Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

#1 not only is there no denier science, the politicians who advocate it don't even accept the need for science. Any science. Sounds a lot like creationism to me. Pick the side most convenient for you.

Why do you keep bringing politics to this debate when I asked you for your scientific validation #1

I suppose that we've learned not to expect any more from politics

Ditto #2

#2 the IPCC political assassination attempts. "Railway engineer"? Flogger has apparently adapted the style of the political thugs who trained him over conservative extremist media. The apple not falling far from the tree.

Ditto#3

Oh well. Climate science is not up for election. It stands on its own merit.

Ditto#4

But, the ball is squarely in the government's court now. There is no more room for dithering. For kicking the can down the road. For blaming the other party.
Will politics keep up with the success of the science effort? Not likely, but possible.

Ditto#5

Good grief !! :shock:

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Thankfully with thread history we do not need to rely on memory.
From your own post #412.

This thread was not about the sensor range of some satellite, but if said range was capable of accounting for all possible
energy leaving earth. It clearly is not.

More zero evidence guessing. This amateur pseudo scientist believes that he's out guessed the professionals who designed and built a $100 Million dollar satellite. He thinks, they forgot a sensor.

How's that for an ego trip?

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Why do you keep bringing politics to this debate when I asked you for your scientific validation #1



Ditto #2



Ditto#3



Ditto#4



Ditto#5

Good grief !! :shock:

When are you going to present some denier science? After declaring that there isn't any.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

When are you going to present some denier science? After declaring that there isn't any.

'Denier science' is your fiction. Get back to me when you decide you want to engage in more than just flaming :roll:

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Of course a real scientist would not be looking for ways to hide the signal with noise, but rather the opposite.

Most Humans think about temperature in ether degrees C or F, plotting the recorded data on normalized Human scales,
is not distorting the data, but moving it into the frame of Human concepts.
Multiplying the anomaly times 100, was the distortion.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

'Denier science' is your fiction. Get back to me when you decide you want to engage in more than just flaming :roll:

You have no science to engage. You keep saying that.

And I have no politics to argue. I keep saying that.

You talk a good game but it always boils down to political thuggery.

A waste of my time.

Come back when you have some science.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Most Humans think about temperature in ether degrees C or F, plotting the recorded data on normalized Human scales,
is not distorting the data, but moving it into the frame of Human concepts.
Multiplying the anomaly times 100, was the distortion.

Who multiplied the anomaly times 100?

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You have no science to engage. You keep saying that.

Because I have no hypothesis to defend

And I have no politics to argue. I keep saying that.

Really ? So why did you argue it no less than 5 times in your earlier post and in virtually every post here to date ! :lamo

You talk a good game but it always boils down to political thuggery.

Where ? please cite me ?

A waste of my time.

You won't constructively engage so its your own time you are wasting

Come back when you have some science

Until you can provide a positive I can hardly be expected to provide a negative :lol:

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

More zero evidence guessing. This amateur pseudo scientist believes that he's out guessed the professionals who designed and built a $100 Million dollar satellite. He thinks, they forgot a sensor.

How's that for an ego trip?

I do not have to out guess anyone, they publish the specifications of the satellite, (the part you claimed to understand),
that clearly stated they only monitor a small portion of the spectrum.
You said in post #412 that total range of the CERES was .3 to 100 um, (microns or 1 X10^-6 meters)
Since you like Wiki,
Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia says the electromagnetic spectrum is from
1 X 10 ^-12 meters to 100,000,000 meters.
So in fact the .3 um to 100 um are a very small piece of the total spectrum.

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Who multiplied the anomaly times 100?

GISS, in the table I referenced.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit (deg-F).

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Because I have no hypothesis to defend



Really ? So why did you argue it no less than 5 times in your earlier post and in virtually every post here to date ! :lamo


Where ? please cite me ?



You won't constructively engage so its your own time you are wasting



Until you can provide a positive I can hardly be expected to provide a negative :lol:

You are not asked to prove a negative. Only an alternative. Until you find some science, we aren't on the same topic.

