1. [re: your theory that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time] Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published:
Why are you asking me to justify the changes in the IPCC estimates of CO2 sensitivity? Do you not understand the assertion here?
Furthermore do you honestly want to assert that there is one, true, constant CO2 sensitivity value? That no matter what other variation, the reaction of the climate to CO2 is a mechanical constant?
Really?
2. [re: Your theory on AGW falsifiability] Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory of AGW? Answer yes or no, otherwise I will assume one as the lie, and the other as your actual view.
I'm asserting an if/then condition - you get to tell me what the condition is, and I'll tell you the resulting answer.
If model falsifications don't falsify AGW, then AGW is not falsifiable.
If model falsifications *do* falsify AGW, then AGW has been falsified.
3. In one of the following post you told a lie. Which one of these statements is a lie?
Neither is a lie. I've offered you an if/then condition - you tell me what your "if" is, and I'll tell you what the logical conclusion must be.
4. Here, you assert several things that I supposedly said
Do you deny saying them?
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do:)
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Again, as per #4:
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do:)
So according to you, climate models predict that when the CO2 levels reach 400ppm the temperature will immediately rise to the levels of the Eocene. Please cite these predictions.
Wrong again:) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do:)
Provide a citation from NOAA in which they predicted that temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Wrong again:) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do:)
You seem to get really hung up on some of these concepts, perhaps because you take things too literally, or aren't a native language speaker.
You also seem to have lots of questions, but no willingness to actually give answers yourself - I won't bother linkspamming you with the laundry list of evasions you've already omitted from your last comment, but suffice it to say, you seem to be projecting your own insecurities.
It's highly ironic that in the same comment you declare, "I notice that you've edited out certain sections of this discussion, and chose to reply to others without addressing the question.", you fail to answer any of the questions posed to you:)
I guess that's the last refuge of alarmists who can no longer defend their position:)
Obama's tweet shows that this is *exactly* the intended PR spin. Claiming that climate change is "real", that's simply a given - climate always changes. Asserting that it is "man-made" is an awful stretch given the data, since the vast majority did *not* attribute > 50% responsibility to man. Furthermore, asserting that it is "dangerous" is simply wishful thinking, but *clearly* that's what our harvard educated president got out of the press release.
Low information voters out there will eat this tripe up, but that certainly doesn't make it true.
feel free to continue to pretend that science equivalent to fairy wishing
Feel free to pretend that science can happen without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:)
I repeat: Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published,
Wait, do you *deny* that there is peer-reviewed literature over the past 10 years that has continually revised the IPCC's CO2 sensitivity value lower and lower?
Really?
Specify the exact nature of this variance in CO2 sensitivity as a function of time
So you're asking me to explain to you why the IPCC's asserted CO2 sensitivity values have been continually changing? Why don't you ask them to show their work?:)
Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory?
That's *exactly* my point. You cannot assert that a theory is falsifiable if it is comprised of dozens of models, of which any arbitrary number can be falsified without actually threatening the central conceit of the theory.
Is a theory falsifiable when only one of it's many models is falsifiable?
One of these statements is a lie.
Again, you misunderstand my argument - I'm showing you that your position is inherently contradictory. If AGW is falsifiable, then NOAA 2008 has already shown it to be falsified. If you defend AGW against NOAA 2008 by asserting that its falsification has no bearing on the theory of AGW, then you're showing clearly that AGW is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
What part of that don't you understand?
I notice that once again, you edited out the mention of your deceptive editing practices
Deceptive editing? Are you asserting that I've edited your words in my direct quotes of you? Or are you unhappy that I don't quote *everything* you state?
...no apocalypse yet. Maybe we can freak out at 401ppm? 402ppm?
Yes, that's exactly where we started...but it seems you don't understand what it means. Would you like a more thorough explanation?
Up to you to PROVE that NOAA predicted what you assert they predicted, that is, temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached
I'm am asserting that that is the implication of making wild press releases trying to pretend that today's CO2 levels are somehow indicative of ancient, warmer times. Of course they don't *state* that things will happen immediately, because they've got no proof of that - but neither do they have any proof that it will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 1000 years.
