The web of assumptions that evolution depends on includes time travel not being possible
Reality depends on time travel not being possible:) I think you can safely call that a "given", rather than an assumption:)
The use a more refined version of falsifiability which admits that any test is contingent on multiple other assumptions, and that a test of any one is inherently a test of the other.
So wait, evolution is a test of time travel? Look, I'm happy for you to be contingent on basic physical properties of matter and other physical constants, but arguing that the simple existence of those constants should lead us to believe your proposition clearly isn't enough.
All we can do is exclude every reasonable objection.
Which you haven't. Observed climate change over every period it has ever been observed has been well within the limits of natural variation. You haven't excluded ocean heat transfer drivers, or cloud albedo variation, or even biological response of plants, just to name a few natural drivers.
In fact, you haven't excluded *anything* - whether or not it floods, or droughts, or storms, or not, or is hot, or is cold, every observation is permissible in your hypothesis. This simply isn't science.
That being said, are you trying to justify AGW in the trivial sense (humans almost obviously have a non-zero effect the same way any biological organism does), or do you have a specific assertion of contribution or sensitivity?
Most warmists assert that we have a majority of the contribution – if you’d like to insist on something shorter than that, your burden obviously decreases (although not significantly).
There are a lot of lukewarmers who disagree on the contribution, the sensitivity, or the consequence, but are willing to agree AGW exists in the trivial sense.
On the other hand, true believers in AGW are insist on dogmatic statements of contribution, sensitivity and consequence because their intent isn’t a better understanding of AGW, but rather policies that cannot be justified without apocalyptic levels of AGW.
Let's say, for example, we have three competing CO2 hypotheses (regardless of source) - one for 1.8C/doubling, one for 0.8C/doubling, and one for 1.9C/doubling. Each instantiation could possibly be falsifiable, but because the caveat "all things staying the same" is part of that assertion, we cannot differentiate between the case where something *wasn't* the same (well, it's always not the same, but you get the drift), and the case where the actual model was wrong.
So, given the various GCMs that don't accurately reflect observations, are you willing to specify any of them that you consider truly falsified?
Well, now you've got to make the argument that Gabriele HeGerl is better than Judith Curry:)
I think you misunderstand the differences in chaos in climate and chaos in weather. Climate describes the boundaries of weather. It contains all of the chaos of weather.
So, weather is chaotic, and climate contains the chaos of weather so climate is chaotic...so you admit that indeed, it may be possible that climate is a non computable problem!
A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100C at normal pressure, while it is only 90C at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem).
Wow. Terrible analogy.
The temperature of boiling water at normal pressure is 100C. There's nothing average about it - it's a literal, physical constant.
Asserting that climate statements are about literal, physical constants, ignores the variation in climate completely, and misapplies the science thoroughly. Heck, even within the IPCC reports, climate sensitivity to CO2 not only has error ranges, but it's calculation has changed over time - nothing like the static, repeatable, confirmed, and exact boiling point of water at 2,500m.
Frankly, your question "how would you know it was a legitimate fossil" is misguided - it's like asking "how would you know that an experiment showing gravity is constant wasn't faked?" You're asking for a hypothetical on top of a hypothetical, as if the limitations of our ability to observe the world around us mean that nothing at all is indeed falsifiable - a clever argument, but not a convincing one.
Your Gish Gallop of a list is farcical, and I'll bet when you're honest with yourself you'll admit that as well:)
If you want to make the metaphysical argument that falsifiability isn't required, please, feel free - but insisting that time travel or aliens are appropriate objections to observations is just silly!:)
You have no respect for others because you have no respect for yourself. You lack the ability to admit error, or let go of a belief system when it has been thoroughly refuted - and your response is lashing out.
my alma mater will be fascinated to know I don't understand thermodynamics
Perhaps they'll revoke whatever degree conferred upon you when you tell them directly that entropy can be circumvented by time travel:)
You have to provide evidence, and no, links to blogs wont cut it, I want peer reviewed research.
You're asking for peer reviewed research on whether or not the laws of entropy can be circumvented by time travel? Really?
"Discovery of superluminal propagation of optical pulses in some specific medium 10 years ago has evoked the world’s dream of time travel, but later scientists realized that it is only a visual effect where the superluminal ‘group’ velocity of many photons could not be used for transmitting any real information"
" The study, which showed that single photons also obey the speed limit c, confirms Einstein’s causality; that is, an effect cannot occur before its cause."
