IPCC CO2 Science vs. Majority of Peer-Reviewed Research

[flacaltenn]

Did anyone ever 'fess up to the shining flaw in the lead argument?

No --- but I beat your "shining flaw" assertion into a nice nose ring for ya !!!
As tho you would actually discuss the topic instead of cheerleading and keeping score.

 

[Impenitent]

Well, I followed the link to WUWT, and have returned to tell the tale.

It seems that Cambridge University has done a study that shows, if the global temperature increased by 4 degrees, there would be a general failure of plant life to absorb co2, and would, in turn, release more co2 into the atmosphere.

Skeptics might want to keep their heads buried, because this link could be alarming:

4 degree temperature rise will end vegetation ?carbon sink? | University of Cambridge

The PETM was at least 9 degrees F warmer than the current day.
Life bloomed. Terrestrial fauna exploded across the planet. What oh what did all of those animals eat? Yes benthic forams in a few areas died out but the current theory on that loss is local anoxic conditions....

You see dear foolish person....the problem you have when you pay attention to ridiculous bullshit like that, is we can go back into the historical and paleontological records and see what happened when similar situations existed in the past.

There is a fundamental underpinning of the scientific method called the "Principle of Uniformitarianism".

You should look it up and learn something real. The crap you are paying attention to is simply stupid, and has been proven so on many, many occasions. All you are doing is showing how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

A warming that occur 55 million years ago, when humans weren't present, and vegetation wasn't the least bit similar to the present, would hardly be the era to make correlations with the present, but I'll try to humor you.

How many years did it take for this 9 degree rise to occur? If you have the qualifications you claim, you'll know the answer instantly.

Clock is on.

ETA - it's really too ironic that you chastise me for a link I got from WUWT

 

[Abraham3]

Did anyone ever 'fess up to the shining flaw in the lead argument?

No --- but I beat your "shining flaw" assertion into a nice nose ring for ya !!!
As tho you would actually discuss the topic instead of cheerleading and keeping score.

The OP was complete crap by post #5. Shove your nose ring where the sun don't shine.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did anyone ever 'fess up to the shining flaw in the lead argument?

No --- but I beat your "shining flaw" assertion into a nice nose ring for ya !!!
As tho you would actually discuss the topic instead of cheerleading and keeping score.

The OP was complete crap by post #5. Shove your nose ring where the sun don't shine.

Its at post 35 --- if you change your mind.. Assuming you have one of those... I noticed you danced right past discussing any of this.. Too busy celebrating eh?

 

[Abraham3]

Too tired of wasting my time dealing with all the idiotic bullshit you people dream up. You're all just too stupid for words. It's a shame, really. You seem like you could have made something of yourself. But you took a wrong turn somewhere.

 

[daveman]

Too tired of wasting my time dealing with all the idiotic bullshit you people dream up. You're all just too stupid for words. It's a shame, really. You seem like you could have made something of yourself. But you took a wrong turn somewhere.

You just don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension, Skippy.

 

[Abraham3]

How about a simple "get fucked, you idiot" then?

 

[flacaltenn]

Too tired of wasting my time dealing with all the idiotic bullshit you people dream up. You're all just too stupid for words. It's a shame, really. You seem like you could have made something of yourself. But you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Yeah I did.. Went for 7 years of grad work in science/engineering rather than Med School.. Also was a radical leftist during some of those years. Fucked me up for life.. I need a program to overcome my bad decisions and socio-economic-academic handicaps..

If you're really looking for stupid --- PM me.. I've got a list of playdates for you...

 

[Abraham3]

Where in all that experience and education did you get the idea that thousands of scientists could all be wrong in a manner as simple as your ideas would require? Most of them have more education than you (or I) and I'm sure many have similar or more extensive experience.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where in all that experience and education did you get the idea that thousands of scientists could all be wrong in a manner as simple as your ideas would require? Most of them have more education than you (or I) and I'm sure many have similar or more extensive experience.

Well let's review --- shall we???

