Re:The LHC should be destroyed
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Hawking radiation is thought to be emitted by all black holes. They will slowly evaporate by this process if nothing adds mass to them (such as infalling matter and radiation). The pairs-of-virtual-particles description is a loose description of the mechanism by which it happens. Smaller black holes emit Hawking radiation at a greater rate.
Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?
Yeah, I bet the scientists who spend their whole lives measuring carbon dioxide never thought of that.
Mauna Loa doesn't really outgas a lot of steady CO2. It comes in bursts, which you can see in the data, and you can independently check whether you may be getting contamination by looking at the wind direction. They have to throw out some data points now and then, but the final record is quite independent of volcanic activity.
And if you don't believe Mauna Loa, you can look at all the other places where CO2 is also measured, as others have pointed out. Plus direct CO2 flux measurements on land and for the ocean. And the cumulative ocean uptake of carbon. And the decrease in atmospheric oxygen levels as O2 is added to C during combustion to make CO2. And direct economic numbers on how much fossil fuel has been extracted and added to the atmosphere. And you can look at trapped gas in ice cores for CO2 levels earlier than 50 years. And so on and so forth.
This is an example of someone with such knee-jerk skepticism that they don't do any basic fact checking. CO2 levels are not what the debate is about; nobody seriously argues against those.
First, I did NOT insist that people google for information.
Of course you did, many times.
I supplied information (a LOT of relevant information) via links in earlier posts, and I suggested that readers go find those existing references.
Which you insisted they Google for, or else go and Google the original information in the links themselves, rather than simply telling them where your post was.
I posted other links to data that point to the fact that the CO2 model is also fatally flawed. It DOES in fact require warming of the upper atmosphere in order to be viable... warming that is simply not happening.
As I reminded you in my last comment, I pointed you to four published references which contradict your claim that there is a proven inconsistency between the models and the data for tropical tropospheric temperature trends. You ignored them, repeatedly, as you ignore all actual discussion of science. In addition, I pointed you to a data archive which demonstrates that this doesn't even have anything in particular to do with "the CO2 model", since non-CO2 sources of warming make the same predictions as CO2 with regard to tropospheric temperatures. You ignored that too. Hell, even Climate Audit disagrees with you: Steve McIntyre wrote a post admonishing his readers for hanging their conclusions on the radiosonde data. (Just Google it, I'm sure anyone of reasonable intelligence will eventually be able to find it.)
I am willing to discuss or defend my points.
A curious statement, since you've refused to even state your points directly, nor defend them when challenged (such as with tropospheric temperatures).
You never posted a refutation to ANY links that I posted. Nobody else did either. I have never seen even one. If you did indeed post such a thing, why did I not see it?
Because you're a moron, as you have so amply demonstrated in this thread. You can't even keep track of who the hell you're talking to, let alone what you're talking about. You seem to have noticed in passing that I said something about the upper atmosphere (actually the upper troposphere) but you seem to have entirely missed what I actually said.
It's really not worth my time. It's not even really funny anymore, your lies are just getting tedious. Bye.
Drama queen. Yeah, you said before that you were leaving for good. But then you decided to come back and keep posting, apparently because you were having so much fun making an ass out of yourself.
If you found my links and read the articles, why did you not describe them accurately?
I did. I said that you had links to a bunch of web sites, you didn't discuss any science directly, and what little science you indirectly referred to (such as tropospheric temperatures disproving greenhouse models) was wrong.
And YOU complained that I wanted to make people jump through "Google hoops", when in fact I did nothing of the sort.
You had like six posts in this thread alone refusing to point people to your posts, insisting that they Google for them, and that they Google for a bunch of other arguments to boot. Instead of just discussing the damn science. Your posting history indicates this is your usual pattern.
Why did you complain, or at least criticize, if you actually DID find the mentioned links?
Because you won't discuss or defend any of your points, and you won't even do the courtesy of pointing others to citations.
Why did you complain, or at least criticize, if you actually DID find the mentioned links?
all you would have to do is REFUTE at least some of what the articles and papers state?
