Showing posts with label examining AGW skeptics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label examining AGW skeptics. Show all posts

Sunday, January 1, 2017

#4 Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History

A good way to continue this debate is to first take a moment to review the milestones of Climate Science achievements.  This will offer a more realistic portrait than E.M.’s assessment:  “Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new”  The list starts with Joseph Fourier discovering the greenhouse effect in 1824 and was compiled by Dr. Spencer Weart the retired Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.  

After the list I will return to the above sentence and its related paragraphs.
____________________________________________________________________
The History of Modern Climate Science
Second edition (revised and updated 2008)
The history of climate science goes back to the early 1900's. This section contains a chronological listing of relevant climate science discoveries and events related to anthropogenic global warming. The information here was compiled by Spencer Weart the retired Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

The Short History:
1824 - Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect.
1859 - John Tyndall discovered that H2O and CO2 absorb infrared confirming the Fourier greenhouse effect.
1896 - Svante Arrhenius proposed human CO2 emissions would prevent earth from entering next ice age (challenged 1906).
1950’s Guy Callendar found H2O and CO2 did not overlap all spectra bands, therefore warming from CO2 expected (countered the 1906 objections against Arrhenius).

#3 E.M. has his say. Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities.


E.M. has accepted my invitation and here is his guest post taking issue with my commentary.  As agreed I have only added formatting for clarity and tried correcting for the list numbers error that I don't have time to figure out.  I'm hoping E.M. leaves a comment acknowledging that I've left his words untouched.  I will be responding in a following post or two.  Hopefully I'll have the first one finished and posted by this evening.
___________________________________________________________

E.M. writes:  I’m going to start this post by pointing out that you are taking the substance of my thoughts completely incorrectly. I put this on myself, as my thoughts were quickly written in a comment section and not articulated nearly as clearly as they could have been. My original statement came out poorly, and the questions I posed were intended not to critique the science of AGW, but to point out the limitations that arise from scientific modeling, easily the hardest task any research team is faced with.

I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time. 

Friday, December 30, 2016

#2 Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities

My pal returned with another comment, which I gladly share in this second installment, since it affords me an opportunity to list a lot of valuable links that support my claims and that will help inform the curious.   Update, I've received an email from E.M. who requested I refer to him by his initials.  He also offered a four thousand word response that I want to read through before posting it, it'll probably be Saturday night or Sunday before I'll be able to do get it posted.  (12/30/16. 10PM). > It has been posted at #3 E.M. has his say. Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities.
______________________________________________________________________
E.M. at 11:26pm 12/29/16 writes:  You've got me entirely wrong. Don't warp my broad claim that both sides of this argument are self-interested into labeling me as an "astro-turfer'. 
_______________________________________________

Then why are your words so predictable?  It’s like you’re reading off the script.

Oh and you are entirely wrong about the scientists and I suspect you've never actually listened to them discussing their work and results.

I appreciate it's hard for someone trapped within the self-serving Republican mind-set to imagine a community of people dedicated to getting as close to objective truth as humans can hope for.  But, so it is.  This list is incomplete, but it's lecture videos I'm familiar with, I know there are many others out there.

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast 
Video Lecture Series by David Archer PhD | University of Chicago
_________________________________________________________________________

University of California Television (UCTV)