1) How about we start with the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.. They have BOTCHED the statement of FUNDAMENTAL critical numbers that form the basis of their projections. LARGELY for reasons of stirring up a continuing public policy crisis.

2) Let's add "climate sensitivity" to the list of MASSIVE UNCERTAINTIES in the very basic quantitive analysis of AGW theory.. No excuse for ranges that large after 30 years of work.

3) The gap between what CO2 CAN and WILL do to our atmosphere and what these clowns IMAGINE IT MIGHT DO to our climate is based on BELIEF --- not science.

4) My particular beef is the absolute LACK of interest or ability of Climate Science to model the climate as a complete complex system.. Rather than their simple AD HOC models that focus on CO2 as the only climate parameter that matters..

5) The juvenile idea that understanding of the climate system's future is based on silly "Global Averages" of data and variables, and Constants. And their rather late and THEREFORE RETARDED discovery of storage mechanisms and delays as VITAL elements of the Climate system.

I've got more reasons for Ya.. But you'll need help with those one at a time..
SOMEDAY -- Climate science will make the major leagues, but right now --- it's not ready for prime-time comparisions to other disciplines.

 

[daveman]

How about a simple "get fucked, you idiot" then?

Sure, why not? It's all you've got anyway.

 

[Abraham3]

Well let's review --- shall we???

Yes, let's

1) How about we start with the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.. They have BOTCHED the statement of FUNDAMENTAL critical numbers that form the basis of their projections. LARGELY for reasons of stirring up a continuing public policy crisis.

That is absolutely untrue. The lead post in this thread makes a fundamental and ignorant error, treating CO2 residence and lifetime as if they were the same thing. It might not be an error. It could be a willfully told falsehood (a lie).

2) Let's add "climate sensitivity" to the list of MASSIVE UNCERTAINTIES in the very basic quantitive analysis of AGW theory.. No excuse for ranges that large after 30 years of work.

All those scientists we were talking about, they think there's some uncertainty in climate sensitivity but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't call it massive uncertainty. I think most climate scientists think it's pretty well nailed. And I haven't seen any arguments or evidence from you or anyone else that it's value is significantly different than the CONSENSUS value.

3) The gap between what CO2 CAN and WILL do to our atmosphere and what these clowns IMAGINE IT MIGHT DO to our climate is based on BELIEF --- not science.

That statement is meaningless bullshit.

4) My particular beef is the absolute LACK of interest or ability of Climate Science to model the climate as a complete complex system.. Rather than their simple AD HOC models that focus on CO2 as the only climate parameter that matters..

I think they can and do model it as a complex system and do so at a level well beyond your experience or your knowledge. I also think that you have and will use that "complete" term to reject any candidate. We all know that a thousand years from now climate models will have less detail than reality sports.

5) The juvenile idea that understanding of the climate system's future is based on silly "Global Averages" of data and variables, and Constants. And their rather late and THEREFORE RETARDED discovery of storage mechanisms and delays as VITAL elements of the Climate system.

No one is suggesting that average temperatures are all that are needed to "understand" the global climate. So you're chasing a red herring. I'm absolutely certain that climate science did not JUST discover storage mechanisms. You can probably find writing about such mechanisms from the ancient Greeks. While we're here, though, I have to comment that despite your insistence that solar heating has some complex, nonlinear delay mechanism, you've never been able to suggest what that function might be NOR HAVE YOU FOUND ANY CLIMATE SCIENTIST WHO AGREES WITH THAT SUGGESTION OR HAS IDENTIFIED SUCH A FUNCTION.

I've got more reasons for Ya.. But you'll need help with those one at a time..
SOMEDAY -- Climate science will make the major leagues, but right now --- it's not ready for prime-time comparisions to other disciplines.

It's far, far, far beyond ready for comparisons with anything you've come up with.

 

[rdean]

I really trust Republican science. You should too. Considering what it's based on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Abraham:

We can really just STOP at #1 -- since you still don't comprehend that it is the IPCC that purposely makes that confusion happen.. As I showed with that statement from them. Residency time is EXACT by itself. WITHOUT considering all the extenuating variables that "lifetime" brings in.

