Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

Cold fusion is a very bad line of discussion.

How about sticking with earth-y things - Plate tectonics?

 

[RegGuheert]

Not really interested in a discussion of cold fusion (we could make a separate thread, but it wont lead anywhere). Its no parallel to AGW denial, simply because it doesn't contradict anything.

This *precisely* answers what you asked for. For everyone's benefit, let me remind you what you asked for (bolding mine):

Perhaps you are not aware of the history of science? The consensus view has virtually always been proven incorrect by later scientific discoveries. And those who develop the dissenting views do so by following the facts rather than the crowd. And they are typically scorned and ridiculed mercilessly by the consensus scientists. IMO, anyone who believes the consensus view in science is the correct view without confirming it themselves does not understand that consensus is quite the antithesis of science. Science is about the discovery of nature, not about forming a self-admiration society.

Please provide an example.

Bear in mind though that modern science typically is considered to have started in the Renaissance. Therefore, no medieval examples.
Also, please do not use the "flat" world example, as even in Columbus times contemporary science knew already that the world wasnt flat.

I am not aware of any major scientific debate in the past 2 centuries, where this was the case.

The most controversial hypotheses/theories in the 19th century were most likely the deep time hypothesis and the theory of evolution.
Proponents of both were met with disbelief and ridicule, but based on religious beliefs, not science.

Cold fusion is exactly the case that proves my point. The consensus among scientists and the population is that cold fusion is a fraud and does not exist. That consensus has existed for 25 years now. But there have been many, many peer-reviewed papers which have demonstrated that excess heat was generated, that fusion products were produced and, in some cases, that fission products were produced.

The details of how the controversy unfolded and how it played out are spelled out in gory detail in the book that I linked. I recommend that to anyone interested in the topic of energy sources for our planet.

The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.

The popular physical theories *still*, to this day, is not able to explain what is going on. In fact, they flat-out deny that it is possible. Even still, researchers have gotten to where they can achieve cold fusion much more reliably than in the early years, even to the point where they can initiate and terminate the excess heat event at their will.

Do you want to give another example?

Now I know exactly how Donald feels:

:shrug:

You've done that several times in this thread - asked for an example of what I am saying, and then only to tell me that it's not relevant.

.. So why ask? ...

Cold fusion is a very bad line of discussion.

How about sticking with earth-y things - Plate tectonics?

Like those who blindly quote the consensus view of CAGW, it's best not to quote the consensus view on cold fusion.

 

[klapauzius]

Cold fusion is a very bad line of discussion.

How about sticking with earth-y things - Plate tectonics?

I agree.

Yes plate tectonics is good example.

The debate lasted about half a century, about the same time, as AGW is debated now.
And yes, it was controversial.
But, to quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false:

"Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents). During the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the former reached important milestones proposing that convection currents might have driven the plate movements, and that spreading may have occurred below the sea within the oceanic crust. "

So where is the "lively" debate among scientists in AGW?
The main critics that keep the debate alive in AGW are either amateurs or beholden to special interests.

Where are the "important milestones" for disproving AGW?

What plate tectonics shows is that over time a controversial view gains acceptance by providing more and more consistent evidence. It also disproves your hypothesis of selection bias.

In the current "controversy" the evidence points more and more in favor of AGW, not against it.
There are no compelling new insights or data that would support the deniers.

 

[klapauzius]

Now I know exactly how Donald feels

Bah, he gave a poor example first, you know that
.
However he came up with another one, which BTW is better than your cold fusion example, because it is about a controversial hypothesis that actually became a scientific theory.

 

[donald]

So where is the "lively" debate among scientists in AGW?
The main critics that keep the debate alive in AGW are either amateurs or beholden to special interests.

This is an appeal to authority argument.

It should not matter what a person is 'called' because this will end up in a very poor spiral of accusation that one person isn't a 'proper climate scientist'.

I regret to disagree. I would say engineers are very scientific people, to a larger degree more scientific that scientists in that they are far more pedantic and don't tolerate the sort of imprecisions that lead to experimental bias. In general, most engineers I meet hold very similar views to myself - no major issues agreeing that CO2 could be a cause, but actually more doubtful over the measurements of global warming itself. Not rejecting, just doubtful. We've had a succession of cold summers and winters here in UK and we are still being told we're having the warmest years on record. This sort of claim is really pushing the bounds of credibility and interpreting reality.

Engineers understand the imprecisions in measurements, especially when you have to take a zillion data points and try and come up with a statistically representative value from them all. We do this sort of stuff every day and we know it always leads to ambiguities and problems - again, probably more so than scientists themselves, because we sit in meetings for hours arguing about who has the best approach to the data acquisition because we have to to make whatever it is we're doing work, then we go away, do what was decided, and only then find out one of the other suggestions was better once we have to go put our ideas into practice.

When do climate scientists put anything into practice to know how far in error they are?