This peer reviewed paper was reported on by the LA times originally: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co... Will you object because a blog cited a peer reviewed paper?:)
Because of course, crassly demanding compliance is an awesome way to get people to do what you want:)
The answer is this - your attempt to classify evolution as non-falsifiable has failed, your commentary on time travel shows a lack of understanding of physics and the second law, and your alien explanation is well, well, that's just fucking funny:)
Here, further discussion on the falsifiability of evolution, despite what time traveling creationists believe: http://www.sciencemeetsreligio...
As for the gish gallop, for the guy who started with the statement, "Young Earth Creationism is demonstrably falsifiable", I think you must be trying to convince people you're a shill for the Museum of Intelligent Design:)
No, we wont, answer the fucking question. I wont answer any of yours until you do so.
My my, temper?:)
Whether or not you decide to answer the second law vs. time travel question, or the strength of your faith question on AGW, is quite frankly, irrelevant to my happiness, so if you'd like to conscientiously refrain from answering questions, you're more than welcome to remain silent:)
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Your argument is that unless something is 100% true, then it's false, which is a complete nonsense.
No, that's not my argument at all. I'm asserting that unless something is falsifiable, and has a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it isn't scientific. Even non-scientific things can be true, like love, and beauty.
For playing the science game, you require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
If you'd rather simply deny the scientific method, and make bets rather than think rationally, feel free:)
Good question. We treat it's legitimacy as hypothetical in this case, so we don't have to go down that rat hole and have you imagine all the ways the moon landing was faked:)
Richard Linzen's hypothesis is legitimate but unlikely
I certainly see his work as related to the hypothetical I presented, but I didn't present that hypothetical to summarize his work.
I'm glad you see the possibility of non-linear impacts from cloud cover, and admit that they're currently poorly modeled. However, this begs the question, do you believe that this line of inquiry could exclude your favored hypothesis of AGW? Or do you believe that even if Lindzen is 100% right, and it is cloud cover, not CO2 levels that drive global climate change, you'll still hold on to AGW? (say, by insisting that cloud cover must be a function of human CO2 emissions rather than say, variations in background cosmic radiation affecting cloud nucleation)
you made the perfectly reasonable operating assumption that time travel is impossible (even though there is nothing in the laws of physics to rule it out)
Yes, there is - it's called entropy:) 2nd law, baby:)
What qualifies you to make that judgement better than a scientist working in the field?
Well, apparently, I've got rational thought processes that I can exercise:) But if you want to hear from someone in a lab coat, you could do worse than Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2010/09...
In any complex system there are things that have large effect on down to things that just tweak those larger effects but don't make for a significant difference in the final outcome.
"One day, Lorenz tried to recreate an interesting weather pattern, one he had seen previously, by re-entering the values the computer had previously calculated and reported. However, when he ran the program again, his results were different from the initial run. Lorenz suspected a bug, but after checking the two plots, however, he realized his "error": on his previous computer printout, the one he had used to enter the initial conditions into the computer for the second trial run, the figures were printed with three significant digits. In the program, all values were calculated to six significant digits. Lorenz had assumed that the difference, only one part in a thousand, would be inconsequential. However, due to the recursive nature of the equations, little errors would first cause tiny errors, which would then affect the resulting next calculation a bit more, which would affect the output of the next run even more. The final result of a long string of recursive calculations would lead to a weather pattern totally different from the expected values."
By their nature, chaotic systems result in significant differences based on very very small differences in initial conditions.
You might not believe this, but it is quite possible that climate is a non-computable problem because of its chaotic nature.
a) solubility of CO2 increases as temperature drops
Which means, as the ocean temperature dropped, it would sink even more CO2. In the event that humans didn't exist, a drop in ocean temperature would lower global CO2 levels.
Similarly, as the ocean temperature increases, it would source even more CO2. In the event that humans didn't exist, an increase in ocean temperature would increase global CO2 levels.
So, here we have the ocean temperature determining the level of CO2 left remaining in the atmosphere. It can buffer, much like a chemical buffer solution, any conceivable amount of human emissions, and any residual is an artifact of the trend in ocean temperature, not the trend in emissions. Q.E.D.
