Agreed. FFS should be for routine and chronic care, while insurance should be saved for acute and catastrophic care. This makes it easier for actuaries to price, drives costs down by exposing them to consumers directly for *most* stuff.
The question at hand is if, at least in principle, we can agree that signals analysis on global co2 level contribution can lead to responsibility constraints for any change in global average temperature.
If we agree on that, then specific assertions of AGW (5% responsibility, 10% responsibility, 1% responsibility), are falsifiable and should be taught in science class, and ambiguous unquantified assertions of AGW ("most", "much", "some", "significant"), are not falsifiable and should not be taught in science class.
If health insurance only covered acute and catastrophic conditions, group bargaining really wouldn't be necessary. The "minimal standards" imposed by obamacare, which require maternity coverage for men, are laughably excessive. If you limit to simply "act of god" type of insurance, you'll be able to have an open, affordable market.
Think on it - we have car accident insurance, but not gasoline insurance, or oil change insurance, or tire insurance. Our problem with health insurance is that we've taken things that should simply be fee for service, and "covered" them, removing the consumer from any judge of *value* for cost.
I'm more than happy to entertain the idea of voluntarily feeding the poor - charities do this all the time.
I'm more than happy to entertain the idea of voluntarily providing health *CARE* to the poor - charities do this all the time.
I'm not so happy about having money forcibly taken from me, to provide health *INSURANCE* to a bureaucracy that will drain that money until very little is left over for actual health *CARE*.
a real solution: ending the employer-provided health insurance paradigm in this country.
I agree with you with one caveat - health insurance should be for catastrophic matters, not routine ones. Routine medical care should simply be fee for service. Chronic medical care is probably a wobbler, depending on the condition, but acute medical care should be where insurance kicks in.
We have car insurance for accidents. We don't have gasoline insurance, or oil change insurance, or tire rotation insurance - we save the insurance for the catastrophic incidents, not the routine ones.
Medical insurance provided as compensation was essentially a dodge against wage controls - so yeah, ideally, we'd end the practice of employer-based insurance, and let people buy on the open market, or pay fee for service. COBRA portability was an attempt to deal with the problem, but the *real* issue is that employers shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance.
Sounds accurate, but they still would need to opt-in health insurance plans that exclude psychiatric treatments.
Frankly, the whole "your employer gives you your health insurance" was a dodge around wage controls, so that companies could attract talent with value. Add in the preferential tax status, and BAM, you've got corporate driven healthcare.
Frankly, we should simply go back to fee for service. Medicine worked just fine for a long time before anyone thought up an insurance scam for it.
Look, only from the most looney, left-wing nazi perspective can you see forcing people to *PAY* for your contraceptive choices as perfectly acceptable.
What happens when the government forces you to *PAY* for female genital mutilation? Or gay-conversion therapy? Or homeopathic treatments?
The SCOTUS upheld religious objections to being FORCED TO PAY for someone else's contraception. Nothing in the world stops these women from buying their pills, or IUD, on their own.
So, just to be clear, we're not asking if you're convinced of our results, but simply the *principle*:
"Through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels."
The second principle we'd have to agree on is that whatever the constraint is, that serves as an upper bound for our responsibility for any temperature changes driven by CO2 (if indeed, CO2 drives temperature rather than the other way around).
Once we agree on those two principles, we can then agree that a hypothesis that asserts a *specific* human contribution of AGW (even with say, error bars), is in principle, falsifiable, and can be taught in science class.
On the other hand, if you believe that the human signal in CO2 levels doesn't need to have a detectable signature in order to be blamed 100%, then it is *not* in principle falsifiable, and cannot be taught in science class.
If indeed, non-linear buffered systems can mask perturbations at a weekly basis, there's no argument that they cannot do that as well on monthly, yearly, decadal, or multi-decadal bases too:)
So, by attacking my proposed hypothesis for finding a work-week anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels as impossible, you also attack those who would assert *any* other anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels:)
Frankly, if you wanted to make the strong case for falsifiability of AGW, you'd have to start with the first step -> emissions vs. global CO2 levels. Now we know already that there are complex buffer systems there (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go), which makes our job harder, but you cannot simply assert that because we're wiggling that pendulum somehow that the pendulum, and its existing motion of its own, really cares.
