Politics And AGW/GW

[Thundery wintry showers]

No more so than different people have been using that argument. Some of the arguments have been exactly like the one in the link I quoted, where Tom makes a point, Jerry queries it, and Tom says "I'm entitled to my opinion". (Why Tom would use that argument instead of just chasing Jerry into his mousehole like he usually does is beyond me, but there's a first time for everything!)

My intention in using the phrase (and precisely how many times have I used it? no more than twice, I'd wager...........TWS has thrown it at me more than I have used it, I'm fairly certain) is no more and no less than an indication of my acceptance that people can think whatever they like and I respect their right to hold that view.

But there is a difference between merely holding a view, and being very closed-minded about it, posting it repeatedly in a discussion thread, and insinuating that the right to hold a view somehow makes it as valid as other views, even if the arguments behind it are shown to be far weaker than those behind various other views. If people are to contribute views to a discussion thread they have to let their views be challenged and questioned, otherwise it fails to become a discussion.

Jethro rightly said that the validity of an opinion is only as good as the evidence behind it. That point works both ways.

[VillagePlank]

one of the few who has actually chosen to engage in discussion in the LI thread. Come on, chaps and chapesses - jump in!

Yeah - it's a big problem. I posted over on TWO and have had virtually no response. My intention was to engage people on a debate about all aspects of climate change. I've failed, to a large extent - and it's visible - dramatically so - here.

For those who haven't had a chance to look, yet, the LI thread is about building up a picture of climate step by step. It starts from a simple assumption that the Earth consumes more energy than it radiates - this, in and of itself, can be considered controversial. This difference is very small - 1/100th of the incoming radiation - but, by using that idea, and using sunspots as a proxy to the incoming energy, you can get a reasonable match with the Hadley HadCru3 set.

If you add more different variables, we have used ENSO, volcanoes, and a sea-ice proxy set, we have produced a set that matches very closely indeed. We have even, gone backwards, and forwards in time, to produce retrospect, and forward predictions of what the climate should and should not be doing.

It's by no means accurate. This is an exercise in ballpark figures - we are looking at why the climate rises in temperature and why it falls in temperature.

We need to improve this. We need all those (and I trust everyone will agree that the LI thread is pretty circumspect of tribal argument) who know anything about climate to get involved. I am a computer programmer - at a stretch a computer scientist. I can do the work - I just need the ideas.

I hope we can find some middle ground so we can have some fun with real data, real ideas, and, hopefully, garner real understanding from the work we do.

[weather eater]

Yeah - it's a big problem. I posted over on TWO and have had virtually no response. My intention was to engage people on a debate about all aspects of climate change. I've failed, to a large extent - and it's visible - dramatically so - here.

For those who haven't had a chance to look, yet, the LI thread is about building up a picture of climate step by step. It starts from a simple assumption that the Earth consumes more energy than it radiates - this, in and of itself, can be considered controversial. This difference is very small - 1/100th of the incoming radiation - but, by using that idea, and using sunspots as a proxy to the incoming energy, you can get a reasonable match with the Hadley HadCru3 set.

If you add more different variables, we have used ENSO, volcanoes, and a sea-ice proxy set, we have produced a set that matches very closely indeed. We have even, gone backwards, and forwards in time, to produce retrospect, and forward predictions of what the climate should and should not be doing.

It's by no means accurate. This is an exercise in ballpark figures - we are looking at why the climate rises in temperature and why it falls in temperature.

We need to improve this. We need all those (and I trust everyone will agree that the LI thread is pretty circumspect of tribal argument) who know anything about climate to get involved. I am a computer programmer - at a stretch a computer scientist. I can do the work - I just need the ideas.

I hope we can find some middle ground so we can have some fun with real data, real ideas, and, hopefully, garner real understanding from the work we do.

VP the LI page is really good and very interesting I think the lack of posts maybe because of the technical aspects of the thread rather than lack of interest. if I thought I had something relevant to say on it I would and I think that goes for many.

Edited April 29, 2009 by weather eater

[VillagePlank]

VP the LI page is really good and very interesting I think the lack of posts maybe because of the technical aspects of the thread rather than lack of interest. if I thought I had something relevant to say on it I would and I think that goes for many.

I'm afraid that is no excuse. If you are prepared to argue with the pro-AGW then you must, by default, be prepared to contribute. Of course, you must have something to say.

If you don't have something to say: re real science, then, I'm afraid, you have no part in this. The people of yester-year who had so much to say and who have, for various reasons, failed to contribute are, now, well known.

