My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by REASON

I was attempting to read into what you had posted. I mentioned the IPCC because you have mentioned the IPCC - directly in the post I responded to, and indirectly when you form an argument that the readings used to determine the global average temperature can be either inaccurate or falsified.

The link you provided in the previous post only reinforces what I interpret your position to be, that the information generated by the IPCC is suspect and less convincing than what you are reading from the rejectionist point of view.

It is simply a choice you are making as you consider the information presented by both sides of the argument. I simply wonder what is actually driving your skepticism of a Nobel Prize winning panel of climate scientists, and I wonder whether it is really about the science or politics in your mind.

I'm still curious because your last post sort of avoided addressing my presumption.

Based on clear research of the information provided, do you think we should reject the notion of AGW as informed by the IPCC and continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate or more than we are now?

Sigh....
Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.

[Essay]

As I mentioned the lack of time in post #1225....
I'd like to thank CraigD for a great job on the physics/quantum level stuff and thermodynamics part of answering Ceders question about a "chunk of CO2" in post #1230 My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

Originally Posted by CraigD

When a photon “strikes” (or, more precisely, interacts) with an electron in an atom of any kind of matter, it is absorbed by the electron if it’s possible for that electron to change its position in the atom (more precisely, its atomic orbital) so that its energy increases by exactly the energy of the absorbed photon. If this transition is possible for electrons in many atoms of a material (liquid, gas, or solid), that material is opaque (or possibly reflective) to photons of that energy. If it isn’t, the material is transparent to them.

Possible atomic orbital transitions depend mostly on the structure of the atom and its interaction with its neighboring atoms. In general, the more massive an atom, and the more bound it is into molecules with other atoms, the more possible transitions its electrons have.

The electrons in the atoms of CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules are mostly transparent to visible light, and mostly opaque to infrared.

It’s important to understand that to “radiate heat” means to emit photons of infrared EMR.

Emission of photons is the reverse of absorption of them.

One point I'd like to add (and please correct me if this is wrong or too fanciful):

The energy gained by absorbing an IR photon gets changed into kinetic energy (adding to the translational vibration) in the form of "speed" or velocity as well as other vibratory modes. Eventually, within seconds or minutes (depending on the concentration of possible collisions, uh....), ...eventually the molecule slows back down as it emits a photon ("re-emission").
So the kinetic energy is changed back into potential energy (photon) to be absorbed somewhere else.

Interestingly, several sources of kinetic energy can be summed within a molecule to create potential energy (an emission) of a higher energy level (quantum) than either kinetic contribution, by itself, would generate.

So, while usually the absorbed photon is "re-emitted" at the same or a lower energy level, with some of the kinetic energy bled off by collisions, entropy, whatever... sometimes a collision (or additional IR absorption) can provide the extra energy to boost a "re-emission" to a higher level than the original photon contributed.

So you have not only the actual process that CraigD described, but the added complexity of shifting levels of potential and kinetic energy--as quantum becomes classical and back again.

In summary GHG's are very good fluxes for that energy (heat) flowing around in the atmosphere--that is trying to make its way back out to space.

...and during that flux, a lot of the re-emissions are directed (randomly) back down toward the surface, or laterally towards other re-emitters ...away from deep space.

~

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Sigh....
Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.

Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.

In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.

But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?

I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.

I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.

It is true that to consider such things may mean getting somewhat personal, so I understand if you don't want to go there.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by REASON

Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.

Thats because I find the philosophical aspect the lesser of the inquiry when compared to the question of "is the science settled". Philosophy is sooo subjective.

Some of the responses have tried to adequately respond. But when the responses include quotes from the offical agencies in charge of temperature accuracy "counting lights from space to determine UHI" compared to the actual photographs of the stations positions on earth in daylight, I cant help but wonder, How bad does the science have to be before the proponents begin to demand quality?

Originally Posted by REASON

In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.

Then you havent been spending much time observing the interactions between the skeptical side of this issue as they try to get data to test the theory.

Originally Posted by REASON

But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

cute analogy. How would you react if you found out someone in charge of the statistics had altered the numbers for Babe Ruth, 40-50-60 years after the game ended? How would you react if you found out this same org had decided to adjust records of whole teams 40-50-60 years later?

