My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Overdog

On a scale of 1 to 100, exactly which number would "considerable confidence" corresponds to?

If you say 50, for example, then be prepared to show why it cannot possibly be 49, or 51, or else conceed that differences of opinion on the matter are legitimate!

I'm simply arguing that the accuracy of the models is not established fact, that differences of opinion regarding the accuracy are in fact legitimate

In the IPCC report to which I linked, they defined their terms. I have attached below the two key tables from that report which address your question.

Please note that these are calibrated "quantitatively," not "qualitatively," so issues of subjectivity and opinion never come into the mix:

Originally Posted by Overdog

EDIT:
Is this an extremely academic point I'm trying to make here?
Yes it is, but it is precisely because it is a response to a charge of academic dishonesty.

I could perhaps have used the term "integrity" instead of "dishonesty." I see challenges to abstract concepts which are being levelled at nonspecific studies to lack academic and scientific integrity. If someone wants to challenge the work, then that is ALWAYS welcome, but they need to be specific when doing so. That was my primary point, so I will openly retract my accusation of dishonesty, as scientific and academic integrity better describes my meaning. Mea culpa.

Originally Posted by Overdog

Edit:
I would also like to add that I have learned from this discussion with INow, and my degree of confidence in the climate models is now greater than it was when I first entered into this discussion.

That's reassuring, and to be fair to you, I've known what your point was from the moment you made it. The primary reason I've argued against that point is because I've seen the other data, and the metrics regarding accuracy, and I had the very real sense that you had not seen that same data. Again, I retract the charge of dishonesty, especially since such labels derail the conversation and hinder its ability to progress.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

That's reassuring, and to be fair to you, I've known what your point was from the moment you made it. The primary reason I've argued against that point is because I've seen the other data, and the metrics regarding accuracy, and I had the very real sense that you had not seen that same data. Again, I retract the charge of dishonesty, especially since such labels derail the conversation and hinder its ability to progress.

Thank you.

Also, you have persuaded me that the basis of my general critisism of the climate models was simply misguided and wrong. Thank you for that, as well.

My apologies for being so hard-headed...

[Little Bang]

The last time the Earth regurgitated as much CO2 as we are putting into the atmosphere it destroyed about 90% of all life and yet this single piece of information does not concern those who think humans can't change the climate even though there are now over 7 billion of us. And, the number of people using fossil fuels is increasing at a rate much faster than most thought possible. Sleep well naysayers.

[Galapagos]

Here is an interesting resource:

Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

A guide on "How to talk to climate skeptics". It's like those list of creationist claims/arguments, except it is about climate change, and the answers linked are on blogs. This makes it interesting, because the claims are then disputed and defended in the comments sections of the blog entries. It is very extensive and I found it to be very helpful, so I thought I would share.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

The last time the Earth regurgitated as much CO2 as we are putting into the atmosphere it destroyed about 90% of all life and yet this single piece of information does not concern those who think humans can't change the climate even though there are now over 7 billion of us. And, the number of people using fossil fuels is increasing at a rate much faster than most thought possible. Sleep well naysayers.

LB do you have anything to back up that statement? If you are talking about the Permian extinction the last time I read about it methane was the gas released not co2. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas compared to CO2. We are no doubt speeding up the warming of the Earth but the Earth is usually warmer than is now. I do agree we are having a positive effect on the build up of CO2 but the Earths natural set point is higher than the temps are now. I don't think we can do much more than delay the rise in temps. I think we should try but the temps will rise in spite of anything we might do. the key is allow the Earth to do what ever it is going to naturally. We don't need to help it out any because we don't know what the consequences will be.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

We are no doubt speeding up the warming of the Earth but the Earth is usually warmer than is now.

Can you clarify something, moontanman? If you concede that humans are warming the planet, then how can you suggest that the temperature would be warmer right now naturally?

Basically, we are ABOVE natural temperatures as a result of the actions of humans, so clearly what is "natural" would be cooler than it is at present. I'm just struggling to understand the point you are making, I guess, and any clarification would be welcomed.

[Eclipse Now]

AGW: We KNOW what Co2 does.

The physics of Co2 are standard and easily verifiable. Lots of scientists study absorption spectra of various molecules.

