It's almost as if you believe that scarcity is a problem when it comes to getting weapons. For fuck's sake, a bunch of asshats with *box cutters* destroyed the twin towers - shall we start outlawing any sharp and pointy object?
I'll posit that you're right, one normal individual could have stopped this idiot, *before he finished*. He might have gotten started, and maybe it would only have been a single child that was saved, but all we know is this - a gun free zone is a perfect place to commit a crime if you don't want to face victims with guns.
...that you had been there with a weapon to stop this asshole. Fucking coward, killing his mom's class of kids.
If the other brother had anything to do with it, I say waterboard that fucker for the rest of his life, amputate every limb and dangly bit and make him eat it, and bury his body at the bottom of a latrine.
A single armed person at that school could have saved lives.
So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you:)
Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
Ah, the car analogy:) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none:)
So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean?
Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
Certainly: "natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age"
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes. In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
Cite or it didn't happen. Make sure the cite *matches* your assertion:)
As per my earlier explanation (which you simply denied), the ice core records show us that the climate has sensitivity to CO2 levels
No it doesn't, it shows that CO2 levels have a sensitivity to climate. Causes happen *before* effects.
Arrheniuses model doesn’t work over those timeframes because the primary driver for climate now (and during his time) is the doubling of concentrations of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere
Ah, so you inoculate yourself from critique due to the historical record by making the magical claim that a hundred thousand years ago, CO2 didn't drive climate, but today it does. Nice unicorn thinking there:)
Then you’ll have no problem citing instances where this has happened.
So you are now saying that you don’t know the causes of climate change? Why would I look to you for an explanation given that there are a large group of people who do know and can justify that claim with actual science?
I'm saying that any person, or any large group of people, who claim that they know all the causes of climate change, and assert they can justi
You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming:)
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause is pretty absurd.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes, Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records, and Hansen simply adjusts 20th century data to fit his trope when things start looking different:)
Of course current climate change has a cause - just as past climate change has a cause. But even if we cannot specify every particular forcing and feedback of natural climate change before humanity existed, doesn't mean we cannot assert that climate change then was *natural*, not human induced.
When we state that the null hypothesis is simply that natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age, we similarly don't have to specify every last particular feedback and forcing.
Put more simply, of course climate change has a cause, and you're saying you know it 100%, and I'm saying you *don't*. Admitting ignorance of the specific causes of climate change is the null hypothesis, and the ignorance of the warmist modelers is *legend*:)
Happy to: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming) If the models are not falsifiable, then they can’t be falsified;-)
It's not really a falsification if you won't admit it after it happens, is it?:)
If you don’t know the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, the correct response is to say “I don’t know”.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but you've sidestepped again - you said you cited a model, but made such an ambiguous citation that I apparently misunderstood what you intended. I've asked for you to make yourself more clear, and to specify exactly which "simple" model "kicked off climate science" over a century ago. If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, then answer for yourself:)
As for "climate scientists" not being *actual* scientists, you've misquoted me. My actual statement contrasted real scientists to "war mist climatologists" and "AGW proponents":
"[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers"
and
"On the other hand, for the most part, your physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists and other *actual* scientists start with a falsifiable hypothesis, and then look for any possible falsifications a hard as they possibly can. Honestly, how many AGW proponents have actually tried to *look* for refuting data of their hypotheses? How hard did Michael Mann ever look at what possible flaws his hockey stick could have had?"
And yes, any climatologist, or scientist of any stripe, who buys in blindly to the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming trope, is not doing actual science on the topic - they've moved into the realm of religion.
Ah! The Copy/Paste Bandit is happy and they know it!:)
Could you tell us a little bit about professionalfurryele's childhood? If professionalfurryele was raised a spoiled brat, a coddled scion of the 1% whose family let him want for nothing, which led to his narcissism, arrogance, and inability to think scientifically, please, just copy/paste that exact same comment again.
How about the one I mentioned? The simple one that kicked off climate science as a science to begin with over a century ago.
I'm sorry, but you're still being vague - exactly *what* model are you referring to? Looking back at your comments, I don't see where you specify what you're talking about - perhaps I missed it.
At least you are among the ones that think that some science is valid
Yet, you still haven't been able to understand my argument regarding falsifiability or utility as measured by regional specificity.
Why exactly do you dismiss falsifiability as a requirement of science? Do you mistakenly believe that AGW *is* falsifiable, simply because there are trivial falsifications you can construct (prove that CO2 doesn't exist)? Do you understand the difference between a trivial falsification and a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Why exactly do you assert that GCMs have any "useful" predictions? Do you simply conflate ENSO/PDO pattern observation, and short term meteorology into the same bucket as AGW? Do you have *any* specific use that a 1900 prediction of 0.8C average global temperature increase would have given you?
Oh, thank you, thank you, for giving professionalfurryele a voice to his regret for his earlier stupidity! Mr. Copy/paste bandit, you've done a great service to humanity today!
