Flying in aircraft is interesting. I still find it interesting, even after 25 years of doing it. When it takes 10 hours though, it's boring, and I want it to be over. Going to Mars, and being on Mars, is like a long flight, but with worse food, and mindless, repetitious work to do as you schlep through your 6-12 months. So when the novelty of it wears off and it becomes routine, who is going to go willing?
Mars is boring. Humans have evolved to roam about and forage for things. We like to roam. Mars is more like a cramped, dirty, underlit basement that you can't leave, and have to share with people you can barely stand. But never mind, tomorrow you can unblock the toilet again. But you won't be going outside and having adventures, or looking forward to a nice coffee, or meeting a nice girl, or seeing new sights and or experiencing new cultures, or making any new discoveries. But maybe you can occupy yourself with more digging in the ground like a worm - but don't damage your suit!
I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves
You cited an organization that quite explicitly claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Explain to me me how that works.
Do you understand NASAs data better than they do?
1. If NASA's data says the sun is causing the warming, why does NASA say otherwise? Show working
2. If volcanic SO2 is causing the warming, why did it get progressively warmer and not just drop off? Show working
Perhaps the problem is that you are too stupid or lazy to understand what the OP meant, which is that minor positives don't cancel out the major negatives.
We know it is "greener" (it's not actually green) in some areas because of science. The same science tells us that it is browner in others. Also, the same science gives us other observed effects that are detrimental, and others are projected which we have yet to see (some beneficial, but in the whole detrimental).
You can't accept part of the science and ignore the rest.
What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.
When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this made it much hotter on the surface of Venus than on Mercury. This was known, and nobody blinked an eye. There was no mention in any of the literature of that era about the idea being controversial when applied to Venus.
Facts don't cease to be facts because they later turn out to be inconvenient.
The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.
If this is the case this would contradict, rather than demonstrate your earlier assertion: Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today..
If, as you are now claiming no evidence has been presented then the earlier claim: one of the similar predictions of the past have come true can't be true, because no predictions would have been made.
Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread.
Stop lying. To quote myself: Don't cite yourself as an authority though, because that is the equivalent of just making a baseless assertion. Show us your research, show us the data, and we'll take a look.
Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters.
You aren't a dissenter. Liars aren't dissenters: you can't "dissent" from truth. You can't dissent from facts: screaming "death, you're persecuting meeeee" as you plunge over a cliff, having decided to "dissent" from the fact that humans can't fly. Fraudsters aren't dissenters - people who commit fraud should pay back the people they defrauded. I think you and your pals are deliberately lying about the causes of climate change, in an attempt to avoid mitigation. Thus, you push the burden of mitigation onto others.
It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.
First you claim to have already posted the citation to your paper, and now you say you HAVEN'T, and we shouldn't be surprised that you DIDN'T.
You (that's you!) said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim(that's you!) , but with someone else (that's me!) to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!), and is not upon anyone else (like me!) to disprove.
I repeat: Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.
Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
- OR I can buy the product from someone who doesn't emit Carbon Dioxide and therefore doesn't pay the Carbon Tax.
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... from weather modificaiton conspiricists makes it clear that Global Warming is real, anthropogenic, and that climate denialists are coveirng up the truth about AGW AND Weather modification programs*.
(*OK but is this argument about "weather modification programs" any more crazy than what the average denialists says?(.
Climate denialism is a scam and a fraud. Nothing the leading denialists say comes from observations, and nothing they claim is later verified experimentally.
If anything, this shows that despite his proclamations to the contrary, Donald Trump is just like the others: bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby. Either that, or his climate policy is the result of a mouth speaking unattached to a brain and a refusal to listen to the advice of experts in the field.
Are there other random groups of people, unrelated to the topic at hand, that you want to vilify while you are at it? The Elvis impersonators union of Parkes? Brazilian samba dancers? Vegetarian Inuits?
Let's review: You say there is no mysterious, unobserved forcing driving the present climate change. You say that this warming is due to solar activity. No increase in solar activity has been detected.
Explain this contradiction for us.
(a) Is the warming due to an increase in solar activity?
(b) is this increase detectable?
(c) If it is undetectable, what is it's nature (assuming it is not supernatural) and how do you know this is the cause without observing it?
(d) What happen to the warming that should have occurred from our emissions of CO2 and other GHG's?
That's just 2, out of the billions of people who accept the science and are concerned about the implications.