Sorry

Of course, you can always defer to an expert - but there is no expert on the LI hypothesis - so where do you go, now?

[VillagePlank]

And, of course, we all know the excuses - I'm won't engage on a point of principle etc etc - I won't engage because the sceptics are arses etc etc I won't engage because I'm frightened too because it's real science and real mathematics and I don't have the capacity to learn.

It's laughable, and well, how scientific is that? And this applies to the pro and the con (particularly the con debate, as it happens) debate. Surely, if you want to debate you should be able to understand these things. Trust me - the next installment of the LI requires serious thinking. Are you capable of it? (PM the bobski if you doubt it)

Happy days.

Edited April 29, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

If I may be so bold as to add to what VP has just said...<insert useless smiley here!>

If what weather eater says is true and "the lack of posts maybe because of the technical aspects of the thread rather than lack of interest" then it rather exposes people's lack of understanding of the subject in hand.

Understanding precisely how the leaky integrator works requires some basic knowledge of maths (no more than A-Level standard). Getting to grips with the concept does not require an understanding of maths - I think we are all capable of imagining the filling of an unplugged bath or, if we are not, we can always go and fill an unplugged bath and see what happens.

VP has said that he can do the work - putting the numbers in and producing the graphs - so nobody needs to worry about the mathematical aspect in that kind of depth - but surely we can all contribute something to the discussion of what should be put into the model, the weighting of the various effects and so on.

What we are looking for is a discussion about what should be included in the model, a discussion of how it should be included, a discussion of the outcomes produced and a discussion of what it might all mean.

So come on, guys and gals - don't be shy! Everybody seems to get antsy when discussions go round and round in circles. Everyone gets annoyed when non-facts are presented as facts, and when ambiguous facts are claimed to be conclusive. Well, the LI thread promises to only ever move onwards, and to only claim facts as what they are.

:lol:

(Another useless smiley! )

CB

[VillagePlank]

Precisely - one assumption, and a shed loads of fact. Any takers?

[weather eater]

And, of course, we all know the excuses - I'm won't engage on a point of principle etc etc - I won't engage because the sceptics are arses etc etc I won't engage because I'm frightened too because it's real science and real mathematics and I don't have the capacity to learn.

It's laughable, and well, how scientific is that? And this applies to the pro and the con (particularly the con debate, as it happens) debate. Surely, if you want to debate you should be able to understand these things. Trust me - the next installment of the LI requires serious thinking. Are you capable of it? (PM the bobski if you doubt it)

Happy days.

I had forgotten just what a rude person you are, And I don’t sit in with the pro AGW or the anti AGW camps I am a true sceptic, what I thought and I guess wrongly was that this exercise was to put some meat on bones and avoid the endless circular discussions that go on elsewhere I did not realise it was just an excuse to fit evidence around a pre-conceived conclusion, AGW is a myth. The fact that I don’t feel at this point of time that I have nothing constructive to add does not mean that I don’t understand what is being said. and I would suggest you adopt a less dismissive and patronising tone and remove your head from where it appears to be.

[Methuselah]

And what about those (on both sides of the [imaginary?] divide) who don't have A-level maths or equivalent?

Anyway, here's an idea: changes in water-retention, soil erosion, albedo, humidity etc. in areas of tropical rainforest denuded by human activity?

[VillagePlank]

I had forgotten just what a rude person you are, And I don’t sit in with the pro AGW or the anti AGW camps I am a true sceptic, what I thought and I guess wrongly was that this exercise was to put some meat on bones and avoid the endless circular discussions that go on elsewhere I did not realise it was just an excuse to fit evidence around a pre-conceived conclusion, AGW is a myth. The fact that I don’t feel at this point of time that I have nothing constructive to add does not mean that I don’t understand what is being said. and I would suggest you adopt a less dismissive and patronising tone and remove your head from where it appears to be.

OK - I apologise for that. No excuse, but too many bevvies last night. If it's any consolation, my head is a' pounding something rotten.

I shall try and rephrase ...

This my perspective: everyone on here, I guess without exception, is looking for the truth. We are all approaching from many different angles, and many different viewpoints. The fact that not one us can review all of the literature available on the subject is, probably, the root cause of any friction that does occur on here. And that's kinda my point; I know that you, amongst others, have read vastly different literature to me, and understand these feebacks (etc) in a more detailed fashion than me.

