According to the Daily Mail, the leaker that this posting is motivated by was fascinated with Islamic jihad and wanted to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Leaking to expose corruption is great. Leaking that gets Westerners killed and attempts to take subvert the democratic system is still treason.
True. I was writing for those the specific scenario the original poster mentioned, and they always assume that only Caucasians can be racist - everyone else is a 'victim' to a Post Modernist so is only reacting to 'structural racism' and other deceptions of sophistry.
Loyalty to Post Modernist politics trumps every other Identity group.
Hence Classic Liberal ('Conservative'/Libertarian in the US sense) women are deemed 'non-women' and people like Islamist-MaxistLinda Sarsour says black, female, FGM-victim Ayan Hirsi Ali should have her "vagina taken away". This is because Post Modernist tribalism trumps feminism.
Classic Liberal Black Men are called 'racist' and 'Uncle Toms', Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps ethnicity.
Classic Liberal gays are sent death threats by other gays, and called 'non-gays' and 'homophobes. Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps sexual proclivity.
Classic Liberal Jews are sent death threats by other Jews, and called 'Nazis' (for real). Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps religious affiliation.
Post Modernism is extremely 'puritannical' and pseudo-religious in the sense that there are 'faithful' and extreme hatred for 'heretics'. Post Moderrnism is the enemy of Enlightenment Civilization and is quite fanatical in nature.
How would a 'racist' have black friends? wouldn't they avoid them if they were, indeed, racist ?
The criteria are more like 'If you don't follow the dictates of the Party' you are a 'racist' no matter your skin color and diversity of friends. That's closer to the criteria you are using. 'Racist' is just a label people use now to say 'heretic to my political beliefs'. Same deal with using the label 'Nazi'.
This all comes from Post Modernist theory where Diversity of Opinion is help in absolute contempt. Post Modernists will never agree to disagree, they will always act to destroy any heresy of the current Party line. The problem is, the Party line often moves, and previously 'pious' virtue signallers get caught out and become 'heretics' to be destroyed. The whole system is completely bonkers, yet those that lack wisdom think it is the pinnacle of modern morality - it's like they've never thought about "The Emperor's New Clothes" at all.
Thank you very much for the figures. It is clear that 'alternative energy' is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (taxpayers) to rich ('green investors'). If I were an investor I would be pushing for solar with all my might, not because it was cheaper for users, but because I could collect huge rents from taxpayers.
If Elon Musk agrees with this then we should tax his wealth more, a LOT more. At the moment Elon Musk wants people much poorer than himself (the middle class) to pay for his virtual signalling while he keeps his wealth. Any of the 'elites' who state they like this scheme should be made to pay for it - stop the economic rape of the middle class just so these poseurs can talk about a scheme they are unwilling to put their own wealth behind. Until then, Musk is just another hypocrite !
I don't think you understand. Even a straight line on a banked runway puts large side loadings on the landing gear. A 3 km diameter circular runway is actually quite small and has a lot of curvature relative to linear runways that are often more than 3 km in a straight line, especially for very large fully-loaded aircraft that need large stopping distances for aborted takeoffs.
We'd be very pleased to see you prove us wrong when you demonstrate in the first flight with an A380. One small thing, before you do please add me as your life insurance beneficiary, thanks.
This is HILARIOUS! The German Government spies on all its citizens communications (like all governments these days) and now it pretends that it cares about privacy, ROFL ! The German Government sends police around to intimidate citizens about their tweets criticizing insane government policies and it pretends that a doll is the real threat? No, anyone who understands that 'democide' of citizens by their own governments in peacetime was the greatest unnatural killer in the last century realizes that the German Government threatening its own citizen's Free Speech is the vastly greater threat than some dumb doll. Go and look up the democides of the last century and you will see the same common thread - any time a government puts the collective society ahead of individuals and their liberty it ALWAYS results in individuals suffering. Yes, even collectivist Sweden is falling apart these days because the insane government suppressed the concerns of its citizens. This is the danger that the self-selecting sociopaths who run governments don't want you to see.
In short your criteria for judging the models is wrong. How can you predict ahead of time the strength of solar cycles? How can you predict ahead of time volcanic eruptions? How can you predict ahead of time the cycle of El Nino/La Nina? The answer is you can't. All you can give a climate model is a realistic scenario for those things based on past behavior.
BOOM ! how can you say that these NATURAL effects are justification for the IPCC's AGW hypothesis which is ANTHROPOGENIC. Do you even think before you guys post ?
Climate observations remain well within the 95% uncertainty range of most climate models. If you think they should be more accurate than that I think your criteria for judging models needs to be revised.
Wrong. Where did you learn your statistical analysis ? The observed rate of warming is passing below the 2-sigma limit compared to the predictions and based on the current trend will pass through the 3-sigma limit soon (99%). This does not mean the prediction is more likely, it means that the probability that random uncertainty following a Gaussian distribution currently can account for the discrepancy with 5% confidence and soon will be 1% confidence. And this is falling. Because the first derivative predicted by the models differs from observations by a whopping factor of 3 the divergence will increase through more and more sigma bands.
So either the random uncorrelated errors have produced the difference with a low confidence the IPCC AGW model is correct, or there is a 95% probability that the distribution of error is not due to uncorrelated errors and there is a systematic difference between observed reality and the model. This is a nice way of saying the IPCC's AGW models is WRONG and is falsified by the observation to a high and *increasing* probability.
Rerunning the models with actual behavior of those things is a check on how good the model is. They don't change the model, just the input to more accurately reflect what happened in the real world for things they couldn't predict ahead of time. How can you possibly think that they should be able to know ahead of time exactly what would happen?
W. T. F. ? Hindcasts are used to find model parameterization values. This is normal. But it turns out the models are so bad and reflect reality so badly that the spread in the model values is around 0.6 C even when the data is known. That is a horrific failure to HINDCAST - which shows the ability to FORECAST is totally worthless. The correctness of a model is not determined by the ability to hindcast but by the ability to make predictions that observation later confirms. This is core to the Scientific Method and it is absolutely shocking you do not know this. Seriously, you cannot begin to understand science without understanding this principle. Now I am trying to help you understand where the error in your understanding about the failure of the IPCC AGW hypothesis is - but it turns out it is far more fundamental than that. It appears you don't understand the Scientific Method at all. That's ok, I'm happy to get you up to speed. Please read the following for an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Once you understand the basics of the Scientific Method we can continue. At the moment you are horribly confused, which is why you don't understand the experimental basis with which the models have failed.
I read that part around Christy's radiosonde graph in detail before I brought it up with you. That graph does indeed end in 2005. In this blog post Tamino (statistician Grant Foster) compares satellite to radiosonde out to about 2015. [wordpress.com] The second graph clearly shows the divergence of radiosonde (RATPAC) data to UAH and RSS satellite date after about 2006. Christy had access to that data so why didn't he show it.
I'm familiar with John Christy and was aware of his testimony before the House Science, Space & Technology committee. I skimmed through the PDF and didn't find anything that surprised me. I don't hold Christy in very high regard based on past performance.
You eco-religious people are funny. Multiple serious failures in your analysis here:
1) Your personal feelings toward Christy should be irrelevant. But you cannot help yourself from launching an ad hominem on him rather than talking about data.
2) 'skimming' shows you don't wish to absorb new information. All you are looking for are things that support your Confirmation Bias. You do this because you don't want the cognitive dissonance from reality interfering with your pseudo-religiious climate cult worldview. There is no difference between climate alarmists and Muslims and evangelical Creationists in their approach to inconvenient facts. None !