CO2 is what keeps global average temperatures above freezing.
What about the physical properties of H2O? Isn't that a greenhouse gas too?
Do you think that H2O has nothing to do with the misnamed "greenhouse effect"?
Your ad hoc special pleadings in response to a hypothetical pre-cambrian rabbit included aliens and time travel.
And you're asking me to stay relevant?:)
And the properties of CO2 implies the greenhouse effect, it is trivial physics to see this.
The laws of thermodynamics imply that calories in - calories out == fat accumulation. Trivial physics.
However, fat accumulation is in fact, driven by insulin levels, either increasing fat storage, or increase fatty acid release.
Just like the human body, the climate is more complex than CO2-in/CO2-out. The trivial properties of CO2 and the misnamed "greenhouse" effect do not lead to the correct answer:)
Let's say we found a single fossil which appeared to be a modern rabbit in the precambrian. Are you now willing to assert that the theory of evolution is falsified?
Yes. Assuming it's a legitimate fossil, we're left with divine intervention (aliens), or time travel (the end of causality as we know it). Now, it just so happens that the falsification of evolution pretty much falsifies reality as we know it, which lets you know just how strong of a theory we're dealing with:)
But while we're on hypotheticals, are you willing to entertain the following notion:
1) oceans act as a CO2 buffer, sinking more CO2 when atmospheric CO2 is above a set-point, and sourcing CO2 when atmospheric CO2 is below a set-point; 2) the set-point is determined by ocean temperature; 3) the ocean temperature is determined by incoming solar radiation; 4) the incoming solar radiation is primarily mediated by cloud albedo.
Are you willing to give that at least as much consideration as aliens and time travel?:)
Not as long as they're still within the uncertainty ranges of the model projections
I think every model output graph should include uncertainty ranges. Frankly, seeing the wild amounts of uncertainty there, both with model averages, and between models, would be very informative to viewers.
No matter which dataset you choose clearly as you move toward the lower left corner of the triangle graph (IOW longer time periods for the trend) there is greater significance.
Actually, the longer periods of time are in the lower right corner -> the lower left corner is 1989-1990. The lower right corner is 1989-2014. The upper right corner is 2013-2014.
Every time you see a grey patch to the right and down from a diagonal line, it's beating that length of time. On the right hand side of the graph you'll see 1, 7, 13, 19, and 25 diagonals to help guide you.
Given the magnitude of known causes of natural variation* climatology says 3 decades is enough and I'll accept that until someone shows otherwise.
I'm doubtful that we've got even a smidgen of understanding of all the causes of natural variation, or the interdependencies between these drivers. Even identifying a few very big drivers, given a chaotic climate, where digits far, far, far to the right of the decimal place can become significant, you can't assert useful predictions from there. Frankly, it is very likely that climate is a non-computable problem.
Sez you. Care to back that up with some real evidence?
Asking me to prove a negative?:) Are you honestly asserting that climate scientists understand the minutiae of all the possible interactions between climate drivers?:)
If life on earth was seeded by aliens in the precambrian, then you pretty much have to open the door to life being seeded on earth by aliens throughout the entire history of the planet.
Voila, you've got creationism.
As for finding fossils in odd places, evolution clearly doesn't exclude that - and certainly our interpretation of the fossil record is subject to modification at times. That being said, clearly, a modern rabbit in the precambrian is excluded. It's not just "odd", it forces you to resort to time travel explanations:)
The theory of global warming can (to the same extent that evolution is falsified by pre-cambrian rabbits) be falsified by showing that CO2 does not have the properties it is currently believed to have in regards to interacting with light.
Oh don't be silly. The existence of CO2 doesn't logically lead to global warming - the lack of modern, recent era creatures in ancient fossils does logically lead us to conclude that modern variants are in fact the result of selective pressures. You can argue about what selective pressures existed at one point in time or another, but you can't argue their existence if indeed, we exclude the observation of modern, recent era creatures in ancient strata.
The problem with AGW is that like creationism, it brooks no falsification. Any observation is simply given an ad hoc special pleading, if it contradicts the models.
If you truly believe that CO2 emissions drive temperature, you have to believe that it is impossible for pre-1950 temperature increases to be as dramatic as post-1950 changes.
You're still missing the forest for the trees - if our sinks change their rate based on some moderating factor (say, in this case, the temperature of the oceans), then with a well-mixed gas like CO2, the factor controlling the atmospheric concentration is the moderating factor.