The plan was, and still is, to put it all into a melting point and see what comes out. That needs everyone to put in their ideas - because it is accepted that I can't possibly know every nuance; it needs people to look at methods - I can't possibly get it right first time. It's meant to be a community project. And that's it really. Without further contribution and time from others - the LI is going to stand still. And that's the frustration. That's exactly where it's headed.

And what about those (on both sides of the [imaginary?] divide) who don't have A-level maths or equivalent?

I thought that I'd explained the maths in the LI thread? If it's not clear, or faulty, let me know and I'll alter it. It's not meant to be intractable - it's meant to be accesible to all which is why I went to time and trouble of doing a walkthrough with Excel.

Edited April 30, 2009 by VillagePlank

[weather eater]

OK - I apologise for that. No excuse, but too many bevvies last night. If it's any consolation, my head is a' pounding something rotten.

I shall try and rephrase ...

This my perspective: everyone on here, I guess without exception, is looking for the truth. We are all approaching from many different angles, and many different viewpoints. The fact that not one us can review all of the literature available on the subject is, probably, the root cause of any friction that does occur on here. And that's kinda my point; I know that you, amongst others, have read vastly different literature to me, and understand these feebacks (etc) in a more detailed fashion than me.

The plan was, and still is, to put it all into a melting point and see what comes out. That needs everyone to put in their ideas - because it is accepted that I can't possibly know every nuance; it needs people to look at methods - I can't possibly get it right first time. It's meant to be a community project. And that's it really. Without further contribution and time from others - the LI is going to stand still. And that's the frustration. That's exactly where it's headed.

I thought that I'd explained the maths in the LI thread? If it's not clear, or faulty, let me know and I'll alter it. It's not meant to be intractable - it's meant to be accesible to all which is why I went to time and trouble of doing a walkthrough with Excel.

I appreciate that VP and maybe I should have sent you a PM this morning to clarify what you meant. In truth I am better read in the area of climate history than in the theory’s of climate change its why I don’t dismiss the idea of natural cycles and I think that people underestimate how dramatic they can be, what seems harder to ascertain is the trigger mechanism for those changes and dates for when changes occur. The medieval warm period depending on who you read is said to have ended in 1315 that year and for the following two the summers were incredibly wet and the winter of 1317/18 was bitterly cold, but we did not jump straight from the medieval warm period to the little ice age rather the climate became far more unpredictable. For your research I wonder if we can find how far back records for carbon 14 go as there is a correlation between C14 and sunspot activity, low sunspots high C14, a tree ring analysis for C14 the De Vries fluctuation matches almost exactly with the Maunder Minimum.

[VillagePlank]

I appreciate that VP and maybe I should have sent you a PM this morning to clarify what you meant. In truth I am better read in the area of climate history than in the theory’s of climate change its why I don’t dismiss the idea of natural cycles and I think that people underestimate how dramatic they can be, what seems harder to ascertain is the trigger mechanism for those changes and dates for when changes occur. The medieval warm period depending on who you read is said to have ended in 1315 that year and for the following two the summers were incredibly wet and the winter of 1317/18 was bitterly cold, but we did not jump straight from the medieval warm period to the little ice age rather the climate became far more unpredictable. For your research I wonder if we can find how far back records for carbon 14 go as there is a correlation between C14 and sunspot activity, low sunspots high C14, a tree ring analysis for C14 the De Vries fluctuation matches almost exactly with the Maunder Minimum.

Yup - this is one area of active interest for the LI. I'm trying to write up notes about using Fourier Analysis (we only need to know what it is, and how to do it rather than the intricate details) The hope is that (i) the sunspot cycles will tally with some "Fourier" cycle, (ii) other cycles identified by Fourier analysis can all be individually identified, allocated a natural (or otherwise) analogue, and added in.

If successful then that will point to a method that is rational and evidence based. Of course, the LI does have the problem that it's simply my idea borne from a suspicion from CB, and put together in a rather 'what shall we do now, fashion' which brings with it all sorts of questions like 'who decides what goes in, and who decides what is taken out' which, ahem, is a little awkward ....

Edited April 30, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

And what about those (on both sides of the [imaginary?] divide) who don't have A-level maths or equivalent?

Anyway, here's an idea: changes in water-retention, soil erosion, albedo, humidity etc. in areas of tropical rainforest denuded by human activity?

If I may re-emphasise my last post, Pete:

Getting to grips with the concept does not require an understanding of maths.

CB

[Methuselah]

If I may re-emphasise my last post, Pete:

Getting to grips with the concept does not require an understanding of maths.