So what clearly anthropogenic signals would we look for? I think the work week signal is particularly good, but you could also use GDP as a proxy for CO2 emissions...in either case, I believe that there *is* some effect, but in both cases, the effect, in comparison to natural drivers and buffering effects, is vanishingly small. Rather than being highly sensitive to CO2 sources, our planet seems to be quite adaptive (again, see http://theresilientearth.com/?...).
Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels? Or is your belief system so rock solid that you cannot imagine any sort of constraints put on it?
The funny part here is that when asked for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, warmists seem to insist that their hypothesis is allowed to gloss over unknown factors, and indeed, replace the null. But when presented with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it seems that unknown factors are all of a sudden primally important:)
Do you feel like a hypocrite, if you're hypocritical but don't acknowledge it?:)
No problem, just not necessary to enjoy your own goal:)
We've got a clearly anthropogenic cycle of the industrial work week. We've measured the magnitude of this change on the local level. We've found an upper limit for the magnitude of this cycle in global CO2 levels. We've calculated approximately 0.52% anthropogenic contribution.
Your response is that our anthropogenic signal can be masked by natural processes and buffers. Your own argument works against your own pet hypothesis of catastrophic AGW:)
Open a cannister of CO2 at the North Pole, how long will it take to diffuse to the South? How long before the planet responds to that dispersal by releasing more CO2 from the oceans?
The annual keeling curve swing of approximately 5ppm gives us a baseline of what kind of variations can be detected.
If human emissions were of any similar magnitude to the natural drivers, they'd compare favorably to that.
Remember, the trick here is that for the most part, the entire industrialized world runs on a weekend/weekday schedule, so just the same way we see hemispheric variation in the keeling curve because the northern hemisphere is covered with plants *everywhere* (not just at a single point source), we should be able to see anthropogenic variation on a weekday/weekend cycle.
What we see is so small, it's likely we're responsible for barely 0.52% of the change in global CO2 levels.
So your problem is that your low pass filter very well may be filtering out *all* human contribution on *all* scales, not just weekly ones.
You're more than welcome to see if you can find the GDP signal in the keeling curve, too, if you'd like to posit a different clearly anthropogenic cycle, but my bet is that you'll get something in the same order of magnitude.
No need to entertain any other points - you've scored an own goal:)
I proposed a rather ingenious anthropogenic signature (weekend vs. weekday), and your response was that such a signature, as a high frequency oscillation input into a nonlinear system, would be buffered to undetectability. Your proposed roughly specified natural nonlinear buffers ("The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things.") can surely work on all rates and magnitudes of human CO2 emissions.
Q.E.D.:)
If you haven't figured it out, you've essentially been caught between winning the point on "is AGW falsifiable", and accepting the fairly reasonable falsification criteria of an expected weekend/weekday cycle in global CO2, and losing the point on "is AGW significant":) Back of the napkin calculation puts human contribution to global CO2 levels at about 0.52% based on the maximum possible size of the weekend/weekday variation observed at Mauna Loa and the South Pole:)
The low frequency terms propagate differently than the high frequency trems.
My point exactly. If you have a non linear system that dampens high frequency terms, the question is, "what is the cutoff"? You've shown zero argument that the only high frequency cycles our CO2 buffers dampen are weekly - they could be monthly, yearly, or even by the *century*.
You've opened up the door to a system that is completely insensitive to most arbitrary changes in input, and frankly, it's a fairly rational idea. We see 400 year lags in CO2 to temperature in ice core records, so why should we believe that we don't have a buffer system that works on *incredibly* long scales?
We are perfectly capable of seeing human CO2 emissions, just long term
There's a difference between quantifying human CO2 emissions (which we do through fairly reasonable estimation), and quantifying the effect of those emissions on global CO2 levels. We're talking about the latter.
