Convince me that anthropogenic golobal warming is a load of horsehooey.

[WarmNPrickly]

@brazil84

It’s relevant to the claim that we can trust a model simply because it matches history. Clearly we cannot.

So what? The dirty little secret of the warmist position is that the entire theory rests on water vapor feedback. The only evidence (such as it is) for water vapor feedback comes from models.

Yes, water vapor is an infrared absorber. It is no secret. I’m only asking if there are models that do not have a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Presumably, since you are mentioning water vapor feedback, you know that there is a correlation between water vapor and global temperature. It would seem contradictory to include water vapor, but not carbon dioxide.

You guys can debate the specifics all you want. Since it is so often suggested in these debates that the recent correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature is inexplicable, I was wondering if there were models that rationally excluded it.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@brazil84

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s odd. It doesn’t change the case I laid out against CAGW, which starts in post 2.0 and goes through 7.0

I wasn’t commenting on your arguments one way or the other, brazil. I just thought it was, well, odd.

[GIGObuster]

@WarmNPrickly

Yes, water vapor is an infrared absorber. It is no secret. I’m only asking if there are models that do not have a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Presumably, since you are mentioning water vapor feedback, you know that there is a correlation between water vapor and global temperature. It would seem contradictory to include water vapor, but not carbon dioxide.

Here is more information on the latest evidence that shows that the water vapor feedback is an issue when one adds other greenhouse gases.

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.

“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

“The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere – the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

@WarmNPrickly

You guys can debate the specifics all you want. Since it is so often suggested in these debates that the recent correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature is inexplicable, I was wondering if there were models that rationally excluded it.

I also wanted to see that, but so far I have seen only blog posts as the “evidence”

[GIGObuster]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I wasn’t commenting on your arguments one way or the other, brazil. I just thought it was, well, odd.

Like the Nowhere man from the Yellow submarine said:

Ringo: Were your notices [from others] good?

Jeremy (Nowhere Man): “It’s my policy never to read my reviews.”

[brazil84]

@WarmNPrickly

Yes, water vapor is an infrared absorber. It is no secret. I’m only asking if there are models that do not have a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Presumably, since you are mentioning water vapor feedback, you know that there is a correlation between water vapor and global temperature. It would seem contradictory to include water vapor, but not carbon dioxide.

I think you misunderstand me. Let me put it this way. Professor Richard Lindzen, who is widely known as a “skeptic” or “denier” has made a prediction of modest temperature increase due to increases in CO2 levels. In other words, his model includes the feature you discussed.

The dispute between the likes of Lindzen and the warmists is not whether increased CO2 levels are likely to increase temperatures. The dispute is whether such a temperature increase would be multiplied by water vapor feedback.

[brazil84]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I wasn’t commenting on your arguments one way or the other, brazil. I just thought it was, well, odd.

Suit yourself. There are comments from various other people on the main pages. The “Rules of Debate” section doesn’t pertain specifically to global warming.

[Chronos]

According to legend, the ancient Greeks believed the same thing, i.e. that the sun would rise because it was consistent with their model. However, their model was that Apollo got in a chariot every morning and rode across the sky.

Their are two morals to this story:

(1) The best tool for making predictions is an actual track record.

(2) For any set of observations, there are numerous possible models which can explain them. The fact that a particular model is consistent with history does not, standing alone, validate the model. (There is one exception to this principle which does not apply here.)

So, strictly speaking, the objection to the hypothesis commonly referred to as “AGW” (which I refer to as “CAGW”), is not that it relies on models. The problem is that it relies on models which have not been tested and validated.

So, in other words, it would not have been rational for an ancient Greek to assume that the Sun would rise the next day?

[brazil84]

@Chronos

So, in other words, it would not have been rational for an ancient Greek to assume that the Sun would rise the next day?

No, because there was a track record to go by. Duh.

[brazil84]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I’m going to be something of a dick and NOT begin this thread by stating a position one way or the other, partly because my degree is in a whole 'nother discipline and partly because I am opening this thread so as to divert debate from the poll in this one.

