12-15-2012, 11:16 AM
This is a nice put down post Richard made where he explodes the common warmist thinking that have become so predictable of late:
December 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I am replying to your post at December 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm.
It really saddens me that anybody could be so misled as you say you are about AGW.
I know for certain fact that any putative anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is too small for it to be discernible.
That is true. But you have replied
Right here is your problem. ‘Certain fact’. There is no such thing. There are theorems, which are understood to be true, assuming previously accepted axioms. Then there are scientific theories which attempt to describe reality, which will NEVER be understood to be certain facts. They only get closer to the truth. That you can say unequivocally that AGW is negligible, calls into question your capacity for logical scrutiny – as well as your puzzling disregard for the viewpoint of the IPCC, which you previously stated is an organisation from which you get your information.
Of course there are certain facts. For example, I am older today than I was yesterday.
I gave you empirical measurements with links to the papers which present them.
Those measurements are facts and their estimated confidence(s) are their certainty. Theories which fail to agree with empirical data are rejected or amended (this is called the ‘scientific method’).
I said I get my information from the IPCC and source documents. Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of ‘Argument from Authority’ which you again present here concerning “the viewpoint of the IPCC” (despite my having told you of that fallacy). If the empirical data refutes their “viewpoint” then their “viewpoint” is wrong. I provided you with the empirical data: it shows the “viewpoint of the IPCC” is wrong.
There is nothing “puzzling” in recognising an authority is wrong when the empirical data shows the authority is wrong.
CO2 has a significant effect on global temperature:
No. Atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature at all time scales. At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.
It seems you are unaware that the IR absorbtion of CO2 in the atmosphere is constrained to only two narrow bands with almost all being in the 15 micron band. These bands are so near to saturation that they only increase their absorbtion by band broadening.
Think of light (i.e. visible radiation) entering a room through a window. If you put a layer of dark paint over the window then much light is absorbed by the paint and, therefore, does not enter the room. Add another layer of paint and more light is absorbed by that layer, but not as much as by the first layer. Similarly for each additional layer of paint.
The IR emitted from the Earth’s surface is trying to pass the ‘window’ of the atmosphere to enter space. Adding more CO2 to the air is like adding more paint on the window that has seven layers of the paint. Each unit addition of CO2 has less absorbtion than the previous unit addition: this reducing effect is logarithmic.
So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.
There are no discernible effects of AGW.
That is true.
You assert that
Ocean acidity is rising faster than the past 300 million years (a very long time).
Frankly, that is ridiculous! The oceans are alkaline, not acidic.
There is no possibility of having measured that variation of ocean pH from AGW and from increased atmospheric CO2 to anything like the required accuracy to know if it has varied at all.
Also, I suspect you don’t know that a change to ocean surface layer pH (e.g. from undersea volcanic sulphur emissions)of an unmeasurably small 0.1 would have induced all the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution whether or not there were any anthropogenic CO2 emission. I doubt the sulphur change has happened, but that possibility alone refutes your assertion.
You then assert as discernible effects of AGW “Glacier retreat” and “Sea level rise”. Those assertions are both wrong.
The glaciers are retreating back to where they were in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and their retreat is revealing human settlements that existed in the MWP. Humans had nothing to do with the cooling from the MWP to the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the warming from the LIA progressed for centuries before the industrial revolution.
As I previously told you, there has been no acceleration to the rate of sea level rise which has existed for the last ten thousand years.
GHGs are not “well above any natural average.
And you have replied
Yes they are. Significantly higher:
Sorry, but you are wrong. You need to define what is a “natural average”, then read the source which you cite, and then compare the two.
Incidentally, I cited to you a paper I co-authored which uses that source for its data so I am very familiar with it.
The world is not warming.
And you have replied by citing the laughable GISS compilation saying
That data set is severely corrupted by unexplained ‘adjustments’.
Anyway, the draft IPCC AR5 shows the lack of warming over the last 16 years which I stated. Have a look at the new WUWT thread to see the lack of warming shown by the draft IPCC AR5
Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing in the atmosphere but it is not known – and cannot be known with present information – if that rise is natural or is a result of the anthropogenic CO2 emission.
And I cited a peer reviewed study of which I was a co-author.
Your grossly offensive reply makes no mention of our study and says
Assertions from a climate porn blog and a circular argument based on isotope studies which do not mention my work are NOT a justification for rejecting my work.
The rest of your assertions are equally fallacious but your gross insult to my work has enraged me such that I can’t be bothered to refute them. However, you ask me a political question which demonstrates your motivation so I will answer that.
You assert and ask me
We make the transition to a low carbon economy, and it turns out that climate change is very dangerous. We avoid most of the catastrophe, and have a newfound sense of responsibility about our planet. We are made aware of the dangers of ignoring scientific consensus above trusting (generally speaking) isolated individuals who are influenced by corporate powers.
We do nothing, and climate change turns out to be very dangerous. Tens of millions of people are displaced. Food shortages. Resource conflicts. Runaway climate change caused by methane deposits. Nature hopefully stabilises, and some of humanity of hopefully left to rebuild.
So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?
There is no evidence for the AGW-hypothesis; none, zilch, nada. All we have are computer model simulations which are known to be wrong.
But we do know what “transition to a low carbon economy” means. It requires reduction to fossil fuel usage which would kill billions of people, mostly children. This would pale into relative insignificance the combined activities of H1tler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
The Precautionary Principle decrees that we should NOT take actions which would kill billions of people on the basis of a hypothesis which has no supporting evidence and merely because it has been described using computer games.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952