CB

Aye Aye Captain...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

More is indeed understood about climate variation today because we have instrumental temperature records that can measure global and regional temperatures with reasonable accuracy. In addition we have reliable measurements of the troposphere etc. We know how the climate is changing today from our observations- the question is, why is it changing the way it is?

And?

Just because we think we know more about climate today STILL doesn't complete the jigsaw in terms of what has gone before in climate history. I repeat, part understanding of the whole = incomplete = hypothesis = ? It does not provide anything certifiable. It doesn't provide a full mandate for AGW. Climate has always changed through natural variation - there is nothing reliable enough to suggest that AGW has overriden that and makes modern clinate history 'special' in the way that AGW proponents insist.

Past climate can be reconstructed but only in more general terms, such as through measuring composition of atmospheric gases from ancient ice cores. We can get a good general idea of past climate, but we cannot be as specific as we can be about the last 100 years. That's why we have so many arguments over how warm the Medieval Warm Period really was, for example. And if we wait until we fully understand past climates before we attempt to analyse current climates, we'll be waiting forever- because no matter how well we do or don't understand past climates, there will always be scope for continued improvements- it's very unlikely that we will ever fully understand them.

What we have on offer is a part reconstruction which models various assumed feedbacks in process, the modelling is thus being manipulated to show how these feedbacks are expected to interact with other feedbacks, and is based on that 100 years you talk about. The results of said 'manipulation' are then presented as a case that new feedbacks/amplifications now override the 1000's of years of climate history variation based on the last 100 yrs or so. We are actually just 'waiting' to see whether the effects of AGW hypothesis take hold, and that is making the big assumption that everyone believes the results of the reconstruction that a tiny chunk of climate history has infinitely greater significance than the ninety whatever it is percent of the rest of it. Heck, the IPCC even turn it 360 degress around and suggests that the single digit percentage of time researched with such confidence allows 90% confidence in future climate projections!! But in truth we don't even know what, exactly, we are waiting for (other than the armeggeddon that AGW proponents submit) yet we are expected to have 9/10ths faith in what will happen over the coming decades and century!!?

What, you mean the notion that it's done and dusted that there's a possibility that AGW might be a significant issue? That's all I've been saying. I do not reject the idea that AGW might be being seriously overestimated- there is some evidence out there to support that view. What I reject is the assertion that AGW is definitely being seriously overestimated and that those who consider alternative possibilities are wrong- which incidentally is a classic example of an opinion which is intolerant of other views, so we're back to the paradox of how much we should tolerate the intolerant.

At the end of the day people can argue forever about did he/she say this or that, misrepresent/nitpick others about the use and subtly different implications of words like 'definitely' and 'possibily' and whether so and so has the right to use one or both or other combinations of those words that deems them to be a straw man, donkey with sombrero, or whatever. Whether they have produced enough concrete evidence to support their 'opinion' that passes your exam into the 'climate club' band of posters that you appear to assume yourself as a question master and chairman debater, will not change the fact that nothing beyond a hypothesis has yet progressed to a truth to show that the last 100 years is any different to the previous 1000's.

You did mention those things, but those things, put together, do not even come close to supporting conclusions like "AGW is being overestimated"- which is a very strong, done-and-dusted type of statement. They do support the notion that the IPCC should widen its uncertainty bounds for instance, but increased uncertainty also implies the possibility that AGW might be being underestimated- it works both ways.

I have done a lot more than just 'mention' those things and yes they do stack up to my opinion that AGW is being overestimated. Again, as per answer above, I hope we are not going to be dogged by being forced back to correcting misrepresentations through the uses of words - as you have muddied the uses of the words opinion and conclusion, and made a misrepresentation what I was attempting to say.

Just one of the main areas that highlights the subject of overestimation - The AGW clouds hypothesis assumes a very large positive feedback in terms of CO2 increases being supposed to increase the amounts of heat trapping cirrus clouds. As emissions keep growing then temps keep rising, supposedly. This is one of the main suppositions in IPCC modelling but unfortunately Aqua Satelitte shows that reality is not meeting the hypothesis and there is a decrease in cirrus cloud and a negative feedback instead with heat being lost. Going back to my points earlier about the 100 yrs research vs the other 1000's of yrs - a very large natural system has been in place for a very long time that would require the ask of a colossal 'override' to tip the natural equilibrium. Where is it??

