An Open Invitation:

I believe we are changing climate as well, but I do not believe we can guess future data points accurately with such a short baseline.

This is an auto site, lets try an Auto analogy*.


This is a wonderful and useful graph, but you will notice, Mr Wilson only has 3 data points per car. Wisely, he make NO 'predictions' about how each car will do at 85, his base line is too short to extrapolate. If Mr. Wilson had more data points, (driving ten miles each way at every 1 MPH from 55 to 75 in each car as an example) he would have a better baseline to make guesses about faster MPG from. (or he would have died from boredom)

Worse, some of the current data points are not Mr.Wilson's work at all, he accepted data from other sources, which we have to suspect more deeply than his own data. (which will still show biases, he knows how to drive a Prius for best MPG) He does 'credit' those sources, as is proper in Science.

I own a NHW20, and I suspect that curve is 'wrong', hidden by his too few data points are plateaus of good mileage we can't see as we have no data there. Given enough weather data, we may see trends and feedback loops that 150 years of data (itself more primitive as we go back in time) do not show us. Mr Wilson's data is not 'wrong' for only having 3 points but it would be unwise to make predictions from it. (I trust the 3 points he does have are accurate but the number of curves that can be drawn through 3 data points is infinite)

If I conceded that for every 30 years of weather data, we could make a climate data point, (and I don't, but I am not in the weather field) then the NWS can only provide us with a graph with 5 points on it 1890, 1920, 1950, 1980 and 2010. (that last point would still be Fuzzy, we are not done with 2010) Like Mr. Wilson's graph, I would refuse to make predictions about the 2040 data point. There are still too many curves that can be drawn through 5 data points. (Unlike Mr. Wilson's graph, we can't really ask them to go get that data now, using your timeframe we have to wait another 30 years for a new point)

I am not trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' whatever AGW is. (It is never defined, showing sources, as I do, is simply not the style in this thread) Nothing I have said is pro global warming or against it. The OP appear to demand that someone do experiments with weather, (it actually claims to want experiments with climate, but we do not agree about that) that we can't economically do. We have to wait on observation.

* Always suspect Auto analogies! I deeply respect Bob Wilson's work, any perceived criticism of his work, or putting words in his mouth is unintended.

 

This is incorrect. All those statements were made by you. You gave no hint how you may have misquoted someone else, so there is no point trying to blame them for your words. Should you document where you feel you got them from, we could show how you twisted them.

Cool, Look! Mumblely Mumble pages in and we finally know what AGW stands for!

 

I feel the same way, you cite NOTHING, then whine 'no scientific proof' when I DO cite all my examples. So we are clearly not having the same level of 'proof' applied. If I got your level, I would have already 'won'. Sadly Science never PROVES anything, they just get better theories, so I have an impossible task.

 

AGW supporters LOL
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Extreme Tree Huggers[/ame]

 

No I am using the IPCC definition I quoted and cited to you, that you then misquoted and ignored as my own work.

The laughable part of this is that you don't (and can't) admit that Ice Ages represent climate changes, since they do not occur within a 100 yer time frame. I have no clue what you do call them.

Thanks for admitting that neither you nor they are dealing with climate, just weather. I feel that was my point. Both sides in this debate are too short sighted. (I do not have a side, as I do not think enough data is in to make informed opinions)

 

The American Institue of Physics offers an extensive, annoted introduction to this aspect of earth system science, including CO2 absorption and many other topics:

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

I don't know being a former a Muscle car convert...I know next to nothing about this subject...all I'm going to say is that we obviously are expected to take some blame for what we are doing to our resources...there not going to last forever thats a given freebie, all the trees we burn, all the fish we farm, and the resources we plunder...takes a toll.
Now as far as what we provide to the impact on the environment I believe is much less then what the earth does to itself in a day by day basis...that just makes since...

 

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

He does drag you down to his level doesn't he?
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/75058-open-invitation-3.html#post1045286
I here cite the IPCC definition of climate
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/75058-open-invitation-3.html#post1045326
and here he mis-cites it.
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/75058-open-invitation-3.html#post1045332
Here I remind him he mis-quoted.
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/75058-open-invitation-5.html#post1046246
But by here he has convinced himself the IPCC never said that at all.

I could write a computer program that argues as well, perhaps someone did.

 

Why are you here? You've berated and belittled anyone and everyone who's dared respond to any of your diatribes. You don't accept what 95% of climate scientists have to say - are you really expecting some random poster on a website about cars to come up with something better? Or does it just make you feel good being a big mean fish in a small pond?

 

I see how in your mind a direct quote, in context, is mis-use. That follows logically from your plan to never quote at all, just present statement you CLAIM are the positions of a group you do not appear to support. This seem crystal clear to me.

By my definition we know lots about climate change, I cited at least six climate changes we can study. My position, not that you care what my position is, is that climates change so slowly that we won't know how we are changing currently ever, only how we 'recently' changed. As I understand your position, you disapprove of my attitude about what constitutes 'recently'.

As near as I can tell, you seem to have defined climate change in your opinion such that the earth has never had a climate change ever. I find this very odd, but I did try repeatedly to get you to admit an Ice Age represented climate change.

I quoted the IPCC because you said nobody had my 20,000 year time scale in mind when discussing climate, and I found a group that felt climate change could take millions of years. My point is that the IPCC is not 'nobody.' Mind you, you quoted your same 30 year number in your later posts so it is not like you actually read my posts. You later denied I have ever showed that post at all. Good thing this is all in print.

Had I made some claim that climate change happened in months, I might have stressed the months side, but what you objected to was my 20,000 year claim, so I stressed the million year side. I doubt the draining of Glacial Lake Missoula caused long term global climate change, although it certainly changed parts of what would become Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington in one day.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_Lake_Missoula"]Glacial Lake Missoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


So far you have not posted any claim by any AGW believers, perhaps that is why you are not getting replies about that. Try linking an online document by a AGW believer with a claim you dislike, that may help you.