A question about the accuracy of science

[Old Rocks]

Now these are full text articles from the National Academy of Science. Were I just to give abstracts from various scientific journals, I could put up several thousand such abstracts. Yes, there is a huge number of articles from scientific journals that state AGW is real. And many, many lectures from various meetings of scientific societies, that are available to the public.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf

Anthropogenic carbon emissions lock in long-term sea-level rise that greatly exceeds projections for this century, posing profound challenges for coastal development and cultural legacies. Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m. Based on detailed topographic and population data, local high tide lines, and regional long-term sea-level commitment for different carbon emissions and ice sheet stability scenarios, we compute the current population living on endangered land at municipal, state, and national levels within the United States. For unabated climate change, we find that land that is home to more than 20 million people is implicated and is widely distributed among different states and coasts. The total area includes 1,185–1,825 municipalities where land that is home to more than half of the current population would be affected, among them at least 21 cities exceeding 100,000 residents. Under aggressive carbon cuts, more than half of these municipalities would avoid this commitment if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet remains stable. Similarly, more than half of the US population-weighted area under threat could be spared. We provide lists of implicated cities and state populations for different emissions scenarios and with and without a certain collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Although past anthropogenic emissions already have caused sea-level commitment that will force coastal cities to adapt, future emissions will determine which areas we can continue to occupy or may have to abandon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Richard Alley, a very well known and credible scientist in this field.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Jennifer Francis. How the arctic ice affect our, the lower 48, climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Si, do you need more, and if so, on what specific subjects?

 

[jc456]

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

The outgoing longwave radiation decreasing in the greenhouse gas absorption bands.

The increase in backradiation.

The stratospheric cooling.

Those are all direct measurements, no models involved. And they're smoking guns for man-made greenhouse gas warming. There is no "It's a natural cycle!" theory that explains those direct observations.

Hence, we move on to Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data. Heck, it's the only theory that explains the observed data, being the observed data contradicts all "Natural cycles" theories.

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

And recall, nothing that is

post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

Thank you in advance.

Very good, Si.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full.pdf

California is currently in the midst of a record-setting drought. The drought began in 2012 and now includes the lowest calendar-year and 12-mo precipitation, the highest annual temperature, and the most extreme drought indicators on record. The extremely warm and dry conditions have led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk. Analyzing historical climate observations from California, we find that precipitation deficits in California were more than twice as likely to yield drought years if they occurred when conditions were warm. We find that although there has not been a substantial change in the probability of either negative or moderately negative precipitation anomalies in recent decades, the occurrence of drought years has been greater in the past two decades than in the preceding century. In addition, the probability that precipitation deficits co-occur with warm conditions and the probability that precipitation deficits produce drought have both increased. Climate model experiments with and without anthropogenic forcings reveal that human activities have increased the probability that dry precipitation years are also warm. Further, a large ensemble of climate model realizations reveals that additional global warming over the next few decades is very likely to create ∼100% probability that any annual-scale dry period is also extremely warm. We therefore conclude that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of co-occurring warm–dry conditions like those that have created the acute human and ecosystem impacts associated with the “exceptional” 2012–2014 drought in California.

they are? How far back do those records go? How the fk did the Mojave Desert get there?

 

[jc456]

Dr. Jennifer Francis. How the arctic ice affect our, the lower 48, climate.

 

[Si modo]

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

The outgoing longwave radiation decreasing in the greenhouse gas absorption bands.

The increase in backradiation.

The stratospheric cooling.

Those are all direct measurements, no models involved. And they're smoking guns for man-made greenhouse gas warming. There is no "It's a natural cycle!" theory that explains those direct observations.

Hence, we move on to Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data. Heck, it's the only theory that explains the observed data, being the observed data contradicts all "Natural cycles" theories.

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

And recall, nothing that is

post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

Thank you in advance.

Very good, Si.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full.pdf

California is currently in the midst of a record-setting drought. The drought began in 2012 and now includes the lowest calendar-year and 12-mo precipitation, the highest annual temperature, and the most extreme drought indicators on record. The extremely warm and dry conditions have led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk. Analyzing historical climate observations from California, we find that precipitation deficits in California were more than twice as likely to yield drought years if they occurred when conditions were warm. We find that although there has not been a substantial change in the probability of either negative or moderately negative precipitation anomalies in recent decades, the occurrence of drought years has been greater in the past two decades than in the preceding century. In addition, the probability that precipitation deficits co-occur with warm conditions and the probability that precipitation deficits produce drought have both increased. Climate model experiments with and without anthropogenic forcings reveal that human activities have increased the probability that dry precipitation years are also warm. Further, a large ensemble of climate model realizations reveals that additional global warming over the next few decades is very likely to create ∼100% probability that any annual-scale dry period is also extremely warm. We therefore conclude that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of co-occurring warm–dry conditions like those that have created the acute human and ecosystem impacts associated with the “exceptional” 2012–2014 drought in California.

From your link: "A number of caveats should be considered. For example, ours is an implicit approach that analyzes the temperature and precipitation conditions that have historically occurred with low PMDI years, but does not explicitly explore the physical processes that produce drought."

Interesting read.

Furthermore, from you own link: "The impact of increasing temperatures on the processes governing runoff, baseflow, groundwater, soil moisture, and land-atmosphere evaporative feedbacks over both the historical period and in response to further global warming remains a critical uncertainty (43). Likewise, our analyses of anthropogenic forcing rely on global climate models that do not resolve the topographic complexity that strongly influences California’s precipitation and temperature."