Because, as I said, I'm not going to write 600 refutations for every link you may toss out. Like I said, I'm trying to pin you down to a couple of points which can be meaningfully discussed. But you don't want any meaningful discussion.
When it finally became clear that you would never actually do that, I picked one point at random and pointed to you a number of citations which refute it. And you STILL refused to discuss the science. Which is par for the course for you. You don't actually discuss science. You just post random links, and if someone gives a counterargument, you ignore them and post more random links until they give up.
I'm afraid that it is not I who is "missing the point". Shannon's entropy relationships CANNOT be divorced from the physical workings of our universe.
Certainly they can. If you define entropy the way Shannon does, you can derive a bunch of inequalities which are mathematically true no matter what laws our universe follows or whether it follows any at all. It's mathematical deduction.
If they were, then they would be capable of producing any number you wanted them to.
No, that's wrong. That's like claiming that in Euclidean geometry, the hypotenuse of a triangle right can have any value independent of the other two sides. The Pythagorean theorem says otherwise, regardless of whether our universe obeys Euclidean geometry or not.
Now, it happens that Euclidean geometry has something to do with the universe we happen to live in. (It doesn't have to, a priori.) So Euclidean geometry turns out to be a useful mathematical tool when constructing physical theories. That doesn't mean that Euclidean geometry is science.
However, since Shannon's findings agree with how the universe operates, they are by definition scientific discoveries.
No: Shannon's theorem's are mathematically true independent of anything in the universe. It happens that the laws of our universe do have something to do with Shannon's theorems, but that isn't any inherent property of the math. It requires actual scientific discoveries to show that, i.e. experimentation and construction of physical theories to describe those experiments.
If you can find a method by which Shannon's theories may be disproven, then you may have a point.
No, the fact that they can't be disproven is why I have a point! Mathematical theorems are true or false independent of anything in the universe. If they're proven mathematically true, they're mathematically true. But scientific theories can in principle be supported or disproven by experiment. No physical experiment will or can disprove Shannon's information inequalities, because they are mathematical truths. At best, an experiment can confirm or disprove whether those inequalities have something to do with our universe. But then it's not Shannon's theory that is the scientific endeavor, it's the experiment.
But as it stands, they are tremendously useful in the proper application of engineering and physics.
You are still confusing "usefulness in science" with "science". Algebra is useful in science, but that doesn't mean that someone who studies algebra is a scientist.
Hawking does not refer to "information" because he believes it to be a cool term to use. He refers to it because it is a solid concept rooted in the nature of the universe.
Arithmetic, differential calculus, and the Pythagorean theorem are all solid concepts which can be used when constructing scientific theories. That still doesn't make mathematicians into scientists.
Algorithm tuning against empirical data is closer to science, but it's usually more like engineering or statistics than science proper. It becomes something more like science if you're formulating and testing theories about, say, people's phone call behavior or other data-generating processes. But that's not what's usually done: more often, it's just tuning the algorithm parameters to fit different classes of data, rather than investigating the social or physical mechanisms that gave rise to that data.
No, you're still missing the point. Obviously mathematics is used in science. That doesn't mean mathematics IS science. The practice of science and the scientific method are all oriented toward formulating theories which describe the real world. Mathematics provides tools for formulating theories, but just writing down information-theoretic formulas isn't science. It becomes science when you incorporate them into physical theories, make empirical predictions, test them against observations, and revise your theories. Shannon's entropy relationships are mathematically true independent of how anything in the real world works; that's what makes them not science. Scientific theories are conditional on observed aspects of the world.
I did not ask you to, as you well know. I posted some links a while back, here on/., and you said you could not find them.
No, you moron, I never said that. That was the other guy. I said in my very first post that I found them. I don't think you've realized in this whole thread that you've been talking to two different people. You've exposed this ignorance before when you said that "you tried to help me out" earlier, when in fact that was your first response to me.
I am saving this "conversation" to show my friends.
Oh yeah, please do. Be sure to show them your Alzheimer's impression where you can't even remember who you're talking to. And also highlight the part where I posted scientific refutations which you ignored in favor of gibbering like a monkey. It's quite amusing when you accuse others of being uninterested in the scientific debate, since you ignore all scientific debate whenever anyone calls you on your infantile quote-mining.