It's like blithely mentioning that some criminal was black, implying that all blacks are criminals - alarmism, like racism, can be subtle.
Ah, fallacy, we meet again.
Why avoid the question? Do you believe that modern human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous climate changes?
Follow up: do you believe that the fact that modern CO2 levels exist in a world significantly colder than the one existed the last time these CO2 levels existed in the proxy data should lead us to believe that we are headed for similar temperatures?
Well, go ahead and check - and when you're ready to admit that the data support my conclusion, even if you don't like it, perhaps you can find the intestinal fortitude to accept the critique gracefully:)
65 assert that humans are responsible for the majority of warming.
78 assert the following: 1) implicitly reject 2) explicitly reject with no quantification 3) explicitly reject asserting *less* that 50% responsible.
Frankly, the "explicit endorse without quantification" and "implicit endorse" are trivially excluded because they don't blame more than 50% of the warming...they could in fact be part of the "reject asserting less than 50% is responsible".
Furthermore, asserting "no position" should count as "accepts" is kind of stacking the deck, don't you think?:)
I'm not a climate scientist, but I do have a phd in math. The paper is perfectly sound
Perhaps you believe that AGW at "humans are responsible for 1% of the warming per century" is equivalent to "humans are responsible for >50% of the warming per century".
This is called improperly conflating apples and oranges. You might want to go back for some remedial math, despite your degree:)
I searched for the letter "a". While granted, this seems to omit 184 abstracts, as per the results below, my bet is that the results would be similar for wildcard search if they allowed it:
Now, without an explicit quantification it's impossible to know what level the other authors think humans are responsible for
And so, even though it's impossible to know, the warmists are spinning this as if 97% of these papers believe that not only are humans primarily responsible, but that the results will be dangerous.
Sounds like PR spin, doesn't it?
You're right, and as the paper concluded "97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming".
There's a big difference between asserting a non-zero effect of human activity, and asserting a *dangerous* effect of human activity. Conflating the two in order to promote the alarmist position is fallacious.
"The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it."
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements.
The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades.
What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time?
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions:)
Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make?
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?":) "Denying" has nothing to do with the argument I'm making about your poor grasp of the scientific method.
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable, but then you claim that that the falsification of a single model doesn't falsify your whole theory. The contradiction is in your thought process:)
* You claim AGW is in fact a falsifiable hypothesis * You claim that my cite of NOAA 2008 shows that there is a falsifiable model out there for AGW * You accept that NOAA 2008 was falsified * You claim that the falsification of NOAA 2008 does not falsify the hypothesis it was meant to support
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent.
Oh please, don't be obtuse:) Are we to understand that your critique of my lack of apology was intended to encourage me never to apologize?:)
As for lies and fallacy, again, it seems you've been reduced to projecting your own faults upon others:)
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman: Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman?
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
Or do you believe that any CO2 driven warming is benign?
The problem here is that you want to hold onto the trope that CO2 is dangerous, but don't want to be held to account for quantifying or specifying the actual danger. You'll blithely sit by and let alarmists make wild predictions unfettered from reality, and ignore the fallacious comparison of CO2 levels of the Eocene with CO2 levels of today, but when called on it, you simply cry "strawman!"
Why do you not want to address the actual topic of this conversation?
I think you're trying to have a different conversation than I am:)
The topic at hand is the fallacious comparison between modern CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, and proxy CO2 measures that smooth out variation due to their low resolution, in order to make grandiose claims of apocalypse (dangerous climate change).
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again. And if you personally don't believe that CO2 emissions in the modern era are going to cause dangerous climate change, then we have no essential disagreement:)
specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration.
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
You admit again, and quite openly, that you consider the model to be falsifiable.
Silly rabbit. You're once again trying to have your cake and eat it too:)
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW" You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!" Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?" You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
If the failure of NOAA 2008 doesn't falsify your central conceit, then it really wasn't a legitimate falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, now was it?:)
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true:) This isn't how you do science:)
What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science.