3) The first graph in Appendix A should surprise every CAGW alarmist, because it completely destroys your narrative.
Here is a critique of the graphs Christy used [realclimate.org] by Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt basically said Christy's graph were inconsistent, misleading and slanted toward making the difference between models and satellite observations appear greater than they actually are.
Thank you for the link. I read and analyzed Schmidt's points. His criticism don't change the fact that the models are WRONG by a whopping FACTOR of 3. He does everything he can to avoid talking about this. His points about:
1) smoothing, irrelevant, as it doesn't change the trend This is a desperate ploy from the slimy Schmidt.
2) moving the baseline - which is laughable as the models are so incredibly made they cannot HINDCAST to anything less than 0.6 C error, let alone do forecasting. Moving the baseline is the trick to delay the inevitable divergence, because the first time-derivative between the models and observations is so massively different (the models predict vastly too much warming and they are WRONG). Another misdirection from Schmidt.
3) Model spread. The model has a huge spread, as I said it cannot even hindcast to within 0.6C at the start and it just gets worse from there. There is some spread in the observations, but it is nothing compared to the spread in the models (which shows how badly the relative significance of various effects are quantified). The spread in the observations doesn't change the fact that the model gets the trend very badly wrong. Again Schmidt talks about the observations when it is obvious that it is the colossal spread in the models that is the significant problem here.
4). Structural uncertainly. Doesn't change the conclusion that the models have the WRONG trend, and not by a little bit either, they are wrong by a factor of around 3 in the rate.
Schmidt performs another illustrative deception. He first tries to make out that the satellite data sets don't match reality, and then he dismisses the balloon results. But the four balloon datasets are consistent with the two satellite datasets. He is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING readers who don't understand this. And most of his readers are too uninformed with lesser intellects so they don't pick this up or his other indirections.
Schmidt also completely ignores Appendix A which destroys the alarmist Narrative. He hopes most people won't notice the omission, and they don't. His readers are not that smart nor informed (looking at the comments) - typical for creationist-type cult followers.
I will also note that in 2016 after Christy's testimony that both major satellite records, UAH and RSS set new all time records for high temperatures reducing the discrepancy between models and satellite observations.
It was the super El Nino of 2016. This is already ending and it looks like severe La Nina may be building, which is why Greenland is putting on ice at a record rate (fourth graphic on the following page):
When the Government gets in the business of deciding what citizens can and can't see, you are in trouble.
Already around the 'Free World' we have governments regulating what can and cannot be said in jokes. People have been punished for singing karaoke for the song 'Kung Fu Fighting'.
You want to know how we get to Orwellian '1984' style situation? slowly and gradually so most people don't even notice, and a lot of people actual defend this Government totalitarianism (which is a system that polices thought via speech). The words 'hate speech' are used as a camouflage by those with Orwellian impulses to silence anyone, and any idea no matter if it is true, they don't like.
Refuse to elect anyone who is against your 'dangerous' Free Speech !
It's a shame that he and Dr. Spencer are alone in their opinions
Ah, the false appeal to consensus. Of course, you do not address their data. The tell that you are an anti-scientific zealot. You are just as religious as the freaks of the evangelical right, you deny observed reality (which is why you do not actually talk about the observations, you MUST deny they exist or pretend that the satellites dont match the direct balloon measurements when they match extraordinarily well). You are a no less religious than a Creationist. It is HILARIOUS to see.
You don't even know that the "97% consensus" had been completely debunked, do you? around half of all scientists are skeptics. Spencer and Christy have half the natural sciences with them, and the majority of the population. Furthermore, and all importantly, the OBSERVED DATA is on their side.
I think. And if he or Dr. Spencer can come up with a plausible negative feedback mechanism then I am sure they would be taken quite seriously.
Again you show just how little you know about science. No alternative hyothesis is needed. NONE. Its like you understand NOTHING about statistical analysis and the Null Hypothesis. You are completely incompetent in empirical science. Even 1st year undergraduates understand statistical analysis better than you insane zealots do. And you refuse to learn ANYTHING. This is the source of your colossal incompetence.
Yes, if you only look at galactic rotation curves,
I have looked that the data for the galactic rotation curves. A lot. It is amazing just how dodgy the data is. Unlike you, I actually look at the data.
The issue is that his argument is flawed.
COMPLETELY FALSE. COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FALSE AND CONTRARY TO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. No argument is required for the Null Hypothesis. Your whole nonsense anti-scientific bs is based on the completely wrong assumption that AGW is true until proven false. This is complete bs and shows you don't know anything about science. The Null Hypothesis requires no supporting theory, none. Again your utter ignorance about the scientific method and statistical analysis comes through. But thanks to the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are completely oblivious to your severe incompetence and ignorance about how science is done. And then you pompously pretend you have a clue. ROFL. You are the best candidate the for the chess-playing pidgeon I have ever met.
My bet is that you could not understand the data that Christy presented. You couldn't even read the report because you are so scientifically illterate. Hence you don't understand the significance of Figure 3 nor Appendix A which crushes the alarmist's claims. You cannot comprehend the information being presented. Fortunately more and more scientists can, as well as very famous technologists like Freeman Dyson, Burt Rutan, Physics Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever.
And who do you have on your side? frauds like Michael Mann who claim to be 'Nobel Laureates' when the Nobel committed disavows him. Cartoonists and loons like John Cooke and his menagerie of anti-scientific freaks. All the fraudsters of the Hadley Center whose deception was uncovered in Climategate. LOL! you have nobodies and more importantly the data do not agree with you, except for the estimated portion of the surface data where warming was injected by Gavin Schmidt into the record.
I would certainly like to see it disproven
It has been disproven by the statistics. The problem is, you don't understand the statistical analysis at all nor of the meaning of the words "Null Hypothesis". Hence you have been making bs argument after bs argument because you cannot grok the information you are being given. As a caveman you cannot understand even the basic concepts of the Scientific Method and statistical analysis.
I don't care about convincing zealots. As time goes on your position becomes more and more untenable based on the observed data. I'm saving you from future embarrassment, that's all - because it is inevitable you will lose this debate.
I have given you links to the UAH and RSS data already. You can extract the data from the links given. Of you could request the data sets from the source projects. If you are competent you will have no problem doing this.
And what is it with you people and insisting on politicizing the debate? You're making it quite clear that your only interest is the science that supports your political principles.
What are my political beliefs? I'm not an American. Hell, what is my ethnicity? You know NOTHING about me - but you must turn to this since you have no other argument.
However, the IPCC is NOT a scientific body but is a political body. That is why the Summary for Policymakers are NOT written by scientists, but are written by politicians and bureaucrats BEFORE the scientists have written the content of the chapters of the IPCC reports. You knew about this didn't you? oh, no, that's right - you know virtually nothing about the ACTUAL process and the flaws in it - hence in your eco-religion you treat the IPCC as infallible as the Catholics treat the Pope.
The process is inherently political because the IPCC's agenda is not scientific, it is political and globalist. Are you ignorant of this too ?
I have provided you with the data in previous posts. I know you know how to read - even if belatedly. This was part of your problem, you don't comprehend what was being said to you and thought you already knew it all so didn't actually have to read the information I gave you. This is why your argument was wrong, and you lost the debate.
