Maggie's Farm

Prove AGW. Take 10,000 to 1,00,000 years of real data - Vostok, Dome C, GISP2, Taylor, your pick - and prove that humankind is raising the temperature of the globe other than as a figment of modern whim when the data is artificially manipulated or otherwise conditioned in favor of the desired, foregone AGW conclusion.

Because science is not pop theory.

The basics of greenhouse warming have been known for more than a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

Heh. As you conveniently ignored in the other thread and as you ignore again here - there's that bias again - the aging theory of AGW is not science. Theory is not reality and faulty theory is absolutely not reality.

I demanded reality, Zach; proof. Proof being what has been absent in the data ostensibly employed by AGW hysterics to "settle the science".

Which is why handwaving doesn't constitute a valid scientific argument. To determine whether data adjustments are merited requires examining the data and the methods.

Then take the data and prove your contention. My contention absolutely does constitute scientific argument - as you misuse the term - because of the two of them mine actually is evident in the data.

Of course, you cannot prove your contention, even when directed to that data. There's a reason for this, as I said.

My challenge stands: Take the data and prove the AGW contention. Because if you're going to co-opt the word science, be prepared to use it in its literal definition. Or be exposed as a hand-waver whose rhetorical curtain we must never peer behind.

Nothing in your reply addresses Arrhenius. That's called handwaving.

There you go again. I again demand proof that AGW exists. If it does, presumably it derives from antiquated theories on man-made CO2 greenhousing (or of any kind, actually) but even then with models continually failing, even that's completely unsettled.

There being no such evidence, so far you've simply restated the premise, as if fact owes it compliance. That's science inverted. Saying so isn't actually hand-waving, is it, Zach?

I even provided you with a variety of real data sources from which to create and cite your proofs; if your theory is correct, naturally the evidence will be in the data. I therefore addressed Arrhenius by way of pointing directly to the dearth of scientific evidence upholding the obsolete theory of AGW.

Of course nothing in my reply needs to addresses Arrhenius and here again I do you the favor of replying to your fallacy as if it were my task to refute it. It's not. It's your task to prove AGW, by way of whatever or whomever you please.

That's what we call fallacy, Zach, and it's your fallacy in support of psuedoscience. That's also called being double intellectually dishonest, and dare I say, it's hand-waving, shouting look, squirrel! as often as you can.

Science doesn't deal in 'proof', but evidentiary support. Anthropogenic global warming is supported by a range of evidence.

Stop hiding behind the cloak of "science" as you've co-opted it. If AGW were supported by "a range of evidence" where is it? Science doesn't deal with theory amply shown to fail such "evidentary support", or at lease real science doesn't. AGW hangs around because people want it to, not because of valid scientific finding.

The basics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century. [etc., etc. etc.]

You keep saying that. The basics of a whole range of the sciences had been "known" for scores of decades only to be proved false.

You don't have anything Zach. Your position is preposterous.

Evidence? You point to theory and research aimed at that theory. Did you think I wouldn't know the difference?

Meanwhile, using the data sources I provided, which are comprehensive and span tens of thousands of years, there is no evidence for AGW in the least. CO2 precedes temperature, man-made CO2 is a miniscule contribution to a trace gas, climate is reliably tied to solar cycling, and CO2 has recently been found to have a tenth the warming previously purported.

And so on and so on and so on, the upshot being that there is absolutely no evidence that AGW exists. There is no evidence that CO2, produced by man, has altered climate whatsoever, and that's the only rational position to take until science says otherwise. Which based on this reality it almost certainly never shall.

This week NASA, contradicting Rosetta's findings on cometary phenomenon, religiously reported that an new comet "had expended its volatiles", volatiles not found in comets in the first place. Some sciences die hard.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030190051.htm

https://youtu.be/KqVOxq7mE48

Who's this royal "we" of yours, Zach?

Correction: Temperature precedes CO2.

Your "we" committee insists on providing a snapshot of a vastly, vastly longer effect. Neither this inconsequential sliver or the entire trend and phenomenon are settled as a science of proved CO2-induced warming, whether in the 1958-present purely man-made time frame or in any other natural time frame in history.

Your assertion is uncorrelated to either Earth's climate phenomenon or AGW. It's simply AGW's little temporary gospel. It's not AGW science to any credible extent that it supports your preordained whim, which is that AGW is real.

AGW is neither real or proved, especially by your factoid. I can overlay innumerable broader trends upon it (and gave you leads to look for to do it yourself, which you refuse) that clearly show your CO2's movement over the last few decades is far more a natural phenomenon than anything else.

Add:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

http://s17.postimg.org/fwhaavhz3/CO2_Sea_Level_Last_8_Mya.png

And there's plenty more where that came from. Have at it.

I also pointed out a number of related, proven, evident facts about CO2 and its immaterial contribution to the imaginary AGW problem, to which there's never a reply, except that surely deniers don't understand CO2 and AGW and greenhousing and all.

The greenhouse effect is due to atmosphere, obviously, within which the vast majority contributor to temperature gain is water vapor.

Like the man said: Man’s CO2 output per year is less than three percent of the totals released by the combination of all natural forces and man — about 803 billion tons. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. Man-made CO2 accounts for 0.12% to Green House Gas effect, with Mother Nature accounts for 3.50%. Water vapor (both man and mother nature) accounts for 95.00%.

Is CO2 up? It certainly is, especially near Mauna Loa (where vog happens, incidentally). Is it responsible for AGW? No science says AGW even exists. Did man contribute it? No science says that he has beyond those miniscule amounts. They're what we call science.

...keep in mind that there are many causes of climate change; solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact.