It is certainly true that as a general rule, people are starting to lose patience with the lies and recalcitrance of the denialists. I would not be surprised if litigation begins soon. But whose fault is that? Is it our fault that you have been consistently wrong for 20 years? It is our fault that your lies are lies?
This doesn't make you persecuted. It makes you part of a movement that is delusion OR engaged in an attempt to defraud.
I believe GP number 3 was what if recent warming was already baked into the system as natural change. I didn't read that as requiring a rejection of CO2 forcing, and in that scenario I'd call it the worst case in that we are already 1C above 1900 AND we've got a big forcing from CO2 yet to go on top of whatever else has been pushing things naturally.
Well yes, that was what I was saying: that if something else (undetectable) has caused the recent warming, then the warming from CO2 still needs to be accounted for. Also, "something else" implies a mysterious force is at work, and because we cannot observe it, we cannot predict it, which means the outcome from ongoing warming from the mysterious, undetectable and unobservable forcing could be far worse than our current predictions.
The cloud parameters say everything about the state of our understanding. We can barely measure the energy in and out of the planet accurately enough to get the error bars smaller than the imbalance. Then when we go to model the system, we know the models run off to unrealistic energy states unless we tune poorly modelled factors like clouds by hand. CO2, clouds, water vapor and everything else in our dynamic climate system are driving the global energy imbalance. That energy imbalance in turn is the driving force of climate change. My point of emphasis is that the size of that energy imbalance is smaller than the contribution of systems we admit we don't understand properly. The range of unknowns that tune clouds between is greater than the energy imbalance. To be clear, we are right to be concerned about that energy imbalance, but we also need to acknowledge the importance of the things we don't know when stating our confidence about what is coming and the impact our actions will have on that.
But that's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, because the topic is about the warming we have already observed and we don't need a model to tell us about that, we have already observed it, we have NOT observed any phenomena other than increasing concentrations of CO2( and other GHGs) which are all traceable back to our own emissions. Models are for predicting the future, they aren't needed to explain what we have already seen.
Absolutely not. No amount of modelling can negate the fact that CO2 absorbs radiation. The complexity of modelling the climate(not just clouds) means that the unknowns in the system have a greater impact than the increased concentrations of CO2. I modestly want to suggest from that we should be cautious about overstating our confidence in future projections of impacts.
I don't think anybody is claiming the modelling is perfect. However, if you are right, then the warming could be far worse than the models predict. So I hope you are wrong - if you are not, then the smart course of action would be to increase the amount we are spending on climate research by several orders of magnitude, to ensure that the models have not been overly optimistic in their predictions.
Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.
You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me.
Nobody needs to convince you of anything. You said:
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.
Now, it seems you can't prove it. Or, in other words, you lied. Nobody cares about your feelings, your opinions, or your beliefs, these are totally irrelevant to us.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Thanks once again for stating facts from the science which you reject.
And who in the precambrian was burning sutff?
What the? Are you a moron? Are you trying to imply that the only way that CO2 levels can rise is if someone is burning coal? Are you on drugs?
Censored by people like Bill Nye, who want people who post alternative explanations *put in jail*.
I see. It's Bill Nyes doing. That dastardly villain, Did he travel back in time to interfere with the experiments performed by Arrehenius? Or is he just abnormaly old, kept alive by some sort of black magic?
Is it all Bill Nye's doing, or are the illuminati in on it too?
I can see your mistake. You are conflating cloud forcing with water vapour forcing.
That's true - my mistake. But in my defence, we were talking about climate forcing (the OP had asked what they should do in a number of hypothetical scenarios, one of which (3) was that CO2 was not climate forcing , which is the scenario and topic under discussion). I conflated water vapour with cloud behaviour becuase I assumed we were on topic.
In which case, can I ask what you think cloud parameterisation in GCM and ES models which are based upon the fact that CO2 is climate forcing has to do with the topic at hand? Do you think that the complexity of modelling cloud behaviour somehow throws CO2 climate forcing into doubt (without reference to water vapour)?
Slashdot Mirror
Flying in aircraft is interesting. I still find it interesting, even after 25 years of doing it. When it takes 10 hours though, it's boring, and I want it to be over. Going to Mars, and being on Mars, is like a long flight, but with worse food, and mindless, repetitious work to do as you schlep through your 6-12 months. So when the novelty of it wears off and it becomes routine, who is going to go willing?