Originally Posted by REASON

Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?

I dunno, for some its general skeptism of the ability of science to predict climate changes in the future. Might have something to do with bird flu pandemics. For others it may be they expect more from science than they do from the doomsayers of the religiously indoctrined.

Originally Posted by REASON

I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.

Wow. Why cant it be that the IPCC reports themselves are not convincing? Why cant it be the IPCC reports are biased? And those who look no where else for answers are not biased? Strikingly similar to the people who do not look beyond the bible for answers.

Originally Posted by REASON

I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.

Really? How's this then:
Climate changes. Thats a fact. Ice ages come and go and in-between it warms up. It varies, the distance of time between these extremes. Inbetween those extremes we have other climate extremes. Globally and locally. Little ice ages, medieval warmings, times when the ice in the antarctic reduces dramatically leaving open water areas the size of Texas (I expect science to discover this same feature over the arctic as they explore more), times when under the existing glaciers of greenland/iceland, blooming prairies existed. 600k years ago. The Iceman revealed his existence AFTER the glacier melted. He didnt tunnel down into a glacier to die. Only 5000 years ago he walked atop the snow, or maybe at that time it was the ground. Wow. Glaciers have melted (and expanded) before??? Before Man kicked a bit of Co2 into the air??

Climate changes. Adapt or go extinct.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Cedars

cute analogy. How would you react if you found out someone in charge of the statistics had altered the numbers for Babe Ruth, 40-50-60 years after the game ended? How would you react if you found out this same org had decided to adjust records of whole teams 40-50-60 years later?

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

Originally Posted by Cedars

Climate changes. Adapt or go extinct.

I agree. We simply MUST adapt, and stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere like we are today or we're going to go extinct far more quickly than we need to, along with countless other species. Now, of course, that's not what YOU meant, as you're mind is made up in one direction and you find data supporting your conclusion more salient than the opposing data which refutes your position, but I agreed with your closing point and wanted to post on something about which we agree.

We must adapt or we will go extinct. Now, you and I simply need to find common ground on the specifics and details on how best to perform that adaptation and where to focus our energies.



Btw - Nice post, REASON. Well said.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

Yawn:
Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

This is why you dont often see me in theology arguing with believers.

Climate changes. Thats a fact. Ice ages come and go and in-between it warms up. It varies, the distance of time between these extremes. Inbetween those extremes we have other climate extremes. Globally and locally. Little ice ages, medieval warmings, times when the ice in the antarctic reduces dramatically leaving open water areas the size of Texas (I expect science to discover this same feature over the arctic as they explore more), times when under the existing glaciers of greenland/iceland, blooming prairies existed. 600k years ago. The Iceman revealed his existence AFTER the glacier melted. He didnt tunnel down into a glacier to die. Only 5000 years ago he walked atop the snow, or maybe at that time it was the ground. Wow. Glaciers have melted (and expanded) before??? Before Man kicked a bit of Co2 into the air??

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Yawn:
Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

Ahhh... Yes. The classic "Yawn" argument. That's always hard to beat. It's almost as awe-inspiring as the argument I used to get from the 4 and 5 year olds I taught where they would respond, "So?"

I'm sorry. I showed where your response to the analogy was flawed, as it would need to apply to EVERY single statistic and temperature reading and demonstrate that they were ALL wrong and ALL adjusted. Where exactly does this link you shared demonstrate that every single temperature measurement we've made is faulty? Your link itself acknowledges the limited scope of the issue. I will quote them here:

in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than [sic] span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted

Readers should note the key word "many." That does NOT mean "ALL." Ergo, your response fails to demonstrate that all temperature readings are faulty. Also, how do they quantize many? I'm not seeing that anywhere. Do they mean 2, maybe 6? How about 100? Do they mean 1,000? Gosh... Many is SUCH a descriptive scientific term.


Also, can you please point out to me where they had their assumptions and conclusions peer-reviewed for merit? I seem to be missing that on their site, but considering the unshakable nature of your tone, I presume they are there somewhere and that this is something more than handwaving.