Engineers like levers, buttons and things. Once a climate scientist comes up with a repeatable experiment we can do to test his theory, then we might get closer towards closing the doubts on the measurement uncertainty in global temperature measurements.

If I were a climate modeller, I would find a big barn or warehouse and I'd measure the temperature inside it over the period of a few days. If my model was unable to predict the temperatures at different points within that barn, then I'd doubt the model, because if it can't figure it out for a flat, cubic few thousand square meter enclosed area then there can be no expectation of predicting the same for an 8,000 mile diameter sphere.

 

[klapauzius]

This is an appeal to authority argument.

It should not matter what a person is 'called' because this will end up in a very poor spiral of accusation that one person isn't a 'proper climate scientist'.

I regret to disagree. I would say engineers are very scientific people, to a larger degree more scientific that scientists in that they are far more pedantic and don't tolerate the sort of imprecisions that lead to experimental bias. In general, most engineers I meet hold very similar views to myself - no major issues agreeing that CO2 could be a cause, but actually more doubtful over the measurements of global warming itself. Not rejecting, just doubtful. We've had a succession of cold summers and winters here in UK and we are still being told we're having the warmest years on record. This sort of claim is really pushing the bounds of credibility and interpreting reality.

Engineers understand the imprecisions in measurements, especially when you have to take a zillion data points and try and come up with a statistically representative value from them all. We do this sort of stuff every day and we know it always leads to ambiguities and problems - again, probably more so than scientists themselves, because we sit in meetings for hours arguing about who has the best approach to the data acquisition because we have to to make whatever it is we're doing work, then we go away, do what was decided, and only then find out one of the other suggestions was better once we have to go put our ideas into practice.

When do climate scientists put anything into practice to know how far in error they are?

Engineers like levers, buttons and things. Once a climate scientist comes up with a repeatable experiment we can do to test his theory, then we might get closer towards closing the doubts on the measurement uncertainty in global temperature measurements.

If I were a climate modeller, I would find a big barn or warehouse and I'd measure the temperature inside it over the period of a few days. If my model was unable to predict the temperatures at different points within that barn, then I'd doubt the model, because if it can't figure it out for a flat, cubic few thousand square meter enclosed area then there can be no expectation of predicting the same for an 8,000 mile diameter sphere.

You have to have some qualification in your field. I bet you dont discuss your work with the cleaning lady.
Yes, some authority is absolutely required, especially in a challenging field like climate science.

Again, climate scientists do put error bars on their predictions. You cannot put that in question.

The repeatable experiments in climate science take a long time....ramp up CO2 in the atmosphere, wait a couple centuries, collect data, see what happens, remove the CO2, wait another couple centuries collect data, see what happens. Compare data between -1000 years and now, write a paper about results....I think this is what you envision? Maybe play with some other stuff, like solar irradiance etc for another couple thousand years...Some fun things to do for the post-human supercivilization that has nailed all the problems of mortality, large scale planetary engineering and terraforming. Preferably we do this experiments with another planet.

This would be all nice and clean, but alas we want to know now.

What do you hope to learn from the barn model?
If your barn isnt insulated perfectly from the outside world you are back to modeling at a minimum outside temperatures.
Otherwise, it will be trivial.

 

[RegGuheert]

Here is a bit more high/low temperature data. I picked four locations near where some of us live. (Sorry, Donald, this is a US thing.)

Data is here.

Near me in VA:

Near WetEV and klapauzius in WA:

Near AndyH in TX:

Near Stoaty in CA:

Interestingly, NONE of the plots have more record highs in the 2000 decade than the 1990 decade, but ALL of us have experienced fewer low temperature records during that decade than in the 1990s.

Clearly there is some warming around Pasadena, CA. They had NO low temperature records during the 2000 decade.

Near Seattle, WA, there were fewer high-temperature records set than during any other decade on record. Near Austin, TX, you need to go back to the 1910s to find a decade with fewer high-temperature records set.

 

[klapauzius]

Please, global temperatures only. I dont care what the local micro climate is, as long as it is cool enough.

But here is an other nice article published in Nature (again a journal with an excellent reputation):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages.

Most notable finding: Temperature rise lags CO2 concentration, indicating a causal link CO2-> higher temperature.

Donald, you should read this article, as it discusses in-depth the accuracy and potential variability of the methods/data.
Looking at the past is the best thing a scientist can do in lieu of an experiment.
It is like someone has switched the CO2 lever for us in the past...and lo and behold, temperatures DID rise.

 

[WetEV]

Here is a bit more high/low temperature data. I picked four locations near where some of us live.

You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?

You picked Cedar Lake rather than Aberdeen WA... Why?

You think four locations in the USA are better at estimating global temperature, much less climate that global temperature data sets and ocean temperature data sets... Why?

Near Seattle, WA, there were fewer high-temperature records set than during any other decade on record.

