[QUOTE=xilman;197796]That is an interesting hypothesis which is scientific in that it can be disproved by observation and/or experiment.

Please supply your supporting observations and/or experimental results so that we may evaluate your hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the hypothesis is interesting, because otherwise we'd contradict other theories.

1. Liberty* is an economic good ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_option[/url])
2. Evaluating the payoff and likelihood for different scenarios is a hard problem
3. The ability to solve hard problems is an advantage for the individual
4. A problem-solving ability has a bell-shaped distribution within a population

In consequence, if liberty is expected to be more valuable for smarter individuals, then [I]ceteris paribus[/I] they will be more willing to trade chance of survival against it.

Anecdotal evidence is that we see a lot of dominating societies with mottos such as:

[I]"Give me Liberty or give me Death"[/I]
[I]"Live Free or Die"[/I], etc.

But surprisingly few societies have adopted:

[I]"Invade us, because we want to live as your bitch"[/I]
[I]"We'll eat sh*t, because we'll do anything you say if only you let us live"[/I], etc.

*Europeans apparently have a hard time distinguishing 'freedom' from 'free time'.

[QUOTE=wblipp;197787]So far posts shows that fossil fuel burning causes measurable increases in heat reaching the earth's surface. But we haven't seen anything yet to quantify the expected effect of the measurable heat increase. Perhaps it is in the original papers, but so far the posts don't tell us if the amount of increase is immaterial - perhaps even comparable to the random fluctuations - or material resulting in expected "grand scale climate changes."[/QUOTE]

The degree of the anthropogenic contribution to the not-in-dispute overall warming is indeed crucial and (despite what the pro-AGW camp would have one believe) very much in dispute. From a dynamical-systems perspective it is also not at all clear as to whether the inherent nonlinearity of the climate response to increased CO2 is manifest only by way of the amplitude of the response function, or whether the *sign* could also change, e.g. via a negative-feedback mechanism such as one involving increased atmospheric moisture and clouds. Since there is no unambiguous evidence for such an effect one shouldn`t assume it will occur "once the warming gets to be sufficiently great", but neither should one go running around making dire predictions of a runaway greenhouse effect.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197741]From [URL]http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html[/URL]

From comment #2 on that page:

With the evidence here and John's last post, you can bring it all together to make a pretty airtight logical proof for global warming. We know these things to be factually true:
1. Global temperatures have risen.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. CO2's concentration in the atmosphere has risen significantly.
4. That extra CO2 comes from burning of fossil fuels.

To logically prove that humans are NOT causing the observed increase in temperatures, you therefore need to prove BOTH of two things:

First, you need to show how it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing.

Second, if CO2 is not causing the observed warming, you need to show what IS.[/QUOTE]
Given that the [alleged] temperature data (e.g. the "Mann Hockey Stick" graph) which purport to show that the last several decades have been even warmer than the Medieval Warm Period are the ones most in dispute (they were being disputed long before "Climategate" erupted last month, but the critics were being roundly ignored until now), there is in fact no clear evidence that the current warming episode is "unprecedented" compared to known episodes of pre-industrial warming. Since climate scientists still have no generally-accepted explanation for what caused the MWP (many pro-AGW and IPCC scientists dispute that there even was such a phenomenon, at least globally - a clever way of dodging the issue, IMO), please justify your standing the usual scientific method on its head by way of elevating the AGW hypothesis to the level of "accepted paradigm" and demotion of the null hypothesis - which is admittedly far less sexy, as is typical of null hypotheses - to "speculative hypothesis requiring a high standard of proof to be met".

Again, as far as public-policy is concerned I believe there is every reason to take prudent steps (many of which would not be at all costly in the net sense, despite the scare tactics of various self-interested business trade groups) to reduce our per-capita energy consumption. My personal concern is more with all the other stuff that gets emitted alongside the CO2 and which is known beyond doubt to be harmful, as well as with the impacts related to all the stuff we`re digging up, pumping out and cutting down in order to fuel those emissions.

