Some progress on the skeptic -vs- denier ugliness

docrichard says:
July 16, 2012 at 4:10 am
I have to confess that I am not sure what turnedoutnice is arguing. Which is a big pity, since he is addressing the key point of my argument, which is that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate is generally agreed, since it is derived from basic physics (as Rob Dekker has set out).

The “basic” physics suggests that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 which means that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional absorption of infrared radiation. The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.
I think turnedoutnice is claiming that the “basic” physics isn’t adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs.
Now, it’s OFTEN true that “basic” physics fails to be adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs. Remember the analogy about the dropped piece of paper? t=(2d/g)^0.5 is “basic” physics, but it’s an inadequate model. Using this model MIGHT give you the right answer under certain conditions (conditions which may or may not be likely), but anyone that understands the issue beyond the “basic” physics will tell you that using the model will most likely give you the wrong answer.
So, turnedoutnice is claiming that he understands the absorption and reradiating issue well beyond the “basic” physics level, and he is claiming that the current range of models being used by both “sides” in the debate will most likely give you the wrong answer.

Is it agreed by all, or the majority on this list?

I’m not sure what you mean by “this list”, but most skeptics don’t assert this claim. Most skeptics seem to be comfortable acknowledging a limited amount of warming based on the “basic” physics.
Overall, I think turnedoutnice needs to present his argument in more simplistic terms so that he can try educating people who only understand the “basic” physics. Because right now, I think even people who understand the claims he’s trying to make aren’t understanding how he’s getting there.

If it is not, we must all accept as fact that (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (2) that it is increasing, (3) that this increase commits the earth to a modest increase in temperature, and therefore (4) we must debate climate sensitivity and decide on the importance of this increase on the climate as a whole.

Actually, we don’t have to accept 1 through 3 as “fact”. There’s a big difference between accepting something “for argument’s sake” and accepting something as fact. There’s a big difference between accepting something “until more convincing information is provided” and accepting something as fact.
This is a big problem with the CAGW debate. Too many believers in CAGW accept things as “fact” based on any level of evidence. Frankly, it really hurts your side to do this because it’s incredibly unscientific.
However, lets’s say we accept 1-3 until more information become available.
Now, docrichard, I wish most people who accept the CAGW hypothesis understood what you’ve written here (except for the “fact” part). When I discuss global warming with people who accept the CAGW hypothesis – even technical people, I usually get a blank stare when I convey your above points. And most people – even technical people – believe that all AGW is CAGW. The fact that these people believe in CAGW is meaningless. Why should they be credited with not being “in denial” when they don’t even understand the basics. They’ve simply accepted something on little more than blind faith. But apparently, this is what the climate “science” discipline wants.

Tony G says
“As to your ‘facts’, you lose it at #3, because you assume that there is only ONE feedback mechanism (CO2). Climate is much more complex than that.”
You have not understood. I will say it once more.
Basic textbook physics teaches us that the amount of CO2 that we have released from geological storage will increase the greenhouse effect sufficient to raise the global temperature by about 1.1*C. We have measured a 0.8*C increase, and the rest has been taken up by the oceans, to be released in due course.
Now come the feedbacks, Tony.
The increased temperatures will set off feedback mechanisms – primarily :
1 increase in water vapour,
2 changes to albedo,
3 changes to lapse rate
4 Changes to clouds
5 Releases of methane and CO2 from soil
6 Changes to vegetation
Models work with the short term changes, 1-4. The effect of clouds is somewhat uncertain, with your side claiming that they are a negative feedback, and our side claiming a weak positive. Whatever the effect of clouds, in a warmer world it will be lessened, and slightly move towards being a positive feedback (cloudbase is higher in warm air, and higher clouds have a more positive feedback).
The models do not factor in 5 and 6, as they cannot yet be quantified.
The sceptic case hangs entirely on the work of Lindzen and Spencer, both of which have their flaws IN addition, you have to address the paleoclimate and other lines of approach which also point to a climate sensitivity in the region of 3*C.
So I do not propose only one feedback, and at #3 I was not addressing feedbacks.

docrichard says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:57 am
Now come the feedbacks

Is this a comprehensive list? Do any other feedback mechanisms exist? Yes or no?
And what about the issue of whether or not you could claim that I’m in denial?

wobble said:
The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.
Where would the other part go? I know of no mechanism for the energy to be stored for a significant amount of time in the CO2 molecules.
wobble says:
If it is not, we must all accept as fact that (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (2) that it is increasing, (3) that this increase commits the earth to a modest increase in temperature, and therefore (4) we must debate climate sensitivity and decide on the importance of this increase on the climate as a whole.
Actually, we don’t have to accept 1 through 3 as “fact”. There’s a big difference between accepting something “for argument’s sake” and accepting something as fact. There’s a big difference between accepting something “until more convincing information is provided” and accepting something as fact.
I would say that if someone denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they are straying into denial territory.
Likewise, to deny that it is increasing is very much in denial land.
Those are two facts which are about as factual as facts can get.
It follows from this that there will be an increase in temperature from the increased CO2. I have seen (but cannot find) a vid of Pat Michaels being pretty scathing about skeptics who deny that the CO2 released so far has produced a temperature rise.
So, apart perhaps from our colleague turnedoutnice, are we all of one mind on this point?