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Regarding whether the accumulation is exponential, maybe step back and take a broader look?
You do realize you're splicing a low resolution proxy to high resolution direct measurements, right? Literally comparing apples to oranges (and precious few oranges at that):)
You're missing a word. "Yet".
"Yet" is a weasel word used by apocalyptic doomsayers.
Be specific, how long do you think it will take for the earth to warm to Eocene temperatures now that we've hit 400ppm? 100 years? 200 years? Does the fact that CO2 keeps linearly climbing, yet temperature has stayed flat for almost 2 decades, offer any sort of concern to your primary conceit?
Yes, March 14, 2015 will be a special pi day. Yes, 400ppm has two pretty zeros at the end. Beyond that, the two have approximately the same real world importance:)
Falling from a great height onto a cement slab is not the only thing that can adversely affect your health.
So, to be clear, the comparison between today's ppm (observed) and the Eocene's ppm (proxied) is meaningless, and only made in order to incorrectly imply that we will be seeing Eocene temperatures soon.
Whether or not 400ppm has any other detrimental affect other than temperature (which it obviously hasn't driven to Eocene levels), such as say, increased vegetation growth encroaching upon human settlement, is a completely different argument.
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
Suffice it to say, it is basic, fundamental climate science to understand that low resolution proxies filter out short term spikes in either direction.
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away.
Again, you've misunderstood:) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading:) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right?:)
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come?:)
Of course, the point you bring up makes for an interesting idea about solar forcing remaining constant, but still inducing steady warming - as you say, you put water on a stove, with a steady heat, and even though the heat doesn't change, it only slowly raises the temperature of the water.
Nobody claims CO2 is the only factor affecting global mean surface temperature.
Then why compare today's ppm of CO2 to the Eocene and imply that we're headed towards Eocene temperatures?
Anything pre-1970 is a bit beside the point; as the accumulation has been exponential, the forcing was quite small then.
Try again. The mauna loa data is very clearly a linear accumulation, not an exponential one.
Leaving aside the 1998 cherry-pick, surface temperatures have increased more slowly than expected, but it is not flat.
Never said it was flat, but the fact that there is a disconnect between the model and reality leads one to question whether or not the central conceit (CO2 drives temperature) is true.
None of these will affect the long term prognosis.
You're assuming that ENSO/PDO are neutral phenomena that cannot be responsible for a linear trend.
The simple fact of the matter is this - crying about 400ppm is an emotional appeal, not a scientific one. To play the science game, we start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, rather than a breathless press release:)
As a teenager, wearing a blindfold, you drive your car one day, and you crash your car.
As an octogenarian, you go out, wearing a blindfold, and drive your car all day, and don't crash.
Hrm. That doesn't seem reasonable, now does it?
Maybe the CO2 levels of 3 million years ago aren't as potent as a blindfold on car crashes:)
Put another way, if CO2 levels of 3 million years ago caused temperatures massively higher than today, why don't those same CO2 levels today cause the same massively higher temperatures? Is it behaving this way just to spite us?
You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
Does this mean that you now accept the reliability of climate science?
SNORTLE!
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability:) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much:)
If indeed, there is a 20-30 year lag, then the situation is even worse for the co2 hypothesis. We've had a solid 100 years of increasing CO2, but instead of 70 solid years of increasing temperatures, we've had, by several different data sets, 17-19 years of statistically insignificant warming.
Were CO2 forcings 17-19 years ago flat?
Doom, for apocalyptic believers, always seems right around the corner. Funny that the 350 doom and 400 doom are already here, and we're not seeing massive numbers of hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass hysteria.
Hand waving. If we actually understood the complex interactions between ocean currents and climate, we'd have a model that could reliably predict ENSO/PDO/etc - as it is, the "the heat is hiding in the ocean" is an ad hoc special pleading that kinda undermines the original "CO2 drives global average temperature" meme.
Of course, we'll see in a few decades if that missing heat comes bubbling up during a new-maunder minimum like event:)
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then. Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
But it's not as hot as it was then.