This works much like a buffer solution, neutralizing both bases and acids -> in theory, if humanity was a *sink* of CO2, and robbed it from the atmosphere through some industrial process, the much larger buffer in the ocean would *emit* CO2 because of temperature and partial pressure. The key factor here is that the actual CO2 level in the atmosphere is in fact, not simply a summation of independent sources and sinks, but moderated by large buffers that can be sources *or* sinks, as the case may require.
My argument isn't about my knowledge, it's about your ignorance.
Your assumption is that in order to refute your knowledge, I must have something to replace it with. This simply isn't the case. Much like the trial system in the US, there is an asymmetry in the burden of proof here - I can hold you to strict scrutiny without offering an alternative besides the null.
Falsifiability is non-negotiable in science, period.
If we found a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian tomorrow, and it wasn't obviously faked, then you're looking at a refutation of natural selection and evolution. That observation is completely excluded by the hypothesis.
Do you have a peer reviewed statistical analysis showing that the consensus position on climate change has been falsified?
Do you have a peer reviewed paper that states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW?:)
Until you've got a falsifiable hypothesis, how would you expect me to falsify it?:)
But at the same time to assume that there is something missing when there is no actual evidence that something is missing is not useful.
GCM divergence from observations isn't actual evidence?
I did play around with the moyhu link but since it only goes back to 1990 it still doesn't cover enough time to be sure there is significance. Did you read my link to the Uncertain-T post?
The link allows you to choose "trend+significance" on any data set you wish. Any greyed out areas in that mode represent periods of time of statistically insignificant change. It clearly shows large periods of time with statistically insignificant change.
Climate scientists are well aware of the vagaries of natural variation and understand that over a period of a decade or two they can override the underlying climate signal.
Isn't it possible that over a period of three decades or four they can override an individual climate forcing? Or five decades or six? Or seven decades or eight?
Climate scientists don't have nearly enough knowledge about the interconnected nature of climate drivers to model them with any sort of accuracy.
The reason "pause" is shown in quotes is that it really hasn't been a pause at all.
Perhaps I should call it The Pause:)
Again, look at the moyhu link again - there are statistically significant pauses even when you don't use 1998.
CO2 emissions pre-1950 were insignificant. Yes, we were burning coal for almost a century by then, but by any rational measure, the real significant CO2 emissions started post 1950.
If the quantity of CO2 emissions matter, we should've seen the 1895-1946 periods with *LESS* warming than the 1957-2008 period. Instead, they're indistinguishable - AGW looks like plain old NGW:)
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, troll? :) Warmists must be chock full of mod points :)
At the very least *funny* :)
I think maybe you don't understand the way I mean "necessary" and "sufficient". Review here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Reality depends on time travel not being possible :) I think you can safely call that a "given", rather than an assumption :)
So wait, evolution is a test of time travel? Look, I'm happy for you to be contingent on basic physical properties of matter and other physical constants, but arguing that the simple existence of those constants should lead us to believe your proposition clearly isn't enough.
Which you haven't. Observed climate change over every period it has ever been observed has been well within the limits of natural variation. You haven't excluded ocean heat transfer drivers, or cloud albedo variation, or even biological response of plants, just to name a few natural drivers.
In fact, you haven't excluded *anything* - whether or not it floods, or droughts, or storms, or not, or is hot, or is cold, every observation is permissible in your hypothesis. This simply isn't science.
That being said, are you trying to justify AGW in the trivial sense (humans almost obviously have a non-zero effect the same way any biological organism does), or do you have a specific assertion of contribution or sensitivity?
Most warmists assert that we have a majority of the contribution – if you’d like to insist on something shorter than that, your burden obviously decreases (although not significantly).
There are a lot of lukewarmers who disagree on the contribution, the sensitivity, or the consequence, but are willing to agree AGW exists in the trivial sense.
On the other hand, true believers in AGW are insist on dogmatic statements of contribution, sensitivity and consequence because their intent isn’t a better understanding of AGW, but rather policies that cannot be justified without apocalyptic levels of AGW.
