Well that does seem a far less sinister set of circumstances than what was being implied, but because of that implication I still would prefer to see a much fuller explanation supplied, and absolutely all doubt removed so that no denialist can make any good faith claims about this in the future.

That they would be able to attack the credentials of the raw data itself would lead to intolerable confusion, and there will already be many who have this tucked away in their minds as the absolute proof that all those crooked scientists were just making the whole thing up, just like cousin merle told 'em at the hoedown, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever sway them from that view, unfortunately.

Real damage has been done, and it will stay done for most denialists.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 12:03pm:



It wouldn't matter how many times you explain the truth. They thrive on urban legend - urban legend that is deliberately manufactured.

It's just what they do.

It's not related to the raw data. Actually both the Hadley Centre and NASA are not very keen to release raw data these days simply because it is so easily manipulated by people who wait on every new month's data.

It looks like the stunt is about to backfire.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/sc...

mozzaok wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 12:16pm:


OK, a good play of devil's advocate. How about the fact that we saw him drinking a bottle of Vodka at lunchtime, we confiscated the bottle and carried out an analysis on the residue and confirmed the composition of the drink. A policeman followed him from the bar and noted him getting into the car while (soren was) swaying in a drunken fashion, then asked him to blow in the breathalyser. The reading corresponded to typical readings that would be expected for a man of his body mass who had just consumed 0.7 litres of Vodka of the concentration determined by the analysis, and a later blood sample was taken which confirmed the breath reading.

Actually that's a closer analogy of how certain we are that anthropogenic CO2 is causing/ will cause global warming.

, the policeman's attention could have been drawn by a very attractive brunette walking in front of him, and at that very moment, Soren's identical twin brother who had just finished drinking the original bottle, headed for the restrooms, while quite coincidentally Soren was walking down the street wearing identical clothing. The breath alcohol reading was actually caused by the same grapes that had fermented in his stomach, and the blood samples were of course switched by an evil scientist who had been having a heated debate with him on the Australian Politics Forum.

So based on that, yer honour, the man is innocent.

I'm really at a loss as to what your standard for a causal link are.

Let's look at Point 1 again, and it becomes obvious that it's not just a statement.

1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases.


It is a statement of fact that can be (and has been) verified. It is a basic property of the carbon dioxide molecule to absorb infrared radiation, and I've even described the mechanism for that in terms of bond stretching and vibration.  

All the other conclusions stem from that basic fact. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and the extent to which it does that, can be measured, and is known to a very high degree of accuracy.

Al the other measurements serve to confirm the mechanism.

It's a basic parameter than can be measured just as easily as the melting point of pure ice under standard conditions.  

Quote:


Ok, I realise that it's meant to be a frivolous statement, but how do you measure the legal limit? I do it on the basis of risk.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 7:36pm:


They do but not in Adelaide. Nope, we reached 48.5C last summer!

muso wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 3:24pm:



Is AGW actually happening or is there only a risk of it happening? Is CO2 causing AGW or is there a rik of CO2 may be implicated in a possible AGW?

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:49pm:


AGW is actually happening and it will get worse.  The risk in question is not just about the consequences of AGW.  The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has also caused a gradual drop in ocean pH - and that will get worse with time too.

The latter will be the one that hurts us soonest when it really starts to impact on ocean ecosystems. Taken in combination with overfishing and depletion of fish stocks, it is likely to have a very significant effect.

You would be best if you could read the Copenhagen Synthesis Report. That has a good discussion of the nature of the risks and how a 2 degree guard rail is a good economic compromise.

Quote:


Incidentally, have you noticed how crayfish and prawns are becoming more plentiful?  That's a result of overfishing. There are fewer predators around.