if you are a real scientist you probly get a slice of the billions provided by the goverments...her is a question for you...20,000 years ago much of n.america and europe was covered in 1 mile thick ice...that should tell you mother nature has her own ajenda...are you seriously demented enough to sujest that we can adjust the course of nature by tweeking c02 emissions?
Originally posted by real scientist: Is there any evidence at all that will satisfy the AGW deniers?
I think not
You are right to think not. Deniers will twist or simply reject all evidence that doesn't match their own conclusions, thus no amount of evidence will ever satisfy them.
As I understand it the IPCC-FAR assumes a linear relationship between CO2 and forcing. However, some say the relationship is actually logarithmic and thus that IPCC overestimate the effect of additional CO2 and consequently their projections of warming and sea level rise are too apocalyptic. I’d be interested in any views on this.
Originally posted by Mike RR: As I understand it the IPCC-FAR assumes a linear relationship between CO2 and forcing. However, some say the relationship is actually logarithmic and thus that IPCC overestimate the effect of additional CO2 and consequently their projections of warming and sea level rise are too apocalyptic. I’d be interested in any views on this.
im not sure whether IPCC FAR assumes a linear co2 warming relationship. Do they state this? My understanding is that it is not linear. Variuos other threads hasve gone into this.
I dont see how it could as we are in a co2 ppm atmosphere not experienced for 650,000 years so the actual relationship at this level is new to us all.
Originally posted by Mike RR: As I understand it the IPCC-FAR assumes a linear relationship between CO2 and forcing. However, some say the relationship is actually logarithmic and thus that IPCC overestimate the effect of additional CO2 and consequently their projections of warming and sea level rise are too apocalyptic. I’d be interested in any views on this.
No, IPCC-FAR doesn't assume a linear relationship. It's been understood for years that within a broad range of concentration levels, the relationship is logarithmic. This means that if the forcing due to pre-industrial levels of CO2 is X, doubling the CO2 concentration does not produce a forcing effect of 2X, but a (thankfully!) smaller figure -- call that N. Doubling C02 levels again produces a forcing of 2N. All the climate models reviewed by IPCC take account of this.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Carbon Dioxide can absorb three wavelengths only, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All three of these wavelengths are absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground and always have been. Adding more does not increase energy absorbtion, it only reduces the distance from 30 to 29 or 28 feet. Convection and conduction spreads the heat throughout the atmosphere. If you insist on believing in AGW, then you have to find another mechanism that is caused by human activity. Lots of luck.
Originally posted by sopwith: Carbon Dioxide can absorb three wavelengths only, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All three of these wavelengths are absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground and always have been. Adding more does not increase energy absorbtion, it only reduces the distance from 30 to 29 or 28 feet. Convection and conduction spreads the heat throughout the atmosphere. If you insist on believing in AGW, then you have to find another mechanism that is caused by human activity. Lots of luck.
Amazing. Can you give a scientific reference for these claims -- something in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Or... is it just something you've found on a GW-skeptic website and assumed is true?
Or have you just worked this out for yourself, Sopwith? If you can prove it, you deserve a Nobel prize, at least.
If there really were objective evidence for what you are saying, it would explosive; it would utterly and decisively debunk the scientific conclusions published by all of the scientific bodies which have come out in support of AGW, including NASA, the Royal Society, the IPCC and the National Science Academies of a couple of dozen nations.
I'd really like to see the evidence which demonstrates how, and why, all the standard textbooks on the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing now have to be re-written.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Carbon Dioxide can absorb three wavelengths only, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All three of these wavelengths are absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground and always have been. Adding more does not increase energy absorbtion, it only reduces the distance from 30 to 29 or 28 feet. Convection and conduction spreads the heat throughout the atmosphere.
This and many other hilarious "facts" can be found at:
I particularly enjoyed their theory that heat from the earth's core is killing coral reefs, not anthropogenic global warming. Is this taught in Physics 101 as well?
Steve_M. Coral reefs expel algae and absorb algae depending upon temperature, cool or hot. They have survied a large warming since the last ice age and are still with us, why now that we are in the new warm period should they die, you AGW liar?
Originally posted by sopwith: If you want proof of the limited absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, you can start by taking a class in physics 101......
No need. My father had a 40 year career in analytical spectroscopy. He used to enjoy showing us models of simple molecules and explaining how their structure was related to the various spectra -- I think I must have seen my first CO2 absorption spectrum at the age of about 8. Later on, my main scientific interests turned to biology, but I continued to pick up a bit of chemistry and physics along the way.
So please, enlighten me. What I'm interested in is your basis for the assertion that the relevant wavelenths are "absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground and always have been."
If anyone who's completed physics 101 can work this out, I'm rather surprised that organisations like NASA, the Royal Society, the Met Office and the IPCC haven't spotted it.
where is the peer-reviewed paper explaining why, contrary to the past 50 years of climate science, increasing CO2 levels can't possibly have any forcing effect?
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
I think a number of people have missed the point of this thread.
This is for AGW deniers to list experimental evidence that they would like to see to convince them that AGW is a fact.
quote:
If you want proof of the limited absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, you can start by taking a class in physics 101......
If that idea could be conclusively shown to be BS, would you change your mind?
quote:
Do you accept the IPCC FAR as the arbiter for currently acceptable belief on AGW?
Cloud Man, it's not about what I would accept. It's about what YOU would accept.
What evidence would it take before you let go of your denial?
quote:
if you are a real scientist you probly get a slice of the billions provided by the goverments...her is a question for you...20,000 years ago much of n.america and europe was covered in 1 mile thick ice...that should tell you mother nature has her own ajenda...are you seriously demented enough to sujest that we can adjust the course of nature by tweeking c02 emissions?
Firstly, either I, the entire scientific world and the view of almost all governments are seriously demented, or just you are demented. Take your pick. You do not have to rely on a probability test to determine which is likely correct if you do not wish.
But secondly, your idea is that the existance of lots of Ice 20,000 years ago (ie natural climate change) PROVES this current climate change can be explained naturally. What evidence would it take before you realise that this is BS?
I would have thought the point of my question was obvious. Since you want to stick a label on people as "deniers" it is first essential to identify what viewpoint would constitute denial. Unless you do that you are sticking a label on an unidentified group - not very scientific
Originally posted by Cloud Man: Hi "Real Scientist"
I would have thought the point of my question was obvious. Since you want to stick a label on people as "deniers" it is first essential to identify what viewpoint would constitute denial. Unless you do that you are sticking a label on an unidentified group - not very scientific
Since when have definitions been a scientific enterprise? I kinda thought it was more in the wrelm of English, or law and other similarly pedantic for no apparent purpose disciplines .
But you want a definition of AGW denial, I'll give you one.
Q) "do you accept that AGW (global warming caused by man made CO2 emisions) is a scientific fact?"
Q) "do you accept that AGW (global warming caused by man made CO2 emisions) is a scientific fact?"
If by your "precise" question you meant to ask "Do you accept that man made CO2 emissions contribute positively to the forcing of average atmospheric temperature?", then I would answer yes. So by your reckoning I'm not a sceptic.
However I have heard no convincing scientific prediction (hypothesis) that the scale of this and associated warming will lead to a catastrophic change in global climate.
The reason is because a hypothesis that leads to a quantifiable conclusion has to be based on a mathematically sound model. While there are significant shortcomings in the modelling of clouds, the granularity of the computer models and the modelling of chaotic non-linear systems projecting over many years and and over a system the size of our planet, coupled with the use of subjective probability measures, which by the way spread between 1.5 & 11 deg C, I shall remain unconvinced. ie my mind is open and I'm certainly not ready to panic.
.