So you fail to comprehend this thread --- how do you think you scored on the REST of my issues with AGW? You don't want to know..

Of particular sadness is your response to my skepticism about the CO2 "trigger" theory -- of which you seem to be completely unaware..

FlaCalTenn

3) The gap between what CO2 CAN and WILL do to our atmosphere and what these clowns IMAGINE IT MIGHT DO to our climate is based on BELIEF --- not science.

To which you simply replied "meaningless bullshit".. ADMITTING you don't even understand the AGW theory you support. Because what CO2 CAN AND WILL DO -- is warm the planet by about 1degC between 250ppm and 500ppm (probably less).. And what AGW BELIEVES is that this 1 or 2 degree TRIGGER will cause the Earth Climate to destroy itself with all manner of FEEDBACK and Temperature accelerators..

Can't score your work --- You're too far behind the class...

 

[flacaltenn]

5) The juvenile idea that understanding of the climate system's future is based on silly "Global Averages" of data and variables, and Constants. And their rather late and THEREFORE RETARDED discovery of storage mechanisms and delays as VITAL elements of the Climate system.

No one is suggesting that average temperatures are all that are needed to "understand" the global climate. So you're chasing a red herring. I'm absolutely certain that climate science did not JUST discover storage mechanisms. You can probably find writing about such mechanisms from the ancient Greeks. While we're here, though, I have to comment that despite your insistence that solar heating has some complex, nonlinear delay mechanism, you've never been able to suggest what that function might be NOR HAVE YOU FOUND ANY CLIMATE SCIENTIST WHO AGREES WITH THAT SUGGESTION OR HAS IDENTIFIED SUCH A FUNCTION.

I need to DISARM you of that accusation right here and now.. So that you will never make that unfounded assertion again..

There exist a healthy body of research and discussion in Climate Science pertaining to EXACTLY the delays and storage mechanism of the Thermal Inertia of the Earth as it applies to any or all of the forcing functions..

I simply observe that you're incapable of following FURTHER into these discussions and determine it would be a WASTE OF TIME to pump you with citations and evidence that I'm NOT AT ALL winging these "wild and whacky" theories by my lone self..

So -- just to show a MINUTE SAMPLING of the discussion around these topics -- here's a Primer...

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/RoyceLam2010.pdf

The difference between the transient and the equilibrium DelTs responses
is attributed to the finite thermal inertia of the Earth system
(Hansen et al., 2005). The Earth receives radiant energy from the Sun,
and emits radiant energy back into space. The mismatch of these two fluxes changes the thermal energy content of the Earth system.
Using a control volume enclosing the Earth (with its boundary surface above the atmosphere), the Earth's energy balance equation is:
dE
dt
= Fin(t) �� Fout(X; Ts; ...); (4)
where E is the stored thermal energy content per unit area of the Earth
(Joules per unit area), and Fin(t) and Fout(X; Ts; ...) are, respectively,
the incoming radiant energy flux from the Sun and the outgoing radiant
energy flux away from the Earth|both fluxes (Joules per year

The Earth system is expected to exhibit a number of different thermal
response time scales depending on the mode of excitation. The governing
equation for Ts(t) is Eq.(7), and the role played by on the
Ts(t) response to either a periodic or a Dirac-delta forcing function
is well known.

The data shown in Figs. 1 and 2 has been t using least squares
to yield values of the transient climate sensitivity ( 2.3C) and
the thermal inertia time scale associated with global warming
(approximately 32 years).

Note that Ts will continue to rise even after X=Xo has been successfully
stabilized at some constant value. For example, if 32
years, then it would take more than six decades after X=Xo is stabilized
in order for Ts to eventually reach 90% of its full equilibrium
rise. When Tau is some multi-decadal number, the Earth's response to
changes of radiative forcing is very sluggish. This sluggishness has
important policy implications.

What is the probability that might be a multi-decadal or even
multi-centurial number? It is not obvious that this question could
ever be answered objectively. The meaningfulness of probability distribution
functions constructed by polling modeling data generated
by computers is still subject to debate. At the present time, the
available observational data do not support subjective assignments of
multi-decadal tau's.