Could we ask one more question? Could you please paste the exact same comment again, if professionalfurryele admits that he was fooled by the Cult of Global Warming, and has now regained his rational senses, and realizes that without a falsifiable hypothesis, that the whole AGW trope is simply a desperate psychological longing for reason?
So please, if professionalfurryele has finally had an epiphany, please copy/paste the exact same thing you've been copy/pasting before! We await your response in 5...4...3...2...
As you may have figured out by now, our dear friend and boon companion professionalfurryele has been abducted by the copy/paste bandit. We hope for his safe and quick return, but it very well might be that his mind has twisted beyond rational thought. One shudders to think of the regret professionalfurryele has for his blatant statistical mistakes made earlier, and how badly he'd like to apologize, but thanks to the copy/paste bandit, he just can't make his repentance.
Please, pray for professionalfurryele! Copy/paste bandit, if you've actually heard professionalfurryele point out his regrets for his terrible errors earlier, could you let us know with a sign? Could you keep copy/pasting that same bit if he's truly sorry about what an idiot he was earlier?
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified
Yes, since that's not something I said:)
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature." The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"?
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model. I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet). The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations.
4. Where is your model published?
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model, and you're resting your argument on "my model is better than yours, so it must be true":) The problem you have is that you're not competing with an arbitrary model I come up with about underground leprechaun dances driving temperature, you're competing with the null hypothesis of climate change completely unassociated with any human activity.
How many does your model calculate?
You're question, again, doesn't follow. You can't simply take, oh, twenty models and decide on their worth by counting the number of variables hard coded. What is necessary to make a model truly scientific is a clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Then why did you previously say that it was falsifiable?
I didn't. You're asserting something out of context. Go ahead, cite my direct words, and I'll explain how you're getting them wrong:)
Why did you go further and attempt to falsify the models?
Well, again, you're omitting context - the NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming), although if you're willing to hang your hat on their last 5%, I suppose it's a bit blurry:)
YOU drew conclusions about the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and gave a precise measure to that prediction
And you didn't see that as reductio ad absurdum of your argument?:)
But again, your answer to the consensus AGW theory is "it just randomly happened" which doesn't cut it.
You sound like a creationist - "random happenstance can't lead to intelligent life!":)
Seriously, the null hypothesis, which simply asserts that what we've seen before humanity (natural climate change) is exactly what we're seeing now (natural climate change), doesn't require any further specification, just as evolution doesn't need to provide every transitional fossil, or document every mutation that ever occurred.
At this point I have a theory that has predicted what is observed to a degree that exceeds noise by about 3 sigma.
No you don't. You have no idea what the noise of the system looks like, and you've post hoc chosen your "predictions" to match your observations, much like a cold reader emphasizes "hits" and minimizes "misses". You simply don't have any sort of falsifiable hypothesis.
Beyond that I have MULTIPLE signals in the form of the pattern of warming (night time lows up the most, melting ice, increased deep ocean thermal transport, etc).
Warming happens. All of those signals would happen during natural warming periods. Observing them does not show that humans caused the warming.
I'm not invoking ANYTHING except the very simplest thing, CO2 traps heat, this raises the temperature, the temperature is actually going up
You have no way of asserting your CO2 sensitivity parameter is correct, and no way of asserting that the temperature rise isn't the one driving CO2 levels.
the 'fingerprint' of when and where this happens matches with CO2 causation and the signal is above 3 sigma.
Again, you've emphasized your "hit", but denied any falsification. Any observation that is below 3 sigma, and you'll use an ad hoc special pleading to preserve your central conceit. You're playing a game of faith, not science.
there's a greater than 3 sigma warming signal consistent with my theory.
Again, "consistent with", the same way the personality of an observed Leo would be "consistent with" their horoscope. But say for a moment, you're right about the warming - where's the proof of any sort of harm? You keep trying to show what is "consistent with" your hypothesis, but fail to show how the multiple steps must follow from one another.
the null hypothesis is now rejected as untenable
Oh really?:) You managed to discard the possibility of natural climate change with a wave of your hand?
I know that this is an important, self-identifying argument for you, so it must be scary to have it challenged, but do you *understand* the argument I'm making? Can you follow the rationale, even if you reject it? I think you're still confused about what falsifiability is, and what the null hypothesis is, and can't quite stop citing "consistent with" observations that aren't addressing the weakness in your argument.
Alas, yet another ransom note from the copy/paste bandit who abducted professionalfurryele!
Don't worry, professionalfurryele, we're sending help! With enough of these copy/paste spams, we'll be able to localize your tormentor, and rescue you!
But that's the point - I don't need to have a hypothesis of "observed global warming is caused by the invention of board games with more than 3 players" in order to critique yours. The null hypothesis, that there is no causal relationship from human CO2 emissions to global average temperature (and further, that there is no causal relationship from global average temperature to any sort of measurable harm), stands as your high bar.
You don't need a competing astrology chart in order to recognize that someone's astrology chart is pseudo-science.
You have no explanation, no chain of evidence, no causal mechanisms, nothing.