We should bear in mind that CO2 is a natural gas that has always been around in varying quantities, not just the last 100 yrs,and has been dealt with by mother nature for longer than scientists have been frantically tapping into computers and sipping cups of espresso. The above is is one example where I would suggest that more research is required to better cost the weightings of these natural systems, which incorporate such negative feedbacks (hence part of the long term history of climate) rather than focus on modern day suppostions just because we think we have found a tipping point mechanism by manipulating it on a computer. Unfortunately 'the lab' aint always the reality. Sorry, doesn't wash by a long way yet with me and no playing with prose and words or strawmanism accusations is going to change that either for sure. Dare I say it, in conclusion, all in my own opinion.

[jethro]

No Jethro. It's that old straw man again: NO-ONE is claiming that CO2 emissions are 'directly responsible for the increase...' What we are saying is that greenhouse emissions (unless manmade greenhouse gases don't work?) are almost certainly responsible for SOME of said temperature increase. So, what is actually being said is NOT what keeps being implied. What keeps being implied is the old chestnut straw-man hypothesis.

You're having a laugh surely?

This is precisely what is claimed by the AGW theory. Yes, the percentages are still to be agreed - although there is far more acceptance of natural variation involvement since temperatures have stalled somewhat, than there ever was before.

To say that NO ONE is claiming that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the increase is beyond "strawman" Pete, it's a veritable field of scarecrows and a direct contradiction of the IPCC.

[Devonian]

You're having a laugh surely?

This is precisely what is claimed by the AGW theory. Yes, the percentages are still to be agreed - although there is far more acceptance of natural variation involvement since temperatures have stalled somewhat, than there ever was before.

To say that NO ONE is claiming that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the increase is beyond "strawman" Pete, it's a veritable field of scarecrows and a direct contradiction of the IPCC.

I can't see the disagreement here. No one, not the IPCC not the Met O, is saying all the warming is due to CO2 (not least because it isn't the only ghg humanity is shoving into the atmosphere), otoh, no one denies that Co2 is a ghg. We all inhabit part of that spectrum. Some of us accept what people like the Met O and IPCC say, other think the anthro effect is minimal, but, as I say, no one thinks it's either all CO2 on not CO2 at all. Indeed reading you post and Pete's you're rather saying the same thing...

Edited April 30, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

I can't see the disagreement here. No one, not the IPCC not the Met O, is saying all the warming is due to CO2 (not least because it isn't the only ghg humanity is shoving into the atmosphere), otoh, no one denies that Co2 is a ghg. We all inhabit part of that spectrum. Some of us accept what people like the Met O and IPCC say, other think the anthro effect is minimal, but, as I say, no one thinks it's either all CO2 on not CO2 at all. Indeed reading you post and Pete's you're rather saying the same thing...

Thank you Dev. That is exactly what I meant yesterday when I referred to the possibility that the warmist/sceptic dichotomy may be specious...That, much of the time, we argue over nothing much at all?? :lol:

And, just in case I've been misusing the expression strawman hypothesis: I believe it to mean a silly caricature of what others believe - i.e. for me to accuse all sceptics of denying the possibility of AGW in its entirety, would be me putting-up a strawman...

[Devonian]

Thank you Dev. That is exactly what I meant yesterday when I referred to the possibility that the warmist/sceptic dichotomy may be specious...That, much of the time, we argue over nothing much at all?? :lol:

Oh, we all inhabit a spectrum, but there is a big difference between my position (that we might well eventually see 2C warming due to human activities, and that I don't rule out it being more, and that 2C warming is a large change the Earth we should try to aviod) and that which says human induced climate warming will be minimal - which I take to be no more than ~.5C or so.

And, just in case I've been misusing the expression strawman hypothesis: I believe it to mean a silly caricature of what others believe - i.e. for me to accuse all sceptics of denying the possibility of AGW in its entirety, would be me putting-up a strawman...

For anyone interested Strawman.

[Methuselah]

And here's another:

Argument To The Future:

arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.

Makes me think of upcoming tipping points... :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

And?

Just because we think we know more about climate today STILL doesn't complete the jigsaw in terms of what has gone before in climate history. I repeat, part understanding of the whole = incomplete = hypothesis = ? It does not provide anything certifiable. It doesn't provide a full mandate for AGW. Climate has always changed through natural variation - there is nothing reliable enough to suggest that AGW has overriden that and makes modern clinate history 'special' in the way that AGW proponents insist.

Your response ignores the key point that I was making- if we wait for a complete understanding of past climate before making a judgement on AGW, we will be waiting forever. Should we wait before we have a complete understanding of the weather before we make month-ahead forecasts for example? It does provide something certifiable, if we have an incomplete but approximate understanding of climate we can come up to a best guess estimate of what is happening. It isn't a black and white world of "either you have 100% proof or nothing".

