Sure - just publish your paper and we'll look at it. 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.
But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
You are exhibiting signs of a persecution complex for no apparent reason. This makes people suspicious, as it is one of the behaviors noted in connection with
Conspiracist Ideation. That's okay - if this suspicion is unwarranted, it will be assuaged when you publish.
And during the precambrian, atmospheric carbon was 500 ppm, without any humans at all. The amount of atmospheric carbon does fluctuate.
How do YOU know? Oh that's right, even though the same science that tells you about CO2 levels in the pre-cambrian era is now telling you what is driving the temperature rise NOW (CO2, CO2 that came from our burning stuff), you half believe one and reject the other. Hypocrisy much?
The amount of atmospheric carbon does fluctuate.
Yes, and the reason that it fluctuates is that something happens to make it fluctuate. Duh.
The solar activity is detected, but that is part of the evidence that is actively being censored.
Sure - I impatiently await the promised signs of honesty.
The GP was more honestly asking what are the unknowns. How much of current warming do we attribute to human activity and how much to natural fluctuations.
The GP was actually asking what they should DO under 3 (hypothetical) scenarios - the last of which was that the prevailing science was incorrect, and that observed climate change is entirely due to "natural" causes (that is, in the more common parlance, and unobservable or "mysterious" force). The implications of not being able to detect, understand or predict the extent of the present warming trend are vast, and negative.
Are best metric for that are the models, and here's the state of the art from the IPCC's fifth assessment [www.ipcc.ch]. From Box 9.1:
Good for you, quoting AR5 like a boss - the AR5 which says, in part:
No correlation is found between biases in global mean surface temperature and equilibrium climate sensitivity, and so mean temperature biases do not obviously affect the modelled response to GHG forcing. There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback. This applies to both the modern climate and the LGM. There is likewise very high confidence that, consistent with observations, models show a strong positive correlation between tropospheric temperature and water vapour on regional to global scales, implying a positive water vapour feedback in both models and observations.
(Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA)
When using the models to hindcast past temperatures, unknowns like clouds drive the energy imbalance into "an unrealistic state". The energy imbalance is the driver of climate change and the models still have to make hand tuned corrections to keep hindcasts realistic.
Oh whoops. You misunderstood.
There's not some undetectable or magical force acting to confound all our current understanding of CO2 impact on recent warming.
Correct.
There IS however a lot we still don't understand properly, enough that the impact of those unknowns drive the models HARDER than the CO2 we've been dumping.
No: AR5 says: biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors
on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter (Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA)
Did you not read it?
Now in all likelyhood the unknowns aren't pushing temperature one way or another, but that's an assumption at this stage(and a reasonable one).
No, AR5 says that the feedback from clouds has been both modeled and observed as positive - did you not read the paper you cited?
No mysterious force is stopping our emissions from warming our atmosphere. It is just that the amount of our emmissions, in total, is an extremely small fraction of the atmospheric carbon on this planet,
Hmm. So the scientists say that prior to us doing our thing the concentration of Co2 was 280ppm and now it is 400ppm which means our part of the whole is 120/400 or nigh on a 3rd as a fraction. Is that extremely small to your mind? Or are the scientists lying?
and that there is *also* solar activity that can explain a large percentage of the warming trend
Undetectable solar activity? If it is undetectable, how do you personally know that it is occurring? And if this increase is detectable, why are the scientists saying they've detected nothing of the sort? Why are they lying?
Yes, I read it - in fact it was one of the ideas I was thinking about when I wrote the above.
For some reason there were some great ideas flowing at the end of that conversation: e.g. one guy described the denialist '2 mysterious forces' view of the climate as the believing that the earth was 'haunted', which i thought was an excellent illustration (and hence my reference to the 'supernatural') . The whole thread is well worth going over if you have the time.
Yes, your "counterpoint" of repeated suggestions that I kill myself was simply childish rhetoric appropriate to someone with no logical reasoning capabilities at all.
You asked what the right course of action was if the current change is not linked to our emissions. I explained what you should do, and why. You didn't explain how that reasoning is wrong.
Why are you asking us for advice and then criticising the answers?
I'm not in any way suggesting the climate doesn't change. That, in itself, is uselessly self-evident. The serious discussion starts at the point of what the trade-offs in terms of action given a -baseline- of expectation and what is therefore a "problem", and what enforced modification of human behavior is warranted on the basis of variation from that -baseline-.
Well, you should stop whining like a child. That would be a good start. So you don't like cleaning your teeth. Diddums. Reality is, good dental hygiene means less problems later in life. Or - you like coal fired power stations. Diddums. Not burning coal means less economic problems in the future.
The detail you can look up yourself. I assume you are an adult.
So you are saying (essentially) that there is no way to predict the impacts of climate change - it could be much worse than the models predict. There is no way to be confident that the temperature won't suddenly jump 10 degrees, or plunge into an ice age, killing us all.