The IPCC`s problem is that they (along with their political allies) put all their money on one horse (Global Warming), and in order to advance the resulting agenda they appear to have blurred the lines between public policy and sound science: They sacrificed the latter on the altar of the former. The danger in doing that sort of thing is that if you get caught out, you may do far more damage to your cause than you stood to gain by way of the exaggeration.


[QUOTE=xilman;197796]That is an interesting hypothesis which is scientific in that it can be disproved by observation and/or experiment.

Please supply your supporting observations and/or experimental results so that we may evaluate your hypothesis.[/QUOTE]
As an American I feel obliged to advance the American Revolutionary War as a supporting observation for the "small band of people who value freedom higher than life" hypothesis. My Jewish friends might cite the siege of Masada, and I'm reasonably certain that most cultures have historical examples (and/or cultural mythology) centered about the "we happy few" phenomenon. Discuss!

Another Controversial Spiegel Article!
 

[url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html]Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex[/url]: [i]Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings.[/i]

[i]My Comment:[/i] Perhaps the funniest part of the article is the HTML page title`s slight misspelling of "Copenhagen".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;197820]As an American I feel obliged to advance the American Revolutionary War as a supporting observation for the "small band of people who value freedom higher than life" hypothesis. My Jewish friends might cite the siege of Masada, and I'm reasonably certain that most cultures have historical examples (and/or cultural mythology) centered about the "we happy few" phenomenon. Discuss![/QUOTE]

I really want to show off my humanistic education, so I mention [strike]Kirk Douglas[/strike] Spartacus, Caesar (no, not that one, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(Planet_of_the_Apes)"]this one[/URL]) as well as Asterix and Obelix. Not to forget Mel McGibson.

[I]Katsumoto: What happened to the warriors at Thermopylae?
Algren: Dead to the last man.[/I]

Which proves that the right cause can even make a bunch of naked pederasts famous. From personal experience (I was forced to live in Athens for several years) I know that the modern Greeks are mostly the descendants of the cowards who begged to stay home so they could kill Socrates, so if your island gets invaded by Romans, Turks and Germans in regular intervals, you are rightfully called a Cretin (for comparison: it took ~2600 years and two nukes for the Japs to finally say 'uncle' to barbarian invaders).

Ελευθερία ή θάνατος; My foot!

[quote=mdettweiler;197784]Cheesehead, both of those articles, and the comment you mentioned as well, only show that CO[sub]2[/sub] is a greenhouse gas, that an increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels will have a warming effect on the planet, and that humans have been adding CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere. But this is a foregone conclusion; the question is whether this is enough to have an impact of any sizeable effect on our planet's climate.[/quote]
[quote=ewmayer;197820]The degree of the anthropogenic contribution to the not-in-dispute overall warming is indeed crucial and (despite what the pro-AGW camp would have one believe) very much in dispute. From a dynamical-systems perspective it is also not at all clear as to whether the inherent nonlinearity of the climate response to increased CO2 is manifest only by way of the amplitude of the response function, or whether the *sign* could also change, e.g. via a negative-feedback mechanism such as one involving increased atmospheric moisture and clouds. Since there is no unambiguous evidence for such an effect one shouldn`t assume it will occur "once the warming gets to be sufficiently great", but neither should one go running around making dire predictions of a runaway greenhouse effect.[/quote]
[quote=wblipp;197787]The posted information is an interesting start, but it stops curiously short of responding to the issue that:

So far posts shows that fossil fuel burning causes measurable increases in heat reaching the earth's surface. But we haven't seen anything yet to quantify the expected effect of the measurable heat increase. Perhaps it is in the original papers,[/quote]To wblipp's last: yes, perhaps it is.

From the extended abstract of the Evans 2006 paper (if you'd gone to the [URL]http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm[/URL] link, you'd have found the link to the extended abstract at [URL="http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf.%29:"]http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf.):[/URL]
[quote]. . .