You very nearly got to a point where you understood the fundamental problem with the IPCC AGW hypothesis, that it predicts a TCS (and related TCR) which is a whopping factor of 3 higher than observed. You then considered that the IPCC would be wrong, some new physics would be needed (not really, although the models don't model existing processes properly). It never dawned on you that the whole hypothesis was wrong and certainly the propaganda being used against the population by the IPCC misdirects from the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor. But it is hard to gain control of economies and extort 'green' taxes if you talk about water vapor, the words 'carbon pollution' sounds much scarier even if it is a false propaganda meme.
And when you are really to accept the truth, you can find why the narcissistic control-feaks UN wants to control economies through collectivist central planning from their own words here: http://green-agenda.com/
All I'm doing is showing you the truth. We (climate realists) are the Rebel Alliance showing you the Galactic Empire wants to control you and does not have your interests at heart - it is by and for the people that rule it.
In looking at the graphs you cite I see several "precipitous" drops in temperature of similar magnitude and steepness. Maybe the most recent one is the fastest but I can't tell without downloading and analyzing the numbers but it doesn't stand out to the point where it's obvious. What is obvious is the positive temperature trend during the period of record. If you think you can tell anything about climatic temperature trends over a less than about 20 year period you're wrong.
We agree, nothing of a timescale less than 20 years is significant. What is very significant is that the underlying trend started around 150 years ago - well before the IPCC's AGW could have been the initiator of the change. What is absolutely fascinating is that the IPCC claims that this underlying trend went for 100 years naturally and then 'suddenly' switched off the natural cause and switched entirely to a 100% human-caused effect. I don't believe in magic, but apparently the IPCC do as this is their official position, all warming since 1950 is human-induced. Why do you believe in this magic ? what switched the century of natural warming off and instantaneously changed it to human warming? you support the IPCC so surely you know what this miraculous mechanism is, right ?
Solar magnetic variability. LOL. When you first brought it up a few years ago I looked into it some but I didn't find that it held water very well. I'm not saying it's impossible but the hypothesis is going to have to have better evidence for it than it has now. And it has to be fleshed out to the point where it does at least as good a job as current climate theory does in explaining the results we see in the climate.
The Little Ice Age is correlated with solar magnetic variability. This is beyond dispute. The current thinking is explained by the variation in cloud cover which is strongly correlated with the solar magnetic cycle, as shown by the research of Svensmark. A collaboration with the theoretician Shaviv has improved the theory. Things have move along - and thank you for at least starting to look at the undoubtedly NATURAL causes of the beginning of global warming 150 years ago. Of course, the climate is far to complex a system to have a single effect in play. Because cloud cover changes the oceanic cycles (AMO being particularly important) and surface-properties dependent biospheric response are also significant effects. What is abundantly clear now is that human-emitted CO2 is not the principal driver of global climate. This is why the IPCC admits that if humans adopted IPCC policy and deindustralize back to African-like conditions then the effect on the temperature is will be around 0.04 K.
Your team wants to destroy the First World and all halt progress (technology requires energy abundance), and kill billions of poor around the World through energy poverty, and this will have a 0.04 K effect of global climate. Let me guess, they never told you the projected temperature change if all the IPCC's wishes were fulfilled, did they ?
Well you've never heard me say snow is a thing of the past.
No, of course not. But the claim that snow would be a thing of the past and the polar bears are going extinct because we 'evil First Worlders' use energy and resist control of the UN over our economic lives, and resist giving 'green taxes' to rich cronyists and unelected UN apparatchiks is going to "destroy the world!". The fear is the thing that was used to sell this evil plan by control freaks to the masses - and the end of snow was a propaganda meme. Just because you didn't say it does not absolve you of your support of those that did (and still do !). Here are some newspaper articles showing the PROPAGANDA that has been used to indoctrinate people (it shows the motives of the alarmists are deceptive) http://realclimatescience.com/...
And the same deal saying g
I have already pointed out that 'peer review' is NOT required by the Scientific Method. This is thanks to Galileo and later Lysenko. And it is just as well given that the Climategate emails, which everyone agrees are the real leaked emails, show how there was active collusion to corrupt the peer-review process to only accept papers that supported Michael Mann's work. Absolutely disgusting and immoral - and you support this.
Citations are not required because I have given you the DATA. The data show the IPCC's AGW hypothesis does not reflect reality. It is you who also rejects the reality of the observations. You are delusional despite being pointed to reality. You are an anti-scientific fanatic that rejects the data in favor of legalistic arguments. You have to do this because you have no other argument. This is why you will repeat your meme like and autistic monkey. But every time you do, everyone who actually wants to know the science will see that you have no argument, reject the data, and deliberately refuse to use the Scientific Method in order to cling to the delusional alarmist memes. You are doing my work for me with every post. Thank you. Please keep helping me show the thousands of Slashdotters reading this thread just how backward and anti-scientific the tactics of eco-loons really are.
The fact you don't know what the UAH and RSS satellites are, and the data they have been producing, showed from the very beginning you know virtually nothing about even the basics of the AGW debate. You can 'froth' all you want, but you are so clueless you don't even know how much you don't know - and you steadfastly refuse to learn no matter if information is repeated for you. But you are completely and utterly blind to how ignorant you are choosing to be. I cannot help you if you argue despite not even knowing the fundamentals of the debate. Sorry, but only a complete moron who doesn't understand the Scientific Method does this (but sadly, even many 'climate scientists' neither seem to know nor follow the Scientific Method - which is an easy way for real scientists to identify the bad pseudo-scientists posing as 'researchers').
It is clear you have had no international research-quality training in science, because your approach is as anti-scientific as the psychologists and other types of eco-loons out there. I'm guessing you studied (or quite likely, are still an undergraduate) philosophy or some kind of social 'science' and the lame fallacies and shoddy techniques they often employ are somehow 'science'. ROFL !
Once again, a post completely devoid of citations, and showing no indication that you have read any of the material presented.
The Scientific Method is not based on citiations nor even on peer-review. It is based on data and data alone. Ask Galileo or Lysenko why this is so. I have presented data that you refuse to accept. This indicates for a fourth time that you don't understand the Scientific Method and you refuse to accept observed reality as shown by the data I presented.
And as it happens, you have entirely misunderstood my comments on empiricism, but at this point correcting your misunderstanding seems to be an exercise in futility
I can only go by what you post, and I have been very careful to get you to explain your position several times. Each time you have shown you don't know what the Scientific Method requires which ends up in you thinking anti-scientific arguments are somehow science. You are a slow learner but still don't grok where you have failed again and again. But like all ego-centric eco-activist you project your ignorance onto your interlocutors - exactly as the Dunning-Kruger Effect explains.
Next time you wish to have a conversation about science, bring some citations.
Next time you want to have a conversation about science you will need to learn and use The Scientific Method. Citations are NOT required by the Scientific Method, only observational data and a set of tests on your hypothesis. And, as I have demonstrated by providing both the IPCC AGW prediction ensemble and the multiple satellite and balloon data sets that show the predictions are wrong, the climate alarmist position is falsified empirically. You clinging to the falsified hypothesis shows you are exercising 'personal faith' contradicted by the evidence. Not only are you not practicing 'science' you are actually so bad you are following an 'anti-scientific' path.
You have no explanation for the empirical data that falsifies the IPCC AGW hypothesis - because the data are correct and represent the reality you reject. Since you cannot refute the data but still want to anti-scientifically cling to your alarmist pseudo-religious viewpoint you try all sorts of nonsense memes ('there are other ways at arriving at truth' - false; 'peer reviewed' - which cannot override observational data) that the Scientific Method holds worthless.
