly of the alarmist variety. The alarmist is doing the AGW side no good. The dire and ridiculous predictions are only driving the average person away because they can see that those predictions aren't coming true. Arctic sea ice is retreating, glaciers are melting, and global temps have risen since the last ice age, I agree with that but what I don't agree with is that man is having any great effect in causing it. Why have temps stagnated over the last 15 years and declined over the last 10? Why have global SST stagnated over the last 17 years? Compare warming periods from roughly 1910-1940 vs 1970-2000. Not much difference. All the while CO2 has continued to steadily rise. As for potential worst case scenario's from global warming...there is no way to predict any of that. We don't even accurately know what man's contribution to the past warming period was yet we want to try to predict dire consequences from something that might not even be happening. It is ridiculous. Even more-so when you consider the economic situation the world is currently in. The flip side of that question is what happens if you push countries and their people to the edge of economic peril to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only to find out 200 years in the future that the warming continued as it had in the past with very little difference made. Sounds like you deny the basic physics which is the scientific basis for AGW. You are simply ignoring or dismissing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 No Oh please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 every 'fact' you offer has already been rebutted at least a dozen times in this forum over the last 6 months. all your post proves is that you reject science and are a blind follower of denialist blogs. I have no idea why we have to constantly refute the same non-factual information with facts. Nice try. Reject science? Same tired ol tactic. Please show me what science I have rejected since the points I brought up dealt with observations. There is nothing to reject. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Sounds like you deny the basic physics which is the scientific basis for AGW. You are simply ignoring or dismissing it. I'm not denying Physics. I'm denying incorrect assumptions that have obviously been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The science you have is mostly reconstructed. The AWG side of the debate would have a much better leg to stand on if declines in sea ice didn't seem to immediately begin the day the satellite was launched. We know what is going on, but we have no idea how long or liner the decline has been. We really don't know what 390ppm CO2 will do to the planet verse 310ppm. Really, what do you plan to accomplish with all the bickering, do you really think this is going to change anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I know this is 100% not scientific, but it is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I'm not denying Physics. I'm denying incorrect assumptions that have obviously been made. Oh yes you are denying physics. The science of AGW is not based on historical reconstructions of past climates. It is not dependent on current warming. It is founded in the physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. When you say you doubt man is causing the Earth to warm, you are in effect saying the physical basis for AGW is wrong. You are denying the physics. The physics is the ONLY reason I am confident that AGW is a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 how about putting up some actual science instead of regurgitating the same crap all of the other deniers here do? Again nice try, I've never read that article from WUWT. There is nothing scientific about looking at observed data. I didn't know AGW turned looking at observational data into a science. Hmm, or maybe it has. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Oh yes you are denying physics. The science of AGW is not based on historical reconstructions of past climates. It is not dependent on current warming. It is founded in the physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. When you say you doubt man is causing the Earth to warm, you are in effect saying the physical basis for AGW is wrong. You are denying the physics. The physics is the ONLY reason I am confident that AGW is a reality. So in your physics at no point do assumptions have to be made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So in your physics at no point do assumptions have to be made? Well, first of all it is not my physics. It is the classical physics as developed by such prominent theoretical physicists as Arrhenius, Planck, Maxwell, Chandrasekhar, Boltzmann and many, many others. From this we know that a doubling of CO2 increases the radiative forcing experienced within Earth's lower atmosphere by 3.7W/m^2. Given the so called Planck Response of 0.3K per watt of forcing we get a bit less than 1.2K of temperature increase at Earth's surface as a direct consequence of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is little doubt as to the validity of the above and most everyone including skeptical scientists acknowledge as much. The actual real world temperature response at radiative equilibrium will be somewhat higher than 1.2C due to feedbacks pursuant to the radiatively induced temperature increase. How much higher is the big question. Most studies place equilibrium climate sensitivity somewhere between about 2C and 4.5C. So the hard physics demands 1.2C of warming per doubling of CO2. The uncertainty lies in the determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity. At this point we have little reason to favor a lesser value over a higher value or vice versa. A middle value of about 3C is taken as most probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 again, please provide peer-reviewed data to support your points. what you provided is junk, and not science. I see you have moved on to the next tactic in the AGW debate handbook. Peer-review observational data? Give me a break. What a bunch of non-sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I see you have moved on to the next tactic in the AGW debate handbook. Peer-review observational data? Give me a break. What a bunch of non-sense. I think she is saying you are mis-interpreting the observational data. While the rate of warming has definitely slowed, warming has not halted and certainly has not reversed as you suggest. The science has never stated that the warming rate would be linear or only escalate. Natural variability will at times accentuate the background warming trend and at other times work to slow it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, first of all it is not my physics. It is the classical physics as developed by such prominent theoretical physicists as