By the way, it’s not covered in the web site I linked to, but a new piece of evidence came out a year or so ago which seems, as far as I can tell, to undermine the hypothesis which I refer to as CAGW.

Basically, the idea is this: If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, one would expect that as CO2 levels increase, the total heat in the climate system should steadily increase. (This is not the same thing as saying that surface temperatures should steadily increase, since various processes can move heat from one part of the climate to another.)

A rough way of measuring the heat in the climate system is by taking the temperatures of the oceans, since most of the Earth’s surface is water and water has a much higher heat capacity than air. Anyway, the ARGO network of buoys has been measuring ocean temperature for the last 5 years or so, and they seem to show a slight decline in ocean temperature.

This real world measurement would seem to contradict the CAGW hypothesis.

Here is a blog article on the subject:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat • Watts Up With That?

[GIGObuster]

Either Lord Moncton or William DiPuccio copied the main idea.

RealClimate: Monckton’s deliberate manipulation

Among other issues, it is quite amusing that Monckton apparently thinks that;

* trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
* someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
* no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves

The last is even more amusing because he was caught out making stuff up on a slightly different figure just a few weeks ago.

To see the extent of this chicanery, one needs only plot the actual IPCC projections against the observations. This can be done a number of ways, firstly, plotting the observational data and the models used by IPCC with a common baseline of 1980-1999 temperatures (as done in the 2007 report) (Note that the model output is for the annual mean, monthly variance would be larger):

• still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now (see here).

Lest this be thought a mere aberration or a slip of his quill, it turns out he has previously faked the data on projections of CO2 as well. This graph is from a recent presentation of his, compared to the actual projections:

The main difference seems to be that the latest link the denier starts on 2003.

[brazil84]

@GIGObuster

. .

I refer to my pit thread about this poster.

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

I refer to my pit thread about this poster.

Meh, not replying to the posts here just shows who you really are.

But I encourage all to look at the whole pit thread (brazil84 is just showing fear when he only linked to his OP post):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10964342

It became a classic **reverse **pitting.

[foolsguinea]

Well, see, Skald, it’s all about God. God made the Earth, & every little thing that happens on it happens as a direct effect of his will—from that crane fly I saw the other day losing one of its legs, to the benighted descendants of the no-longer-chosen people being slaughtered en masse by that Schickelgruber fellow.

Ergo, if the Earth is warming, it’s because God is heating it up, & we shouldn’t fight that, & we couldn’t stop it if we tried. Because God is in control.

Now, I know that there are Bible passages that say that the Devil is given power, & there’s this whole “philosophical libertarianism” idea that postulates that man has free will, but that’s contrary to Soft Determinism, which just makes me feel better about my own moral failings, so I have to think that God just puts those contentions there to mislead those he has decided to confuse for some reason.

[tomndebb]

brazil84, if you have no answer for a post, then do not answer it. Period.

GIGObuster, do not drag those feuds further into this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[GIGObuster]

@tomndebb

GIGObuster, do not drag those feuds further into this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

The issue here is that I do not ignore posts like he is on record of doing. When he dragged any other issues in, I see no reason why not to reply when he is telling others to look **just **at his version of how to “properly” discuss matters.

[chorpler]

@brazil84

By the way, it’s not covered in the web site I linked to, but a new piece of evidence came out a year or so ago which seems, as far as I can tell, to undermine the hypothesis which I refer to as CAGW.

Basically, the idea is this: If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, one would expect that as CO2 levels increase, the total heat in the climate system should steadily increase. (This is not the same thing as saying that surface temperatures should steadily increase, since various processes can move heat from one part of the climate to another.)

A rough way of measuring the heat in the climate system is by taking the temperatures of the oceans, since most of the Earth’s surface is water and water has a much higher heat capacity than air. Anyway, the ARGO network of buoys has been measuring ocean temperature for the last 5 years or so, and they seem to show a slight decline in ocean temperature.

This real world measurement would seem to contradict the CAGW hypothesis.

Here is a blog article on the subject:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

It turns out that the data that showed the ocean to be cooling was based on faulty measurements from older instruments and some of the ARGO network.

Correcting Ocean Cooling