Since you have no data and I have comprehensively demonstrated you don't even understand the predictions of your own side, let alone the arguments of the climate realists, it is clear the alarmist position is in defiance of observed reality analyzed through the Scientific Method. You are done. Check, mate (and I didn't even have to raise a sweat your arguments were so anti-scientific).
And I love how you have to resort to subtle ad hominems and other tricks of sophistry,. such as denial of observational reality and avoidance of topics which your eco-activism fails on. But you also seem unable to grok how with every post you are helping me. Your denial of the Scientific Method a third time shows you are anti-scientific and no amount of observational evidence will get you to accept the fact that the IPCC predictions are far, far too high and don't match observed reality. Every time you refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept the observational data shows the thousands of people reading the thread exactly how the alarmists that claim the mantle of 'science' actually refuse to use the Scientific Method and use cheap sophistry instead. You think by now I'm trying to get you to accept observed reality? ROFL! such ego-centricism ! you are a True Believer and no amount of evidence will falsify your cult-like belief system.
I'm still repeating a few basic points, though, and you keep posting things that are trivially contradicted, which is a real shame.
Your assertion that anything other than empiricism forms the basis of 'Science' continues to be completely and utterly false. Which is why I point it out each time so that no readers on this thread are ever mislead as to what science actually is. Again you use cheap sophistry and claim that this is 'trivially contradicted' yet you cannot perform this. All you demonstrate is that when the Scientific Method is pointed out to you that you refuse to accept it and continue to deny using it for evaluating the claims of competing hypotheses. Hence what sounds sophisticated and 'logical' to you is a denial of observed reality. For example, you talk about 'cherry picking' which shows your entire method of thinking is completely and utterly anti-scientific. 'Cherry picking' is not a defense of a failed hypothesis, ANY unexplained observations are enough to reject a hypothesis. You would know this if you knew anything about science or the practice of it - but you do not, and you refuse to learn.
That makes me think of philosopher of science Karl Popper's famous quote
“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
No matter how many times I point you to the Scientific Method you refuse to learn it, and hence you make all sorts of nonsense arguments like 'there are other paths to truth than empiricism' (completely false, empiricism is the sole determinant between competing hypotheses - otherwise you get into idiocy like 'how many angels fit on the head of the pin', or 'if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?' - which philosophers like you cannot resolve but the Scientific Method does).
Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to have a scientific debate if you refuse to use the Scientific Method and use sophistry instead.
As I keep saying, there are and have been much better arguments against AGW in the past, and you do need some specific evidence to refute the theory.
Thanks again for demonstrating to everyone reading how you don't understand science at all. No 'arguments' are required to refute AGW (and by this I mean, the theory and predictions made by the IPCC). None. The only thing that matters are the observations. At present the UAH+RSS+balloon observations are passing out the 2 sigma lower limit of the IPCC average-of-ensemble model prediction. No alternative hypothesis is needed, the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead. Do I need to repeat this until you understand it ? No alternative to the IPCC's AGW (which is actually, CAGW) need be suggested, their hypothesis should be rejected for the Null Hypothesis at the 2 sigma level, and this level of rejection is increasing as time goes on. Time is not on your side, amigo. I'm trying to save you massive embarrassment in the future. The Empe
But empiricism is not the only path to truth, and there is no particularly good basis with which to say it is the best path to truth. Rationalism is a completely acceptable alternative.
I'm glad I asked you to clarify. If you are practicing Classical Philosophy then you have a point, but if you want to do 'Science' then you are completely, utterly and shockingly wrong. Science is the use of the Scientific Method the Scientific Method uses empiricism as the source of truth (selection between competing hypotheses or the Null Hypothesis). I am shocked that you would not know this and yet claim to be practicing 'science' while condemning 'deniers' for practicing the very science you do not understand. Please, please, please go and learn the Scientific Method because you are very, very confused at the moment. Here is a link for your convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I often see this from alarmists. They don't understand how science actually works so they cannot correctly distinguish between pseudo-science and actual science. Hence, alarmists are easily bamboozled by charlatans like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt etc.
. And it is my contention that a large portion of the US population, especially those engaged in AGW denial, are not empirical, have no interest in being empirical, and have no notion that this could be a bad thing.
It is you who has just rejected empiricism as the source of scientific truth.And you've done it twice now ! you are projecting your confusion on to others. The CAGW skeptics understand and practice science, because they accept the empirical evidence being presented by independent satellite and balloon measurements and comparing them with the IPCC's predictions, and the predictions have failed quite badly.
There are a number of key predictions of AGW, but I don't recall that having been one offhand.
I can understand you not understanding the arguments of the skeptics, but to not even understand the arguments of the alarmists whose position you are trying to defend is terrible. Clearly you don't actually understand the mechanism that IPCC's CAGW claims is the dominant effect on climate ! Sorry, but you seem to be defending a hypothesis for which you don't understand at all - and yet you claim it is the skeptics who are the ignorant ones ! I think you should re-evaluate your competence on this subject before you start insulting the skeptics who understand both their position and that of the alarmists very, very well (and then they use the Scientific Method to evaluate the competing hypotheses).
Firstly it predicts global warming, and the observed warming must be considered the "smoking gun".
This is a complete failure of logic, sorry to say. CAGW starts with a particular mechanism and predicts a specific atmospheric temperature gradient as a function of time. This is not observed, and in fact the opposite is observed - with the divergence between the IPCC's predictions and observed reality diverging increasingly rapidly. This is the 'smoking' gun. Yes, this profile predicted more warming at the poles and stratospheric cooling - because more energy was trapped in the lower troposphere, which is why the RSS and UAH satellites were launched to look for that signature. But what the satellites saw is consistent with CO2 only warming with negligible effect from water vapor (and water vapor is the CORE of IPCC's claim for requiring political action).
All of these things have been observed.
Yes, but there are many NATURAL mechanisms that can cause these effects. The way to discriminate between the CAGW, AGW and natural processes is the TLT measurement, and the IPPC predictions are a factor of 3 too high and diverging rapidly. There is zero cause for alarm over slow and modest natural warming that has been seen before and
You are correct that El Nino timing is variable, but my point that around 4 years is the expectation value still stands. Yes, El Nino is not always followed by the precipitous drop of a La Nina, but this yeah the temperature drop in the last few months has been by a whopping 1 K. This is the fastest recorded drop in history. yet for some reason the media don't want to report this ? This is not the biggest drop over time, but it is the most rapid drop. At the current rate it looks like a La Nina is developing, although it will be a few more months before we know for definite, but all indications are currently that one is forming.
Underlying these is the trend we have seen for 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age which we know is due to the effect of solar magnetic variability, and probably linked to terrestrial climate through the change in water vapor/cloudiness (via an interaction between the heliosphere and cosmic rays).
As far as snow in the Sahara and more ice than normal on Greenland you are confusing weather and year to year variability with climate.
I mention this specifically because of claims that 'snow is a thing of the past' and 'Greenland is melting we are doomed' memes that are counter-factual. There is huge variability in the weather but when it is hot (such as the super El Nino of 2016) the propagandists go into overdrive with the 'hottest yeah evah' memes and claim this is 'proof' of ANTHROPOGENIC effects dominating natural ones. But we it is cold they say, 'meh, weather'. That is why I mention it, because the Confirmation Bias is strong in all of us, but alarmists abnormally so.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Daily Mail, the leaker that this posting is motivated by was fascinated with Islamic jihad and wanted to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Leaking to expose corruption is great. Leaking that gets Westerners killed and attempts to take subvert the democratic system is still treason.