Arrhenius, Planck, Maxwell, Chandrasekhar, Boltzmann and many, many others. From this we know that a doubling of CO2 increases the radiative forcing experienced within Earth's lower atmosphere by 3.7W/m^2. Given the so called Planck Response of 0.3K per watt of forcing we get a bit less than 1.2K of temperature increase at Earth's surface as a direct consequence of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is little doubt as to the validity of the above and most everyone including skeptical scientists acknowledge as much. The actual real world temperature response at radiative equilibrium will be somewhat higher than 1.2C due to feedbacks pursuant to the radiatively induced temperature increase. How much higher is the big question. Most studies place equilibrium climate sensitivity somewhere between about 2C and 4.5C. So the hard physics demands 1.2C of warming per doubling of CO2. The uncertainty lies in the determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity. At this point we have little reason to favor a lesser value over a higher value or vice versa. A middle value of about 3C is taken as most probable. I don't deny the 1.2C number either. What I deny are the assumptions in the feedback (both positive and negative) process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I don't deny the 1.2C number either. What I deny are the assumptions in the feedback (both positive and negative) process. OK, good. However, uncertainty is not our friend in terms of climate sensitivity. I hear you in that you perceive 'alarmist' to essentially regard high sensitivity as a given. Maybe the sensitivity will turn out to be closer to 2C, but we can't be confident of that. It could be at least double that value. For instance, the difference between a full ice age climate and today is no less than 5C to 6C. The radiative changes due to orbital configuration are quite weak and can come nowhere near explaining that amount of temperature variation without the addition of feedbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I see you have moved on to the next tactic in the AGW debate handbook. Peer-review observational data? Give me a break. What a bunch of non-sense. can we just ban this troll now...science board, folks. Science board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I see you have moved on to the next tactic in the AGW debate handbook. Peer-review observational data? Give me a break. What a bunch of non-sense. I have always had an issue with the peer reviewing credibility when dealing with AGW. This is a field of science with a strong counter viewpoint and its obviously in climate scientists best interest to only give the stamp of approval to what gels with their goals. The pro-AGW posters here act like we are crazy for questioning this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 can we just ban this troll now...science board, folks. Science board. So looking at observational data is a ban'able' offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So looking at observational data is a ban'able' offense? He often posts garbage like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 OK, good. However, uncertainty is not our friend in terms of climate sensitivity. I hear you in that you perceive 'alarmist' to essentially regard high sensitivity as a given. Maybe the sensitivity will turn out to be closer to 2C, but we can't be confident of that. It could be at least double that value. For instance, the difference between a full ice age climate and today is no less than 5C to 6C. The radiative changes due to orbital configuration are quite weak and can come nowhere near explaining that amount of temperature variation without the addition of feedbacks. Concerning sensitivity, what are you using as guidance to come to your conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 making this statement "Peer-review observational data? Give me a break. What a bunch of non-sense." should be an automatic permaban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I have always had an issue with the peer reviewing credibility when dealing with AGW. This is a field of science with a strong counter viewpoint and its obviously in climate scientists best interest to only give the stamp of approval to what gels with their goals. The pro-AGW posters here act like we are crazy for questioning this. AGW is based on and supported by many rational theories and empirical evidence which have withstood the peer-review process countless times spanning many decades. When scientists examine the full body of this evidence most conclude it implies a warming planet caused by things like fossil fuel burning, agricultural and other land use practices, and the large scale production of cement. The supposed strong counter viewpoint you allude to is not really based on this array of sciences and it's evidence, but rather exists for reasons unrelated to the science. I am not disallowing for the existence of groups who may exploit the science for personal gain or alternate agenda either. That's human nature and you are justified in suspecting some of that. Stripping all the outside and internal potential for corruption away, what remains is the verifiable scientific basis for AGW. The world is warming and mankind's activities are by and large the single most influential contributor. That simple statement represents the scientific consensus. Not how much warming, or when NYC will be submerged by the sea. Not how many supercanes will strike the US mainland or how badly agriculture will be impacted. The particulars of these and many other ramifications of a generally warming world are far less understood in detail, yet the general direction for all of them is quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Concerning sensitivity, what are you using as guidance to come to your conclusions? There has been no lack of studies involving this question. These studies utilize for example, paleoclimate, volcanic eruptions and computer simulations to arrive at their estimates. The so called Charney sensitivity value range is 1.5C to 4.5C and is supported by studies such as can be found doing a Google search for scholarly studies. SEE EDIT: Wikipedia covers the topic rather well HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 you are crazy for questioning it. the counter viewpoint isn't legit science for the most part, which is why it is, rightly, excluded from serious discussion of the subject. So why is there even a CC forum here at Americanwx??? I don't see a "Round Earth" forum, and that is supposedly as well established as AGW theory is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So why is there even a CC forum here at Americanwx??? I don't see a "Round Earth" forum, and that is supposedly as well established as AGW theory is.... this doesn't even make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.