Here, try this one - GDP is a fairly good proxy for CO2 emissions year to year. Show the GDP perturbations in the keeling curve.
Oh wait, they don't exist:)
Here, you can try this one next - annual cycles in the Keeling Curve are typically attributed to non-anthropogenic sources. Given the annual swing in global CO2 levels that we can detect, how powerful does that non anthropogenic cycle have to be in order to overcome the grand buffers that eliminate our high-frequency cycles? Compare and contrast to the weekly cycle that is masked to determine, to a rough order of magnitude, how much less impact humanity has.
So you have no idea how oscillatory signals propagate through a non-linear system. That mistake there is enough to dismiss your argument. The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things.
Okay, so then why don't the buffers you speak of erase *all* anthropogenic impact?:)
You assert on the one hand that anthropogenic emissions must have an impact on CO2 levels, and then on the other hand, you insist that we can't see the signature of that impact because CO2 is buffered by the earth, the ocean, and whole bunch of other things.:)
I have no problem acknowledging that CO2 has weekly cycles due to human activity.
Good, we're getting somewhere.
Now, let's review the other items:
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle - weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
4) 28% US emissions from transportation (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
5) 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle) (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
That isn't especially useful when the contribution of CO2 on it's own is not that large without feedbacks.
First thing we'll do is look for the anthropogenic signal in the CO2 record - we can move on to what effect CO2 has afterwards.
The time constant for the earth to respond to CO2 is larger than a week.
If there is a uniform delay, then we should still see a weekday/weekend pattern. On the other hand, if you're asserting that human CO2 is buffered by some unknown buffer that smooths out the weekday/weekend pattern, and then that buffer decides to re-release CO2 in an even manner, I'd love to hear your hypothesis as to what that buffer is, what other high frequency cycles it might remove, whether or not the buffer is adaptive, and whether or not the buffer can have an independent secular trend.
You will, as you clearly intend, massively underestimate sensitivity if you do the analysis you are proposing.
Again, we're not doing sensitivity questions yet - we're just trying to establish human CO2 emissions impact on global CO2 levels. Based on the weekend/weekday anthropogenic cycle that you've agreed exists, we should be able to quantify the anthropogenic contribution based on the observed swing in global CO2 levels.
What you are doing is like giving someone a large does of paracetamol and then concluding it isn't harmful because the effects take a while to occur.
No, what we're doing is figuring out if we can detect paracetamol doses after they've been given - we haven't gotten to harms yet.
Do you deny her conclusions? Do you believe that human CO2 emissions don't have a difference between weekends and weekdays, despite the evidence she presents?
1) Weekly cycles are anthropogenic - there is no natural distinction between weekdays and weekends
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle - weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
4) 28% US emissions from transportation (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
5) 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle) (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
So you agree, we can exclude absurd criteria for falsification
On the contrary, I believe we can fulfill it by looking at weekend vs. weekday variation.
just have to show that clinging to natural variation requires assuming something absurd.
You don't even do that. Natural variation isn't excluded by either logic or observation at this point.
After you remove natural variation in the global temperature signal
You have no idea how to quantify natural variation.
subtract off fits for solar variation, cosmic ray intensity, the pacific oscillation, the full shebang.
Are you asserting you know of every important natural variation and relationship between interconnected drivers?:)
Really?:)
A weekly variation in climate? I'm not sure you know what climate is
A weekly variation in global CO2 levels - we can work the next step from CO2 levels to climate later. The first thing you need to do is quantify the impact human CO2 emissions have on actual global CO2 levels. As you know, they don't simply add to the levels (see missing co2: http://theresilientearth.com/?...).
We *know* that local CO2 varies on an anthropogenic basis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k (34:56))
We should be able to calculate from the magnitude of that difference, and the proportion of human emissions that might be subject to that (primarily transportation), and the total human CO2 emissions level, what expected weekend/weekday variations we should see. At the very least, we should be able to put boundary conditions on how much of the global CO2 level increase can be blamed on humanity.