You say there is nothing reliable enough to suggest that AGW makes modern climate history special. I could just as easily turn that on its head and say there's nothing reliable enough to suggest that it doesn't. All AGW is is a potential extra forcing on top of the natural forcings that have always existed.

What we have on offer is a part reconstruction which models various assumed feedbacks in process, the modelling is thus being manipulated to show how these feedbacks are expected to interact with other feedbacks, and is based on that 100 years you talk about. The results of said 'manipulation' are then presented as a case that new feedbacks/amplifications now override the 1000's of years of climate history variation based on the last 100 yrs or so.

I can't believe what I'm reading here- for the last 100 years have a full-on instrumental temperature record, yet you choose to ignore it and latch onto this "reconstruction" idea? The climate of the pre-instrumental era is subject to a lot of reconstruction but a lot of this actually comes from ice core data and the like, not just model-based reconstruction and associated assumptions.

We are actually just 'waiting' to see whether the effects of AGW hypothesis take hold, and that is making the big assumption that everyone believes the results of the reconstruction that a tiny chunk of climate history has infinitely greater significance than the ninety whatever it is percent of the rest of it. Heck, the IPCC even turn it 360 degress around and suggests that the single digit percentage of time researched with such confidence allows 90% confidence in future climate projections!! But in truth we don't even know what, exactly, we are waiting for (other than the armeggeddon that AGW proponents submit) yet we are expected to have 9/10ths faith in what will happen over the coming decades and century!!?

No, the IPCC are estimating the additional forcing that AGW might be generating and that's what they think they have 90% confidence over. They are, of course, making the assumption that natural variability will not cause a significant degree of warming or cooling over the 21st century (which would be in addition to any anthropogenic change)- which is potentially flawed.

And as I state above, it is far more than just a model reconstruction of past climate. Saying that is another straw man- attacking a weakened version of the actual position.

At the end of the day people can argue forever about did he/she say this or that, misrepresent/nitpick others about the use and subtly different implications of words like 'definitely' and 'possibily' and whether so and so has the right to use one or both or other combinations of those words that deems them to be a straw man, donkey with sombrero, or whatever. Whether they have produced enough concrete evidence to support their 'opinion' that passes your exam into the 'climate club' band of posters that you appear to assume yourself as a question master and chairman debater, will not change the fact that nothing beyond a hypothesis has yet progressed to a truth to show that the last 100 years is any different to the previous 1000's.

All I said was that my position is that AGW might be a significant issue, and that I reject the position that it definitely isn't a significant issue. In these contexts, words are important. "AGW is being overestimated" implies that AGW is definitely being overestimated, and there is insufficient evidence to support such a strong definitive statement (see below). And again, nothing has shown that the last 100 years are any different, but plenty has suggested that they might be.

I have done a lot more than just 'mention' those things and yes they do stack up to my opinion that AGW is being overestimated. Again, as per answer above, I hope we are not going to be dogged by being forced back to correcting misrepresentations through the uses of words - as you have muddied the uses of the words opinion and conclusion, and made a misrepresentation what I was attempting to say.

Look closely at my post and you'll see that I provided a lot of evidence to suggest that those things do not stack up with the conclusion "AGW is being overestimated", but rather stack up to "AGW might be being overestimated- or underestimated". Can you actually argue against my evidence instead of trying to lure me back into an argument over what constitutes an opinion?

Just one of the main areas that highlights the subject of overestimation - The AGW clouds hypothesis assumes a very large positive feedback in terms of CO2 increases being supposed to increase the amounts of heat trapping cirrus clouds. As emissions keep growing then temps keep rising, supposedly. This is one of the main suppositions in IPCC modelling but unfortunately Aqua Satelitte shows that reality is not meeting the hypothesis and there is a decrease in cirrus cloud and a negative feedback instead with heat being lost. Going back to my points earlier about the 100 yrs research vs the other 1000's of yrs - a very large natural system has been in place for a very long time that would require the ask of a colossal 'override' to tip the natural equilibrium. Where is it??

We should bear in mind that CO2 is a natural gas that has always been around in varying quantities, not just the last 100 yrs,and has been dealt with by mother nature for longer than scientists have been frantically tapping into computers and sipping cups of espresso. The above is is one example where I would suggest that more research is required to better cost the weightings of these natural systems, which incorporate such negative feedbacks (hence part of the long term history of climate) rather than focus on modern day suppostions just because we think we have found a tipping point mechanism by manipulating it on a computer. Unfortunately 'the lab' aint always the reality. Sorry, doesn't wash by a long way yet with me and no playing with prose and words or strawmanism accusations is going to change that either for sure. Dare I say it, in conclusion, all in my own opinion.