You're hilarious. If someone doesn't jump through the Google hoops you assign, they're "not doing their homework". If they DO jump through the hoops and dig up the links you're referring to, they're STILL "not doing their homework". Real translation: "I can't defend my claims so I'm going to keep handing out arbitrary `assignments' until you go away and stop embarrassing me."
Dude, I am not going to look up 600 refutations to every crap argument you linked to off a web site. (And we can be sure that if I don't link to ALL of them, you will continue complain that I haven't "done my homework".)
But to name just one example, take your wrong claims about tropospheric warming being inconsistent with the models. On that note, see the 2006 CCSP report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, Santer et al., Science 309, 1551 (2005), Thorne et al., GRL 34, L16702 (2007), and Allen and Sherwood, Nature Geosci. 1, 399 (2008). Studies you would already be familiar with if you genuinely read the literature instead of quote-mining skeptical web sites. And regarding the further wrong claim that this has anything in particular to do with "the greenhouse gas models", go to the GISS ModelE efficacy of climate forcings data archive and compare the 100-year lat-height profiles for CO2 and solar forcing and see that they both predict the same thing in the tropical troposphere.
Like I said at the very beginning: pick what you think are the top two or three arguments, link to some scientific studies which support them, and then we can discuss something meaningful. No meaningful discussion goes on when someone posts a hundred random arguments they've quote-mined off of web sites. As I also noted before, that's the creationist "generate wrong arguments faster than they can be refuted" strategy.
Researchers != scientists. Theoretical computer scientists are usually akin to mathematicians; applied computer scientists are more like engineers. Neither group are scientists. Mathematics doesn't have the real-world connection necessary to be science: if you develop an algorithm, it works or not independent of how the world works. Science is about developing theories describing the world, and testing them using experiments about the world. In computer science you can test an algorithm, but that doesn't say anything about the world. It's not the scientific method as that phrase is used.
Mathematics isn't a branch of science either. Mathematicians don't practice the "scientific method" as it is generally known, although they do exercise logical reasoning.
Overall, if you look at not disrupting normal functioning of society, aren't we already pretty darn efficient as it is?
Not particularly. California, for example, has half the per-capita energy consumption as the rest of the U.S., due largely to several decades of conservation and efficiency initiatives. Their per capita energy use has remained flat since the 1970s, while other states have increased theirs. And they've done it at a cost of just a couple cents per kWh, which is much cheaper than not improving efficiency and building more power plants instead.
Sure, I'm pro nuclear, but I don't think it's going to be the silver bullet that many nuclear proponents think. Nuclear is not as cost competitive as one might think if you take away all the subsidies that currently exist, and there remain serious storage and proliferation issues that would have to be addressed if we really scaled it up. (Especially if we're looking for solutions that other countries can adopt, including ones we're not necessarily friendly with.)
Because there's a lot of immediate low hanging fruit to be had from simple conservation and efficiency measures, because it will take decades to seriously ramp up our non-fossil power infrastructure, and because conservation+alternative energy is achieves more than alternative energy alone.
There simply aren't enough of them, in enough places, to be reasonable temperature proxies.
That's not the conclusion of McIntyre himself. He doesn't appear to have a problem with the spatial density per se, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, and has in fact described the NH proxy network as "large". Rather, McIntyre's main arguments are (a) certain sets of tree proxies dominate the analysis, and (b) he questions whether their signal is real or spurious based on confounding non-climatic factors.
A meter or two this century is still a possibility, according to some studies published last week. But even if it's over a millennium, it's ultimately bad news for pretty much every existing coastal city and beach everywhere. I mean, sure, we can just move out of all those locations given that much time, but given their historic and cultural importance, it would be kind of a shame.
Yes, I know. Even without thermohaline circulation collapse, different regions warm at different rates (land more than sea, Northern hemisphere more than Southern for the same reason, the Arctic more than anyone else due to ice albedo and other feedbacks).
