The GW denialists are winning

[BrianG]

"until we test"? Surely you jest?

 

It is a known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do a search here to find other threads dealing with this issue.

...

 

I'm not joking about the need to experimentally test the proposition, "restricting emission or sequestering [ce]CO2[/ce] will mitigate climate change" before we spend many billions more on policy. There is no question, "[ce]CO2[/ce] is a greenhouse gas" but it's effect on climate and climate feedback mechanisms is the central issue. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, yet we aren't discussing reducing emission or it's sequestration.

 

Experimental tests are the ultimate proof of science, not consensus.

[freeztar]

There is no question, "[ce]CO2[/ce] is a greenhouse gas" but it's effect on climate and climate feedback mechanisms is the central issue.

 

Do you not see the irony in that statement?

 

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, yet we aren't discussing reducing emission or it's sequestration.

 

You could have really hit a homerun here! H20 is the most prevalent, uncontrollable GHG out there. I wonder why we aren't trying to limit that...hmmm?

 

Experimental tests are the ultimate proof of science, not consensus.

 

Take a look at the theory of gravitation. It was turned on its head by Einstein, and lots of people made the same comment, "we have to wait for proof". Well, proof came. It's not pertinent to this thread other than to say that *multiple* experiments have proven Einstein's work, sometimes many years afterward. And still, today, we occasionally get the odd theorist around here that claims to have proven Einstein wrong. We listen, of course, but when you hear the same record over and over, you begin to listen for the scratches. ;)

 

There's a club of people that still believe the Earth is flat. Should we also appease them and do the tests? Where do we draw the line?

[Essay]

I'm not joking about the need to experimentally test the proposition, "restricting emission or sequestering [ce]CO2[/ce] will mitigate climate change" before we spend many billions more on policy. There is no question, "[ce]CO2[/ce] is a greenhouse gas" but it's effect on climate and climate feedback mechanisms is the central issue. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, yet we aren't discussing reducing emission or it's sequestration.

 

Experimental tests are the ultimate proof of science, not consensus.

 

 

I think "Lemit" has already addressed the impracticality of this sort real-world testing CO2 mitigation's effect on the climate ...or words to that effect. ...recall the bridge and wind-tunnel testing?

 

I completely agree that we can't predict the future, but we can predict what happens (in general) when energy is added to an increasingly closed system.

 

Maybe some other heat-release mechanisms (other than melting ice) will be discovered (probably after they first manifest themselves) -from some weird stratospheric chemical reaction or reorganization of circulation patterns, along with reorganized oceanic circulation patterns, stationary hurricanes, or stagnent/stormy sectors- to giant heat bubbles popping up thru the stratosphere and lost to the solar wind (but with cool aurora!) as cold stratospheric air falls back into the hole left behind- but either way, discovered or not, something has to change if greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere

(and not just ocean acidification).

[BrianG]

Do you not see the irony in that statement?

...

Take a look at the theory of gravitation. It was turned on its head by Einstein, and lots of people made the same comment, "we have to wait for proof". Well, proof came. It's not pertinent to this thread other than to say that *multiple* experiments have proven Einstein's work, sometimes many years afterward. And still, today, we occasionally get the odd theorist around here that claims to have proven Einstein wrong. We listen, of course, but when you hear the same record over and over, you begin to listen for the scratches.

 

There's a club of people that still believe the Earth is flat. Should we also appease them and do the tests? Where do we draw the line?

 

A single atmospheric experimental test on climate change mitigation might suffice, I'd draw the line somewhere above zero. I don't see any irony, nor any humor in the principle of experimental verification. Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change mitigation, waiting is an excellent strategy.

[Essay]

A single atmospheric experimental test on climate change mitigation might suffice, I'd draw the line somewhere above zero. I don't see any irony, nor any humor in the principle of experimental verification. Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change mitigation, waiting is an excellent strategy.

 

Yes, the same logic applies to smoking cigarettes.

 

~ :phones:

[BrianG]

Yes, the same logic applies to smoking cigarettes.

 

~ :phones:

 

Now I admit, I do see some irony, but not the same logic. There are may tens of thousands of experimental tests using cigarette smoke:

 

 

 

Requirement for Macrophage Elastase for Cigarette Smoke-Induced Emphysema in Mice -- Hautamaki et al. 277 (5334): 2002 -- Science

 

An experimental comparison of three different schedules of reinforcement of drug abstinence using cigarette smoking as an exemplar.