So what's the disconnect? It's like wearing your favorite blue jeans in high school, and getting into a car accident, and then fifty years later, putting on those same jeans, and worrying all day that you'll be in a car accident. The accident never happens. So was it *ever* the fault of the jeans?
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you asking me to justify the changes in the IPCC estimates of CO2 sensitivity? Do you not understand the assertion here?
Furthermore do you honestly want to assert that there is one, true, constant CO2 sensitivity value? That no matter what other variation, the reaction of the climate to CO2 is a mechanical constant?
Really?
I'm asserting an if/then condition - you get to tell me what the condition is, and I'll tell you the resulting answer.
If model falsifications don't falsify AGW, then AGW is not falsifiable.
If model falsifications *do* falsify AGW, then AGW has been falsified.
Neither is a lie. I've offered you an if/then condition - you tell me what your "if" is, and I'll tell you what the logical conclusion must be.
Do you deny saying them?
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do :)
Again, as per #4:
Do you deny that you assert NOAA 2008 was falsifiable?
Do you deny that you assert that the falsification of the NOAA 2008 does not impact the hypothesis of AGW?
Yes or no will do :)
Wrong again :) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do :)
Wrong again :) According to me, the comparison between modern CO2 levels and Eocene CO2 levels improperly *implies* that we are heading towards Eocene temperatures.
Do you know what the word "implies" means? Yes or no will do :)
You seem to get really hung up on some of these concepts, perhaps because you take things too literally, or aren't a native language speaker.
You also seem to have lots of questions, but no willingness to actually give answers yourself - I won't bother linkspamming you with the laundry list of evasions you've already omitted from your last comment, but suffice it to say, you seem to be projecting your own insecurities.
It's highly ironic that in the same comment you declare, "I notice that you've edited out certain sections of this discussion, and chose to reply to others without addressing the question.", you fail to answer any of the questions posed to you :)
I guess that's the last refuge of alarmists who can no longer defend their position :)
Obama's tweet shows that this is *exactly* the intended PR spin. Claiming that climate change is "real", that's simply a given - climate always changes. Asserting that it is "man-made" is an awful stretch given the data, since the vast majority did *not* attribute > 50% responsibility to man. Furthermore, asserting that it is "dangerous" is simply wishful thinking, but *clearly* that's what our harvard educated president got out of the press release.
Low information voters out there will eat this tripe up, but that certainly doesn't make it true.
Feel free to pretend that science can happen without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Wait, do you *deny* that there is peer-reviewed literature over the past 10 years that has continually revised the IPCC's CO2 sensitivity value lower and lower?
Really?
So you're asking me to explain to you why the IPCC's asserted CO2 sensitivity values have been continually changing? Why don't you ask them to show their work? :)
That's *exactly* my point. You cannot assert that a theory is falsifiable if it is comprised of dozens of models, of which any arbitrary number can be falsified without actually threatening the central conceit of the theory.
Is a theory falsifiable when only one of it's many models is falsifiable?
Again, you misunderstand my argument - I'm showing you that your position is inherently contradictory. If AGW is falsifiable, then NOAA 2008 has already shown it to be falsified. If you defend AGW against NOAA 2008 by asserting that its falsification has no bearing on the theory of AGW, then you're showing clearly that AGW is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
What part of that don't you understand?
Deceptive editing? Are you asserting that I've edited your words in my direct quotes of you? Or are you unhappy that I don't quote *everything* you state?
Yes, that's exactly where we started...but it seems you don't understand what it means. Would you like a more thorough explanation?
I'm am asserting that that is the implication of making wild press releases trying to pretend that today's CO2 levels are somehow indicative of ancient, warmer times. Of course they don't *state* that things will happen immediately, because they've got no proof of that - but neither do they have any proof that it will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 1000 years.
It's like blithely mentioning that some criminal was black, implying that all blacks are criminals - alarmism, like racism, can be subtle.
Why avoid the question? Do you believe that modern human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous climate changes?
Follow up: do you believe that the fact that modern CO2 levels exist in a world significantly colder than the one existed the last time these CO2 levels existed in the proxy data should lead us to believe that we are headed for similar temperatures?