In order to investigate this global
threat, an ongoing program of measurements
of the downward atmospheric infrared
radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse
radiation of the atmosphere, was
undertaken at Trent University in
Peterborough, Ontario (44[sup]o[/sup]N, 78[sup]o[/sup]W).

. . .
We
have provided the first direct measurements
of the greenhouse effect for a number of
trace gases in the atmosphere.
. . .
Not only do these results prove that an
increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and
that trace gases in the atmosphere are
adding a significant radiative burden to the
energy budget of the atmosphere, but they
also provide a means of validating the
predictions that are made by global warming
models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point
is crucial since the temperature increases
predicted by the various climate models can
vary by several degrees; even a change of
0.7°C can have significant consequences on
different parts of the globe. The cause of the
large uncertainty in the models resides in the
difficulty of accurately predicting the climate
feedback mechanisms that are associated
with the interaction of oceans, vegetation,
and clouds and water vapour with the
greenhouse effect.

In order to evaluate the contributions
of the various gases to global warming, the
concept of radiative forcing, or absorption of
the upward longwave radiation from the
earth’s surface by the atmosphere, has been
formulated (Ramanathan, 1987; IPCC, 1994).
The radiative forcing at the tropopause is
then used as an input to drive climate models
for the purpose of evaluating the global
warming for various gases. Model
calculations of this radiative forcing have
been conducted by several authors (e.g.,
Dickinson and Cicerone, 1986; Hauglustaine
et al., 1994). Earlier estimates of the
greenhouse effect were in terms of the
overall loss of radiation to space or of the
downward radiation at the surface. It may be
noted that, when convection just above the
ground is small, the earth's surface actually
responds to the downward greenhouse
radiation from the atmosphere at the surface;
over land, the temperature responds to the
greenhouse radiation in a few hours. The
greenhouse radiation is typically about
150 W/m2; the modelled increases in the
greenhouse radiation since pre-industrial
times are about 3 W/m2. The increase in
downward surface greenhouse radiation for a
particular gas is quite similar to the
absorption of upward longwave radiation by
the atmosphere (radiative forcing) as has
been demonstrated by Sinha and Toumi
(1996).

. . .

In
what follows, measurements of the surface
greenhouse radiation are described and
compared with the modelled estimates of
radiative forcing.

. . .

4. CONCLUSIONS

. . .

These measurements show that the
greenhouse effect from trace gases in the
atmosphere is real and adds significantly to
the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The
greenhouse radiation has increased by
approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial
times.
This compares favorably with a modeled
prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such
as these can provide a means by which to
verify the predictions made by global warming
models (Puckrin et al; 2004).

. . .[/quote](Now I'll suppose that someone will say that you don't see where it says "this is enough to have an impact of any sizeable effect on our planet's climate".)

[quote=mdettweiler;197784]As we've been discussing quite vehemently throughout the last couple pages of this thread, the amount of effect realized on the surface of the planet is quite debatable, and so is the question of just how much of that is due to humans, and how much is natural. Long story short, we really don't know with any kind of scientific surety that anthropogenic global warming is occurring at a significant level.[/quote][I]You[/I] and other AGW-deniers may not, but "we" do indeed know that. Start reading the papers. If you can't, and you're not willing to seek out, find, and accept condensations on your level, then at least stop spouting the anti-AGW propoganda.

[quote]We've been going back and forth on this for quite a while, and neither of us are any closer to convincing the other of our position than we were when we began. For every argument each of us has presented, the other has produced an answer.[/quote]Actually, I've not yet seen you or any other AGW-denier answer the challenge outlined in "comment #2" above: namely, showing how you can concede the observed facts, then
[quote]To logically prove that humans are NOT causing the observed increase in temperatures, you therefore need to prove BOTH of two things:

First, you need to show how it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing.

Second, if CO2 is not causing the observed warming, you need to show what IS.[/quote]Care to attempt either of those two challenges? If you don't, you need to admit that AGW is real.