 

Effect of Intermittent Cigarette Smoke Inhalation on Tibial... : The Journal of Trauma

 

Arch Gen Psychiatry -- Abstract: Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Spatial Working Memory and Attentional Deficits in Schizophrenia: Involvement of Nicotinic Receptor Mechanisms, June 2005, Sacco et al. 62 (6): 649

[modest]

A single atmospheric experimental test on climate change mitigation might suffice, I'd draw the line somewhere above zero. I don't see any irony, nor any humor in the principle of experimental verification. Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change mitigation, waiting is an excellent strategy.

 

I don't quite follow. You want to wait rather than engaging in climate change mitigation, and you also want an experimental test run of climate change mitigation. That might be an internally inconsistent proposition.

 

How would you consider these things different:

1. atmospheric experimental test on climate change mitigation
   
2. climate change mitigation
   

If you are suggesting an experiment with an artificial climate then there are simple experiments you could do,

 

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

 

which show that anthropogenic modification of the atmosphere does indeed change the temperature of the re-radiating medium... which it must given the energy budget of the medium involved.

 

This brings up another question I have with your position. You'd apparently like us to hold off on "climate change mitigation", but you are presumably comfortable with "climate change instigation". Do we know enough, experimentally, about the latter to go ahead with it? Does changing earth's emissivity, for example, pose less of a risk than not changing earth's emissivity?

 

It's almost as if you are saying we should not stop playing with the climate until we know what playing with the climate accomplishes. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

Modest, thank you for posting that experimental test on [CE]CO2[/CE]’s greenhouse effect on temperature. Two vessels, one with 100% [CE]CO2[/CE] and the other with 0.037% [CE]CO2[/CE] are exposed to IR and it looks like a [math]5\celsius[/math] is caused by the greenhouse effect. If you were to double the concentration by volume of the 0.037% [CE]CO2[/CE] a little more than 12 times, you would get 100% [CE]CO2[/CE]. Twelve doubling’s of [CE]CO2[/CE] produces [math]5\celsius[/math] warming, or each doubling of atmospheric [CE]CO2[/CE] produces about [math]0.42\celsius[/math] atmospheric warming. This greenhouse effect is significantly less than the IPCC’s forecasts for doubling the preindustrial atmosphere at 280ppmv CO2 to 560ppmv, yet it’s the best experimental test I’ve ever seen. Why is there such a large discrepancy?

 

Next, you bring up the claim that we are “playing” with the climate by using fossil fuel. I’ve heard this before; we are already “experimenting” or as you put it, “instigating” with climate when we use fossil fuel. I remind you, your citation is an experiment, using fossil fuel to warm us when we’re cold, cook our food, move us and our goods, work, farm or play isn’t playing or experimenting with climate, it’s just life.

 

We need real experimental tests, either adding or removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, and measuring climate change before we decide on policy. Perhaps a larger vessel would produce a more precise simulation. Best, I’d like to see an atmospheric test releasing or sequestering CO2, to measure the effect on climate.

[Essay]

Now I admit, I do see some irony, but not the same logic. There are may tens of thousands of experimental tests using cigarette smoke:

 

 

 

Requirement for Macrophage Elastase for Cigarette Smoke-Induced Emphysema in Mice -- Hautamaki et al. 277 (5334): 2002 -- Science

 

An experimental comparison of three different schedules of reinforcement of drug abstinence using cigarette smoking as an exemplar.

 

Effect of Intermittent Cigarette Smoke Inhalation on Tibial... : The Journal of Trauma

 

Arch Gen Psychiatry -- Abstract: Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Spatial Working Memory and Attentional Deficits in Schizophrenia: Involvement of Nicotinic Receptor Mechanisms, June 2005, Sacco et al. 62 (6): 649

 

 

Effect of Intermittent Cigarette Smoke Inhalation on Tibial... : The Journal of Trauma

 

"The results of this study suggest that intermittent inhalation of cigarette smoke delays, but does not prevent, the bone healing in tibial lengthening."

 

Well gosh Brian, where is the real-world proof? What does that have to do with getting cancer or otherwise being killed by cigarettes? Are you suggesting there might be some long-term effect, over what was observed during the 4, 8, and 12 week periods that they used in this experiment?

===

 

Besides, I think that bone data is faked. Look at this hacked email!

 

THE PETER ROST BLOG: Message from AstraZeneca's "Group of Seven"

 

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Message from AstraZeneca's "Group of Seven"

 

From: REDACTED

To: [email protected]

Subject: AstraZeneca's "Group of Seven"

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:09:23

 

 

...reporting unethical behavior.... However, the company continues to violate policies....

 

We are afraid....

 

For the most part, the policy violations that we see come from management, and resistance from underlings is met with swift retaliation. Anonymity is essential.

They are afraid! ...be very afraid....

 

These people are just trying to sell more bone-building drugs. Follow the money!!!