Nevertheless, it's still true that most of the benefits of global warming which exist will occur in cold regions. And actually, it's looking right now that the amount of warming necessary to significantly slow the thermohaline circulation is large enough that the net effect may still be to end up with a warmer climate than pre-industrial: there is cooling around the North Atlantic, but it's offset by the global warming which caused it (as noted in the THC shutdown Wikipedia article). Still, if the change is rapid that would be a big problem. Models predict that the slowdown will most likely be gradual, but it has been rapid in the past.
I found them, and linked to them, and they did not constitute support for your arguments.
Did your mommy always prove everything to you before you would believe it? You couldn't do your own homework?
I've done my homework. It's not my fault you're too stupid to realize that you haven't. And excuse me if you're not exactly the most credible source on the Internet.
It is sad that you could not find past references
It's sad that you can't produce any. Your modus operandi in every thread I found in Google: assert all this vaunted evidence in support of your asinine claims, say "it's all there in Google", and then refuse to cite or defend any of it.
What you don't know is that all of your points have been proven wrong. All the disproofs are out there. Just Google them and you'll see how wrong you are. What, you're too lazy or incompetent to use Google to find out why you're wrong? Too bad, I am not about to spend 45 minutes pasting in the links.
See how pointless and stupid that line of argumentation is when used on you? Yet you think it's a brilliant defense when you use it on others.
but the fact is that in fact I do not owe you anything at all.
Of course you don't. You can just continue to look like a jackass making random assertions and claiming "the Google" vindicates you.
I was interested in educating you just because I am a nice guy
You don't even remember who it is you're responding to, do you? You never responded to me before, not even with your usual stupid "Google it" dodge.
you would rather believe the popular view rather than do any research into the subject on your own
Ha. As I pointed out before, I read the climate journals every month — unlike you, who only cite skeptical web sites. And I've heard all of your dumb "disproofs" before — as I also pointed out before, I've seen all the usual tropospheric temperature trend and solar arguments before, and unlike you, I've read the scientific literature and know why they're wrong.
But since you're incapable of doing anything in this thread other than gibber and throw feces, I guess you'll never learn. You'd rather believe the skeptical arguments than do any research on the subject of your own. (Hint: "research" means "reading scientific papers".)
There you go again with your pathetic refusal to actually support anything you say, exactly as I predicted.
And yeah, it's dead easy to find "refutations" on Google. So what? It's also dead easy to point out the problems with them, too. You're not accomplishing anything here. If you'd like to actually make a scientific argument and support it, you could get some real discussion going. Instead you repeatedly post nothing but "Google it". Yeah we know there are skeptics out there and you can find them on Google. This is not insightful. There are people who think the Earth is flat and you can find them on Google too. Way to lower the signal-to-noise ratio.
(Yes, I know you were just pointing out the absurdity of dumping a billion tons of water into a swimming pool, but I just wanted to be clear that even a metaphorical "bucket of water in the pool" can have significant effects on the sea level.)
If all the ice on land melted, sea level would rise about 70 meters, which is a highly nontrivial amount as far as human settlements are concerned. Fortunately, all the ice isn't going to melt anytime soon, but several meters of sea level rise over the next millennium is still a possibility.
Increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, through all data we have from ice core samples, lag temperature increases by decades to centuries as all that CO2 is locked in the oceans and is released when they warm up.
You see the CO2 lag in the glacial-interglacial cycle, not in general. It occurs for the reason you mention among others (including biological effects on land and in sea).
It is not an active cause of global warming, but merely a symptom/visible effect.
That's exactly the wrong conclusion. In reality, what happens is that the Milankovitch cycles induce warming, which releases CO2, which amplifies the original Milankovitch warming. The magnitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles cannot be explained if you leave out the extra CO2 warming, and that doesn't even get into the role of CO2 in other periods of the Earth's climate.
Slashdot Mirror
Hawking radiation is thought to be emitted by all black holes. They will slowly evaporate by this process if nothing adds mass to them (such as infalling matter and radiation). The pairs-of-virtual-particles description is a loose description of the mechanism by which it happens. Smaller black holes emit Hawking radiation at a greater rate.
Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?
Yeah, I bet the scientists who spend their whole lives measuring carbon dioxide never thought of that.
Mauna Loa doesn't really outgas a lot of steady CO2. It comes in bursts, which you can see in the data, and you can independently check whether you may be getting contamination by looking at the wind direction. They have to throw out some data points now and then, but the final record is quite independent of volcanic activity.
And if you don't believe Mauna Loa, you can look at all the other places where CO2 is also measured, as others have pointed out. Plus direct CO2 flux measurements on land and for the ocean. And the cumulative ocean uptake of carbon. And the decrease in atmospheric oxygen levels as O2 is added to C during combustion to make CO2. And direct economic numbers on how much fossil fuel has been extracted and added to the atmosphere. And you can look at trapped gas in ice cores for CO2 levels earlier than 50 years. And so on and so forth.
This is an example of someone with such knee-jerk skepticism that they don't do any basic fact checking. CO2 levels are not what the debate is about; nobody seriously argues against those.
First, I did NOT insist that people google for information.
Of course you did, many times.
I supplied information (a LOT of relevant information) via links in earlier posts, and I suggested that readers go find those existing references.
Which you insisted they Google for, or else go and Google the original information in the links themselves, rather than simply telling them where your post was.
I posted other links to data that point to the fact that the CO2 model is also fatally flawed. It DOES in fact require warming of the upper atmosphere in order to be viable... warming that is simply not happening.
As I reminded you in my last comment, I pointed you to four published references which contradict your claim that there is a proven inconsistency between the models and the data for tropical tropospheric temperature trends. You ignored them, repeatedly, as you ignore all actual discussion of science. In addition, I pointed you to a data archive which demonstrates that this doesn't even have anything in particular to do with "the CO2 model", since non-CO2 sources of warming make the same predictions as CO2 with regard to tropospheric temperatures. You ignored that too. Hell, even Climate Audit disagrees with you: Steve McIntyre wrote a post admonishing his readers for hanging their conclusions on the radiosonde data. (Just Google it, I'm sure anyone of reasonable intelligence will eventually be able to find it.)
I am willing to discuss or defend my points.
A curious statement, since you've refused to even state your points directly, nor defend them when challenged (such as with tropospheric temperatures).
You never posted a refutation to ANY links that I posted. Nobody else did either. I have never seen even one. If you did indeed post such a thing, why did I not see it?
Because you're a moron, as you have so amply demonstrated in this thread. You can't even keep track of who the hell you're talking to, let alone what you're talking about. You seem to have noticed in passing that I said something about the upper atmosphere (actually the upper troposphere) but you seem to have entirely missed what I actually said.
It's really not worth my time. It's not even really funny anymore, your lies are just getting tedious. Bye.
Drama queen. Yeah, you said before that you were leaving for good. But then you decided to come back and keep posting, apparently because you were having so much fun making an ass out of yourself.
I know "true computer science" exists. I'm just saying that pure computer science is not science. Mostly, it's mathematics.
I also know that physicists are still studying gravity. That has nothing to do with my point, which is that computer scientists aren't scientists.
If you found my links and read the articles, why did you not describe them accurately?
I did. I said that you had links to a bunch of web sites, you didn't discuss any science directly, and what little science you indirectly referred to (such as tropospheric temperatures disproving greenhouse models) was wrong.
And YOU complained that I wanted to make people jump through "Google hoops", when in fact I did nothing of the sort.
You had like six posts in this thread alone refusing to point people to your posts, insisting that they Google for them, and that they Google for a bunch of other arguments to boot. Instead of just discussing the damn science. Your posting history indicates this is your usual pattern.
Why did you complain, or at least criticize, if you actually DID find the mentioned links?
Because you won't discuss or defend any of your points, and you won't even do the courtesy of pointing others to citations.
Why did you complain, or at least criticize, if you actually DID find the mentioned links?
all you would have to do is REFUTE at least some of what the articles and papers state?