If AGW is a hoax, then surely AGW-deniers have figured out by now how to answer two such simple questions.

[quote=ewmayer;197820]The degree of the anthropogenic contribution to the not-in-dispute overall warming is indeed crucial and (despite what the pro-AGW camp would have one believe) very much in dispute. From a dynamical-systems perspective it is also not at all clear as to whether the inherent nonlinearity of the climate response to increased CO2 is manifest only by way of the amplitude of the response function, or whether the *sign* could also change, e.g. via a negative-feedback mechanism such as one involving increased atmospheric moisture and clouds. Since there is no unambiguous evidence for such an effect one shouldn`t assume it will occur "once the warming gets to be sufficiently great", but neither should one go running around making dire predictions of a runaway greenhouse effect.[/quote]I eagerly await your demolition of the Evans results.

[quote]there is in fact no clear evidence that the current warming episode is "unprecedented" compared to known episodes of pre-industrial warming.[/quote]Ernst, the clear evidence exists. You just want me to spoon-feed you.

What is your answer to the challenge:
[quote]To logically prove that humans are NOT causing the observed increase in temperatures, you therefore need to prove BOTH of two things:

First, you need to show how it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing.

Second, if CO2 is not causing the observed warming, you need to show what IS.[/quote]?

[quote]Since climate scientists still have no generally-accepted explanation for what caused the MWP [/quote]Do you recall that I posted a link to an article with an explanation a while ago?

[quote]please justify your standing the usual scientific method on its head by way of elevating the AGW hypothesis to the level of "accepted paradigm" and demotion of the null hypothesis - which is admittedly far less sexy, as is typical of null hypotheses - to "speculative hypothesis requiring a high standard of proof to be met".[/quote]Clever rhetoric, Ernst. If you weren't trying so hard to avoid changing your mind, you might deliver a more honest summary:

The only proposed hypothesis that explains all observed data is AGW. No proposed alternative hypothesis consistent with the observed data explains how:

A) it could be possible to pump more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere WITHOUT temperatures increasing,

and

B) if CO2 is not causing the observed warming, what IS.

[quote=cheesehead;197865][I]You[/I] and other AGW-deniers may not, but "we" do indeed know that. Start reading the papers. If you can't, and you're not willing to seek out, find, and accept condensations on your level, then at least stop spouting the anti-AGW propoganda.[/quote]
The paper you quoted in post #566 still doesn't quantify the effects in terms of how much the temperature will rise as a direct results of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead it gives a bunch of "W (which I presume stands for Watts, not knowing of any other such label abbreviated as a W) per meters squared", which is still no more useful in this regard.

Keep in mind that since you're the one trying to prove a given hypothesis (AGW), the burden of proof is on you. There is no reason why I or any other AGW-denier should have to "seek out" and "find" papers that support your position.
[quote]Actually, I've not yet seen you or any other AGW-denier answer the challenge outlined in "comment #2" above: namely, showing how you can concede the observed facts, then
Care to attempt either of those two challenges? If you don't, you need to admit that AGW is real.[/quote]
As for the first challenge, how many times do I have to say this? AGW-deniers do not dispute that "pumping more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere" will cause temperatures to rise. The question is [i]how much[/i], and that's something you still haven't been able to provide a satisfactory answer to.

For the second challenge, the burden of proof is not on me--it's on the person trying to prove the hypothesis in question. Just because a hypothesis happens to fit the facts as incompletely as AGW does does not prove it.
[quote]If AGW is a hoax, then surely AGW-deniers have figured out by now how to answer two such simple questions.[/quote]
Again, the burden of proof is on the proposed hypothesis, not the null hypothesis. Unless the AGW crowd can come up with enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that their hypothesis is correct, to accept that hypothesis as fact would be jumping to a conclusion and therefore a fallacy.

The theory of AGW-deniers seems to be that the observed unprecedented worldwide temperature increases are not related to the similarly unprecedented production of greenhouse gases by human activity, despite the existence of models from decades of research which predict that very causality, but that the dominant cause is instead something else unrelated to human influence.