 

Research Integrity In the Media Articles by Date

"Doctor Falsified Study on Injuired G.I.'s, Army Says" by Duff Wilson and Barry Meier - Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, a former Army surgeon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and paid consultant to Medtronic Inc. was found to have fabricated patient data regarding a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic. Additionally, Dr. Kuklo forged the signatures of four Walter Reed Army doctors on an article that he submitted last year to a British medical journal. Kuklo also did not obtain the Army's permission to conduct the study.

 

or this....

 

Research Integrity In the Media Articles by Date

"Prominent celecoxib researcher admits fabricating data in 21 articles" by Jeanne Lenzer - Scott S. Reuben, Associate Professor at Tufts University and chief of the acute pain service at Bayview Medical Center admitted to fabricating patient data in 21 of his 72 published articles. He received research grants from Pfizer and studied drugs such as Celebrex and Lyrica and their use in pain management. Reuben has since gone on medical leave at Bayview Medical Center, resigned from his associate professor position and will not be permitted to participate in research.

 

 

I just can't trust these studies about bone growth. All of medical research is a fraud; they're just in it for the money. It's a giant drug company/science conspiracy!

 

They even make money by getting you to quit cigarettes!

 

I'm gonna wait until someone can prove cigarettes are really dangerous - in the long run.

 

~ :phones:

[BrianG]

I'm claiming that experimental tests are the best way to distinguish good theory from bad.

 

Besides, I think that bone data is faked. Look at this hacked email!

These people are just trying to sell more bone-building drugs. Follow the money!!!

All of medical research is a fraud; they're just in it for the money. It's a giant drug company/science conspiracy!

 

Can you substantiate any of these claims? Can you cite any of my posts where I publish similar claims?

[modest]

Modest, thank you for posting that experimental test on [CE]CO2[/CE]’s greenhouse effect on temperature. Two vessels, one with 100% [CE]CO2[/CE] and the other with 0.037% [CE]CO2[/CE] are exposed to IR and it looks like a [math]5\celsius[/math] is caused by the greenhouse effect. If you were to double the concentration by volume of the 0.037% [CE]CO2[/CE] a little more than 12 times, you would get 100% [CE]CO2[/CE]. Twelve doubling’s of [CE]CO2[/CE] produces [math]5\celsius[/math] warming, or each doubling of atmospheric [CE]CO2[/CE] produces about [math]0.42\celsius[/math] atmospheric warming. This greenhouse effect is significantly less than the IPCC’s forecasts for doubling the preindustrial atmosphere at 280ppmv CO2 to 560ppmv, yet it’s the best experimental test I’ve ever seen. Why is there such a large discrepancy?

 

You are making some basic errors that may be due to an unfamiliarity with the physics involved with greenhouse warming.

 

A certain amount of light in the visible range warms the medium (a pan of water) from the experiment. The medium then radiates in infrared. A portion of the infrared radiation is absorbed and reflected by the CO₂ upping the temperature of the medium versus what it would be without the high concentration of CO₂.

 

Your conclusions assume that doubling the concentration in a small container has the same effect in change of temperature in degrees Celsius as doubling the concentration in earth's atmosphere. This would require the container absorb an equal amount of radiation at any given wavelength per concentration as earth's atmosphere. But, the absorbance of a gas at some wavelength (you can see in the Beer–Lambert law) depends on the path length through the material. The container in the experiment is much smaller than the atmosphere. The change in transmissivity due to doubling the concentration in the container will therefore be less than doubling the concentration in the atmosphere.

 

More significantly, your reasoning requires the lamp to have the same luminosity as the sun. You equate degrees of pan water temp to degrees of Earth temp without considering that the source of heat has a different luminosity in each case. You could, for example, repeat the above experiment with a powerful spotlight. You would get very different results and your method must account for that.

 

Next, you bring up the claim that we are “playing” with the climate by using fossil fuel. I’ve heard this before; we are already “experimenting” or as you put it, “instigating” with climate when we use fossil fuel. I remind you, your citation is an experiment, using fossil fuel to warm us when we’re cold, cook our food, move us and our goods, work, farm or play isn’t playing or experimenting with climate, it’s just life.

 

You'll have to base your argument on something other than not having enough scientific certainty. Such an argument could be applied to either instigation or mitigation and is therefore meaningless. You would have to show why possibly instigating drastic anthropogenic global warming is less risky than possibly mitigating drastic anthropogenic global warming including any possible damaging side effects of either.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

...

Your conclusions assume that doubling the concentration in a small container has the same effect in change of temperature in degrees Celsius as doubling the concentration in earth's atmosphere. This would require the container absorb an equal amount of radiation at any given wavelength per concentration as earth's atmosphere. But, the absorbance of a gas at some wavelength (you can see in the Beer–Lambert law) depends on the path length through the material. The container in the experiment is much smaller than the atmosphere. The change in transmissivity due to doubling the concentration in the container will therefore be less than doubling the concentration in the atmosphere.