Will you entertain that idea before we tie global CO2 levels to actual climate?
...it seems like this is obviously due to larger cultural factors with the *applicants* rather than with the people doing the hiring.
The idea that HR departments at both Facebook and Google could be not only both racist, but equally racist, defies imagination.
On the other hand, Facebook and Google draw applicants from the same demographic pool - and those whose culture is technically and academically successful happens to correlate with self-identified "race" (a sad and arbitrary distinction if there ever was one).
Inner city urban thug culture is a failure, period. It just so happens more dark skinned people are stuck in those cultures than light skinned people. Unfortunately, the only people who can make the choice to change *their* culture are the people in it.
Then where is your explanation for why a precambrian rabbit fossil cant be a weird example of convergent evolution and the other possibilities I made.
Really? Time travel and aliens aren't enough, I need to exclude the possibility of an entire evolutionary chain that just happened to occur 541 million years earlier than rabbits actually came up?:)
Precious:)
or example your links only show that, given certain assumptions, time travel in which the thermodynamic arrow of time was violated are in violation of the current laws of physics, and I'm always free to question those assumption
Sure, you're free to question the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me know how that goes:)
The evidence for climate change is overwhelming.
Climate change always happens. Do we really need evidence for that trivial statement? Maybe you could be more specific, and construct a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for what you *do* mean.
I've offered you basic assumptions you can test which on thier own would falsify that assertion.
No, you haven't. You've made the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, because your tests don't exclude natural climate variation as a precedent.
I've offered you webs of experiments which would falsify it
No you haven't. Again, you affirm the consequent without excluding the null.
Here, if you're serious about coming up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, I'll help you - find a weekly cycle in global CO2 data. If it happens to be of a magnitude expected by the difference in human CO2 emissions during the weekend versus weekdays, you'll have done a decent job of excluding natural variation (since there are no natural weekend/weekday cycles).
Care to do the back of the napkin math with me on this one?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. FFS should be for routine and chronic care, while insurance should be saved for acute and catastrophic care. This makes it easier for actuaries to price, drives costs down by exposing them to consumers directly for *most* stuff.
Singapore moves sort of in this direction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You didn't read the comment, did you? :)
The question at hand is if, at least in principle, we can agree that signals analysis on global co2 level contribution can lead to responsibility constraints for any change in global average temperature.
If we agree on that, then specific assertions of AGW (5% responsibility, 10% responsibility, 1% responsibility), are falsifiable and should be taught in science class, and ambiguous unquantified assertions of AGW ("most", "much", "some", "significant"), are not falsifiable and should not be taught in science class.
If health insurance only covered acute and catastrophic conditions, group bargaining really wouldn't be necessary. The "minimal standards" imposed by obamacare, which require maternity coverage for men, are laughably excessive. If you limit to simply "act of god" type of insurance, you'll be able to have an open, affordable market.
Think on it - we have car accident insurance, but not gasoline insurance, or oil change insurance, or tire insurance. Our problem with health insurance is that we've taken things that should simply be fee for service, and "covered" them, removing the consumer from any judge of *value* for cost.
I'm more than happy to entertain the idea of voluntarily feeding the poor - charities do this all the time.
I'm more than happy to entertain the idea of voluntarily providing health *CARE* to the poor - charities do this all the time.
I'm not so happy about having money forcibly taken from me, to provide health *INSURANCE* to a bureaucracy that will drain that money until very little is left over for actual health *CARE*.
I agree with you with one caveat - health insurance should be for catastrophic matters, not routine ones. Routine medical care should simply be fee for service. Chronic medical care is probably a wobbler, depending on the condition, but acute medical care should be where insurance kicks in.
We have car insurance for accidents. We don't have gasoline insurance, or oil change insurance, or tire rotation insurance - we save the insurance for the catastrophic incidents, not the routine ones.
Or maybe the universe doesn't exist.
Or maybe the universe always existed.
