NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

[futurecurrents]

Agree with facts one and two, because they have been mostly proven. Fact three is correct that temperatures, on a chosen statistical period, are rising. The problems, as ever, with your assertion is still

1. Temperatures have been proven to rise over other periods throughout the small (hundreds of thousands of year) history selection in relative terms of the Earth's age.

2. You claim there is "no other explanation" when other explanations exist. It's just that you don't like them. Additionally, the other explanations that we simply cannot know (because we are still learning about the planet, ecosystem, etc) cannot be ruled out.

I know, you'll just call me names and shout again. But this is why people don't readily accept your "facts".

1. Irrelevant. Just because temps increased in the past, for other reasons, it in no way makes the current reasons unimportant.

2. Actually there COULD be other reasons for the temp rise (but science has found none), but then they would just be additive to the increased greenhouse effect which absolutely MUST happen.

 

[Tsing Tao]

1. Irrelevant. Just because temps increased in the past, for other reasons, it in no way makes the current reasons unimportant.

2. Actually there COULD be other reasons for the temp rise (but science has found none), but then they would just be additive to the increased greenhouse effect which absolutely MUST happen.

1. It is relevant. I didn't say that current reasons are not important, all I did was say that linkage of temperatures to today's claims/factors is not proven. If this were the first time in recorded history that temps were showing an uptick, you might be on to something. But it's not. And thus, we cannot say if there aren't other factors driving temperature.

2. Perhaps, but then again, the interaction between so-called unknown factors and known ones is just that - unknown. Also unknown is the level impact of increased CO2 on the atmosphere. You throw around large increase percentages, and I'm not debating those. What I'm saying is akin to pouring a glass of ammonia into the ocean. Ammonia is poisonous to all sea creatures, but a glass of it in the ocean would have no impact whatsoever. Increasing that by 400% next year and pouring 4 glasses of it in the ocean would still have no effect.

 

[futurecurrents]

1. It is relevant. I didn't say that current reasons are not important, all I did was say that linkage of temperatures to today's claims/factors is not proven. If this were the first time in recorded history that temps were showing an uptick, you might be on to something. But it's not. And thus, we cannot say if there aren't other factors driving temperature.

2. Perhaps, but then again, the interaction between so-called unknown factors and known ones is just that - unknown. Also unknown is the level impact of increased CO2 on the atmosphere. You throw around large increase percentages, and I'm not debating those. What I'm saying is akin to pouring a glass of ammonia into the ocean. Ammonia is poisonous to all sea creatures, but a glass of it in the ocean would have no impact whatsoever. Increasing that by 400% next year and pouring 4 glasses of it in the ocean would still have no effect.

1. Yes it is irrelevant. That was then this is now. I don't know why you such a problem with this concept. The fact that this is not the first time that temps have risen in no way changes the fact that today we have raised the levels of CO2 and thereby temps. Your "logic" is simply not logical. To say that because something happened in the past for one reason that now some there is some other reason is total nonsense. If you can't understand this you are stupid.

2. No the effect of the increase of an important greenhouse gas by 40% certainly is known. It raises temperatures. That's what essentially the entire world's science community agrees with.

You are very confused.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The fact that this is not the first time that temps have risen in no way changes the fact that today we have raised the levels of CO2 and thereby temps. Your "logic" is simply not logical. To say that because something happened in the past for one reason that now some there is some other reason is total nonsense. If you can't understand this you are stupid.

Ah, and here come the insults, right on schedule. I'm not saying that the past was a different reason than why temperatures are rising now. I'm actually implying that it could be the same reason. The graph that shows how temperatures have peaked right around where they were several times in history implies some sort of phase or periodical change - not, in fact, that CO2 has anything to do with it. It's actually YOU who is saying that this time is different. I'm saying we don't know it it's different or not.

2. No the effect of the increase of an important greenhouse gas by 40% certainly is known. It raises temperatures. That's what essentially the entire world's science community agrees with.
.