David Evans said there are “thousands”.

Wow, is that list comprehensive?

But note that those on the list are all positive

Wow, all positive feedbacks. I’m surprised winter ever reoccurs! I’m surprised that the climate hasn’t been warming since the beginning of time.

wobble said

The “basic” physics suggests that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 which means that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional absorption of infrared radiation. The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.
I think turnedoutnice is claiming that the “basic” physics isn’t adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs.

If that’s all there is to the story of “basic” physics of AGW, then I understand that you don’t accept AGW theory.
There are some wavelengths in IR where CO2 has an optical length (at sea level air surface) of a few meters.
An increase of CO2 would simply reduce that optical length to even less than a few meters, which obviously will immediately be compensated by convection. Thus, if looking from the surface upward is all there is, there would not be any noticable effect on global surface temperatures at all, even from a doubling of CO2.
Do you know what you missed ?
What if you look at this planet’s IR emissions from space down, instead of from only from the surface up ?
Recall this graph :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
which I presented in my July 14, 12:34 post, along with an explanation on what basic physics tells us about what happens if we tweek with the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.
For starters, do you know why that big dip in IR emission around the main CO2 absorption bands shows up as 220 K ? What does that suggest about the altitude where CO2 radiates from ? And why does it radiate from that altitude ?
And why it is that that emissions from that absorbtion band do not vary much (and why we are lucky) even if we were to double CO2 concentration ?
Now, you can ignore these questions just as you ignored my question on snow albedo effect in June 2012, but I hope you understand that until you actually address such basic physics questions, your statements that the concept of CAGW doesn’t simply rely on basic physics and your accusations that other people are very unscientific are simply empty rethoric.

And wobble, while you are at it, please provide us with a reference to the definition of the concept of CAGW .
I can’t find it anywhere in scientific literature. Did you invent this ‘Catastrophic’ label yourself, or did you copy it from someone ?

Rob Dekker says:
July 17, 2012 at 12:36 am
If that’s all there is to the story of “basic” physics of AGW, then I understand that you don’t accept AGW theory.

I didn’t say that I didn’t accept the AGW hypothesis. docrichard had asked for a simplification of turnedoutnice’s comments.

Recall this graph… along with an explanation on what basic physics tells us about what happens if we tweek with the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

OK, it’s great that you want to label a lower convection hypothesis as basic physics, and it’s also interesting that you ignore others’ claims that this is an incomplete depiction of CO2’s first order effect on climate.

you ignored my question on snow albedo effect in June 2012

I didn’t ignore it at all. Quite the opposite. I acknowledged the massive amount of positive feedback such melt represents. I stated that I was surprised that the earth could ever experience any cooling again about that. Why are you trying to claim that I ignored it? Maybe you didn’t like the fact that I agreed with you?

I hope you understand that until you actually address such basic physics questions, your statements that the concept of CAGW doesn’t simply rely on basic physics and your accusations that other people are very unscientific are simply empty rethoric.

Rob Dekker, you’re using a no-win argument. In order to argue that basic physics concepts dictate a first order effect you’re being forced to imply that the earth’s climate system is incredibly simplistic rather than complex. This is forcing you to take a position of relative naivete while attempting to label others of naivete or in-denial.
I hope you understand that you should give up the in-denial argument and either engage the debate regarding the level of complexity required to cause a first order effect or simply accept arguments that it’s possible that CO2 might not have caused any portion of any observed warming.

Rob Dekker says:
July 17, 2012 at 1:07 am
And wobble, while you are at it, please provide us with a reference to the definition of the concept of CAGW .

You don’t know what is meant by CAGW????
What is it that you don’t know?:
1. Do you not know what the C stands for in the acronym?;
2. Do you not know the definition of the word that C stands for?;
3. Do you not understand why the word that C stands for is used?; or
4. Are you ignorant of the hundreds of scientific papers, the dozens of speeches, and the several congressional testimonies which clearly describe conditions captured by the use of the word which C stands for?
Which is it?