Or maybe, you accept that nobody knows how the universe came into existence, and are perfectly content with that being a mystery :)
Medical insurance provided as compensation was essentially a dodge against wage controls - so yeah, ideally, we'd end the practice of employer-based insurance, and let people buy on the open market, or pay fee for service. COBRA portability was an attempt to deal with the problem, but the *real* issue is that employers shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance.
Sounds accurate, but they still would need to opt-in health insurance plans that exclude psychiatric treatments.
Frankly, the whole "your employer gives you your health insurance" was a dodge around wage controls, so that companies could attract talent with value. Add in the preferential tax status, and BAM, you've got corporate driven healthcare.
Frankly, we should simply go back to fee for service. Medicine worked just fine for a long time before anyone thought up an insurance scam for it.
If you can't pay for it, you don't get it.
Will we have to pay for an xbox for people earning below the poverty line because such people can't pay for things themselves?
Look, only from the most looney, left-wing nazi perspective can you see forcing people to *PAY* for your contraceptive choices as perfectly acceptable.
What happens when the government forces you to *PAY* for female genital mutilation? Or gay-conversion therapy? Or homeopathic treatments?
The SCOTUS upheld religious objections to being FORCED TO PAY for someone else's contraception. Nothing in the world stops these women from buying their pills, or IUD, on their own.
So, just to be clear, we're not asking if you're convinced of our results, but simply the *principle*:
"Through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels."
The second principle we'd have to agree on is that whatever the constraint is, that serves as an upper bound for our responsibility for any temperature changes driven by CO2 (if indeed, CO2 drives temperature rather than the other way around).
Once we agree on those two principles, we can then agree that a hypothesis that asserts a *specific* human contribution of AGW (even with say, error bars), is in principle, falsifiable, and can be taught in science class.
On the other hand, if you believe that the human signal in CO2 levels doesn't need to have a detectable signature in order to be blamed 100%, then it is *not* in principle falsifiable, and cannot be taught in science class.
Your point is self-defeating :)
If indeed, non-linear buffered systems can mask perturbations at a weekly basis, there's no argument that they cannot do that as well on monthly, yearly, decadal, or multi-decadal bases too :)
So, by attacking my proposed hypothesis for finding a work-week anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels as impossible, you also attack those who would assert *any* other anthropogenic signature in global CO2 levels :)
Frankly, if you wanted to make the strong case for falsifiability of AGW, you'd have to start with the first step -> emissions vs. global CO2 levels. Now we know already that there are complex buffer systems there (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go), which makes our job harder, but you cannot simply assert that because we're wiggling that pendulum somehow that the pendulum, and its existing motion of its own, really cares.
So what clearly anthropogenic signals would we look for? I think the work week signal is particularly good, but you could also use GDP as a proxy for CO2 emissions...in either case, I believe that there *is* some effect, but in both cases, the effect, in comparison to natural drivers and buffering effects, is vanishingly small. Rather than being highly sensitive to CO2 sources, our planet seems to be quite adaptive (again, see http://theresilientearth.com/?...).
Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels? Or is your belief system so rock solid that you cannot imagine any sort of constraints put on it?
I won't, there's a difference :)
The funny part here is that when asked for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, warmists seem to insist that their hypothesis is allowed to gloss over unknown factors, and indeed, replace the null. But when presented with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it seems that unknown factors are all of a sudden primally important :)
Do you feel like a hypocrite, if you're hypocritical but don't acknowledge it? :)
No problem, just not necessary to enjoy your own goal :)
We've got a clearly anthropogenic cycle of the industrial work week. We've measured the magnitude of this change on the local level. We've found an upper limit for the magnitude of this cycle in global CO2 levels. We've calculated approximately 0.52% anthropogenic contribution.
Your response is that our anthropogenic signal can be masked by natural processes and buffers. Your own argument works against your own pet hypothesis of catastrophic AGW :)
The annual keeling curve swing of approximately 5ppm gives us a baseline of what kind of variations can be detected.
If human emissions were of any similar magnitude to the natural drivers, they'd compare favorably to that.