Let's say, for example, we have three competing CO2 hypotheses (regardless of source) - one for 1.8C/doubling, one for 0.8C/doubling, and one for 1.9C/doubling. Each instantiation could possibly be falsifiable, but because the caveat "all things staying the same" is part of that assertion, we cannot differentiate between the case where something *wasn't* the same (well, it's always not the same, but you get the drift), and the case where the actual model was wrong.
So, given the various GCMs that don't accurately reflect observations, are you willing to specify any of them that you consider truly falsified?
Well, now you've got to make the argument that Gabriele HeGerl is better than Judith Curry :)
So, weather is chaotic, and climate contains the chaos of weather so climate is chaotic...so you admit that indeed, it may be possible that climate is a non computable problem!
Wow. Terrible analogy.
The temperature of boiling water at normal pressure is 100C. There's nothing average about it - it's a literal, physical constant.
Asserting that climate statements are about literal, physical constants, ignores the variation in climate completely, and misapplies the science thoroughly. Heck, even within the IPCC reports, climate sensitivity to CO2 not only has error ranges, but it's calculation has changed over time - nothing like the static, repeatable, confirmed, and exact boiling point of water at 2,500m.
You think the null hypothesis is that time travel is possible!? Really?
Are you actually arguing against the 2nd law? :)
Precious!
Here: http://blogs.scientificamerica...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513
Frankly, your question "how would you know it was a legitimate fossil" is misguided - it's like asking "how would you know that an experiment showing gravity is constant wasn't faked?" You're asking for a hypothetical on top of a hypothetical, as if the limitations of our ability to observe the world around us mean that nothing at all is indeed falsifiable - a clever argument, but not a convincing one.
Your Gish Gallop of a list is farcical, and I'll bet when you're honest with yourself you'll admit that as well :)
If you want to make the metaphysical argument that falsifiability isn't required, please, feel free - but insisting that time travel or aliens are appropriate objections to observations is just silly! :)
You have no respect for others because you have no respect for yourself. You lack the ability to admit error, or let go of a belief system when it has been thoroughly refuted - and your response is lashing out.
Perhaps they'll revoke whatever degree conferred upon you when you tell them directly that entropy can be circumvented by time travel :)
You're asking for peer reviewed research on whether or not the laws of entropy can be circumvented by time travel? Really?
Okay, I'll bite :)
http://www.ust.hk/about-hkust/...
"Discovery of superluminal propagation of optical pulses in some specific medium 10 years ago has evoked the world’s dream of time travel, but later scientists realized that it is only a visual effect where the superluminal ‘group’ velocity of many photons could not be used for transmitting any real information"
" The study, which showed that single photons also obey the speed limit c, confirms Einstein’s causality; that is, an effect cannot occur before its cause."
This peer reviewed paper was reported on by the LA times originally: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co... Will you object because a blog cited a peer reviewed paper? :)
Because of course, crassly demanding compliance is an awesome way to get people to do what you want :)
The answer is this - your attempt to classify evolution as non-falsifiable has failed, your commentary on time travel shows a lack of understanding of physics and the second law, and your alien explanation is well, well, that's just fucking funny :)
So ad hominem is all you've got left? :)
Here, further discussion on the falsifiability of evolution, despite what time traveling creationists believe: http://www.sciencemeetsreligio...
As for the gish gallop, for the guy who started with the statement, "Young Earth Creationism is demonstrably falsifiable", I think you must be trying to convince people you're a shill for the Museum of Intelligent Design :)
My my, temper? :)
Whether or not you decide to answer the second law vs. time travel question, or the strength of your faith question on AGW, is quite frankly, irrelevant to my happiness, so if you'd like to conscientiously refrain from answering questions, you're more than welcome to remain silent :)
More ruling out of time travel for you: http://www.losfelizpublishing....
You are again, mistaken:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
No, that's not my argument at all. I'm asserting that unless something is falsifiable, and has a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it isn't scientific. Even non-scientific things can be true, like love, and beauty.
For playing the science game, you require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
If you'd rather simply deny the scientific method, and make bets rather than think rationally, feel free :)
Good question. We treat it's legitimacy as hypothetical in this case, so we don't have to go down that rat hole and have you imagine all the ways the moon landing was faked :)
I certainly see his work as related to the hypothetical I presented, but I didn't present that hypothetical to summarize his work.