True. I was writing for those the specific scenario the original poster mentioned, and they always assume that only Caucasians can be racist - everyone else is a 'victim' to a Post Modernist so is only reacting to 'structural racism' and other deceptions of sophistry.
Loyalty to Post Modernist politics trumps every other Identity group. Hence Classic Liberal ('Conservative'/Libertarian in the US sense) women are deemed 'non-women' and people like Islamist-MaxistLinda Sarsour says black, female, FGM-victim Ayan Hirsi Ali should have her "vagina taken away". This is because Post Modernist tribalism trumps feminism. Classic Liberal Black Men are called 'racist' and 'Uncle Toms', Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps ethnicity. Classic Liberal gays are sent death threats by other gays, and called 'non-gays' and 'homophobes. Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps sexual proclivity. Classic Liberal Jews are sent death threats by other Jews, and called 'Nazis' (for real). Because Post Modernist tribalism trumps religious affiliation. Post Modernism is extremely 'puritannical' and pseudo-religious in the sense that there are 'faithful' and extreme hatred for 'heretics'. Post Moderrnism is the enemy of Enlightenment Civilization and is quite fanatical in nature.
How would a 'racist' have black friends? wouldn't they avoid them if they were, indeed, racist ?
The criteria are more like 'If you don't follow the dictates of the Party' you are a 'racist' no matter your skin color and diversity of friends. That's closer to the criteria you are using. 'Racist' is just a label people use now to say 'heretic to my political beliefs'. Same deal with using the label 'Nazi'.
This all comes from Post Modernist theory where Diversity of Opinion is help in absolute contempt. Post Modernists will never agree to disagree, they will always act to destroy any heresy of the current Party line. The problem is, the Party line often moves, and previously 'pious' virtue signallers get caught out and become 'heretics' to be destroyed. The whole system is completely bonkers, yet those that lack wisdom think it is the pinnacle of modern morality - it's like they've never thought about "The Emperor's New Clothes" at all.
Apple current uses OpenGL 4.1, which was released in 2010. It would be nice if they moved to OpenGL 4.5. which was released in 2014.
Thank you very much for the figures. It is clear that 'alternative energy' is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (taxpayers) to rich ('green investors'). If I were an investor I would be pushing for solar with all my might, not because it was cheaper for users, but because I could collect huge rents from taxpayers.
If Elon Musk agrees with this then we should tax his wealth more, a LOT more. At the moment Elon Musk wants people much poorer than himself (the middle class) to pay for his virtual signalling while he keeps his wealth. Any of the 'elites' who state they like this scheme should be made to pay for it - stop the economic rape of the middle class just so these poseurs can talk about a scheme they are unwilling to put their own wealth behind. Until then, Musk is just another hypocrite !
I don't think you understand. Even a straight line on a banked runway puts large side loadings on the landing gear. A 3 km diameter circular runway is actually quite small and has a lot of curvature relative to linear runways that are often more than 3 km in a straight line, especially for very large fully-loaded aircraft that need large stopping distances for aborted takeoffs.
We'd be very pleased to see you prove us wrong when you demonstrate in the first flight with an A380. One small thing, before you do please add me as your life insurance beneficiary, thanks.
This is HILARIOUS! The German Government spies on all its citizens communications (like all governments these days) and now it pretends that it cares about privacy, ROFL ! The German Government sends police around to intimidate citizens about their tweets criticizing insane government policies and it pretends that a doll is the real threat? No, anyone who understands that 'democide' of citizens by their own governments in peacetime was the greatest unnatural killer in the last century realizes that the German Government threatening its own citizen's Free Speech is the vastly greater threat than some dumb doll. Go and look up the democides of the last century and you will see the same common thread - any time a government puts the collective society ahead of individuals and their liberty it ALWAYS results in individuals suffering. Yes, even collectivist Sweden is falling apart these days because the insane government suppressed the concerns of its citizens. This is the danger that the self-selecting sociopaths who run governments don't want you to see.
In short your criteria for judging the models is wrong. How can you predict ahead of time the strength of solar cycles? How can you predict ahead of time volcanic eruptions? How can you predict ahead of time the cycle of El Nino/La Nina? The answer is you can't. All you can give a climate model is a realistic scenario for those things based on past behavior.
BOOM ! how can you say that these NATURAL effects are justification for the IPCC's AGW hypothesis which is ANTHROPOGENIC. Do you even think before you guys post ?
Climate observations remain well within the 95% uncertainty range of most climate models. If you think they should be more accurate than that I think your criteria for judging models needs to be revised.
Wrong. Where did you learn your statistical analysis ? The observed rate of warming is passing below the 2-sigma limit compared to the predictions and based on the current trend will pass through the 3-sigma limit soon (99%). This does not mean the prediction is more likely, it means that the probability that random uncertainty following a Gaussian distribution currently can account for the discrepancy with 5% confidence and soon will be 1% confidence. And this is falling. Because the first derivative predicted by the models differs from observations by a whopping factor of 3 the divergence will increase through more and more sigma bands.
So either the random uncorrelated errors have produced the difference with a low confidence the IPCC AGW model is correct, or there is a 95% probability that the distribution of error is not due to uncorrelated errors and there is a systematic difference between observed reality and the model. This is a nice way of saying the IPCC's AGW models is WRONG and is falsified by the observation to a high and *increasing* probability.
Rerunning the models with actual behavior of those things is a check on how good the model is. They don't change the model, just the input to more accurately reflect what happened in the real world for things they couldn't predict ahead of time. How can you possibly think that they should be able to know ahead of time exactly what would happen?
W. T. F. ? Hindcasts are used to find model parameterization values. This is normal. But it turns out the models are so bad and reflect reality so badly that the spread in the model values is around 0.6 C even when the data is known. That is a horrific failure to HINDCAST - which shows the ability to FORECAST is totally worthless. The correctness of a model is not determined by the ability to hindcast but by the ability to make predictions that observation later confirms. This is core to the Scientific Method and it is absolutely shocking you do not know this. Seriously, you cannot begin to understand science without understanding this principle. Now I am trying to help you understand where the error in your understanding about the failure of the IPCC AGW hypothesis is - but it turns out it is far more fundamental than that. It appears you don't understand the Scientific Method at all. That's ok, I'm happy to get you up to speed. Please read the following for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Once you understand the basics of the Scientific Method we can continue. At the moment you are horribly confused, which is why you don't understand the experimental basis with which the models have failed.
I read that part around Christy's radiosonde graph in detail before I brought it up with you. That graph does indeed end in 2005. In this blog post Tamino (statistician Grant Foster) compares satellite to radiosonde out to about 2015. [wordpress.com] The second graph clearly shows the divergence of radiosonde (RATPAC) data to UAH and RSS satellite date after about 2006. Christy had access to that data so why didn't he show it.
Thank you for the link. I lo
I'm familiar with John Christy and was aware of his testimony before the House Science, Space & Technology committee. I skimmed through the PDF and didn't find anything that surprised me. I don't hold Christy in very high regard based on past performance.
You eco-religious people are funny. Multiple serious failures in your analysis here:
1) Your personal feelings toward Christy should be irrelevant. But you cannot help yourself from launching an ad hominem on him rather than talking about data.
2) 'skimming' shows you don't wish to absorb new information. All you are looking for are things that support your Confirmation Bias. You do this because you don't want the cognitive dissonance from reality interfering with your pseudo-religiious climate cult worldview. There is no difference between climate alarmists and Muslims and evangelical Creationists in their approach to inconvenient facts. None !