Then an experiment with a larger container and a brighter lamp would create a greater change in temperature. Has that been done?

 

...

You'll have to base your argument on something other than not having enough scientific certainty. Such an argument could be applied to either instigation or mitigation and is therefore meaningless. You would have to show why possibly instigating drastic anthropogenic global warming is less risky than possibly mitigating drastic anthropogenic global warming including any possible damaging side effects of either.

~modest

 

Scientific certainty isn't important? A theory with a 90% error bar is just as good as a theory with less than 1% margin of error? How does science shift from proving man made climate change to proving fossil fuel [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions are harmless? Isn't this forcing us to prove a negative, you can't prove I don't have a dragon in my garage.

 

Also, instigation is an artificial condition, we burn fossil fuel for heat, transportation and electricity, not to instigate climate change. No one has a large fossil fuel furnace that's designed to instigate climate change, they use the fuel to fulfill human needs.

 

In any event, I'm not basing my argument on low scientific certainty, I'm basing it on the complete lack of experimental tests or demonstrations of climate change mitigation. The policy isn't bad because I'm not certain it will work, it's bad because its never been tried or tested.

[modest]

Then an experiment with a larger container and a brighter lamp would create a greater change in temperature. Has that been done?

 

Let's think about each case.

 

If you shine a small LED light on a pan of water will it indeed warm the water less than a large halogen light? Can you think of why?

 

If infrared light is absorbed as it passes through a gas then should the thickness (or, the path length) of the gas affect how much is absorbed? Imagine regular light moving through water. Does the water absorb the same amount if it passes through a little water vs. a lot of water?

 

Scientific certainty isn't important?

 

An advocate of climate mitigation would say that you must be 100% certain of the consequences before changing earth's biosphere. An opponent would say that you must be 100% certain of the consequences of mitigation before electing to not change earth's biosphere.

 

Scientific certainty is, in and of itself, not an argument. You err in saying 'because we aren't 100% sure... my opinion is the way to go'

 

How does science shift from proving man made climate change to proving fossil fuel [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions are harmless? Isn't this forcing us to prove a negative, you can't prove I don't have a dragon in my garage.

 

No one is forcing you to prove that AGW will not be the downfall of humanity. We are pointing out that "We don't know if AGW will be humanity's downfall with scientific certainty so we should do it" is not a good argument. Certainly you see the difference...?

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a new angle on global warming. Volcanoes have been shown to cause global cooling because the emitted particulates block solar radiation from reaching the surface. Along this particulate theme, fifty years ago, there was much more particulate pollution, due to chimneys, smoke stacks, old coal plants, energy generation plants, iron production, etc. Since that time, environmental laws have drastically reduced this output, worldwide. Is it possible that some of the global warming is due to the regulated decrease in the output of manmade particulate matter?

[REASON]

What's troubling about scientific research is how often it ends up being wrong when we don't like the explanations it produces.

 

Or maybe that's a statement about our biases. ;)

[BrianG]

...

You err in saying 'because we aren't 100% sure... my opinion is the way to go'

...

~modest

 

 

You miss my point, I'm not saying the experimental tests on man made [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate temperature have too large a margin of error, I'm saying there are no experimental tests on man made [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate temperature. Do you see the difference?

 

Here is a new angle on global warming. Volcanoes have been shown to cause global cooling because the emitted particulates block solar radiation from reaching the surface...

 

We don't know this from observations alone, there have been hundreds of tests on man made particulates and temperature in the field. There is a firm experimental foundation for this theory.

[Michaelangelica]

Skeptics of man made climate change are skeptics, it's as simple as that. Using emotion laden terminology isn't furthering the debate, and finding the truth. There are serious problems with climate change mitigation; people don't understand the probabilities, costs and benefits. The fault lies with climate science, not with the public.[/font][/color]

Well your persistence is astounding BrianG

Do you never sleep?

How many of you are there?

Do you ever concede a point?

How come this is so important to you?

Skeptic is derived from the Greek skeptikos, akin to ‘an inquirer’ or ‘an investigator’.

Philosophical skepticism, as opposed to scientific skepticism, advocated suspending judgment on the truth of any claim.

Today, to be a skeptic is to promote critical thinking, to stimulate inquiry, to seek evidence and to advocate the scientific method to evaluate the validity of claims and practices…all while maintaining an open mind.

Bad Language - Skeptic? No Doubt About It!

I don't see you as a sceptic just a denialist as i have already defined.

Your persistent, over-the-top denialism in the face of all reasonable arguments has finally worn me down.