Not only does your dismissive response fail to address my point, but neither does the reference you shared.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

Very good question, INow. This one always gets me when reading responses from evolution/AIDS/GW deniers. I'm honestly curious: how does one reasonably justify the belief in such a conspiracy?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I dunno, for some its general skeptism of the ability of science to predict climate changes in the future. Might have something to do with bird flu pandemics. For others it may be they expect more from science than they do from the doomsayers of the religiously indoctrined.

Regarding the doomsayers, I think religious wisdom is informed by historical observation of natural (including social) systems.
===

But you think that science relates to Flu pandemics the same way that Elephant guns work here in the city? Y'know... I've got this gun to kill elephants and there are none around, so it must work.
You're essentially saying that science is 'making up' this possibility of Flu, so that science can show how effective its monitoring, prevention, and eradication programs are?

While I think they are missing some opportunities to search for natural resistance (in their culling programs), I am happy that they are using science to "adapt" to Flu's potential; and that we are not letting nature take its course and, through our business as usual strategies, letting nature decide how we "Adapt or go extinct."
===

As any one-celled species will die out if it only continues growing to fill its niche, so too will humans.
Only when one-celled creatures develop, and metamorphose into a biofilm, can they sustainably fill a niche.
Humans must focus more on development and less on growth.
Our 18th and 19th centuries saw mostly growth and expansion. What was the 20th century?
Where are we now? Are we focusing on growth and expansion, or on development and metamorphosis?

We couldn't survive as individuals, we needed families. We couldn't survive as families, we needed tribes. etc., ...tibes to clans, clans to city-states, city-states to nations, nations to....
Do you think we've stopped developing and that no fundamental new identities must emerge, if we are to continue without going the way of creatures who simply expand to fill their niche?

~

p.s. Texas? 600kya?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Ahhh... Yes. The classic "Yawn" argument. That's always hard to beat. It's almost as awe-inspiring as the argument I used to get from the 4 and 5 year olds I taught where they would respond, "So?"

So are you saying you have this affect across the age spectrum?

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I'm sorry. I showed where your response to the analogy was flawed, as it would need to apply to EVERY single statistic and temperature reading and demonstrate that they were ALL wrong and ALL adjusted. Where exactly does this link you shared demonstrate that every single temperature measurement we've made is faulty? Your link itself acknowledges the limited scope of the issue. I will quote them here:

in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than [sic] span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted

My first reaction to the babe ruth analogy was to ignore it as irrelevant. But in the spirit of discussion I responded. Its hard to create a good response to a flawed analogy. But nice guy that I am I decided not to attack the messenger and deal with the available data (analogy).

Now to your alleged response. No one is claiming ALL temp records are incorrect or bad data. But of the (now over 800) USA temp stations that have been observed 69% come in with a poor rating (4 or 5). Based on the very rating system posted on the NOAA site. I didnt include the 20% which are classed by surfacestations.org as a 3 with a >=1 C temp flaw.

Were getting pretty darn close to ALL the stations if I do. So much for science.

But it continues to get stranger. There are 4 different people reporting these kinds of things.
From April 2008:
On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

Raw Data vs Adjusted Data:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...comparison.png

More on the data above:
How not to measure temperature, part 79 - could you, would you, with a boat? Watts Up With That?

So why adjust the temperature upwards from the N.M example?

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Readers should note the key word "many." That does NOT mean "ALL." Ergo, your response fails to demonstrate that all temperature readings are faulty. Also, how do they quantize many? I'm not seeing that anywhere. Do they mean 2, maybe 6? How about 100? Do they mean 1,000? Gosh... Many is SUCH a descriptive scientific term.

They mean hundreds. And the persons who are really interested in the 'science' should be directing these kinds of questions towards the people supplying the data. Oh wait. They have been. Good thing too or we would still believe the October Russian data was science.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Not only does your dismissive response fail to address my point, but neither does the reference you shared.

And you have not responded to anything but the analogy portion of one post. I wasnt even going to respond to the previous non-response. Should have gone with my first thought. Wont happen again.