3) The first graph in Appendix A should surprise every CAGW alarmist, because it completely destroys your narrative.
Here is a critique of the graphs Christy used [realclimate.org] by Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt basically said Christy's graph were inconsistent, misleading and slanted toward making the difference between models and satellite observations appear greater than they actually are.
Thank you for the link. I read and analyzed Schmidt's points. His criticism don't change the fact that the models are WRONG by a whopping FACTOR of 3. He does everything he can to avoid talking about this. His points about:
1) smoothing, irrelevant, as it doesn't change the trend This is a desperate ploy from the slimy Schmidt. 2) moving the baseline - which is laughable as the models are so incredibly made they cannot HINDCAST to anything less than 0.6 C error, let alone do forecasting. Moving the baseline is the trick to delay the inevitable divergence, because the first time-derivative between the models and observations is so massively different (the models predict vastly too much warming and they are WRONG). Another misdirection from Schmidt. 3) Model spread. The model has a huge spread, as I said it cannot even hindcast to within 0.6C at the start and it just gets worse from there. There is some spread in the observations, but it is nothing compared to the spread in the models (which shows how badly the relative significance of various effects are quantified). The spread in the observations doesn't change the fact that the model gets the trend very badly wrong. Again Schmidt talks about the observations when it is obvious that it is the colossal spread in the models that is the significant problem here. 4). Structural uncertainly. Doesn't change the conclusion that the models have the WRONG trend, and not by a little bit either, they are wrong by a factor of around 3 in the rate.
Schmidt performs another illustrative deception. He first tries to make out that the satellite data sets don't match reality, and then he dismisses the balloon results. But the four balloon datasets are consistent with the two satellite datasets. He is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING readers who don't understand this. And most of his readers are too uninformed with lesser intellects so they don't pick this up or his other indirections.
Schmidt also completely ignores Appendix A which destroys the alarmist Narrative. He hopes most people won't notice the omission, and they don't. His readers are not that smart nor informed (looking at the comments) - typical for creationist-type cult followers.
I will also note that in 2016 after Christy's testimony that both major satellite records, UAH and RSS set new all time records for high temperatures reducing the discrepancy between models and satellite observations.
It was the super El Nino of 2016. This is already ending and it looks like severe La Nina may be building, which is why Greenland is putting on ice at a record rate (fourth graphic on the following page):
When the Government gets in the business of deciding what citizens can and can't see, you are in trouble.
Already around the 'Free World' we have governments regulating what can and cannot be said in jokes. People have been punished for singing karaoke for the song 'Kung Fu Fighting'.
You want to know how we get to Orwellian '1984' style situation? slowly and gradually so most people don't even notice, and a lot of people actual defend this Government totalitarianism (which is a system that polices thought via speech). The words 'hate speech' are used as a camouflage by those with Orwellian impulses to silence anyone, and any idea no matter if it is true, they don't like.
Refuse to elect anyone who is against your 'dangerous' Free Speech !
It's a shame that he and Dr. Spencer are alone in their opinions
Ah, the false appeal to consensus. Of course, you do not address their data. The tell that you are an anti-scientific zealot. You are just as religious as the freaks of the evangelical right, you deny observed reality (which is why you do not actually talk about the observations, you MUST deny they exist or pretend that the satellites dont match the direct balloon measurements when they match extraordinarily well). You are a no less religious than a Creationist. It is HILARIOUS to see.
You don't even know that the "97% consensus" had been completely debunked, do you? around half of all scientists are skeptics. Spencer and Christy have half the natural sciences with them, and the majority of the population. Furthermore, and all importantly, the OBSERVED DATA is on their side.
I think. And if he or Dr. Spencer can come up with a plausible negative feedback mechanism then I am sure they would be taken quite seriously.
Again you show just how little you know about science. No alternative hyothesis is needed. NONE. Its like you understand NOTHING about statistical analysis and the Null Hypothesis. You are completely incompetent in empirical science. Even 1st year undergraduates understand statistical analysis better than you insane zealots do. And you refuse to learn ANYTHING. This is the source of your colossal incompetence.
Yes, if you only look at galactic rotation curves,
I have looked that the data for the galactic rotation curves. A lot. It is amazing just how dodgy the data is. Unlike you, I actually look at the data.
The issue is that his argument is flawed.
COMPLETELY FALSE. COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FALSE AND CONTRARY TO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. No argument is required for the Null Hypothesis. Your whole nonsense anti-scientific bs is based on the completely wrong assumption that AGW is true until proven false. This is complete bs and shows you don't know anything about science. The Null Hypothesis requires no supporting theory, none. Again your utter ignorance about the scientific method and statistical analysis comes through. But thanks to the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are completely oblivious to your severe incompetence and ignorance about how science is done. And then you pompously pretend you have a clue. ROFL. You are the best candidate the for the chess-playing pidgeon I have ever met.
My bet is that you could not understand the data that Christy presented. You couldn't even read the report because you are so scientifically illterate. Hence you don't understand the significance of Figure 3 nor Appendix A which crushes the alarmist's claims. You cannot comprehend the information being presented. Fortunately more and more scientists can, as well as very famous technologists like Freeman Dyson, Burt Rutan, Physics Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever.
And who do you have on your side? frauds like Michael Mann who claim to be 'Nobel Laureates' when the Nobel committed disavows him. Cartoonists and loons like John Cooke and his menagerie of anti-scientific freaks. All the fraudsters of the Hadley Center whose deception was uncovered in Climategate. LOL! you have nobodies and more importantly the data do not agree with you, except for the estimated portion of the surface data where warming was injected by Gavin Schmidt into the record.
I would certainly like to see it disproven
It has been disproven by the statistics. The problem is, you don't understand the statistical analysis at all nor of the meaning of the words "Null Hypothesis". Hence you have been making bs argument after bs argument because you cannot grok the information you are being given. As a caveman you cannot understand even the basic concepts of the Scientific Method and statistical analysis.
The argument you're presen
Enjoy
https://science.house.gov/site...
Evidence given by an actual climate scientist to the US Senate:
https://science.house.gov/site...
Enjoy.
https://science.house.gov/site...
I don't care about convincing zealots. As time goes on your position becomes more and more untenable based on the observed data. I'm saving you from future embarrassment, that's all - because it is inevitable you will lose this debate.
I have given you links to the UAH and RSS data already. You can extract the data from the links given. Of you could request the data sets from the source projects. If you are competent you will have no problem doing this.
And what is it with you people and insisting on politicizing the debate? You're making it quite clear that your only interest is the science that supports your political principles.
What are my political beliefs? I'm not an American. Hell, what is my ethnicity? You know NOTHING about me - but you must turn to this since you have no other argument.
However, the IPCC is NOT a scientific body but is a political body. That is why the Summary for Policymakers are NOT written by scientists, but are written by politicians and bureaucrats BEFORE the scientists have written the content of the chapters of the IPCC reports. You knew about this didn't you? oh, no, that's right - you know virtually nothing about the ACTUAL process and the flaws in it - hence in your eco-religion you treat the IPCC as infallible as the Catholics treat the Pope.
The process is inherently political because the IPCC's agenda is not scientific, it is political and globalist. Are you ignorant of this too ?
I have provided you with the data in previous posts. I know you know how to read - even if belatedly. This was part of your problem, you don't comprehend what was being said to you and thought you already knew it all so didn't actually have to read the information I gave you. This is why your argument was wrong, and you lost the debate.