Because, as I said, I'm not going to write 600 refutations for every link you may toss out. Like I said, I'm trying to pin you down to a couple of points which can be meaningfully discussed. But you don't want any meaningful discussion.
When it finally became clear that you would never actually do that, I picked one point at random and pointed to you a number of citations which refute it. And you STILL refused to discuss the science. Which is par for the course for you. You don't actually discuss science. You just post random links, and if someone gives a counterargument, you ignore them and post more random links until they give up.
I'm afraid that it is not I who is "missing the point". Shannon's entropy relationships CANNOT be divorced from the physical workings of our universe.
Certainly they can. If you define entropy the way Shannon does, you can derive a bunch of inequalities which are mathematically true no matter what laws our universe follows or whether it follows any at all. It's mathematical deduction.
If they were, then they would be capable of producing any number you wanted them to.
No, that's wrong. That's like claiming that in Euclidean geometry, the hypotenuse of a triangle right can have any value independent of the other two sides. The Pythagorean theorem says otherwise, regardless of whether our universe obeys Euclidean geometry or not.
Now, it happens that Euclidean geometry has something to do with the universe we happen to live in. (It doesn't have to, a priori.) So Euclidean geometry turns out to be a useful mathematical tool when constructing physical theories. That doesn't mean that Euclidean geometry is science.
However, since Shannon's findings agree with how the universe operates, they are by definition scientific discoveries.
No: Shannon's theorem's are mathematically true independent of anything in the universe. It happens that the laws of our universe do have something to do with Shannon's theorems, but that isn't any inherent property of the math. It requires actual scientific discoveries to show that, i.e. experimentation and construction of physical theories to describe those experiments.
If you can find a method by which Shannon's theories may be disproven, then you may have a point.
No, the fact that they can't be disproven is why I have a point! Mathematical theorems are true or false independent of anything in the universe. If they're proven mathematically true, they're mathematically true. But scientific theories can in principle be supported or disproven by experiment. No physical experiment will or can disprove Shannon's information inequalities, because they are mathematical truths. At best, an experiment can confirm or disprove whether those inequalities have something to do with our universe. But then it's not Shannon's theory that is the scientific endeavor, it's the experiment.
But as it stands, they are tremendously useful in the proper application of engineering and physics.
You are still confusing "usefulness in science" with "science". Algebra is useful in science, but that doesn't mean that someone who studies algebra is a scientist.
Hawking does not refer to "information" because he believes it to be a cool term to use. He refers to it because it is a solid concept rooted in the nature of the universe.
Arithmetic, differential calculus, and the Pythagorean theorem are all solid concepts which can be used when constructing scientific theories. That still doesn't make mathematicians into scientists.
Algorithm tuning against empirical data is closer to science, but it's usually more like engineering or statistics than science proper. It becomes something more like science if you're formulating and testing theories about, say, people's phone call behavior or other data-generating processes. But that's not what's usually done: more often, it's just tuning the algorithm parameters to fit different classes of data, rather than investigating the social or physical mechanisms that gave rise to that data.
No, you're still missing the point. Obviously mathematics is used in science. That doesn't mean mathematics IS science. The practice of science and the scientific method are all oriented toward formulating theories which describe the real world. Mathematics provides tools for formulating theories, but just writing down information-theoretic formulas isn't science. It becomes science when you incorporate them into physical theories, make empirical predictions, test them against observations, and revise your theories. Shannon's entropy relationships are mathematically true independent of how anything in the real world works; that's what makes them not science. Scientific theories are conditional on observed aspects of the world.
I did not ask you to, as you well know. I posted some links a while back, here on /., and you said you could not find them.
No, you moron, I never said that. That was the other guy. I said in my very first post that I found them. I don't think you've realized in this whole thread that you've been talking to two different people. You've exposed this ignorance before when you said that "you tried to help me out" earlier, when in fact that was your first response to me.
I am saving this "conversation" to show my friends.
Oh yeah, please do. Be sure to show them your Alzheimer's impression where you can't even remember who you're talking to. And also highlight the part where I posted scientific refutations which you ignored in favor of gibbering like a monkey. It's quite amusing when you accuse others of being uninterested in the scientific debate, since you ignore all scientific debate whenever anyone calls you on your infantile quote-mining.