It's a theory. I admire your courage and persistence, mdettweiler, for continuing to argue for it. But to call it a "null hypothesis" is absurd.

[quote=mdettweiler;198018]The paper you quoted in post #566 still doesn't quantify the effects in terms of how much the temperature will rise as a direct results of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[/quote]That's what the models do. This paper is about one of the most important data points on which the models depend.

That you don't understand that relationship yet just shows us that you need to learn some stuff so that you'll understand the AGW hypothesis instead of just spouting anti-AGW nonsense.

[quote]Instead it gives a bunch of "W (which I presume stands for Watts, not knowing of any other such label abbreviated as a W) per meters squared", which is still no more useful in this regard.[/quote]So, you're saying you don't understand the importance of the watts per meter squared measurement?

[quote]Keep in mind that since you're the one trying to prove a given hypothesis (AGW), the burden of proof is on you. There is no reason why I or any other AGW-denier should have to "seek out" and "find" papers that support your position.[/quote]How about: in order to inform yourselves about what the AGW papers actually say (as opposed to what the anti-AGW propaganda claims they say), so that you can comment from an informed standpoint instead of an ignorant one?

I didn't start publicly criticizing creationism until after I'd read enough about it (written by creationists, not merely portrayals of creationism written by opponents) to understand it. Can you say the same about AGW (your answer can't be "yes" as long as you don't understand the meaning and importance of watts per meter squared)?

[quote]As for the first challenge, how many times do I have to say this? AGW-deniers do not dispute that "pumping more of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere" will cause temperatures to rise.[/quote]Did you notice that I've consistently quoted the challenge as a two-question pair? I didn't bother breaking up the pair just for you.

[quote]The question is [I]how much[/I], and that's something you still haven't been able to provide a satisfactory answer to.[/quote]If you appreciated the watts per square meter figure, you'd have a hint. Go learn about it.

[quote]For the second challenge, the burden of proof is not on me[/quote]It is to prove the alternate hypotheses you've been proposing. Your alternate hypotheses are not exempt from needing supporting evidence, either, yet you keep dodging that responsibility. You'd be more impressive if you applied the same standards of proof to your own hypothesis that you apply to AGW.

[quote]--it's on the person trying to prove the hypothesis in question.[/quote]Exactly.

The burden of proof of the non-AGW hypotheses you propose is on you.

Exactly.

Quit ducking your responsibility.
[quote]Just because a hypothesis happens to fit the facts as incompletely as AGW does does not prove it.[/quote]On the contrary: AGW fits the facts better than any competing hypothesis so far. That you think otherwise is merely because you've (a) swallowed too much anti-AGW propaganda, and (b) do not understand much of the science supporting the AGW hypothesis -- such as not understanding the importance of the watts per square meter figure. The cure is to educate yourself about the real AGW-supporting arguments instead of the fake claims made by the anti-AGW propagandists.

[quote]Again, the burden of proof is on the proposed hypothesis,[/quote]... such as your proposed counter-hypotheses.

[quote]not the null hypothesis.[/quote]What, exactly, is the null hypothesis in this case? Can you state it in your own words, and explain why it is "null"?

[quote] Unless the AGW crowd can come up with enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that their hypothesis is correct,[/quote]They have. You just don't understand it, apparently because you haven't tried to do so but would rather sit back and spout anti-AGW propaganda because it doesn't require you to change your mind.

[quote]to accept that hypothesis as fact would be jumping to a conclusion and therefore a fallacy.[/quote]... which is just as true for your no-evidence-presented alternative hypotheses!

What is the evidence your side has that GHG's are not causing the warming and something else is? How many watts per square meter are being [I]measurably[/I] contributed by your claimed non-GHG source?

[quote=cheesehead;198042]That's what the models do. This paper is about one of the most important data points on which the models depend.

