Tarragon wrote:
Could part of it be that you're posting publicly, which tends to invite comment? Could it be that by posting one side of an argument and saying you'll look at published responses to those criticisms later, it might be seen as putting the cart before the horse?
I did put the cart before the horse. You seem to forget that I was a supporter of AGW and am now looking at the other side to see if it has merit. Everyone seems to be thinking I've been a denier or something and am trying to convince the World.
I, for one, don't want you to stop posting... because I don't want to stop posting pot-shots at ya.
Have fun at it.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
I haven't read your newest links yet, because what would be the point if you won't look at responses to them. But, I'm still confused by the whole 1880 argument. I'd like to assume you're not suggesting that scientists didn't realize water runs downhill. That they didn't realize the amount of solid water above sea level affects the amount of liquid water in the ocean basins. I'm not sure if you're making a technical criticism on the date of the index point or the amplitude of the signal they claim to be seeing, or saying that since the non-technical apitprop is overly-simplistic, that it's easier to refute.
The argument has been made that the GW temperature rise is the result of CO2 emissions by man. Those emissions did not exist in a way that would affect the temperature prior about 1880. So by looking at 1880 onwards, one can easily show correlation. It's just not possible if one looks back further, and, the data is out there.
The problem of course is that the temperature was rising before 1880 and we have the data to show it, and it was rising about the same rate. Since it could not have been due to CO2 emissions, then what was it and why would we suddenly expect it to have stopped around 1880 and CO2 to then take over seamlessly without so much as a hiccup is beyond me.
It's like saying, this car is traveling at 60 mph because I farted.
If we only look at the speed from the time I farted, one cannot see that it was travelling at the same speed before that.
If I show you a graph that shows that the car was travelling at 60mph before I farted, that changes things significantly.
Now there was a jump in the rate after the 1950's or so. This could be due to CO2, but the underlying rate that was happening before also needs to be removed from that to see the new contribution. Currently, the total new contribution is about the same rate as it was prior 1880. So assuming that the natural rate of rise did not change (there is little investigation into this area) then at most the new factor can only be 50% of GW we see today. Then of course we have to see what percentage of that is attributable to CO2. That's from what I have been reading is the main contention.
As for the glaciers themselves, how much do you know about the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets? In what ways is mass related to height and/or length? In what ways does precipitation affect the mass, what is the cross-section, how does that affect movement, and what climate regimes result in what changes in mass and motion? How do glaciers move, and is it by sliding or deformation, and how much, and how is that affected by temperature? Is the length of a glacier only correlated with colder temperatures, or can warmer temperatures increase the rate of precipitation, thereby increasing ice mass, thereby increasing pressure and causing a surge in a glacier? Can warmer temperatures increase the amount of peripheral melt that lubricates the base and causes it to flow faster, causing it to lengthen while thinning at the same time? I think Hansen wrote a good paper on this, but, ya know, it's Hansen.
I know little about it, I'm throwing their own argument back at them. They are the ones claiming that the glaciers are melting because of temperature rise, which is not an unreasonable assumption. I'm simply pointing out that they were melting well before humans started pumping out CO2 in the air. So to claim that they are melting because of CO2, is an unreasonable assumption.
Also, what other climate drivers in the 1800s might have affected the warmth of the globe, glaciers, and sea level, and are those signals detectable, and what would be their amplitude, and are they permanent or temporary, and if temporary, when did they become negligible. If there are events like this, could they have produced short-term extrema in data that is outside the baseline. Once these are detected and worked out, do these measurements regress toward the baseline? Does it stay there or is there a departure from the trend?
That's exactly what I am asking and what the climate "skeptics" are asking. Again, they nor I are denying that the temperature is rising. Where we disagree is how much is natural, what is involved, how much is man made and I personally have some serious issues with their historical data estimates.
Feel free to have fun flaming me but I'm seriously bailing out.
If you want to continue this, I'll ask you one thing. As someone who has worked in the area of precision instrumentation and calibration in a NATA laboratory, I know as well as anyone in that field that there must be a reliable standard to trace back to for any precision measurement. I see little of that understanding in some papers.
So, have a look at this recent paper on estimating past temperature with coral's. See if you can find the flaws in that study just on that one basic axiom, that there must be a reliable traceable standard. Then analyse the assumptions which must be valid (but are not verifiable) for the study to be of any use in examining past temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for anyone that wants to test their ability to be skeptical.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1182/ofr20151182.pdf