You're hilarious. If someone doesn't jump through the Google hoops you assign, they're "not doing their homework". If they DO jump through the hoops and dig up the links you're referring to, they're STILL "not doing their homework". Real translation: "I can't defend my claims so I'm going to keep handing out arbitrary `assignments' until you go away and stop embarrassing me."
Dude, I am not going to look up 600 refutations to every crap argument you linked to off a web site. (And we can be sure that if I don't link to ALL of them, you will continue complain that I haven't "done my homework".)
But to name just one example, take your wrong claims about tropospheric warming being inconsistent with the models. On that note, see the 2006 CCSP report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, Santer et al., Science 309, 1551 (2005), Thorne et al., GRL 34, L16702 (2007), and Allen and Sherwood, Nature Geosci. 1, 399 (2008). Studies you would already be familiar with if you genuinely read the literature instead of quote-mining skeptical web sites. And regarding the further wrong claim that this has anything in particular to do with "the greenhouse gas models", go to the GISS ModelE efficacy of climate forcings data archive and compare the 100-year lat-height profiles for CO2 and solar forcing and see that they both predict the same thing in the tropical troposphere.
Like I said at the very beginning: pick what you think are the top two or three arguments, link to some scientific studies which support them, and then we can discuss something meaningful. No meaningful discussion goes on when someone posts a hundred random arguments they've quote-mined off of web sites. As I also noted before, that's the creationist "generate wrong arguments faster than they can be refuted" strategy.
Researchers != scientists. Theoretical computer scientists are usually akin to mathematicians; applied computer scientists are more like engineers. Neither group are scientists. Mathematics doesn't have the real-world connection necessary to be science: if you develop an algorithm, it works or not independent of how the world works. Science is about developing theories describing the world, and testing them using experiments about the world. In computer science you can test an algorithm, but that doesn't say anything about the world. It's not the scientific method as that phrase is used.
Mathematics isn't a branch of science either. Mathematicians don't practice the "scientific method" as it is generally known, although they do exercise logical reasoning.
Overall, if you look at not disrupting normal functioning of society, aren't we already pretty darn efficient as it is?
Not particularly. California, for example, has half the per-capita energy consumption as the rest of the U.S., due largely to several decades of conservation and efficiency initiatives. Their per capita energy use has remained flat since the 1970s, while other states have increased theirs. And they've done it at a cost of just a couple cents per kWh, which is much cheaper than not improving efficiency and building more power plants instead.
Your example is misguided. Computer scientists are not actual scientists.
Sure, I'm pro nuclear, but I don't think it's going to be the silver bullet that many nuclear proponents think. Nuclear is not as cost competitive as one might think if you take away all the subsidies that currently exist, and there remain serious storage and proliferation issues that would have to be addressed if we really scaled it up. (Especially if we're looking for solutions that other countries can adopt, including ones we're not necessarily friendly with.)
Because there's a lot of immediate low hanging fruit to be had from simple conservation and efficiency measures, because it will take decades to seriously ramp up our non-fossil power infrastructure, and because conservation+alternative energy is achieves more than alternative energy alone.
There simply aren't enough of them, in enough places, to be reasonable temperature proxies.
That's not the conclusion of McIntyre himself. He doesn't appear to have a problem with the spatial density per se, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, and has in fact described the NH proxy network as "large". Rather, McIntyre's main arguments are (a) certain sets of tree proxies dominate the analysis, and (b) he questions whether their signal is real or spurious based on confounding non-climatic factors.
A meter or two this century is still a possibility, according to some studies published last week. But even if it's over a millennium, it's ultimately bad news for pretty much every existing coastal city and beach everywhere. I mean, sure, we can just move out of all those locations given that much time, but given their historic and cultural importance, it would be kind of a shame.
Yes, I know. Even without thermohaline circulation collapse, different regions warm at different rates (land more than sea, Northern hemisphere more than Southern for the same reason, the Arctic more than anyone else due to ice albedo and other feedbacks).