You want to argue politics. I want to discuss science.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

GISS, in the table I referenced.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

From the chart.

"GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius"

They chose the units which they clearly explained.

Are you having trouble with the arithmetic?

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You are not asked to prove a negative. Only an alternative. Until you find some science, we aren't on the same topic.

You want to argue politics. I want to discuss science.

The Science Channel's motto is "Question Everything"
The closely matches the Science I learned at University more that 35 years ago.
Your flavor of Science seems to be to accept the Orthodoxy.
Science is about skepticism!

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You are not asked to prove a negative. Only an alternative. Until you find some science, we aren't on the same topic.

This is like trying to catch fish in a river using your bare hands !

You want to argue politics. I want to discuss science.

OK if you'll get off your political hobby horse we'll discuss science . The IPCC in AR4 said global CO2 emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050. Please link me to the published literature they used to come to such a world shattering determination. I'm saying such a claim has no basis within published science to date . Prove me wrong ?

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

From the chart.

"GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius"

They chose the units which they clearly explained.

Are you having trouble with the arithmetic?

No I followed their instructions to convert to normal temperatures.

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit (deg-F).

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The Science Channel's motto is "Question Everything"
The closely matches the Science I learned at University more that 35 years ago.
Your flavor of Science seems to be to accept the Orthodoxy.
Science is about skepticism!

Perhaps they left out the part that most schools teach that you question science with science, not politics.

Your job is simple. Science that demonstrates the possibility of a different outcome from the release from fossil fuel products of combustion into the atmosphere.

If you believe that IPCC science is so flawed that even undereducated amateurs can find the holes, you're job should be a piece of cake.

After all your only competition is a railway engineer.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

This is like trying to catch fish in a river using your bare hands !



OK if you'll get off your political hobby horse we'll discuss science . The IPCC in AR4 said global CO2 emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050. Please link me to the published literature they used to come to such a world shattering determination. I'm saying such a claim has no basis within published science to date . Prove me wrong ?

First prove your assertion.

"The IPCC in AR4 said global CO2 emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050."

That's a political statement. Not their thing.

Their thing might be modeling the consequences of not achieving an 80% reduction.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

First prove your assertion.

"The IPCC in AR4 said global CO2 emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050."

That's a political statement. Not their thing.

Their thing might be modeling the consequences of not achieving an 80% reduction.

In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050

http://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf

Climate Change 2007 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III ... - Google Books

These are economy shattering proposals so what studies did the IPCC use that contained any such determination ?

Just to remind you here is what the co chairman of IPCC WGR3 who made these assertions said at Copenhagen 2009

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050

http://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf

Climate Change 2007 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III ... - Google Books

What studies did the IPCC use that contained any such determination ?

That's a relatively simple calculation.

We know atmospheric CO2 concentrations today. We know fossil fuel consumption and therefore GHG emissions by country. We can predict likely growth rates. We can identify those countries that are industrialized. We know the volume and density of the atmosphere.

You can do the math.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

That's a relatively simple calculation.

Nonsense. Its pure guesswork. We have no idea what a 10 ,50 or 100PPM reduction would achieve even were it remotely possible for us to do so. Prove me wrong ?

We know atmospheric CO2 concentrations today. We know fossil fuel consumption and therefore GHG emissions by country. We can predict likely growth rates. We can identify those countries that are industrialized. We know the volume and density of the atmosphere.

You can do the math

But you can't.

Currently 28% of all our CO2 emissions come from our own respiratory cycles and those of the animals we feed on. If we shut down all industry transport and other modern infrastructure that would still leave an 8% shortfall in order to reach IPCC target. This equates to some 2 billion individuals that would have to cease to exist and a wretched agrarian lifestyle for the rest !

Fancy volunteering ?

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Nonsense. Its pure guesswork. We have no idea what a 10 ,50 or 100PPM reduction would achieve even were it remotely possible for us to do so. Prove me wrong ?



But you can't.