They have concluded that warming had an effect on drought. Nice. Still doesn't answer the question I asked.

Try to understand the question I asked, and you might get there.

 

[Si modo]

OK, Si, do you need more, and if so, on what specific subjects?

Oh, yes. I do need more.


Just try to provide papers which address the question I posed.

K...thx.

 

[Si modo]

I'll make no such pledge. I can't imagine any scientist would make such a pledge about not needing more.

I will make a pledge to keep an open mind when reviewing a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Fine. Review away. I'll get you started with these. Lots more where that came from.

Harries (2001)
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

Griggs (2004)
http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/3006745/paper.pdf

Chen (2007)
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

Wang (2009)
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

Philipona (2004)
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect - Philipona - 2004 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Evans (2006)
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Thank you.

All very interesting. However, they do not answer the question I asked.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.

....

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made? None of that post hoc ergo propter hoc that's out there - that's not science.

When THAT happens, the problem still exists of affirming a negative (ie. affirming a "denial").

You're correct. Popper would have many, many issues with the state of the science when it comes to climate change. He'd be just fine with the state of the pure sciences, though. They haven't been fatally polluted with activists in lieu of scientists.

On the origin of ‘the greenhouse effect’: John Tyndall's 1859 interrogation of nature - Hulme - 2009 - Weather - Wiley Online Library

There is the science, from 1859, that states that very thing. From that time to the present, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the amount of CH4 by over 150%, as well as increasing the NOx and add various industrial GHGs.

So, are you still in denial? If so, you obviously are on the peer level with jc and Silly Billy.

 

[Si modo]

Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.

....

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made? None of that post hoc ergo propter hoc that's out there - that's not science.

When THAT happens, the problem still exists of affirming a negative (ie. affirming a "denial").

You're correct. Popper would have many, many issues with the state of the science when it comes to climate change. He'd be just fine with the state of the pure sciences, though. They haven't been fatally polluted with activists in lieu of scientists.

On the origin of ‘the greenhouse effect’: John Tyndall's 1859 interrogation of nature - Hulme - 2009 - Weather - Wiley Online Library

There is the science, from 1859, that states that very thing. From that time to the present, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the amount of CH4 by over 150%, as well as increasing the NOx and add various industrial GHGs.

So, are you still in denial? If so, you obviously are on the peer level with jc and Silly Billy.

Awesome. Still doesn't answer much of anything concerning my question.

Poor Rocks...still with the same style. Posting great stuff that has nothing to do with the question asked.

Don't ever change, Rocks. You're great entertainment.

 

[Old Rocks]

You asked "Where is the science to support global warming is manmade'. I gave you exactly that science. In what manner was your question not answered?

Yes, we went around and around on this before. And you still repeat the drivel that it has not been demonstrated. Why don't you go do something useful, like occupying a bird refuge or something.

 

[Si modo]

You asked "Where is the science to support global warming is manmade'. I gave you exactly that science. In what manner was your question not answered?

Yes, we went around and around on this before. And you still repeat the drivel that it has not been demonstrated. Why don't you go do something useful, like occupying a bird refuge or something.

Good grief. You gave a link describing the Greenhouse Effect.

After all these years, you still haven't grasped a simple question.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, what did you just try to say? That adding that amount of GHG's to the atmosphere is not going to create a warming?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So, what did you just try to say? That adding that amount of GHG's to the atmosphere is not going to create a warming?

I'd truly like to see him/her post their findings in a real peer reviewed journal so it can be accepted or ripped apart. Until then they can enjoy not being taken seriously.

 

[mamooth]

All very interesting. However, they do not answer the question I asked.

Yes, they did. You asked for papers backing up the science on OLR and backradiation. That's exactly what I gave you.

I expected this kind of sleaze from you, but I still took the time to give you a chance to demonstrate you were debating in good faith. Instead, you demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty. Did you really think that you're the first cultist who's tried to pull off a "I'm so reasonable and open to evidence" charade?

 

[Si modo]

All very interesting. However, they do not answer the question I asked.

Yes, they did. You asked for papers backing up the science on OLR and backradiation. That's exactly what I gave you.

I expected this kind of sleaze from you, but I still took the time to give you a chance to demonstrate you were debating in good faith. Instead, you demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty. Did you really think that you're the first cultist who's tried to pull off a "I'm so reasonable and open to evidence" charade?

No. That was not the question I asked.

Scroll up, read my question, understand my question, then answer it, if possible.

But, I appreciate your effort.

If you think science is sleaze, I don't hold out much hope for your successful involvement in a scientific discussion. I should have known when your post I responded to was trashing Popper and you demanded an affirmation of a negative..

 

[Crick]

I've yet to see anyone even challenge the OP's contention that the larger the number of experts supporting a position, the more likely it is to be correct.

 

[Si modo]

I've yet to see anyone even challenge the OP's contention that the larger the number of experts supporting a position, the more likely it is to be correct.

I thought that was comedy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've yet to see anyone even challenge the OP's contention that the larger the number of experts supporting a position, the more likely it is to be correct.

I thought that was comedy.

I've always wondered how they measured temperatures in 1880-1930 accurate to a tenth of a degree