Remember, the trick here is that for the most part, the entire industrialized world runs on a weekend/weekday schedule, so just the same way we see hemispheric variation in the keeling curve because the northern hemisphere is covered with plants *everywhere* (not just at a single point source), we should be able to see anthropogenic variation on a weekday/weekend cycle.
What we see is so small, it's likely we're responsible for barely 0.52% of the change in global CO2 levels.
So your problem is that your low pass filter very well may be filtering out *all* human contribution on *all* scales, not just weekly ones.
You're more than welcome to see if you can find the GDP signal in the keeling curve, too, if you'd like to posit a different clearly anthropogenic cycle, but my bet is that you'll get something in the same order of magnitude.
No need to entertain any other points - you've scored an own goal :)
I proposed a rather ingenious anthropogenic signature (weekend vs. weekday), and your response was that such a signature, as a high frequency oscillation input into a nonlinear system, would be buffered to undetectability. Your proposed roughly specified natural nonlinear buffers ("The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things.") can surely work on all rates and magnitudes of human CO2 emissions.
Q.E.D. :)
If you haven't figured it out, you've essentially been caught between winning the point on "is AGW falsifiable", and accepting the fairly reasonable falsification criteria of an expected weekend/weekday cycle in global CO2, and losing the point on "is AGW significant" :) Back of the napkin calculation puts human contribution to global CO2 levels at about 0.52% based on the maximum possible size of the weekend/weekday variation observed at Mauna Loa and the South Pole :)
My point exactly. If you have a non linear system that dampens high frequency terms, the question is, "what is the cutoff"? You've shown zero argument that the only high frequency cycles our CO2 buffers dampen are weekly - they could be monthly, yearly, or even by the *century*.
You've opened up the door to a system that is completely insensitive to most arbitrary changes in input, and frankly, it's a fairly rational idea. We see 400 year lags in CO2 to temperature in ice core records, so why should we believe that we don't have a buffer system that works on *incredibly* long scales?
There's a difference between quantifying human CO2 emissions (which we do through fairly reasonable estimation), and quantifying the effect of those emissions on global CO2 levels. We're talking about the latter.
Here, try this one - GDP is a fairly good proxy for CO2 emissions year to year. Show the GDP perturbations in the keeling curve.
Oh wait, they don't exist :)
Here, you can try this one next - annual cycles in the Keeling Curve are typically attributed to non-anthropogenic sources. Given the annual swing in global CO2 levels that we can detect, how powerful does that non anthropogenic cycle have to be in order to overcome the grand buffers that eliminate our high-frequency cycles? Compare and contrast to the weekly cycle that is masked to determine, to a rough order of magnitude, how much less impact humanity has.
Okay, so then why don't the buffers you speak of erase *all* anthropogenic impact? :)
You assert on the one hand that anthropogenic emissions must have an impact on CO2 levels, and then on the other hand, you insist that we can't see the signature of that impact because CO2 is buffered by the earth, the ocean, and whole bunch of other things. :)
Check. Fucking. Mate. :) (pardon my french)
Good, we're getting somewhere.
Now, let's review the other items:
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle - weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle
(http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
4) 28% US emissions from transportation
(http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
5) 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle)
(http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
6) weekly variation for transportation from Salt Lake City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (34:56)
- looks like weekend coefficient might peak around .040 .063
- looks like weekday coefficient might peak around
7) Annual mean growth rate of CO2 close to 2.0ppm/year for 2000-2010
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Are any of those assertions objectionable to you?
First thing we'll do is look for the anthropogenic signal in the CO2 record - we can move on to what effect CO2 has afterwards.
If there is a uniform delay, then we should still see a weekday/weekend pattern. On the other hand, if you're asserting that human CO2 is buffered by some unknown buffer that smooths out the weekday/weekend pattern, and then that buffer decides to re-release CO2 in an even manner, I'd love to hear your hypothesis as to what that buffer is, what other high frequency cycles it might remove, whether or not the buffer is adaptive, and whether or not the buffer can have an independent secular trend.