We don't need to invent a reason for natural climate change - it happened for the billions of years before humanity, and will certainly happen for billions of years after. It's simply the null hypothesis. Or are you going to argue that natural climate change isn't real until we model every natural forcing?
what you CANNOT DO is explain what is wrong with the current hypothesis or why the observations match its predictions so well.
Sure I can. What's wrong with the current hypothesis? It's not falsifiable. Why do the observations match predictions so well? Because the predictions are cherry picked after the fact. If we get less hurricanes, you point to paper A written in 1990. If we get more hurricanes, you point to paper B written in 1990. You're playing astrology.
Your arguments don't float, they wouldn't convince the vast majority of the scientific community
I still think you haven't really understood the argument, or the scientific method at all. You've failed to specify, or even quote, a falsifiable hypothesis that would affirm your beliefs as true. You've looked at a lot of data, and found it consistent with your beliefs (just as astrologists can look at a lot of data, and find it consistent with theirs), but you've failed the most basic of criteria for scientific truth - falsifiability.
you need to demonstrate why adding CO2 to the air will not cause the temperature to go up. That's all there is to it. You're arguing with basic physics.
Let's focus on that for a second. You cannot simply assert that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas; humans emit CO2; therefore we must do everything in our power to stabilize CO2 levels". You can plug in *any* greenhouse gas into that hypothesis, and be just as silly. Shall we stabilize H2O levels worldwide?
This is a clear example of a trivial, and useless falsification. Yes, if CO2 didn't exist, or had spectral properties even.01% off of our calculations, then GCMs modeled with that are obviously false, and therefore AGW is false. But the simple existence of CO2 and its spectral properties does not imply humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
But even if we take a look at your trivial example, CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past (the expansion of animal life, volcanism, ocean outgassing), but the temperature has not gone up (note the lag of CO2 to temperature in ice core records). "Oh, but there was X, Y, Z at work!", you'll say...once again, using an ad hoc special pleading to preserve your central conceit.
You need to do a better job than saying "basic physics means that my complex and fragile hypothesis must be true".
there is no known mechanism that would result in the Earth NOT warming when we add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Sure there are - heck, AGW alarmists talk about soot and particulate matter "hiding" the warming all the time, and let's not forget we've got ENSO/PDO/ADO, cloud albedo, or even solar variations (besides simply TSI).
97% of the picture is hidden in the oceans, where all the evidence strongly indicates heat is accumulating.
Ah, the "missing heat" argument...one that unfortunately has not been observed:)
Now, do you really think the atmosphere can drive the oceans? Certainly, cloud cover (varying albedo) can have an effect by blocking or allowing radiation from hitting the oceans, but simple atmospheric temperature? Try heating a pot of water with a thin layer of air, and tell me just how hot you need the atmosphere to move the oceans:)
You have no idea what a 2C temperature change will do.
Sure we do, we can measure what happened between the bottom of the little ice age and today. However, if you want to assert that I have no idea what the *next* 2C of temperature change will do, you should humbly note that neither do you:)
Why should we destroy our economy on the basis of something you have no idea about?
the area in which I live has seen more than a 1C increase since 1970.
There is no reason for you to believe that such a change wouldn't have happened if humans didn't emit CO2. Frankly, it's much more likely that your 1C of increase is a matter of UHI, which although certainly human driven, has nothing to do with emissions.
But that being said, please, be specific about what catastrophe has happened in your area because of this change! Has the area completely depopulated? Have all the animals and plants died? Have hurricanes and tornadoes ravaged through at a higher rate than before? Exactly what are you afraid of an early spring or mild winter? Has some local tit-mouse population crashed?
Maybe if we understand the severity of the effects you've observed in your locality, you can make the case that we "must act now"...
No leg pulling, I honestly didn't understand what model you were referring to. I had originally thought you had intended to cite the model of "CO2 causes global warming" ala Arrhenius, but then you moved to El Nino/La Nina.
My apologies if I haven't been clear - "climate science" as you're using it surely encompasses more than simply the unfalsifiable religion of AGW, and I inappropriately used it as a shorthand (much in the way people use "global warming" as a shorthand for "anthropogenic global warming". I understand where my argument became ambiguous, and apologize for not being clearer.
Yes, knowing whether or not *this* year is an El Nino/La Nina gives us some useful, actionable information, and it was true climate scientists who found that pattern, even though it defies any medium or long term prediction. However, every last "climate scientist" plugging the catastrophic AGW trope has been completely worthless for two reasons:
2) no regional specificity. Humans (and all other life forms for that matter), never experience global average temperature. The so-called "climate science" GCMs have no regional skill, and despite their incredible complication, cannot provide anything nearly as useful as "we've recognized we're in this phase of ENSO, so we predict these general regional conditions".
So, with the understanding now that there is indeed *real* climate science out there, and that the GCM modelers promoting AGW are, on the other hand, charlatans, frauds and climate pseudo-scientists, and that it is *this* unfalsifiable aspect that is related to astrology, have I clearly communicated my argument?