That you don't understand that relationship yet just shows us that you need to learn some stuff so that you'll understand the AGW hypothesis instead of just spouting anti-AGW nonsense.

So, you're saying you don't understand the importance of the watts per meter squared measurement?[/quote]
I see that W/m[sup]2[/sup] is a common unit used to measure insolation, but nonetheless it still doesn't answer my question: just how much will the temperature increase based on that amount of W/m[sup]2[/sup]? You say that's the models' job--then show me some models!

[quote]How about: in order to inform yourselves about what the AGW papers actually say (as opposed to what the anti-AGW propaganda claims they say), so that you can comment from an informed standpoint instead of an ignorant one?

I didn't start publicly criticizing creationism until after I'd read enough about it (written by creationists, not merely portrayals of creationism written by opponents) to understand it. Can you say the same about AGW (your answer can't be "yes" as long as you don't understand the meaning and importance of watts per meter squared)?

Did you notice that I've consistently quoted the challenge as a two-question pair? I didn't bother breaking up the pair just for you.[/quote]
What difference does breaking up the challenge make? It seemed quite logical to answer each part individually. How else is one supposed to respond?

[quote]If you appreciated the watts per square meter figure, you'd have a hint. Go learn about it.

It is to prove the alternate hypotheses you've been proposing. Your alternate hypotheses are not exempt from needing supporting evidence, either, yet you keep dodging that responsibility. You'd be more impressive if you applied the same standards of proof to your own hypothesis that you apply to AGW.

Exactly.

The burden of proof of the non-AGW hypotheses you propose is on you.

Exactly.

Quit ducking your responsibility.[/quote]
Yes, I agree, the same standard of proof should be held to the hypotheses I proposed. However, there is a key difference. You are attempting to convince me that the AGW hypothesis is true, and that we should take preventative action based on that. I, on the other hand, was not attempting to necessarily convince you that my hypotheses were definitely true; rather, I was throwing them out as possible alternate explanations for the evidences you suggested as being in favor of AGW. Believe me, if it was my intention to seriously present any of my previously stated hypotheses (such as, say, the one about subsurface ocean heat content increasing due to geological activity), then I'd be sure to be well-armed with scientific data and reasoning to support it. But that's wasn't my goal here; it was merely to present other [I]possibilities[/I] to show that crying AGW isn't the only conclusion to the data you've presented.
[quote]On the contrary: AGW fits the facts better than any competing hypothesis so far. That you think otherwise is merely because you've (a) swallowed too much anti-AGW propaganda, and (b) do not understand much of the science supporting the AGW hypothesis -- such as not understanding the importance of the watts per square meter figure. The cure is to educate yourself about the real AGW-supporting arguments instead of the fake claims made by the anti-AGW propagandists.

... such as your proposed counter-hypotheses.

What, exactly, is the null hypothesis in this case? Can you state it in your own words, and explain why it is "null"?[/quote]
The hypothesis I referred to as the "null hypothesis" (a term I believe was used once before by Ernst earlier in this thread to similar effect) is that AGW is not occurring in significant enough quantities to affect life on the surface of the earth. The idea behind it being "null" is that it's implied, i.e. the counter to the argument you're presenting.

[quote]They have. You just don't understand it, apparently because you haven't tried to do so but would rather sit back and spout anti-AGW propaganda because it doesn't require you to change your mind.[/quote]
That argument doesn't hold much weight because I could easily say the same for you: that you would rather sit back and spout pro-AGW propaganda because it doesn't require you to change your mind.

[quote]... which is just as true for your no-evidence-presented alternative hypotheses!

What is the evidence your side has that GHG's are not causing the warming and something else is? How many watts per square meter are being [I]measurably[/I] contributed by your claimed non-GHG source?[/quote]
I don't claim to know those facts, though I might be able to dig some up if I had a few hours to spend digging around on the internet for them. But as I said above, the burden of proof is on you. If the hypothesis in question right now was one that I was arguing for, then it would be on me, but right now we're discussing the AGW hypothesis, for which you are the advocate.