Mars is boring. Humans have evolved to roam about and forage for things. We like to roam. Mars is more like a cramped, dirty, underlit basement that you can't leave, and have to share with people you can barely stand. But never mind, tomorrow you can unblock the toilet again. But you won't be going outside and having adventures, or looking forward to a nice coffee, or meeting a nice girl, or seeing new sights and or experiencing new cultures, or making any new discoveries. But maybe you can occupy yourself with more digging in the ground like a worm - but don't damage your suit!
I don't get it. Why would Global warming season happen over winter?
I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves
You cited an organization that quite explicitly claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Explain to me me how that works.
Do you understand NASAs data better than they do?
1. If NASA's data says the sun is causing the warming, why does NASA say otherwise? Show working
2. If volcanic SO2 is causing the warming, why did it get progressively warmer and not just drop off? Show working
How do any of those facts have an influence on the temperature difference between Venus and Mercury?
We know it is "greener" (it's not actually green) in some areas because of science. The same science tells us that it is browner in others. Also, the same science gives us other observed effects that are detrimental, and others are projected which we have yet to see (some beneficial, but in the whole detrimental).
You can't accept part of the science and ignore the rest.
What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.
When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this made it much hotter on the surface of Venus than on Mercury. This was known, and nobody blinked an eye. There was no mention in any of the literature of that era about the idea being controversial when applied to Venus.
Facts don't cease to be facts because they later turn out to be inconvenient.
Kinda hard to see how decisions made by the US Department of Labor impact pay rates in other countries.
The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.
If this is the case this would contradict, rather than demonstrate your earlier assertion: Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today..
If, as you are now claiming no evidence has been presented then the earlier claim: one of the similar predictions of the past have come true can't be true, because no predictions would have been made.
Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread.
Stop lying. To quote myself: Don't cite yourself as an authority though, because that is the equivalent of just making a baseless assertion. Show us your research, show us the data, and we'll take a look.
Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters.
You aren't a dissenter. Liars aren't dissenters: you can't "dissent" from truth. You can't dissent from facts: screaming "death, you're persecuting meeeee" as you plunge over a cliff, having decided to "dissent" from the fact that humans can't fly. Fraudsters aren't dissenters - people who commit fraud should pay back the people they defrauded. I think you and your pals are deliberately lying about the causes of climate change, in an attempt to avoid mitigation. Thus, you push the burden of mitigation onto others.
It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.
First you claim to have already posted the citation to your paper, and now you say you HAVEN'T, and we shouldn't be surprised that you DIDN'T.
I'm not surprised, not at all.
Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.
Here's what I found:
You (that's you!) said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim(that's you!) , but with someone else (that's me!) to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!), and is not upon anyone else (like me!) to disprove.
I repeat: Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.
Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..
Can you prove your claim?
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.
LLT atmospheric hotspots observed.
Better call your mates at climateaudit and get them to publish a retraction.
If they were you would see your comment moderated down and their's up. The evidence indicates otherwise.
Oh! The irony.
Ad hominem. None of the predictions from your side have ever come true.
My 'side'? You mean science right?
Also, you clearly have no freakin' idea what an ad hominem is.
If they had, we would have all been dead 25-30 years ago.
You mean, without science, you would have died 25-30 years ago - which is probably true.
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
- OR I can buy the product from someone who doesn't emit Carbon Dioxide and therefore doesn't pay the Carbon Tax.
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... from weather modificaiton conspiricists makes it clear that Global Warming is real, anthropogenic, and that climate denialists are coveirng up the truth about AGW AND Weather modification programs*.
(*OK but is this argument about "weather modification programs" any more crazy than what the average denialists says?(.
Climate denialism is a scam and a fraud. Nothing the leading denialists say comes from observations, and nothing they claim is later verified experimentally.
If anything, this shows that despite his proclamations to the contrary, Donald Trump is just like the others: bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby. Either that, or his climate policy is the result of a mouth speaking unattached to a brain and a refusal to listen to the advice of experts in the field.
Comically bad.
Are there other random groups of people, unrelated to the topic at hand, that you want to vilify while you are at it? The Elvis impersonators union of Parkes? Brazilian samba dancers? Vegetarian Inuits?
Let's review: You say there is no mysterious, unobserved forcing driving the present climate change. You say that this warming is due to solar activity. No increase in solar activity has been detected.
Explain this contradiction for us.
(a) Is the warming due to an increase in solar activity?
(b) is this increase detectable?
(c) If it is undetectable, what is it's nature (assuming it is not supernatural) and how do you know this is the cause without observing it?
(d) What happen to the warming that should have occurred from our emissions of CO2 and other GHG's?
Why are you posting a link to someone's blog?