Poor professionalfurryele, abducted by the copy/paste bandit!
Rest assured, though, somewhere, out there, professionalfurryele is repenting his foolish statistics blunder from earlier in the thread, and composing the sincere apology he knows he should render.
If only the copy/paste bandit could be stopped! But, alas, we'll get another one in 5...4...3...2...
A falsifiable hypothesis is merely one where it is in principle possible to invalidate it.
So please, tell me what observations of CO2 and global average temperature will invalidate your hypothesis? What observations will you accept as an invalidation?
And remember, you can't just assert trivial falsifications like, "show that humans don't exist, and then AGW doesn't exist", because surely the mere *existence* of humans doesn't imply that AGW is true. Your falsifiable hypothesis needs to require the necessary and sufficient factors that would lead us to believe it is in fact true, not just trivial falsifications.
there's not a yes or no answer to the question "how much does adding CO2 to the atmosphere raise the temperature"
Then be specific about how much you believe creates how much temperature, and be specific about what observations would falsify your hypothesis. (Of course that's not even getting into the entire idea of increased temperature being a bad or good thing.)
every other known forcing except CO2 has been shown NOT to correlate well with this warming we are left with the logical conclusion that the roughly 3C climate sensitivity is a good number and that no other hypothesis so far advanced seems to work.
1) we don't know nearly enough about the forcings of the climate system, much less any confidence we've identified all of them. Take for example ENSO/PDO/ADO - we *know* these things make climate changes, but there isn't a single GCM that can predict or hindcast them.
2) you're not in competition with other hypotheses advanced by others, you're in competition with the null hypothesis (that climate changes for reasons other than human CO2). Natural variability is the null hypothesis, even if you can't specify all the natural variables.
Truthfully I don't see anything in the literature which indicates there is a particular reason to blame any of it on anything EXCEPT CO2.
So exiting an ice age doesn't seem like a good reason for 0.8C/century temperature increases?:)
Seriously, if you don't know what standard sensitivity numbers are, you're really kinda pretty far in the dark.
So you were quoting 2C/doubling of CO2, or 3C/doubling of CO2? You weren't being very clear.
And furthermore, if that's the case, then we have even less to worry about. 1900-2000 increased only 0.8C. Even if we *double* our output of CO2 compared to what we released in the 20th century (which certainly won't double atmospheric levels of CO2, since we're a small tiny fraction of that), we'll only barely make another 0.8C by 2100, hardly anything to worry about.
I understand why you're making the mental mistakes you're making - you're motivated, intelligent, and you're good at finding confirming evidence to buttress your beliefs. But do yourself a favor, think about the importance of falsifiability, and how that simply doesn't fit with "the CO2 level of the atmosphere MUST BE STABILIZED, PERIOD, END OF REPORT."
It only reduces the confidence with which those figures are given.
Ah, yes, so now, instead of being 95% sure, we're only 5% sure. Certainly those kinds of odds are worth destroying the world economy for:)
Also one model does not make up the entire collection of climate models published that imply climate change.
Isn't that like betting on every roulette number, and when you win you simply claim "see, my model worked!"?
Heck, there are hundreds of thousands of astrologers out there with models, are you saying that simply because we debunk one of them, the others aren't necessarily untrue?:)
To the interested reader, you can see that professionalfurryele has been abducted by a script kiddie, and what would have been a brilliant argument defending his position has been sadly replaced with a copy/paste macro. professionalfurryele apologizes profusely, but unfortunately, is not capable of stopping the script kiddie, who will attack again in 5...4...3...2...
You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable.
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same:)
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by.000001C/century, we *must act now*?:)
There is no realistic doubt at this time that we have already seen almost a 1C temperature rise due to anthropogenic CO2
Okay, so from 1900-2000, we experienced, as best we can tell, 0.8-1.0C of warming. You're literally going to blame all of that on human CO2? Even though the rate of warming has been pretty steady since before high human CO2 emissions and the end of the little ice age?
Really?
there will be at least a 2.2C total sensitivity, nor that 3C is much more probable.
You're throwing out numbers with no context. Do you mean 2.2C total from 1900-2100?
Do you have any sort of reason for us to believe that even 3C, from 1900-2100, would be harmful?
I'm not sure you even understand what falsifiability IS.
Of course I do - your hypothesis must have stated, ahead of time, what observations would prove you *wrong*. It must not be invulnerable, and able to explain away every possible observation.
Exactly what observations of CO2 and temperature, during the 20th century, would have falsified your hypothesis? What observations of CO2 and temperature next year, would falsify your hypothesis?
The people doing this research have advanced a theory and supported it with a mass of evidence from multiple lines of research.
But none of them have specified any falsification, which makes their advanced theory as scientific as astrology (which has a mass of evidence from multiple lines of research).
Go ahead, quote a *single* falsifiable hypothesis statement from *any* climate scientist you happen to believe in. Stop hand waving and show us the first step of the scientific method - or did you decide to believe in your authority figures without asking them for any sort of due diligence with the scientific method?