The earth's climate is neither closed nor homeostatic. Check your premises, when you use the wrong ones it leads to incorrect conclusions :)
Well, go ahead and check - and when you're ready to admit that the data support my conclusion, even if you don't like it, perhaps you can find the intestinal fortitude to accept the critique gracefully :)
65 assert that humans are responsible for the majority of warming.
78 assert the following:
1) implicitly reject
2) explicitly reject with no quantification
3) explicitly reject asserting *less* that 50% responsible.
Frankly, the "explicit endorse without quantification" and "implicit endorse" are trivially excluded because they don't blame more than 50% of the warming...they could in fact be part of the "reject asserting less than 50% is responsible".
Furthermore, asserting "no position" should count as "accepts" is kind of stacking the deck, don't you think? :)
Perhaps you believe that AGW at "humans are responsible for 1% of the warming per century" is equivalent to "humans are responsible for >50% of the warming per century".
This is called improperly conflating apples and oranges. You might want to go back for some remedial math, despite your degree :)
So, you admit they got their math wrong, and are misreporting their results? :)
I'm happy to stand corrected and admit that *these* warmists are bad at maths :)
I searched for the letter "a". While granted, this seems to omit 184 abstracts, as per the results below, my bet is that the results would be similar for wildcard search if they allowed it:
1 - 65
2 - 934
3 - 2934
4 - 8269
5 - 53
6 - 15
7 - 10
8 - 0
And so, even though it's impossible to know, the warmists are spinning this as if 97% of these papers believe that not only are humans primarily responsible, but that the results will be dangerous.
Sounds like PR spin, doesn't it?
There's a big difference between asserting a non-zero effect of human activity, and asserting a *dangerous* effect of human activity. Conflating the two in order to promote the alarmist position is fallacious.
...that reject AGW than there are that blame humans for most (>50%) of agw.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
"The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it."
Boy, warmists are really bad at math!
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements.
The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades.
What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions :)
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" :) "Denying" has nothing to do with the argument I'm making about your poor grasp of the scientific method.
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable, but then you claim that that the falsification of a single model doesn't falsify your whole theory. The contradiction is in your thought process :)
* You claim AGW is in fact a falsifiable hypothesis
* You claim that my cite of NOAA 2008 shows that there is a falsifiable model out there for AGW
* You accept that NOAA 2008 was falsified
* You claim that the falsification of NOAA 2008 does not falsify the hypothesis it was meant to support
Oh please, don't be obtuse :) Are we to understand that your critique of my lack of apology was intended to encourage me never to apologize? :)
As for lies and fallacy, again, it seems you've been reduced to projecting your own faults upon others :)
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
Or do you believe that any CO2 driven warming is benign?
The problem here is that you want to hold onto the trope that CO2 is dangerous, but don't want to be held to account for quantifying or specifying the actual danger. You'll blithely sit by and let alarmists make wild predictions unfettered from reality, and ignore the fallacious comparison of CO2 levels of the Eocene with CO2 levels of today, but when called on it, you simply cry "strawman!"
I think you're trying to have a different conversation than I am :)
The topic at hand is the fallacious comparison between modern CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, and proxy CO2 measures that smooth out variation due to their low resolution, in order to make grandiose claims of apocalypse (dangerous climate change).
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again. And if you personally don't believe that CO2 emissions in the modern era are going to cause dangerous climate change, then we have no essential disagreement :)
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
Silly rabbit. You're once again trying to have your cake and eat it too :)
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW"
You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!"
Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
If the failure of NOAA 2008 doesn't falsify your central conceit, then it really wasn't a legitimate falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, now was it? :)
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true :) This isn't how you do science :)
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Why should I apologize to you when you do that? :)
You do realize you're splicing a low resolution proxy to high resolution direct measurements, right? Literally comparing apples to oranges (and precious few oranges at that) :)
"Yet" is a weasel word used by apocalyptic doomsayers.