I'm glad you see the possibility of non-linear impacts from cloud cover, and admit that they're currently poorly modeled. However, this begs the question, do you believe that this line of inquiry could exclude your favored hypothesis of AGW? Or do you believe that even if Lindzen is 100% right, and it is cloud cover, not CO2 levels that drive global climate change, you'll still hold on to AGW? (say, by insisting that cloud cover must be a function of human CO2 emissions rather than say, variations in background cosmic radiation affecting cloud nucleation)
Yes, there is - it's called entropy :) 2nd law, baby :)
http://www.rationality.net/ent...
Well, apparently, I've got rational thought processes that I can exercise :) But if you want to hear from someone in a lab coat, you could do worse than Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2010/09...
You misunderstand the nature of chaotic systems. http://www.math.cornell.edu/~l...
"One day, Lorenz tried to recreate an interesting weather pattern, one he had seen previously, by re-entering the values the computer had previously calculated and reported. However, when he ran the program again, his results were different from the initial run. Lorenz suspected a bug, but after checking the two plots, however, he realized his "error": on his previous computer printout, the one he had used to enter the initial conditions into the computer for the second trial run, the figures were printed with three significant digits. In the program, all values were calculated to six significant digits. Lorenz had assumed that the difference, only one part in a thousand, would be inconsequential. However, due to the recursive nature of the equations, little errors would first cause tiny errors, which would then affect the resulting next calculation a bit more, which would affect the output of the next run even more. The final result of a long string of recursive calculations would lead to a weather pattern totally different from the expected values."
By their nature, chaotic systems result in significant differences based on very very small differences in initial conditions.
You might not believe this, but it is quite possible that climate is a non-computable problem because of its chaotic nature.
Which means, as the ocean temperature dropped, it would sink even more CO2. In the event that humans didn't exist, a drop in ocean temperature would lower global CO2 levels.
Similarly, as the ocean temperature increases, it would source even more CO2. In the event that humans didn't exist, an increase in ocean temperature would increase global CO2 levels.
So, here we have the ocean temperature determining the level of CO2 left remaining in the atmosphere. It can buffer, much like a chemical buffer solution, any conceivable amount of human emissions, and any residual is an artifact of the trend in ocean temperature, not the trend in emissions. Q.E.D.
What about the physical properties of H2O? Isn't that a greenhouse gas too?
Do you think that H2O has nothing to do with the misnamed "greenhouse effect"?
Your ad hoc special pleadings in response to a hypothetical pre-cambrian rabbit included aliens and time travel.
And you're asking me to stay relevant? :)
The laws of thermodynamics imply that calories in - calories out == fat accumulation. Trivial physics.
However, fat accumulation is in fact, driven by insulin levels, either increasing fat storage, or increase fatty acid release.
Just like the human body, the climate is more complex than CO2-in/CO2-out. The trivial properties of CO2 and the misnamed "greenhouse" effect do not lead to the correct answer :)
Yes. Assuming it's a legitimate fossil, we're left with divine intervention (aliens), or time travel (the end of causality as we know it). Now, it just so happens that the falsification of evolution pretty much falsifies reality as we know it, which lets you know just how strong of a theory we're dealing with :)
But while we're on hypotheticals, are you willing to entertain the following notion:
1) oceans act as a CO2 buffer, sinking more CO2 when atmospheric CO2 is above a set-point, and sourcing CO2 when atmospheric CO2 is below a set-point;
2) the set-point is determined by ocean temperature;
3) the ocean temperature is determined by incoming solar radiation;
4) the incoming solar radiation is primarily mediated by cloud albedo.
Are you willing to give that at least as much consideration as aliens and time travel? :)
I think every model output graph should include uncertainty ranges. Frankly, seeing the wild amounts of uncertainty there, both with model averages, and between models, would be very informative to viewers.
Actually, the longer periods of time are in the lower right corner -> the lower left corner is 1989-1990. The lower right corner is 1989-2014. The upper right corner is 2013-2014.
Every time you see a grey patch to the right and down from a diagonal line, it's beating that length of time. On the right hand side of the graph you'll see 1, 7, 13, 19, and 25 diagonals to help guide you.
I'm doubtful that we've got even a smidgen of understanding of all the causes of natural variation, or the interdependencies between these drivers. Even identifying a few very big drivers, given a chaotic climate, where digits far, far, far to the right of the decimal place can become significant, you can't assert useful predictions from there. Frankly, it is very likely that climate is a non-computable problem.