Wait, you're saying back in 1900, someone predicted ahead of time, all the observed El Nino/La Ninas?
Now, we certainly understand that *when* an El Nino/La Nina is in effect, it has certain climactic influences, but are you really asserting that we have any sort of skillful ENSO/PDO model?
Further are you asserting that global average temperature, or global average CO2 can give any sort of actionable intelligence like "It's an El Nino phase as detected by SST, so watch out here for wet weather, and here for dry weather"?
So you simply can't handle the argument? Or was I unclear in pointing out your misunderstandings and mistakes?
If you want a reasonable place to begin, start with your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Quote one from realclimate if you'd like.
We agree on the facts - CO2 has a nonzero warming effect, and humans emit CO2. What we don't agree on is your specious conclusion that the nonzero warming effect of CO2 is so great it will cause catastrophe. Furthermore we don't agree on your ludicrous assumption that any amount of human effort could actually *stabilize* CO2 levels at any sort of "goldilocks" point.
Now, if you can't begin the scientific method with an appropriate falsifiable hypothesis statement for your position, then you're right, it's quite pointless, unless you'd like to argue that the scientific method doesn't require falsifiability.
Slashdot Mirror
...or hell, any machine tools whatsoever.
It's almost as if you believe that scarcity is a problem when it comes to getting weapons. For fuck's sake, a bunch of asshats with *box cutters* destroyed the twin towers - shall we start outlawing any sharp and pointy object?
I'll posit that you're right, one normal individual could have stopped this idiot, *before he finished*. He might have gotten started, and maybe it would only have been a single child that was saved, but all we know is this - a gun free zone is a perfect place to commit a crime if you don't want to face victims with guns.
...that you had been there with a weapon to stop this asshole. Fucking coward, killing his mom's class of kids.
If the other brother had anything to do with it, I say waterboard that fucker for the rest of his life, amputate every limb and dangly bit and make him eat it, and bury his body at the bottom of a latrine.
A single armed person at that school could have saved lives.
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you :)
Ah, the car analogy :) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none :)
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean?
Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes. In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
Cite or it didn't happen. Make sure the cite *matches* your assertion :)
No it doesn't, it shows that CO2 levels have a sensitivity to climate. Causes happen *before* effects.
Ah, so you inoculate yourself from critique due to the historical record by making the magical claim that a hundred thousand years ago, CO2 didn't drive climate, but today it does. Nice unicorn thinking there :)
Hansen's adjustments to the temp record? Sure - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/smoking-gun-that-giss-temperatures-are-garbage/
I'm saying that any person, or any large group of people, who claim that they know all the causes of climate change, and assert they can justi
You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming :)
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes, Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records, and Hansen simply adjusts 20th century data to fit his trope when things start looking different :)
Of course current climate change has a cause - just as past climate change has a cause. But even if we cannot specify every particular forcing and feedback of natural climate change before humanity existed, doesn't mean we cannot assert that climate change then was *natural*, not human induced.
When we state that the null hypothesis is simply that natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age, we similarly don't have to specify every last particular feedback and forcing.
Put more simply, of course climate change has a cause, and you're saying you know it 100%, and I'm saying you *don't*. Admitting ignorance of the specific causes of climate change is the null hypothesis, and the ignorance of the warmist modelers is *legend* :)
It's not really a falsification if you won't admit it after it happens, is it? :)
That's all I'm trying to get you to admit :)
I'm not sure if you realize it, but you've sidestepped again - you said you cited a model, but made such an ambiguous citation that I apparently misunderstood what you intended. I've asked for you to make yourself more clear, and to specify exactly which "simple" model "kicked off climate science" over a century ago. If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, then answer for yourself :)
As for "climate scientists" not being *actual* scientists, you've misquoted me. My actual statement contrasted real scientists to "war mist climatologists" and "AGW proponents":
"[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers"
and
"On the other hand, for the most part, your physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists and other *actual* scientists start with a falsifiable hypothesis, and then look for any possible falsifications a hard as they possibly can. Honestly, how many AGW proponents have actually tried to *look* for refuting data of their hypotheses? How hard did Michael Mann ever look at what possible flaws his hockey stick could have had?"
And yes, any climatologist, or scientist of any stripe, who buys in blindly to the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming trope, is not doing actual science on the topic - they've moved into the realm of religion.
Ah! The Copy/Paste Bandit is happy and they know it! :)
Could you tell us a little bit about professionalfurryele's childhood? If professionalfurryele was raised a spoiled brat, a coddled scion of the 1% whose family let him want for nothing, which led to his narcissism, arrogance, and inability to think scientifically, please, just copy/paste that exact same comment again.
We eagerly await your reply in 5...4...3...2...
We're so glad to hear that professionalfurryele has finally accepted the religious nature of AGW! Thank you Mr. Copy/Paste Bandit!
Please, paste the exact same comment again, if you're happy and you know it in 5...4...3...2...