Indeed, all of the above is true- and illustrates that things are potentially a lot more uncertain than the scientific consensus makes out that they are. But your point on AGW "overriding" natural forcings is, dare I say it, another straw man. Mainstream AGW proponents do not argue that AGW overrides other forcings, but rather that it's another forcing just like solar activity, sunspots, QBO, NAO, ENSO, volcanoes, clouds etc. are forcings. Would you argue that sunspots are an insignificant forcing because there's no way they'd be able to overcome the large forcing caused by clouds? If not, why argue that about AGW?

I am all up for debate on the key points surrounding AGW but I will be much less dismissive if you debate the actual points I am making and don't try to make out that I, or AGW proponents in general, are saying things that they aren't.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Your response ignores the key point that I was making- if we wait for a complete understanding of past climate before making a judgement on AGW, we will be waiting forever. Should we wait before we have a complete understanding of the weather before we make month-ahead forecasts for example? It does provide something certifiable, if we have an incomplete but approximate understanding of climate we can come up to a best guess estimate of what is happening. It isn't a black and white world of "either you have 100% proof or nothing".

You say there is nothing reliable enough to suggest that AGW makes modern climate history special. I could just as easily turn that on its head and say there's nothing reliable enough to suggest that it doesn't. All AGW is is a potential extra forcing on top of the natural forcings that have always existed.

I can't believe what I'm reading here- for the last 100 years have a full-on instrumental temperature record, yet you choose to ignore it and latch onto this "reconstruction" idea? The climate of the pre-instrumental era is subject to a lot of reconstruction but a lot of this actually comes from ice core data and the like, not just model-based reconstruction and associated assumptions.

No, the IPCC are estimating the additional forcing that AGW might be generating and that's what they think they have 90% confidence over. They are, of course, making the assumption that natural variability will not cause a significant degree of warming or cooling over the 21st century (which would be in addition to any anthropogenic change)- which is potentially flawed.

And as I state above, it is far more than just a model reconstruction of past climate. Saying that is another straw man- attacking a weakened version of the actual position.

All I said was that my position is that AGW might be a significant issue, and that I reject the position that it definitely isn't a significant issue. In these contexts, words are important. "AGW is being overestimated" implies that AGW is definitely being overestimated, and there is insufficient evidence to support such a strong definitive statement (see below). And again, nothing has shown that the last 100 years are any different, but plenty has suggested that they might be.

Look closely at my post and you'll see that I provided a lot of evidence to suggest that those things do not stack up with the conclusion "AGW is being overestimated", but rather stack up to "AGW might be being overestimated- or underestimated". Can you actually argue against my evidence instead of trying to lure me back into an argument over what constitutes an opinion?

Indeed, all of the above is true- and illustrates that things are potentially a lot more uncertain than the scientific consensus makes out that they are. But your point on AGW "overriding" natural forcings is, dare I say it, another straw man. Mainstream AGW proponents do not argue that AGW overrides other forcings, but rather that it's another forcing just like solar activity, sunspots, QBO, NAO, ENSO, volcanoes, clouds etc. are forcings. Would you argue that sunspots are an insignificant forcing because there's no way they'd be able to overcome the large forcing caused by clouds? If not, why argue that about AGW?

I am all up for debate on the key points surrounding AGW but I will be much less dismissive if you debate the actual points I am making and don't try to make out that I, or AGW proponents in general, are saying things that they aren't.

Yes, I am sure you would be less dismissive if I obligingly did as I was told. As I said before that seems to be the nub of it. Discussing it on your terms. We are all supposed to be free individuals and certainly not supposed to be under any line management/thought police as far as I know on this voluntary internet forum? Has it also occured to you that 'debating points' works each way? And more respectfully than the method you have been adopting recently?

My response ignores nothing - it just doesn't give the sort of answer that you desire and that you feel should meet the self imposed criteria that you believe I and a few others brave enough to enter the 'snakepit' of these threads, as LG aptly put it very recently, should meet. Doubtless there are some on here who will agree with you, but that doesn't necessarily make them right either

I have honestly tried to enter the debate constructively, and willingly discussed links and evidence provided. Several times. But I am not going to continue to do so on 'follow my leader' terms. Enjoyment of setting your own agenda for others to challenge and then knocking them down appears to override respectful acceptance of differences of opinion. Opinion is indeed only as good as the evidence, but when so many grey areas exist, whose to day what evidence is more credible than anothers?