How illuminating. My complaint with alarmists isn't the real science, it's that they co-opt it into rhetoric ostensibly aimed at supporting the AGW theory.

CO2 only represents about 25% of the greenhouse effect.

Incorrect. We have little idea what CO2's effect is. What you have instead is the theory's moving parameters, or as you are about to say, foregone conclusions on CO2 derived from prediction and model.

Without the human contribution, the natural emission and absorption of CO2 are in close equilibrium, meaning there is no significant change in atmospheric CO2. The human contribution is in excess of the net natural emission and absorption.

Come on. CO2 has naturally varied some 40%, only spiking in the modern era with no corresponding increase in temperature. CO2 is an unknown driver. We know this.

You've already granted that the greenhouse effect exists. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

Heat trapping exists, as does water vapor and methane, et al. The general phenomenon means nothing for the unproved theory.

...so if the atmospheric content of CO2 increases, then the greenhouse effect increases...

Ah, no; conflation and tacit evasion. If temperature increases, CO2 increases. The record is quite clear here too, as you well know.

...As it does, surface temperatures increase, and this causes the atmosphere to absorb more water vapor, amplifying the greenhouse effect.

In which you contend that sensitivity is high enough to break the system; that runaway positive feedback in a system already with at least a 40% variance is assured despite all modern temperature deviations - if they can be called deviations - amounting to fractions of a degree despite spiking CO2. Not forty percent. Noise.

I'm an engineer. I don't even know how to design for intentional runaway in a self-balancing, negative feedback system where signal distortion modulates or even creates the original signal - remembering that temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around - within a wide, stable, 40% operational window over time in order to abruptly break the system - signal runaway, you imply - only when a particular distortion spike of the same distortion type fails to modulate the signal whatsoever.

You want CO2 to modulate temperature. Instead, temperature modulates CO2. Both vary some 40% and both evidently exist in some balancing, negative feedback system. Apparently some external perturbation of the signal - which is almost certainly macroscopic solar variation of the kind not witnessed by humankind - modulates temperature and does so in a system equipped to level itself internally. Why do we find the system to be self-leveling - to possess significant internal negative feedback? Because even if we assume all recent CO2 increase is due to mankind's input, we haven't been able to budge temperature by two-tenths of a percent

Yet nature swings temperature and then CO2 by 40% together in a system that even a purported and mathematically impossible artificial increase of another thirty percent has yet to modify. I'd say that's one stable system and that further we don't know the heck how it works or what spins its gauges.

A doubling of CO2 will directly cause an increase in surface temperature of about 1°C, which can be calculated from first principles.

Increases unavailable for comment because they've been calculated from imprecise models, presumably, models widely and scientifically later simply shown to be broken.

There are a number of ways to estimate climate sensitivity. You seem to be interested in past climate change. Based on past climate change, climate sensitivity is estimated to be about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. See PALAEOSENS Project Members, Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity, Nature 2012.

Addressed. I think you have a conundrum on your hands.

Look, as long as CO2 is conflated with AGW alarmists will be wrong and will probably get the same reply. Reality: It cannot be proved that CO2 produces AGW or that AGW exists. This is why you leap over that requirement while rushing to co-opt the mantle of a corruption of SCIENCE! you hope will win the rhetorical day.

Nothing in the assembled facts supports AGW except as a unproved - and as time passes, probably failing - theory. Alarmists must instead assemble salads of conflation, misrepresentation, diversion, and assumption. I've stopped wondering why.

CO2 does not equal AGW. CO2 may equal AGW for all either of us know, but so may umpteen other phenomenon, and all the while AGW remains as much a theory as man-made CO2 being its driver does. Odd, that, because all alarmist assurances demand that effect match prediction and yet effect just won't.

I'm not opposed to the AGW theory irresponsibly and I'm certainly not anti-conservation or anti-science. It's just that the conflation fallacy is written all through alarmist rhetoric and that they co-opt SCIENCE! into rhetoric ostensibly aimed at supporting failure.

Correction: I used "Both" wrongly: Historical temperature doesn't vary 40%; only CO2 has, which compounds the AGW argument.

We have both theoretical and empirical knowledge of CO2's interaction with infrared radiation.

Just not with purported AGW, which is the point. Or was until alarmists conflated theory with conditional empirical knowledge to pronounce the science otherwise closed.

Few scientists believe that warming will runaway, but will stabilize at a higher temperature.

The Science is Settled, in other words, but faithfully in a system with an as yet unknown governor.

CO2 is both cause and effect in the climate system.

Everything is, which undermines your claim. https://youtu.be/YZLkN8F0Q14?t=3m20s I don't include that clip, as controversial as it may seem, to argue any point except that it's quite easy, and increasingly common, to find 50, 100, and even older theories fatally flawed. I'd mentioned a couple.

As the oceans warm, they can hold less CO2, so if the temperature spikes, such as due to orbital variations, then CO2 will be emitted by the oceans, leading to increased warming. This causes ice to melt, reducing albedo, and further warming.

So, positive feedback.

The system then stabilizes at a higher temperature.

Or rather, unknown negative feedback. Your conundrum is starting to show.

The Earth appears to seesaw between two modalities.

Which alarmists can no more illustrate than they can apply scientific rigor to the vast disparities between these and other causes and effects, or between enormous, unexplainable numerical contradictions. So they don't, although per the video, they may allow themselves authority to select or prohibit data sources and theory, especially concerning influences outside the immediate AGW system. SCIENCE!

See how circular alarmism is? Or this debate? That's the thing alarmists invariably miss - or rather, avoid: That conditional correlation and more than a little blind faith are not causation.