I'm sorry, but you're still being vague - exactly *what* model are you referring to? Looking back at your comments, I don't see where you specify what you're talking about - perhaps I missed it.
Yet, you still haven't been able to understand my argument regarding falsifiability or utility as measured by regional specificity.
Why exactly do you dismiss falsifiability as a requirement of science? Do you mistakenly believe that AGW *is* falsifiable, simply because there are trivial falsifications you can construct (prove that CO2 doesn't exist)? Do you understand the difference between a trivial falsification and a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Why exactly do you assert that GCMs have any "useful" predictions? Do you simply conflate ENSO/PDO pattern observation, and short term meteorology into the same bucket as AGW? Do you have *any* specific use that a 1900 prediction of 0.8C average global temperature increase would have given you?
Oh, thank you, thank you, for giving professionalfurryele a voice to his regret for his earlier stupidity! Mr. Copy/paste bandit, you've done a great service to humanity today!
Could we ask one more question? Could you please paste the exact same comment again, if professionalfurryele admits that he was fooled by the Cult of Global Warming, and has now regained his rational senses, and realizes that without a falsifiable hypothesis, that the whole AGW trope is simply a desperate psychological longing for reason?
So please, if professionalfurryele has finally had an epiphany, please copy/paste the exact same thing you've been copy/pasting before! We await your response in 5...4...3...2...
Dear interested reader,
As you may have figured out by now, our dear friend and boon companion professionalfurryele has been abducted by the copy/paste bandit. We hope for his safe and quick return, but it very well might be that his mind has twisted beyond rational thought. One shudders to think of the regret professionalfurryele has for his blatant statistical mistakes made earlier, and how badly he'd like to apologize, but thanks to the copy/paste bandit, he just can't make his repentance.
Please, pray for professionalfurryele! Copy/paste bandit, if you've actually heard professionalfurryele point out his regrets for his terrible errors earlier, could you let us know with a sign? Could you keep copy/pasting that same bit if he's truly sorry about what an idiot he was earlier?
We eagerly await your response!
Yes, since that's not something I said :)
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature." The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model. I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet). The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations.
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model, and you're resting your argument on "my model is better than yours, so it must be true" :) The problem you have is that you're not competing with an arbitrary model I come up with about underground leprechaun dances driving temperature, you're competing with the null hypothesis of climate change completely unassociated with any human activity.
You're question, again, doesn't follow. You can't simply take, oh, twenty models and decide on their worth by counting the number of variables hard coded. What is necessary to make a model truly scientific is a clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
I didn't. You're asserting something out of context. Go ahead, cite my direct words, and I'll explain how you're getting them wrong :)
Well, again, you're omitting context - the NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming), although if you're willing to hang your hat on their last 5%, I suppose it's a bit blurry :)
And you didn't see that as reductio ad absurdum of your argument? :)
You sound like a creationist - "random happenstance can't lead to intelligent life!" :)
Seriously, the null hypothesis, which simply asserts that what we've seen before humanity (natural climate change) is exactly what we're seeing now (natural climate change), doesn't require any further specification, just as evolution doesn't need to provide every transitional fossil, or document every mutation that ever occurred.
No you don't. You have no idea what the noise of the system looks like, and you've post hoc chosen your "predictions" to match your observations, much like a cold reader emphasizes "hits" and minimizes "misses". You simply don't have any sort of falsifiable hypothesis.
Warming happens. All of those signals would happen during natural warming periods. Observing them does not show that humans caused the warming.
You have no way of asserting your CO2 sensitivity parameter is correct, and no way of asserting that the temperature rise isn't the one driving CO2 levels.
Again, you've emphasized your "hit", but denied any falsification. Any observation that is below 3 sigma, and you'll use an ad hoc special pleading to preserve your central conceit. You're playing a game of faith, not science.
Again, "consistent with", the same way the personality of an observed Leo would be "consistent with" their horoscope. But say for a moment, you're right about the warming - where's the proof of any sort of harm? You keep trying to show what is "consistent with" your hypothesis, but fail to show how the multiple steps must follow from one another.
Oh really? :) You managed to discard the possibility of natural climate change with a wave of your hand?
I know that this is an important, self-identifying argument for you, so it must be scary to have it challenged, but do you *understand* the argument I'm making? Can you follow the rationale, even if you reject it? I think you're still confused about what falsifiability is, and what the null hypothesis is, and can't quite stop citing "consistent with" observations that aren't addressing the weakness in your argument.
Alas, yet another ransom note from the copy/paste bandit who abducted professionalfurryele!
Don't worry, professionalfurryele, we're sending help! With enough of these copy/paste spams, we'll be able to localize your tormentor, and rescue you!
Waiting for the next one in 5...4...3...2...
But that's the point - I don't need to have a hypothesis of "observed global warming is caused by the invention of board games with more than 3 players" in order to critique yours. The null hypothesis, that there is no causal relationship from human CO2 emissions to global average temperature (and further, that there is no causal relationship from global average temperature to any sort of measurable harm), stands as your high bar.