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
1. Why would I be paying a carbon tax? Carbon taxes are paid by the entities that emit carbon dioxide
2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, why is this not demonstrated experimentally?
3. What is causing the present climate change if not our greenhouse gas emissions? Cite the relevant paper.
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Why would the top 100 families want a carbon tax? How are we enslaved if someone else pays a tax?
It is certainly true that as a general rule, people are starting to lose patience with the lies and recalcitrance of the denialists. I would not be surprised if litigation begins soon. But whose fault is that? Is it our fault that you have been consistently wrong for 20 years? It is our fault that your lies are lies?
This doesn't make you persecuted. It makes you part of a movement that is delusion OR engaged in an attempt to defraud.
I believe GP number 3 was what if recent warming was already baked into the system as natural change. I didn't read that as requiring a rejection of CO2 forcing, and in that scenario I'd call it the worst case in that we are already 1C above 1900 AND we've got a big forcing from CO2 yet to go on top of whatever else has been pushing things naturally.
Well yes, that was what I was saying: that if something else (undetectable) has caused the recent warming, then the warming from CO2 still needs to be accounted for. Also, "something else" implies a mysterious force is at work, and because we cannot observe it, we cannot predict it, which means the outcome from ongoing warming from the mysterious, undetectable and unobservable forcing could be far worse than our current predictions.
The cloud parameters say everything about the state of our understanding. We can barely measure the energy in and out of the planet accurately enough to get the error bars smaller than the imbalance. Then when we go to model the system, we know the models run off to unrealistic energy states unless we tune poorly modelled factors like clouds by hand. CO2, clouds, water vapor and everything else in our dynamic climate system are driving the global energy imbalance. That energy imbalance in turn is the driving force of climate change. My point of emphasis is that the size of that energy imbalance is smaller than the contribution of systems we admit we don't understand properly. The range of unknowns that tune clouds between is greater than the energy imbalance. To be clear, we are right to be concerned about that energy imbalance, but we also need to acknowledge the importance of the things we don't know when stating our confidence about what is coming and the impact our actions will have on that.
But that's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, because the topic is about the warming we have already observed and we don't need a model to tell us about that, we have already observed it, we have NOT observed any phenomena other than increasing concentrations of CO2( and other GHGs) which are all traceable back to our own emissions. Models are for predicting the future, they aren't needed to explain what we have already seen.
Absolutely not. No amount of modelling can negate the fact that CO2 absorbs radiation. The complexity of modelling the climate(not just clouds) means that the unknowns in the system have a greater impact than the increased concentrations of CO2. I modestly want to suggest from that we should be cautious about overstating our confidence in future projections of impacts.
I don't think anybody is claiming the modelling is perfect. However, if you are right, then the warming could be far worse than the models predict. So I hope you are wrong - if you are not, then the smart course of action would be to increase the amount we are spending on climate research by several orders of magnitude, to ensure that the models have not been overly optimistic in their predictions.
You can't demand, I prove a negative.
Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.
You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me.
Nobody needs to convince you of anything. You said:
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.
Now, it seems you can't prove it. Or, in other words, you lied. Nobody cares about your feelings, your opinions, or your beliefs, these are totally irrelevant to us.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Thanks once again for stating facts from the science which you reject.
And who in the precambrian was burning sutff?
What the? Are you a moron? Are you trying to imply that the only way that CO2 levels can rise is if someone is burning coal? Are you on drugs?
Censored by people like Bill Nye, who want people who post alternative explanations *put in jail*.
I see. It's Bill Nyes doing. That dastardly villain, Did he travel back in time to interfere with the experiments performed by Arrehenius? Or is he just abnormaly old, kept alive by some sort of black magic?
Is it all Bill Nye's doing, or are the illuminati in on it too?
I can see your mistake. You are conflating cloud forcing with water vapour forcing.
That's true - my mistake. But in my defence, we were talking about climate forcing (the OP had asked what they should do in a number of hypothetical scenarios, one of which (3) was that CO2 was not climate forcing , which is the scenario and topic under discussion). I conflated water vapour with cloud behaviour becuase I assumed we were on topic.
In which case, can I ask what you think cloud parameterisation in GCM and ES models which are based upon the fact that CO2 is climate forcing has to do with the topic at hand? Do you think that the complexity of modelling cloud behaviour somehow throws CO2 climate forcing into doubt (without reference to water vapour)?
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true
That's weird - because just the other day you said almost exactly the same thing - but when pressed, you couldn't actually provide any evidence.
Do you have evidence now?