What's not known is how much it raises temperature. Much in the same way that the ammonia poisons the ocean (the previous example), no one knows how much CO2 it takes to raise the earth's temperature a degree. Oh sure, you can show all sorts of fancy graphs, but that doesn't make it fact. There are just too many variables in the climate to say something arrogant like "We know an increase in 5% of the world's CO2 results in a 1.35342 degrees". Sure, perhaps in a closed system with CO2 being the only variable. Not in something so complex as the climate of the Earth.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

What's wrong with you deniers? You act like there might be something else involved, maybe a giant sun heating our planet or something. Or better yet, a giant sun whose radiation varies over time. Come on, a bunch of politicized scientists grubbing for government money have already decided that only CO2 can affect the climate.

 

[stu]

I am a little confused as to what the "scientific fact" is here. The essence of the scientfic method is the ability to reproduce the event under dispute. We know the Law of Gravity is factual because we can drop an item and measure the rate of acceleration. We can duplicate that experiment endless times with the identical result.

With AGW, all I can discern is a "theory" or more likely, an "hypothesis." Scientists have proposed a link between man-made CO2 and climate change. Unfortunately, as pie observed, the complexity of the systems involved makes scientific proof difficult. Instead of reproducible experiments, we get models, but they are deeply flawed. Unbiased observers have to be concerned that the models have all vastly overpredicted the degree of warming. We are left to speculate if the scientists just do not understadn the processes involved sufficiently to model them accurately or if an agenda is at work. The hysterical tone of the debate and attempts to silence those who voice doubt suggest the latter.

AGW is a fact. It is a fact if for no other reason CO2 causes the planet to warm. That falls under the Laws of Physics. So whether CO2 occurs naturally or billions of tons of the stuff is pumped into the atmosphere from human emission every year for 150 years, irrespectively its presence will warm the planet. More of it will warm the planet more. That will in turn, sooner or later, affect the climate.

There is nothing deeply flawed about actually being able to measure the amount of CO2 being left in the atmosphere either, no matter how much piezo tries to complicate it. It too is a scientific fact.

The reason you're skeptical, or rather in denial, about AGW is I suggest more for political reasons than anything else, not factual ones. Otherwise you should also be far more skeptical about the Laws of Gravity than you appear to be.

 

[jem]

its also a a fact of the laws of Science CO2 causes the planet to cool.
NASA says CO2 acts as a thermostat...
So anyone with the slightest amount of intellectual integrity would wonder if adding more of gas which can cool or warm... cools or warm on net.


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

AGW is a fact. It is a fact if for no other reason CO2 causes the planet to warm. That falls under the Laws of Physics. So whether CO2 occurs naturally or billions of tons of the stuff is pumped into the atmosphere from human emission every year for 150 years, irrespectively its presence will warm the planet. More of it will warm the planet more. That will in turn, sooner or later, affect the climate.

There is nothing deeply flawed about actually being able to measure the amount of CO2 being left in the atmosphere either, no matter how much piezo tries to complicate it. It too is a scientific fact.

The reason you're skeptical, or rather in denial, about AGW is I suggest more for political reasons than anything else, not factual ones. Otherwise you should also be far more skeptical about the Laws of Gravity than you appear to be.

 

[futurecurrents]

NASA says CO2 acts as a thermostat...
So anyone with the slightest amount of intellectual integrity

Yes the levels of CO2 are like the setting on the thermostat. Very good


So anyone with the slightest amount of intellectual integrity


Leaves you out. You believe in AGW but pretend you don't.

 

[piezoe]

Radioactive isotope 14C / radiocarbon is a distinct trace signature for burned fossil fuel. The only burned fossil fuel is anthropic ie caused by humans. The amount of human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere is thereby measured and known scientific fact.

Tell me more about the C-14 as a tracer specific for fossil fuel burning please.

 

[futurecurrents]

Tell me more about the C-14 as a tracer specific for fossil fuel burning please.

We don't need isotope analysis to know that we have raised the levels 40%. It happened exactly when man started burning things and we know how much we put into the air and we know how fast the biosphere utilizes it. It's common sense, which you don't want to have in this subject, for some reason.