You don't need a competing astrology chart in order to recognize that someone's astrology chart is pseudo-science.
We don't need to invent a reason for natural climate change - it happened for the billions of years before humanity, and will certainly happen for billions of years after. It's simply the null hypothesis. Or are you going to argue that natural climate change isn't real until we model every natural forcing?
Sure I can. What's wrong with the current hypothesis? It's not falsifiable. Why do the observations match predictions so well? Because the predictions are cherry picked after the fact. If we get less hurricanes, you point to paper A written in 1990. If we get more hurricanes, you point to paper B written in 1990. You're playing astrology.
I still think you haven't really understood the argument, or the scientific method at all. You've failed to specify, or even quote, a falsifiable hypothesis that would affirm your beliefs as true. You've looked at a lot of data, and found it consistent with your beliefs (just as astrologists can look at a lot of data, and find it consistent with theirs), but you've failed the most basic of criteria for scientific truth - falsifiability.
Let's focus on that for a second. You cannot simply assert that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas; humans emit CO2; therefore we must do everything in our power to stabilize CO2 levels". You can plug in *any* greenhouse gas into that hypothesis, and be just as silly. Shall we stabilize H2O levels worldwide?
This is a clear example of a trivial, and useless falsification. Yes, if CO2 didn't exist, or had spectral properties even .01% off of our calculations, then GCMs modeled with that are obviously false, and therefore AGW is false. But the simple existence of CO2 and its spectral properties does not imply humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
But even if we take a look at your trivial example, CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past (the expansion of animal life, volcanism, ocean outgassing), but the temperature has not gone up (note the lag of CO2 to temperature in ice core records). "Oh, but there was X, Y, Z at work!", you'll say...once again, using an ad hoc special pleading to preserve your central conceit.
You need to do a better job than saying "basic physics means that my complex and fragile hypothesis must be true".
Sure there are - heck, AGW alarmists talk about soot and particulate matter "hiding" the warming all the time, and let's not forget we've got ENSO/PDO/ADO, cloud albedo, or even solar variations (besides simply TSI).
Ah, the "missing heat" argument...one that unfortunately has not been observed :)
Look, you want to talk basic physics, look at the heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
Now, do you really think the atmosphere can drive the oceans? Certainly, cloud cover (varying albedo) can have an effect by blocking or allowing radiation from hitting the oceans, but simple atmospheric temperature? Try heating a pot of water with a thin layer of air, and tell me just how hot you need the atmosphere to move the oceans :)
Sure we do, we can measure what happened between the bottom of the little ice age and today. However, if you want to assert that I have no idea what the *next* 2C of temperature change will do, you should humbly note that neither do you :)
Why should we destroy our economy on the basis of something you have no idea about?
There is no reason for you to believe that such a change wouldn't have happened if humans didn't emit CO2. Frankly, it's much more likely that your 1C of increase is a matter of UHI, which although certainly human driven, has nothing to do with emissions.
But that being said, please, be specific about what catastrophe has happened in your area because of this change! Has the area completely depopulated? Have all the animals and plants died? Have hurricanes and tornadoes ravaged through at a higher rate than before? Exactly what are you afraid of an early spring or mild winter? Has some local tit-mouse population crashed?
Maybe if we understand the severity of the effects you've observed in your locality, you can make the case that we "must act now"...
No leg pulling, I honestly didn't understand what model you were referring to. I had originally thought you had intended to cite the model of "CO2 causes global warming" ala Arrhenius, but then you moved to El Nino/La Nina.
My apologies if I haven't been clear - "climate science" as you're using it surely encompasses more than simply the unfalsifiable religion of AGW, and I inappropriately used it as a shorthand (much in the way people use "global warming" as a shorthand for "anthropogenic global warming". I understand where my argument became ambiguous, and apologize for not being clearer.
Yes, knowing whether or not *this* year is an El Nino/La Nina gives us some useful, actionable information, and it was true climate scientists who found that pattern, even though it defies any medium or long term prediction. However, every last "climate scientist" plugging the catastrophic AGW trope has been completely worthless for two reasons:
1) no falsifiable hypothesis. The El Nino/La Nina scientists (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/11/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-2-a-new-myth-enso-balances-out-to-zero-over-the-long-term/), have not been promoting any sort of non-falsifiable "omg, you must do X, Y, and Z, no matter what we observe";
2) no regional specificity. Humans (and all other life forms for that matter), never experience global average temperature. The so-called "climate science" GCMs have no regional skill, and despite their incredible complication, cannot provide anything nearly as useful as "we've recognized we're in this phase of ENSO, so we predict these general regional conditions".
So, with the understanding now that there is indeed *real* climate science out there, and that the GCM modelers promoting AGW are, on the other hand, charlatans, frauds and climate pseudo-scientists, and that it is *this* unfalsifiable aspect that is related to astrology, have I clearly communicated my argument?
Poor professionalfurryele, abducted by the copy/paste bandit!