Again, we're not doing sensitivity questions yet - we're just trying to establish human CO2 emissions impact on global CO2 levels. Based on the weekend/weekday anthropogenic cycle that you've agreed exists, we should be able to quantify the anthropogenic contribution based on the observed swing in global CO2 levels.
No, what we're doing is figuring out if we can detect paracetamol doses after they've been given - we haven't gotten to harms yet.
You need to pay better attention :)
Weekly cycles in CO2. We'll get to climate after we at least check your proposed mechanism for anthropogenic influence :)
Here, Inez Fung:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Do you deny her conclusions? Do you believe that human CO2 emissions don't have a difference between weekends and weekdays, despite the evidence she presents?
Maybe we can agree on some basic facts:
1) Weekly cycles are anthropogenic - there is no natural distinction between weekdays and weekends
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle - weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle
(http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide)
4) 28% US emissions from transportation
(http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
5) 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle)
(http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html)
6) weekly variation for transportation from Salt Lake City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (34:56)
- looks like weekend coefficient might peak around .040 .063
- looks like weekday coefficient might peak around
7) Annual mean growth rate of CO2 close to 2.0ppm/year for 2000-2010
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Do you disagree with any of those assertions?
On the contrary, I believe we can fulfill it by looking at weekend vs. weekday variation.
You don't even do that. Natural variation isn't excluded by either logic or observation at this point.
You have no idea how to quantify natural variation.
Are you asserting you know of every important natural variation and relationship between interconnected drivers? :)
Really? :)
A weekly variation in global CO2 levels - we can work the next step from CO2 levels to climate later. The first thing you need to do is quantify the impact human CO2 emissions have on actual global CO2 levels. As you know, they don't simply add to the levels (see missing co2: http://theresilientearth.com/?...).
We *know* that local CO2 varies on an anthropogenic basis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k (34:56))
We should be able to calculate from the magnitude of that difference, and the proportion of human emissions that might be subject to that (primarily transportation), and the total human CO2 emissions level, what expected weekend/weekday variations we should see. At the very least, we should be able to put boundary conditions on how much of the global CO2 level increase can be blamed on humanity.
Will you entertain that idea before we tie global CO2 levels to actual climate?
...it seems like this is obviously due to larger cultural factors with the *applicants* rather than with the people doing the hiring.
The idea that HR departments at both Facebook and Google could be not only both racist, but equally racist, defies imagination.
On the other hand, Facebook and Google draw applicants from the same demographic pool - and those whose culture is technically and academically successful happens to correlate with self-identified "race" (a sad and arbitrary distinction if there ever was one).
Inner city urban thug culture is a failure, period. It just so happens more dark skinned people are stuck in those cultures than light skinned people. Unfortunately, the only people who can make the choice to change *their* culture are the people in it.
Really? Time travel and aliens aren't enough, I need to exclude the possibility of an entire evolutionary chain that just happened to occur 541 million years earlier than rabbits actually came up? :)
Precious :)
Sure, you're free to question the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me know how that goes :)
Climate change always happens. Do we really need evidence for that trivial statement? Maybe you could be more specific, and construct a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for what you *do* mean.
No, you haven't. You've made the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, because your tests don't exclude natural climate variation as a precedent.
No you haven't. Again, you affirm the consequent without excluding the null.
Here, if you're serious about coming up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, I'll help you - find a weekly cycle in global CO2 data. If it happens to be of a magnitude expected by the difference in human CO2 emissions during the weekend versus weekdays, you'll have done a decent job of excluding natural variation (since there are no natural weekend/weekday cycles).
Care to do the back of the napkin math with me on this one?
Showing you data that contradicts your assertions isn't misrepresenting data.
Yes, there is - the data shows human CO2 emissions pre-1950 as *tiny* compared to human CO2 emissions post-1950. This is a *fact*.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
Before 1950, we were under 5000 teragrams. Post 1950, we increased by 5x that amount, hitting 25000 teragrams around 2000.
If you believe CO2 emissions from humans have an effect, you should be able to see it comparing pre-1950 data to post-1950, period.