A tiny bit of research (ie Wikipedia) suggests that area was logged in the early 1900's, wonder if that might have something to do with it... Mostly second growth now... Trees are cooler than open ground in the summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_River_(Washington" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

You are grasping for any straw to support your belief in no global climate change....Why?

 

[Stoaty]

The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.

I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).

 

[Nubo]

The repeatable experiments in climate science take a long time....ramp up CO2 in the atmosphere, wait a couple centuries, collect data, see what happens, remove the CO2, wait another couple centuries collect data, see what happens. Compare data between -1000 years and now, write a paper about results....I think this is what you envision? Maybe play with some other stuff, like solar irradiance etc for another couple thousand years...Some fun things to do for the post-human supercivilization that has nailed all the problems of mortality, large scale planetary engineering and terraforming. Preferably we do this experiments with another planet.

Like…. Venus?

 

[RegGuheert]

The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.

I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).

It's been proven many thousands of times. The fact that you do not know about it means that you have not looked at scientific the literature. I've provided links that people can use to learn about the science of the past 25 years, but, like climate science, you would rather speak from hearsay instead.

 

[RegGuheert]

You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?

Record temperatures are not (yet) being adjusted to support a failed belief system.

You think four locations in the USA are better at estimating global temperature, much less climate that global temperature data sets and ocean temperature data sets... Why?

I never said that. I wanted to see who was experiencing more extreme weather. This century, none of us are here are experiencing more extreme highs OR lows.

 

[AndyH]

The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.

I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).

It's been proven many thousands of times. The fact that you do not know about it means that you have not looked at scientific the literature. I've provided links that people can use to learn about the science of the past 25 years, but, like climate science, you would rather speak from hearsay instead.

You've proven yourself to be an unreliable source with regards to reporting facts, while Sloaty and the others have reported information that is supported by experiment and data.

This thread had some promise until someone brought out the clown cars...

 

[klapauzius]

The repeatable experiments in climate science take a long time....ramp up CO2 in the atmosphere, wait a couple centuries, collect data, see what happens, remove the CO2, wait another couple centuries collect data, see what happens. Compare data between -1000 years and now, write a paper about results....I think this is what you envision? Maybe play with some other stuff, like solar irradiance etc for another couple thousand years...Some fun things to do for the post-human supercivilization that has nailed all the problems of mortality, large scale planetary engineering and terraforming. Preferably we do this experiments with another planet.

Like…. Venus?

Kepler 22b or Gliese 581d would do as well...
It would be even more fun, if these were inhabited by beings like Reg, who would vigorously deny that anything is happening...

 

[Stoaty]

It's been proven many thousands of times.

Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,[1] that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat"), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[3]

The reported results received wide media attention,[3] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4] Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5]

By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989, a review panel organized by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[10] Support within the then-present funding system did not occur.

A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).[12][13] Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics.[14]

 

[klapauzius]

It's been proven many thousands of times.

Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That didnt really come as a surprise.
Lets stick with AGW.
Even Donald didnt want to touch this topic, which scores him some points in my book... :lol:

 

[AndyH]

It's been proven many thousands of times.

Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That didnt really come as a surprise.
Lets stick with AGW.
Even Donald didnt want to touch this topic, which scores him some points in my book... :lol:

Well, hell - not much of a parade with only one clown car.

As for you, Klap, I'll tell you the same thing I tell my cat when she drops a tailless newt on the living room floor: Don't play with your food. :lol:

 

[donald]

You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?

OK, can I put it another way. Reg has put up localised temps moving in a downward trend, and you've not argued with that other than to say it isn't 'global'.

I'd like to reverse that and therefore ask you to show me locations on earth that have gone up in temperature.

Where are these places, and do we have the data to see this? There must be more places going up than those going down, if the whole is going up.

Or the question in a different way: What is the location on earth that has gone up in temperature by the largest amount, and has dropped by the largest amount, and do we have plots like Reg has shown for those locations?

 

[klapauzius]

You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?

OK, can I put it another way. Reg has put up localised temps moving in a downward trend, and you've not argued with that other than to say it isn't 'global'.

I'd like to reverse that and therefore ask you to show me locations on earth that have gone up in temperature.

Where are these places, and do we have the data to see this? There must be more places going up than those going down, if the whole is going up.

Or the question in a different way: What is the location on earth that has gone up in temperature by the largest amount, and has dropped by the largest amount, and do we have plots like Reg has shown for those locations?

Did you try google scholar?
There are dozens of papers showing world maps of temperature change. Just google "mean global temperature map".

You can also go to the IPCC and read their report on the science:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got to chapter 2, p193, which shows a global map.
It also pretty much addresses most of the other questions you have.
It also shows measured global temperature curves, spanning 160 years, all going up of course.
All the science done is there to read. It is a very comprehensive report, covering almost all aspects, that we discussed here.