Rest assured, though, somewhere, out there, professionalfurryele is repenting his foolish statistics blunder from earlier in the thread, and composing the sincere apology he knows he should render.
If only the copy/paste bandit could be stopped! But, alas, we'll get another one in 5...4...3...2...
So please, tell me what observations of CO2 and global average temperature will invalidate your hypothesis? What observations will you accept as an invalidation?
And remember, you can't just assert trivial falsifications like, "show that humans don't exist, and then AGW doesn't exist", because surely the mere *existence* of humans doesn't imply that AGW is true. Your falsifiable hypothesis needs to require the necessary and sufficient factors that would lead us to believe it is in fact true, not just trivial falsifications.
Then be specific about how much you believe creates how much temperature, and be specific about what observations would falsify your hypothesis. (Of course that's not even getting into the entire idea of increased temperature being a bad or good thing.)
1) we don't know nearly enough about the forcings of the climate system, much less any confidence we've identified all of them. Take for example ENSO/PDO/ADO - we *know* these things make climate changes, but there isn't a single GCM that can predict or hindcast them.
2) you're not in competition with other hypotheses advanced by others, you're in competition with the null hypothesis (that climate changes for reasons other than human CO2). Natural variability is the null hypothesis, even if you can't specify all the natural variables.
So exiting an ice age doesn't seem like a good reason for 0.8C/century temperature increases? :)
So you were quoting 2C/doubling of CO2, or 3C/doubling of CO2? You weren't being very clear.
And furthermore, if that's the case, then we have even less to worry about. 1900-2000 increased only 0.8C. Even if we *double* our output of CO2 compared to what we released in the 20th century (which certainly won't double atmospheric levels of CO2, since we're a small tiny fraction of that), we'll only barely make another 0.8C by 2100, hardly anything to worry about.
I understand why you're making the mental mistakes you're making - you're motivated, intelligent, and you're good at finding confirming evidence to buttress your beliefs. But do yourself a favor, think about the importance of falsifiability, and how that simply doesn't fit with "the CO2 level of the atmosphere MUST BE STABILIZED, PERIOD, END OF REPORT."
Ah, yes, so now, instead of being 95% sure, we're only 5% sure. Certainly those kinds of odds are worth destroying the world economy for :)
Isn't that like betting on every roulette number, and when you win you simply claim "see, my model worked!"?
Heck, there are hundreds of thousands of astrologers out there with models, are you saying that simply because we debunk one of them, the others aren't necessarily untrue? :)
To the interested reader, you can see that professionalfurryele has been abducted by a script kiddie, and what would have been a brilliant argument defending his position has been sadly replaced with a copy/paste macro. professionalfurryele apologizes profusely, but unfortunately, is not capable of stopping the script kiddie, who will attack again in 5...4...3...2...
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same :)
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by .000001C/century, we *must act now*? :)
Okay, so from 1900-2000, we experienced, as best we can tell, 0.8-1.0C of warming. You're literally going to blame all of that on human CO2? Even though the rate of warming has been pretty steady since before high human CO2 emissions and the end of the little ice age?
Really?
You're throwing out numbers with no context. Do you mean 2.2C total from 1900-2100?
Do you have any sort of reason for us to believe that even 3C, from 1900-2100, would be harmful?
Of course I do - your hypothesis must have stated, ahead of time, what observations would prove you *wrong*. It must not be invulnerable, and able to explain away every possible observation.
Exactly what observations of CO2 and temperature, during the 20th century, would have falsified your hypothesis? What observations of CO2 and temperature next year, would falsify your hypothesis?
But none of them have specified any falsification, which makes their advanced theory as scientific as astrology (which has a mass of evidence from multiple lines of research).
Go ahead, quote a *single* falsifiable hypothesis statement from *any* climate scientist you happen to believe in. Stop hand waving and show us the first step of the scientific method - or did you decide to believe in your authority figures without asking them for any sort of due diligence with the scientific method?
Wait, you're saying back in 1900, someone predicted ahead of time, all the observed El Nino/La Ninas?
Now, we certainly understand that *when* an El Nino/La Nina is in effect, it has certain climactic influences, but are you really asserting that we have any sort of skillful ENSO/PDO model?
Further are you asserting that global average temperature, or global average CO2 can give any sort of actionable intelligence like "It's an El Nino phase as detected by SST, so watch out here for wet weather, and here for dry weather"?
So you simply can't handle the argument? Or was I unclear in pointing out your misunderstandings and mistakes?
If you want a reasonable place to begin, start with your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Quote one from realclimate if you'd like.
We agree on the facts - CO2 has a nonzero warming effect, and humans emit CO2. What we don't agree on is your specious conclusion that the nonzero warming effect of CO2 is so great it will cause catastrophe. Furthermore we don't agree on your ludicrous assumption that any amount of human effort could actually *stabilize* CO2 levels at any sort of "goldilocks" point.
Now, if you can't begin the scientific method with an appropriate falsifiable hypothesis statement for your position, then you're right, it's quite pointless, unless you'd like to argue that the scientific method doesn't require falsifiability.