Be specific, how long do you think it will take for the earth to warm to Eocene temperatures now that we've hit 400ppm? 100 years? 200 years? Does the fact that CO2 keeps linearly climbing, yet temperature has stayed flat for almost 2 decades, offer any sort of concern to your primary conceit?
Yes, March 14, 2015 will be a special pi day. Yes, 400ppm has two pretty zeros at the end. Beyond that, the two have approximately the same real world importance :)
I did look. Do you understand the difference between linear and exponential?
The line in your graph is almost exactly 45 degrees heading up - x^2 looks something like this:
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/exponential-growth/images/formula_exponential_growth3.png
So, to be clear, the comparison between today's ppm (observed) and the Eocene's ppm (proxied) is meaningless, and only made in order to incorrectly imply that we will be seeing Eocene temperatures soon.
Whether or not 400ppm has any other detrimental affect other than temperature (which it obviously hasn't driven to Eocene levels), such as say, increased vegetation growth encroaching upon human settlement, is a completely different argument.
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
Suffice it to say, it is basic, fundamental climate science to understand that low resolution proxies filter out short term spikes in either direction.
Again, you've misunderstood :) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading :) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right? :)
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? :)
100s of years doesn't seem that bad at all.
Of course, the point you bring up makes for an interesting idea about solar forcing remaining constant, but still inducing steady warming - as you say, you put water on a stove, with a steady heat, and even though the heat doesn't change, it only slowly raises the temperature of the water.
Food for thought :)
I fully agree, which is why I find it funny that some people believe that atmospheric temperatures drive ocean temperatures :)
In the end, I think the biggest impact of the atmosphere is albedo, which moderates how much warming happens to our large heat sink/source oceans.
Then why compare today's ppm of CO2 to the Eocene and imply that we're headed towards Eocene temperatures?
Try again. The mauna loa data is very clearly a linear accumulation, not an exponential one.
Never said it was flat, but the fact that there is a disconnect between the model and reality leads one to question whether or not the central conceit (CO2 drives temperature) is true.
You're assuming that ENSO/PDO are neutral phenomena that cannot be responsible for a linear trend.
The simple fact of the matter is this - crying about 400ppm is an emotional appeal, not a scientific one. To play the science game, we start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, rather than a breathless press release :)
Okay, take the blindfold metaphor.
As a teenager, wearing a blindfold, you drive your car one day, and you crash your car.
As an octogenarian, you go out, wearing a blindfold, and drive your car all day, and don't crash.
Hrm. That doesn't seem reasonable, now does it?
Maybe the CO2 levels of 3 million years ago aren't as potent as a blindfold on car crashes :)
Put another way, if CO2 levels of 3 million years ago caused temperatures massively higher than today, why don't those same CO2 levels today cause the same massively higher temperatures? Is it behaving this way just to spite us?
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
SNORTLE!
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability :) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much :)
If indeed, there is a 20-30 year lag, then the situation is even worse for the co2 hypothesis. We've had a solid 100 years of increasing CO2, but instead of 70 solid years of increasing temperatures, we've had, by several different data sets, 17-19 years of statistically insignificant warming.
Were CO2 forcings 17-19 years ago flat?
Doom, for apocalyptic believers, always seems right around the corner. Funny that the 350 doom and 400 doom are already here, and we're not seeing massive numbers of hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass hysteria.
Hand waving. If we actually understood the complex interactions between ocean currents and climate, we'd have a model that could reliably predict ENSO/PDO/etc - as it is, the "the heat is hiding in the ocean" is an ad hoc special pleading that kinda undermines the original "CO2 drives global average temperature" meme.
Of course, we'll see in a few decades if that missing heat comes bubbling up during a new-maunder minimum like event :)
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then. Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
But it's not as hot as it was then.
So what's the disconnect? It's like wearing your favorite blue jeans in high school, and getting into a car accident, and then fifty years later, putting on those same jeans, and worrying all day that you'll be in a car accident. The accident never happens. So was it *ever* the fault of the jeans?
...no apocalypse yet.
Maybe we can freak out at 401ppm? 402ppm?
Sigh.