You very nearly got to a point where you understood the fundamental problem with the IPCC AGW hypothesis, that it predicts a TCS (and related TCR) which is a whopping factor of 3 higher than observed. You then considered that the IPCC would be wrong, some new physics would be needed (not really, although the models don't model existing processes properly). It never dawned on you that the whole hypothesis was wrong and certainly the propaganda being used against the population by the IPCC misdirects from the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor. But it is hard to gain control of economies and extort 'green' taxes if you talk about water vapor, the words 'carbon pollution' sounds much scarier even if it is a false propaganda meme.
And when you are really to accept the truth, you can find why the narcissistic control-feaks UN wants to control economies through collectivist central planning from their own words here:
http://green-agenda.com/
All I'm doing is showing you the truth. We (climate realists) are the Rebel Alliance showing you the Galactic Empire wants to control you and does not have your interests at heart - it is by and for the people that rule it.
In looking at the graphs you cite I see several "precipitous" drops in temperature of similar magnitude and steepness. Maybe the most recent one is the fastest but I can't tell without downloading and analyzing the numbers but it doesn't stand out to the point where it's obvious. What is obvious is the positive temperature trend during the period of record. If you think you can tell anything about climatic temperature trends over a less than about 20 year period you're wrong.
We agree, nothing of a timescale less than 20 years is significant. What is very significant is that the underlying trend started around 150 years ago - well before the IPCC's AGW could have been the initiator of the change. What is absolutely fascinating is that the IPCC claims that this underlying trend went for 100 years naturally and then 'suddenly' switched off the natural cause and switched entirely to a 100% human-caused effect. I don't believe in magic, but apparently the IPCC do as this is their official position, all warming since 1950 is human-induced. Why do you believe in this magic ? what switched the century of natural warming off and instantaneously changed it to human warming? you support the IPCC so surely you know what this miraculous mechanism is, right ?
Solar magnetic variability. LOL. When you first brought it up a few years ago I looked into it some but I didn't find that it held water very well. I'm not saying it's impossible but the hypothesis is going to have to have better evidence for it than it has now. And it has to be fleshed out to the point where it does at least as good a job as current climate theory does in explaining the results we see in the climate.
The Little Ice Age is correlated with solar magnetic variability. This is beyond dispute. The current thinking is explained by the variation in cloud cover which is strongly correlated with the solar magnetic cycle, as shown by the research of Svensmark. A collaboration with the theoretician Shaviv has improved the theory. Things have move along - and thank you for at least starting to look at the undoubtedly NATURAL causes of the beginning of global warming 150 years ago. Of course, the climate is far to complex a system to have a single effect in play. Because cloud cover changes the oceanic cycles (AMO being particularly important) and surface-properties dependent biospheric response are also significant effects. What is abundantly clear now is that human-emitted CO2 is not the principal driver of global climate. This is why the IPCC admits that if humans adopted IPCC policy and deindustralize back to African-like conditions then the effect on the temperature is will be around 0.04 K.
Your team wants to destroy the First World and all halt progress (technology requires energy abundance), and kill billions of poor around the World through energy poverty, and this will have a 0.04 K effect of global climate. Let me guess, they never told you the projected temperature change if all the IPCC's wishes were fulfilled, did they ?
Well you've never heard me say snow is a thing of the past.
No, of course not. But the claim that snow would be a thing of the past and the polar bears are going extinct because we 'evil First Worlders' use energy and resist control of the UN over our economic lives, and resist giving 'green taxes' to rich cronyists and unelected UN apparatchiks is going to "destroy the world!". The fear is the thing that was used to sell this evil plan by control freaks to the masses - and the end of snow was a propaganda meme. Just because you didn't say it does not absolve you of your support of those that did (and still do !). Here are some newspaper articles showing the PROPAGANDA that has been used to indoctrinate people (it shows the motives of the alarmists are deceptive)
http://realclimatescience.com/...
And the same deal saying g
I have already pointed out that 'peer review' is NOT required by the Scientific Method. This is thanks to Galileo and later Lysenko. And it is just as well given that the Climategate emails, which everyone agrees are the real leaked emails, show how there was active collusion to corrupt the peer-review process to only accept papers that supported Michael Mann's work. Absolutely disgusting and immoral - and you support this.
Citations are not required because I have given you the DATA. The data show the IPCC's AGW hypothesis does not reflect reality. It is you who also rejects the reality of the observations. You are delusional despite being pointed to reality. You are an anti-scientific fanatic that rejects the data in favor of legalistic arguments. You have to do this because you have no other argument. This is why you will repeat your meme like and autistic monkey. But every time you do, everyone who actually wants to know the science will see that you have no argument, reject the data, and deliberately refuse to use the Scientific Method in order to cling to the delusional alarmist memes. You are doing my work for me with every post. Thank you. Please keep helping me show the thousands of Slashdotters reading this thread just how backward and anti-scientific the tactics of eco-loons really are.
The fact you don't know what the UAH and RSS satellites are, and the data they have been producing, showed from the very beginning you know virtually nothing about even the basics of the AGW debate. You can 'froth' all you want, but you are so clueless you don't even know how much you don't know - and you steadfastly refuse to learn no matter if information is repeated for you. But you are completely and utterly blind to how ignorant you are choosing to be. I cannot help you if you argue despite not even knowing the fundamentals of the debate. Sorry, but only a complete moron who doesn't understand the Scientific Method does this (but sadly, even many 'climate scientists' neither seem to know nor follow the Scientific Method - which is an easy way for real scientists to identify the bad pseudo-scientists posing as 'researchers').
It is clear you have had no international research-quality training in science, because your approach is as anti-scientific as the psychologists and other types of eco-loons out there. I'm guessing you studied (or quite likely, are still an undergraduate) philosophy or some kind of social 'science' and the lame fallacies and shoddy techniques they often employ are somehow 'science'. ROFL !
Once again, a post completely devoid of citations, and showing no indication that you have read any of the material presented.
The Scientific Method is not based on citiations nor even on peer-review. It is based on data and data alone. Ask Galileo or Lysenko why this is so. I have presented data that you refuse to accept. This indicates for a fourth time that you don't understand the Scientific Method and you refuse to accept observed reality as shown by the data I presented.
And as it happens, you have entirely misunderstood my comments on empiricism, but at this point correcting your misunderstanding seems to be an exercise in futility
I can only go by what you post, and I have been very careful to get you to explain your position several times. Each time you have shown you don't know what the Scientific Method requires which ends up in you thinking anti-scientific arguments are somehow science. You are a slow learner but still don't grok where you have failed again and again. But like all ego-centric eco-activist you project your ignorance onto your interlocutors - exactly as the Dunning-Kruger Effect explains.
Next time you wish to have a conversation about science, bring some citations.
Next time you want to have a conversation about science you will need to learn and use The Scientific Method. Citations are NOT required by the Scientific Method, only observational data and a set of tests on your hypothesis. And, as I have demonstrated by providing both the IPCC AGW prediction ensemble and the multiple satellite and balloon data sets that show the predictions are wrong, the climate alarmist position is falsified empirically. You clinging to the falsified hypothesis shows you are exercising 'personal faith' contradicted by the evidence. Not only are you not practicing 'science' you are actually so bad you are following an 'anti-scientific' path.
You have no explanation for the empirical data that falsifies the IPCC AGW hypothesis - because the data are correct and represent the reality you reject. Since you cannot refute the data but still want to anti-scientifically cling to your alarmist pseudo-religious viewpoint you try all sorts of nonsense memes ('there are other ways at arriving at truth' - false; 'peer reviewed' - which cannot override observational data) that the Scientific Method holds worthless.