Currently 28% of all our CO2 emissions come from our own respiratory cycles and those of the animals we feed on. If we shut down all industry transport and other modern infrastructure that would still leave an 8% shortfall in order to reach IPCC target. This equates to some 2 billion individuals that would have to cease to exist and a wretched agrarian lifestyle for the rest !

Fancy volunteering ?

You, apparently, don't even read your own posts.

You posted:

In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050

The statement says absolutely nothing about what is achievable or what the impact would be. It's straight arithmetic which you are struggling with.

The topic may I remind you is Anthropogenic Global Warming. What is man doing that's DIFFERENT that's causing the climate to CHANGE.

We've been breathing for years. No change. Every day we CHANGE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That's the only root cause of AGW.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You, apparently, don't even read your own posts.

You posted:

In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050

The statement says absolutely nothing about what is achievable or what the impact would be. It's straight arithmetic which you are struggling with.

That will be both me and the UK government then who have specifically signed up for this economic self destruction on the basis of IPCC pronouncements

Government pledges to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 | Environment | theguardian.com

Since that article was published our rapidly rising pensioner deaths due to hypothermia caused by their inability to afford skyrocketing green fuel bills have achieved precisely ..... nothing

The topic may I remind you is Anthropogenic Global Warming. What is man doing that's DIFFERENT that's causing the climate to CHANGE.

You are yet to provide any empirical evidence of that whatsoever despite being asked multiple times to do so

We've been breathing for years. No change. Every day we CHANGE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That's the only root cause of AGW

I'm still awaiting your proof of that :waiting:

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

That will be both me and the UK government then who have specifically signed up for this economic self destruction on the basis of IPCC pronouncements

Government pledges to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 | Environment | theguardian.com

Since that article was published our rapidly rising pensioner deaths due to hypothermia caused by their inability to afford skyrocketing green fuel bills have achieved precisely ..... nothing



You are yet to provide any empirical evidence of that whatsoever despite being asked multiple times to do so



I'm still awaiting your proof of that :waiting:

"The globally-averaged annual combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). Numerically, this temperature departure for 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year since records began in 1880. Even when considering a margin of error of ±0.09°C (0.16°F), 2013 is still more likely than not to be among the top five warmest years on record."

"January–December 2013 Blended Land & Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles
2013 also marked the 37th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last colder-than-average year was 1976.
The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970."

"The 2013 worldwide land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average, making it the fourth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.19°C (0.34°F)."

Running from data is never a good idea unless your goal is ignorance.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

"The globally-averaged annual combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). Numerically, this temperature departure for 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year since records began in 1880. Even when considering a margin of error of ±0.09°C (0.16°F), 2013 is still more likely than not to be among the top five warmest years on record."

"January–December 2013 Blended Land & Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles
2013 also marked the 37th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last colder-than-average year was 1976.
The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970."

"The 2013 worldwide land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average, making it the fourth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.19°C (0.34°F)."

Running from data is never a good idea unless your goal is ignorance.

Do keep up :roll:

Evidence that the temperature has risen isn't evidence that we caused it. Temperatures have risen and fallen much more dramatically in the recent past than they have today without any human influence

(Kobayashi 2011)





Now how about answering my questions then ?:waiting:

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Do keep up :roll:

Evidence that the temperature has risen isn't evidence that we caused it. Temperatures have risen and fallen much more dramatically in the recent past than they have today without any human influence

(Kobayashi 2011)

View attachment 67161684

View attachment 67161685

Now how about answering my questions then ?:waiting:

"Temperatures have risen and fallen much more dramatically in the recent past than they have today without any human influence"

I'm not sure what "dramatically" means. I don't have any data that suggests that global average annual temperatures have changed more rapidly than recently. Do you?

Also, science has given us a scientifically valid explanation of how what we did, burn fossil fuels at the rate that we did, is causing the earth to warm at the rate that it is. And, a prediction based on that science, of what our continued transgressions on the atmosphere will lead to in terms of impact on civilization.

So, the questions of AGW have, in fact, been answered.

Many don't like that news. They want to shoot the messenger.