This seems to be an argument against Global Warming based on a short term blip rather than the physics of global warming. As some online contacts put it:

All you really need is a prism (usually a diffraction grating is used because it diffracts evenly). Just pass sunlight (blackbody radiation) through the prism, than pass it through the gas and see which portions of the spectrum get dimmer. The dimmer a portion gets, the stronger the absorption of that gas on that part of the spectrum.

Because cool things like the earth emit longer wavelengths, and hot things like the sun emit higher wavelengths, things that absorb at lower (infrared) wavelengths act as radiative insulation from the earth but not from the sun.

And...

Many spectrometers and spectrophotometers use gratings, but that's the same basic idea. And you can also use tunable lasers, and calibrate everything with respect to known standards. The energy transfer part of GW study is pretty much standard thermodynamics.

In other words, we know what Co2 does. We know that methane does it even better. And we know that Nitrous Oxide does it 300 times better than Co2! How? Basic, repeatable, demonstrable science.

But how does it interact with the climate? Well, it's not just simple maths of adding the % of Co2 and that will give an accurate prediction of temperature for that year... because there are multiple forcings. A good enough volcanic explosion will create Global Dimming. If China has dirtier than average coal plants, that too could 'mask' Global Warming by Global Dimming. Sometimes there are climate 'magic gates' where climate change seems to 'pause' as various feedback loops and temperature absorbing mechanisms sort themselves out... and then BOOM it continues. Thermal inertia with the oceans and other mechanisms can appear to "pause" the progress of climate change. It all fits.

Remember the the Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' that revealed the terrible Achilles heal to Global Warming — the fact that after WW2 Co2 went UP while global temperatures most definitely went DOWN? Oh no! Why didn't someone tell us this... the whole theory is WRONG! Sorry. It's not wrong... it's just complex. Because immediately after WW2 there was such an explosion of industrialization and coal mining that Co2 went up, but it was 'dirty coal' high in sulfur. The clean air acts that mandated sulfur scrubbers on coal stacks were only introduced in the 1970's to deal with acid rain. And what does sulfur do? Global Dimming. Sulfur in the air is a major DOWNWARD climate forcing. So we solved the acid rain, only to discover it had been masking the Global Warming.

So basically an argument just from temperature trends in the environment alone does not prove or disprove Global Warming. 2007 into 2008 is a La Nina year. The Southern Oscillation Index (the oceans switching between El Nino and La Nina) is another major forcing... and Australia's had some blessed rain! Hooray... Global Warming is wrong again! No. Global Warming is COMPLEX again. Correct.

[Little Bang]

Moon. the Permian extinction was started by the release of CO2 from volcanism. After a 5 degree C rise in temp than methane was released from the ocean. BTW methane is relatively short lived in the atmosphere. Sunlight makes it react with oxygen to form water and CO2.

[Grains]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Here is an interesting resource:

Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

A guide on "How to talk to climate skeptics". It's like those list of creationist claims/arguments, except it is about climate change, and the answers linked are on blogs. This makes it interesting, because the claims are then disputed and defended in the comments sections of the blog entries. It is very extensive and I found it to be very helpful, so I thought I would share.

I enjoyed your article and as of right now I am forming a group called AntiGristmill: "How to talk to climate emotionalist".

I like this one study since it has been a hot topic for me on this particular thread.

'Global warming stopped in 1998' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

First they go into the objection that from 1998 temps have been declining. Before we get into this I would like to send out a little smile to all the people who denied that my graph was moving down from 1998 - 2008. Next, they refute this comment by not actually accepting that the graph is actually in a downtrend yet by saying we should go with a larger pool of data. I look at this as being absolutely fair as I would want a larger pool of data but at least admit its declining from 1998-2008 which they do but in not so many words and like here it took pulling teeth. Now, we all agree that larger pools of data and even the Global Warming bible Gristmill acknowledges this. The problem is they forgot about this graph that I have attached. If you want more data then here it is.

On a conclusion I would like to add, although I find Gristmill's bible interesting and has many arguments presented with in it it faces a major problem. The fact that they are putting arguments in the way they would like to hear them and then refuting it from there. Wouldn't that be great if we could form a website that we could explain the problem with the theory that we present, yet we were the ones creating the very theory we were refuting!!!!

Which leads me to why I lift my "glass" (Don't have on right now) and cheers hypography. Heer heer

[InfiniteNow]

So much for you going through and reading this thread.

Your silly objections have been addressed repeatedly, and in multiple ways.