I understand why relatively few people post in here, and why no matter what approach or effort you put in, for some it will never be good enough. Makes me me truly inclined to do the very thing you accuse me of - ignore the key points that you are trying to raise. Because answering them does no good, and your key points are not the be all and end all besides.

The resemblance in terms of the participation of this thread parallels its subject matter. All very political and akin to tory/labour counter rebuttals of the sort that you might get in the H of C or even on Question Time on the television. Too easy to get sucked in - and that is my failure, not the one that you perceive.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, I am sure you would be less dismissive if I obligingly did as I was told. As I said before that seems to be the nub of it. Discussing it on your terms. We are all supposed to be free individuals and certainly not supposed to be under any line management/thought police as far as I know on this voluntary internet forum? Has it also occured to you that 'debating points' works each way? And more respectfully than the method you have been adopting recently?

All I'm telling you is to argue against my actual arguments, and not weakened versions of my arguments. Are you saying that free individuality gives you the right to argue against my position by completely misrepresenting it and attacking the weakened version of it- while in the meantime, not giving me the right to point out the flaws in your reasoning?

I have honestly tried to enter the debate constructively, and willingly discussed links and evidence provided. Several times. But I am not going to continue to do so on 'follow my leader' terms. Enjoyment of setting your own agenda for others to challenge and then knocking them down appears to override respectful acceptance of differences of opinion. Opinion is indeed only as good as the evidence, but when so many grey areas exist, whose to day what evidence is more credible than anothers?

That sounds exactly like the chain of argument that I linked to earlier:

A. X is true.

B. (provides evidence against the truth of X).

A. I'm entitled to my opinion.

...which as we're seeing is a perfect way to kill debate of any kind. The entitlement to have an opinion doesn't automatically make it qualify as a valid opinion. People are entitled to believe that pigs fly, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

As for AGW, of course grey areas exist, but evidence based on factual data, for example, is far more convincing than evidence derived from blatant mis-representation of someone else's position.

Makes me me truly inclined to do the very thing you accuse me of - ignore the key points that you are trying to raise. Because answering them does no good, and your key points are not the be all and end all besides.

But you don't answer my points. You leave bits out, add bits, and then answer the vastly weakened versions of them that are left- hence the "straw man" accusations.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

All I'm telling you is to argue against my actual arguments, and not weakened versions of my arguments. Are you saying that free individuality gives you the right to argue against my position by completely misrepresenting it and attacking the weakened version of it- while in the meantime, not giving me the right to point out the flaws in your reasoning?

That sounds exactly like the chain of argument that I linked to earlier:

A. X is true.

B. (provides evidence against the truth of X).

A. I'm entitled to my opinion.

...which as we're seeing is a perfect way to kill debate of any kind. The entitlement to have an opinion doesn't automatically make it qualify as a valid opinion. People are entitled to believe that pigs fly, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

As for AGW, of course grey areas exist, but evidence based on factual data, for example, is far more convincing than evidence derived from blatant mis-representation of someone else's position.

But you don't answer my points. You leave bits out, add bits, and then answer the vastly weakened versions of them that are left- hence the "straw man" accusations.

I honestly have to ask, are you playing games at others expense?

What is this stuff about a weakened arguement and an actual argument?? Surely if they exist (whatever they are!?) they are both part of the same arguement and should be dealt with as one, not two individual arguments? Does a leaf attach itself to a twig or does a twig attach itself to a leaf? etc etc

The answers I give are blissfully 'ignorant' (genuinely) of the presence of any 'weakened argument' - and I have been treating the points raised as 'one' argument. If you are telling me that I am replying to a 'weakened' part of it then it really does suggest to me that in raising your points to be answered you knew this all along, and are, effectively, 'planting' the question for me (or anyone else) to answer so that you can then claim they have answered the 'weakened' part of it and keep perpetrating your line of posting reply.

That is disrespectful mind games, not debating.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Tamara, just to quote the most simplistic and general case:

Your arguments are aimed against the position, "AGW is serious, and the science is settled" (and incidentally many of them offer quite a convincing case against it).

My position is, "AGW might be serious but the science isn't settled, so there is room for argument either way".

You keep insisting that your arguments are addressing my position.

Can you not see what I'm getting at?

As for the opinion case- regardless of the validity of your opinions on the science, if your opinion is that I hold views that I emphatically do not hold, then that opinion is wrong.