Since you have no data and I have comprehensively demonstrated you don't even understand the predictions of your own side, let alone the arguments of the climate realists, it is clear the alarmist position is in defiance of observed reality analyzed through the Scientific Method. You are done. Check, mate (and I didn't even have to raise a sweat your arguments were so anti-scientific).
I love how frothy you're getting.
And I love how you have to resort to subtle ad hominems and other tricks of sophistry,. such as denial of observational reality and avoidance of topics which your eco-activism fails on. But you also seem unable to grok how with every post you are helping me. Your denial of the Scientific Method a third time shows you are anti-scientific and no amount of observational evidence will get you to accept the fact that the IPCC predictions are far, far too high and don't match observed reality. Every time you refuse to use the Scientific Method and accept the observational data shows the thousands of people reading the thread exactly how the alarmists that claim the mantle of 'science' actually refuse to use the Scientific Method and use cheap sophistry instead. You think by now I'm trying to get you to accept observed reality? ROFL! such ego-centricism ! you are a True Believer and no amount of evidence will falsify your cult-like belief system.
I'm still repeating a few basic points, though, and you keep posting things that are trivially contradicted, which is a real shame.
Your assertion that anything other than empiricism forms the basis of 'Science' continues to be completely and utterly false. Which is why I point it out each time so that no readers on this thread are ever mislead as to what science actually is. Again you use cheap sophistry and claim that this is 'trivially contradicted' yet you cannot perform this. All you demonstrate is that when the Scientific Method is pointed out to you that you refuse to accept it and continue to deny using it for evaluating the claims of competing hypotheses. Hence what sounds sophisticated and 'logical' to you is a denial of observed reality. For example, you talk about 'cherry picking' which shows your entire method of thinking is completely and utterly anti-scientific. 'Cherry picking' is not a defense of a failed hypothesis, ANY unexplained observations are enough to reject a hypothesis. You would know this if you knew anything about science or the practice of it - but you do not, and you refuse to learn.
That makes me think of philosopher of science Karl Popper's famous quote
“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
No matter how many times I point you to the Scientific Method you refuse to learn it, and hence you make all sorts of nonsense arguments like 'there are other paths to truth than empiricism' (completely false, empiricism is the sole determinant between competing hypotheses - otherwise you get into idiocy like 'how many angels fit on the head of the pin', or 'if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?' - which philosophers like you cannot resolve but the Scientific Method does).
Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to have a scientific debate if you refuse to use the Scientific Method and use sophistry instead.
As I keep saying, there are and have been much better arguments against AGW in the past, and you do need some specific evidence to refute the theory.
Thanks again for demonstrating to everyone reading how you don't understand science at all. No 'arguments' are required to refute AGW (and by this I mean, the theory and predictions made by the IPCC). None. The only thing that matters are the observations. At present the UAH+RSS+balloon observations are passing out the 2 sigma lower limit of the IPCC average-of-ensemble model prediction. No alternative hypothesis is needed, the Null Hypothesis must be accepted instead. Do I need to repeat this until you understand it ? No alternative to the IPCC's AGW (which is actually, CAGW) need be suggested, their hypothesis should be rejected for the Null Hypothesis at the 2 sigma level, and this level of rejection is increasing as time goes on. Time is not on your side, amigo. I'm trying to save you massive embarrassment in the future. The Empe
But empiricism is not the only path to truth, and there is no particularly good basis with which to say it is the best path to truth. Rationalism is a completely acceptable alternative.
I'm glad I asked you to clarify. If you are practicing Classical Philosophy then you have a point, but if you want to do 'Science' then you are completely, utterly and shockingly wrong. Science is the use of the Scientific Method the Scientific Method uses empiricism as the source of truth (selection between competing hypotheses or the Null Hypothesis). I am shocked that you would not know this and yet claim to be practicing 'science' while condemning 'deniers' for practicing the very science you do not understand. Please, please, please go and learn the Scientific Method because you are very, very confused at the moment. Here is a link for your convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I often see this from alarmists. They don't understand how science actually works so they cannot correctly distinguish between pseudo-science and actual science. Hence, alarmists are easily bamboozled by charlatans like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt etc.
. And it is my contention that a large portion of the US population, especially those engaged in AGW denial, are not empirical, have no interest in being empirical, and have no notion that this could be a bad thing.
It is you who has just rejected empiricism as the source of scientific truth.And you've done it twice now ! you are projecting your confusion on to others. The CAGW skeptics understand and practice science, because they accept the empirical evidence being presented by independent satellite and balloon measurements and comparing them with the IPCC's predictions, and the predictions have failed quite badly.
There are a number of key predictions of AGW, but I don't recall that having been one offhand.
I can understand you not understanding the arguments of the skeptics, but to not even understand the arguments of the alarmists whose position you are trying to defend is terrible. Clearly you don't actually understand the mechanism that IPCC's CAGW claims is the dominant effect on climate ! Sorry, but you seem to be defending a hypothesis for which you don't understand at all - and yet you claim it is the skeptics who are the ignorant ones ! I think you should re-evaluate your competence on this subject before you start insulting the skeptics who understand both their position and that of the alarmists very, very well (and then they use the Scientific Method to evaluate the competing hypotheses).
Firstly it predicts global warming, and the observed warming must be considered the "smoking gun".
This is a complete failure of logic, sorry to say. CAGW starts with a particular mechanism and predicts a specific atmospheric temperature gradient as a function of time. This is not observed, and in fact the opposite is observed - with the divergence between the IPCC's predictions and observed reality diverging increasingly rapidly. This is the 'smoking' gun. Yes, this profile predicted more warming at the poles and stratospheric cooling - because more energy was trapped in the lower troposphere, which is why the RSS and UAH satellites were launched to look for that signature. But what the satellites saw is consistent with CO2 only warming with negligible effect from water vapor (and water vapor is the CORE of IPCC's claim for requiring political action).
All of these things have been observed.
Yes, but there are many NATURAL mechanisms that can cause these effects. The way to discriminate between the CAGW, AGW and natural processes is the TLT measurement, and the IPPC predictions are a factor of 3 too high and diverging rapidly. There is zero cause for alarm over slow and modest natural warming that has been seen before and
This is what RSS sees:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
This is what UAH sees:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
You are correct that El Nino timing is variable, but my point that around 4 years is the expectation value still stands. Yes, El Nino is not always followed by the precipitous drop of a La Nina, but this yeah the temperature drop in the last few months has been by a whopping 1 K. This is the fastest recorded drop in history. yet for some reason the media don't want to report this ? This is not the biggest drop over time, but it is the most rapid drop. At the current rate it looks like a La Nina is developing, although it will be a few more months before we know for definite, but all indications are currently that one is forming.
Underlying these is the trend we have seen for 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age which we know is due to the effect of solar magnetic variability, and probably linked to terrestrial climate through the change in water vapor/cloudiness (via an interaction between the heliosphere and cosmic rays).
As far as snow in the Sahara and more ice than normal on Greenland you are confusing weather and year to year variability with climate.
I mention this specifically because of claims that 'snow is a thing of the past' and 'Greenland is melting we are doomed' memes that are counter-factual. There is huge variability in the weather but when it is hot (such as the super El Nino of 2016) the propagandists go into overdrive with the 'hottest yeah evah' memes and claim this is 'proof' of ANTHROPOGENIC effects dominating natural ones. But we it is cold they say, 'meh, weather'. That is why I mention it, because the Confirmation Bias is strong in all of us, but alarmists abnormally so.