Nevertheless, it's still true that most of the benefits of global warming which exist will occur in cold regions. And actually, it's looking right now that the amount of warming necessary to significantly slow the thermohaline circulation is large enough that the net effect may still be to end up with a warmer climate than pre-industrial: there is cooling around the North Atlantic, but it's offset by the global warming which caused it (as noted in the THC shutdown Wikipedia article). Still, if the change is rapid that would be a big problem. Models predict that the slowdown will most likely be gradual, but it has been rapid in the past.
I have already supported my arguments.
Yeah, right.
Your failure to find them proves nothing.
I found them, and linked to them, and they did not constitute support for your arguments.
Did your mommy always prove everything to you before you would believe it? You couldn't do your own homework?
I've done my homework. It's not my fault you're too stupid to realize that you haven't. And excuse me if you're not exactly the most credible source on the Internet.
It is sad that you could not find past references
It's sad that you can't produce any. Your modus operandi in every thread I found in Google: assert all this vaunted evidence in support of your asinine claims, say "it's all there in Google", and then refuse to cite or defend any of it.
What you don't know is that all of your points have been proven wrong. All the disproofs are out there. Just Google them and you'll see how wrong you are. What, you're too lazy or incompetent to use Google to find out why you're wrong? Too bad, I am not about to spend 45 minutes pasting in the links.
See how pointless and stupid that line of argumentation is when used on you? Yet you think it's a brilliant defense when you use it on others.
but the fact is that in fact I do not owe you anything at all.
Of course you don't. You can just continue to look like a jackass making random assertions and claiming "the Google" vindicates you.
I was interested in educating you just because I am a nice guy
You don't even remember who it is you're responding to, do you? You never responded to me before, not even with your usual stupid "Google it" dodge.
you would rather believe the popular view rather than do any research into the subject on your own
Ha. As I pointed out before, I read the climate journals every month — unlike you, who only cite skeptical web sites. And I've heard all of your dumb "disproofs" before — as I also pointed out before, I've seen all the usual tropospheric temperature trend and solar arguments before, and unlike you, I've read the scientific literature and know why they're wrong.
But since you're incapable of doing anything in this thread other than gibber and throw feces, I guess you'll never learn. You'd rather believe the skeptical arguments than do any research on the subject of your own. (Hint: "research" means "reading scientific papers".)
There you go again with your pathetic refusal to actually support anything you say, exactly as I predicted.
And yeah, it's dead easy to find "refutations" on Google. So what? It's also dead easy to point out the problems with them, too. You're not accomplishing anything here. If you'd like to actually make a scientific argument and support it, you could get some real discussion going. Instead you repeatedly post nothing but "Google it". Yeah we know there are skeptics out there and you can find them on Google. This is not insightful. There are people who think the Earth is flat and you can find them on Google too. Way to lower the signal-to-noise ratio.
(Yes, I know you were just pointing out the absurdity of dumping a billion tons of water into a swimming pool, but I just wanted to be clear that even a metaphorical "bucket of water in the pool" can have significant effects on the sea level.)
If all the ice on land melted, sea level would rise about 70 meters, which is a highly nontrivial amount as far as human settlements are concerned. Fortunately, all the ice isn't going to melt anytime soon, but several meters of sea level rise over the next millennium is still a possibility.
Increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, through all data we have from ice core samples, lag temperature increases by decades to centuries as all that CO2 is locked in the oceans and is released when they warm up.
You see the CO2 lag in the glacial-interglacial cycle, not in general. It occurs for the reason you mention among others (including biological effects on land and in sea).
It is not an active cause of global warming, but merely a symptom/visible effect.
That's exactly the wrong conclusion. In reality, what happens is that the Milankovitch cycles induce warming, which releases CO2, which amplifies the original Milankovitch warming. The magnitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles cannot be explained if you leave out the extra CO2 warming, and that doesn't even get into the role of CO2 in other periods of the Earth's climate.
Um, Volcanos, Forest Fires, Plantlife*, Animal life?
No, none of those explain the rise in CO2. See here.