Asking me to prove a negative? :) Are you honestly asserting that climate scientists understand the minutiae of all the possible interactions between climate drivers? :)
If life on earth was seeded by aliens in the precambrian, then you pretty much have to open the door to life being seeded on earth by aliens throughout the entire history of the planet.
Voila, you've got creationism.
As for finding fossils in odd places, evolution clearly doesn't exclude that - and certainly our interpretation of the fossil record is subject to modification at times. That being said, clearly, a modern rabbit in the precambrian is excluded. It's not just "odd", it forces you to resort to time travel explanations :)
Oh don't be silly. The existence of CO2 doesn't logically lead to global warming - the lack of modern, recent era creatures in ancient fossils does logically lead us to conclude that modern variants are in fact the result of selective pressures. You can argue about what selective pressures existed at one point in time or another, but you can't argue their existence if indeed, we exclude the observation of modern, recent era creatures in ancient strata.
The problem with AGW is that like creationism, it brooks no falsification. Any observation is simply given an ad hoc special pleading, if it contradicts the models.
Insignificant, especially compared to the 8.5Gt of CO2/year we had in the 90s.
Look at the graph:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...
If you truly believe that CO2 emissions drive temperature, you have to believe that it is impossible for pre-1950 temperature increases to be as dramatic as post-1950 changes.
The data say otherwise :)
You're still missing the forest for the trees - if our sinks change their rate based on some moderating factor (say, in this case, the temperature of the oceans), then with a well-mixed gas like CO2, the factor controlling the atmospheric concentration is the moderating factor.
This works much like a buffer solution, neutralizing both bases and acids -> in theory, if humanity was a *sink* of CO2, and robbed it from the atmosphere through some industrial process, the much larger buffer in the ocean would *emit* CO2 because of temperature and partial pressure. The key factor here is that the actual CO2 level in the atmosphere is in fact, not simply a summation of independent sources and sinks, but moderated by large buffers that can be sources *or* sinks, as the case may require.
My argument isn't about my knowledge, it's about your ignorance.
Your assumption is that in order to refute your knowledge, I must have something to replace it with. This simply isn't the case. Much like the trial system in the US, there is an asymmetry in the burden of proof here - I can hold you to strict scrutiny without offering an alternative besides the null.
Thank you. The temperature of water therefore drives CO2 levels. Now you've got the right causality, where before you didn't :)
Falsifiability is non-negotiable in science, period.
If we found a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian tomorrow, and it wasn't obviously faked, then you're looking at a refutation of natural selection and evolution. That observation is completely excluded by the hypothesis.
Do you have a peer reviewed paper that states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW? :)
Until you've got a falsifiable hypothesis, how would you expect me to falsify it? :)
GCM divergence from observations isn't actual evidence?
The link allows you to choose "trend+significance" on any data set you wish. Any greyed out areas in that mode represent periods of time of statistically insignificant change. It clearly shows large periods of time with statistically insignificant change.
Isn't it possible that over a period of three decades or four they can override an individual climate forcing? Or five decades or six? Or seven decades or eight?
Climate scientists don't have nearly enough knowledge about the interconnected nature of climate drivers to model them with any sort of accuracy.
Perhaps I should call it The Pause :)
Again, look at the moyhu link again - there are statistically significant pauses even when you don't use 1998.
CO2 emissions pre-1950 were insignificant. Yes, we were burning coal for almost a century by then, but by any rational measure, the real significant CO2 emissions started post 1950.
If the quantity of CO2 emissions matter, we should've seen the 1895-1946 periods with *LESS* warming than the 1957-2008 period. Instead, they're indistinguishable - AGW looks like plain old NGW :)
Thank you. Temperature therefore drives CO2 levels. You've now got the right causality, where before you didn't :)
1) pollen isn't a rabbit
2) no reason why a footprint can't be mistakenly dated by the material the footprint was made in
3) "living fossils" are perfectly allowed in natural selection - nothing insists that an organism must be selected against on any time frame
4) cite the biochemist you believe says we cannot detect collagen remnants in fossil remains
None of your citations are "blows" - you misunderstand evolution, the theory of natural selection, and the concept of falsifiability.
But good try!
You assume wrong - I have questions, not answers. The issue here is that you believe that there are no more questions to be entertained :)