I believe I told you some estimates of thermal delays and inertia were on the order of 32 years.. Pretty much the time period between when the SOLAR FORCING reached it's maximum and stalled --- and when we started to see a similiar stall in the surface temperatures.. About 30 years wasn't it?? AND -- I KNOW I also told you that Climate Science FOUGHT this realization for a decade or two, insisting until JUST RECENTLY that thermal inertia effects were negligible and on the order of a few years.. So YES -- "they have been RETARDED" on this issue.. UNTIL --- they found heat "hiding in the oceans".. So now they NEED thermal inertia to "patch" their flimsy theories..

And here is the kiddy version of acknowledgement that the Earth's climate system doesn't "turn on a dime" when forcings occur..

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in response to the existing energy imbalance.

So NOW --- you've been informed that I have AMPLE back-up for those assertions and I suspect you shouldn't EVER suggest that " NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST agrees with me"...

OK???

 

[Abraham3]

I never denied the existence of delays. Recall I said you could find them in the writing of the ancient Greeks. What I'm saying is that you have never presented a delay function, either from your own head or that of a qualified scientist, that will match the solar forcing function with the response. You can certainly make one up that will do the job, but finding the physical phenomena that would bring it into operation seems to be a failed task. Telling us, as you have repeatedly, that it "could" exist, is worthless.

 

[flacaltenn]

I never denied the existence of delays. Recall I said you could find them in the writing of the ancient Greeks. What I'm saying is that you have never presented a delay function, either from your own head or that of a qualified scientist, that will match the solar forcing function with the response. You can certainly make one up that will do the job, but finding the physical phenomena that would bring it into operation seems to be a failed task. Telling us, as you have repeatedly, that it "could" exist, is worthless.

I can not overcome your lack of interest in studying the important topic. NONETHELESS, you can no longer make the statement that "no climate scientists agree with me", because there is ample literature on the topic and even your favorite BTK study IMPLIES and RELIES on the delayed effects of forcings.. A concept that was RETARDEDLY and begrudgingly adopted by the climate community. The end is therefore near for the juvenile expectations that any climate forcing must LOOK exactly like the temperature curve...

 

[Abraham3]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

All along you have been contending a complex, non-linear delay function that ties solar forcing with the observed warming. You have rejected the greenhouse effect from CO2 and other GHGs based on numbers that few others accept.

Find us someone who agrees with that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

All along you have been contending a complex, non-linear delay function that ties solar forcing with the observed warming. You have rejected the greenhouse effect from CO2 and other GHGs based on numbers that few others accept.

Find us someone who agrees with that.

Ive said nothing remotely like that. Couldnt because the construct of " nonlinear delay" never entered my mind. Must have been your inability to follow what I actually said. Never have rejected either the Greenhouse theory nor Backradiation from Co2 forcing. In fact spent lots of time defending both. I was simply not seeing the science develop accordinging to well known science principles known to MANY disciplines, And thosenSYSTEM ANALYSIS fundamentals CONFLICT and Complicate the all too simplistic science delivered by AGW theory. I Do Reject that co2 is the PRIMARY driver of this modern climate and further reject the notion that ANY and/or ALL forcings must look exactly like the temperature curve result.
I also reject the UNFOUNDED fantasies that MAGICALLY MULTIPLY CO2 warming from a nuisance value whichbphysics predicts alll the way to ARMAGGEDEON proportioon future visions OF agw doom.

criminy man .. At least get the indictment right...

I have collected and read MORE papers concerning these NEGLECTED aspects of AGW theory than any other topic. SO youre simply not gonna suceed suggesting this is all a FlaCalTenn invented excuse to be contrary.

In short, im not winging it and I dont care if youre not really following anything beyond the Sesa e Street version of the science.. You might have to work harder to do that.

 

[Abraham3]

Because you're smarter than the world's scientists. Gosh, that's reasonable.

Show us a linear delay that'll match solar forcing to the observed temperature response.