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
Defensiveness? Wow did you get that wrong!
Is there a 150 year long conspiracy to fake climate science? What is the purpose of this conspiracy?
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
What are you even talking about? Right number of what?
Well, if number 3 is true, it's probably time to consider killing yourself.
That scenario suggests firstly that some undetectable phenomena is driving climate change, and also that some undetectable phenomena is preventing the warming that should have occurred from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, there is a century long conspiracy plot, possibly the moon landings were faked to keep this plot secret, and presumably the entire scientific community is in on it. The level of power and authority and basic competence need to sustain such a secret over such a length of time is indicative that the power structures we thought governed the world are not actually effective, we live in a state of absolute servitude and what we think is real is probably not real. It's hard to believe that humans could achieve such a thing, implying an outside influence - supernatural, or possibly alien in nature.
Given that you are powerless, and have no ability to change that situation, I suggest in this circumstance that your best course is to top yourself, and let the blissful kiss of death ease you.
Alternatively, you could consider asking yourself "What framework or philosophy might guide our collective actions in this circumstance, and what methods can we use to help us understand the situation better?" Let me suggest that rather than making shit up as a method or listening to mouth breathing liars as a strategy to understand the situation better, that we could employ science. And lo and behold! Science has already told us what has caused the problem and given us at least a rough outline of how to make things better.
No, there is a warming trend *BOTH* on Earth and Mars.
That's weird. Other deniers have told me quite confidently that the earth is not warming. Are they wrong? Why isn't your theory consistent? Which theory should I believe?
Fewer data points for Mars, of course,
Well, let's be honest. Two data points. One from 1972, one from the Mars Surveyor. Taken at different times of the year, at different points of the globe, at different times of the day, using different instruments. Two data points, 40 years apart.
but there's a clear warming trend there as well.
And what is causing this simultaneous warming trend? Is it elves again?
You see, I'm not a climate change denier. I can look at my local mountains and see the shrinking glaciers. I'm an *anthropogenic* denier.
What mysterious force is stopping our emissions from warming the atmosphere? Is it ghosts?
I believe there is something else going on,
What is this thing? Is it elves again?
and while our fossil fuel usage does have something to do with it, it is not a major component.
And they'd tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about
Based on what?
that those effects from CO2 on a global climate have been far from proven
What part of the theory remains unproven?
and that the Earth is hardly an environment comparable to a "greenhouse."
Given that we've observed the radiative properties of CO2 experimentally, what mysterious force prevents CO2 from absorbing radiation once it is in the atmosphere? Does the CO2 know when it is in an experiment and behave differently? Is it sentient? Is it possessed?
1. How do you think the Romans got their water hot?
2. Do you think there were as many Romans as there are Indians, and therefore, the sewage requirements were comparable?
Did the Romans even have sewage system per se, or did they just use waste to move the raw waste to some out of the way place? Are there any 'out of the way' places in India?
I don't think a conspiracy is necessary. It's the natural result of the way the system is rigged. If you want funding to study climate you better be a supporter of Anthropomorphic Global Warming else you won't get funding.
Why do you need our money? It's simple enough to prove that CO2 is or is not a greenhouse gas. If you think it isn't a greenhouse gas, fund the research yourself. That would generate enough interest that further funding would surely flow to you from the enormous number of governments and non-government organisations currently striving to ignore climate science. They would kiss you on both cheeks - and probably on the arse too, for providing a lifeline to maintain the gravy train that fossil fuels provide them.
Whoa, hold on. The usual story I hear from deniers is that the Earth's temperature is NOT rising, that these are all politically-funded manipulations of faulty data.
But that would still require a mysterious force or undetectable phenomena to be keeping the earth abnormally cool, because a simple experiment demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and therefore more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Also, it requires a 150 year old conspiracy to manipulate the temperature data to create a false upward trend. What would motivate a meteorologist from 100 years ago to write down the wrong temperature? What is his motivation? How was this kept a secret for so long? Who is the beneficiary of this gargantuan, and hugely complex multi-century undertaking?
yes, of course. The time travelling conspiracy. Any numpty can take the temperature now, so the conspiracy can't work by modifying records of temperature today. So in order to make the conspiracy work, the conspirators (the so-called "suppressionists") must travel back through time and modify the historical records without anybody noticing. That way, we think it was cooler in the past, but the temperature hasn't changed. Oh, and somehow, they've overcome the issue that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if you add more into the atmosphere, the climate will change.
The only remaining question is: what sort of hat do they wear?
It's kind of weird how the OP just forgot to mention that. And then when I asked specifically about that, they are somehow now too busy to follow up with the requested information. Strange how that worked out, don't you think?
Called on your lies, couldn't make a justification, made a guess at my fashion portfolio, got it tragically wrong. Have you made any statements so far that proved to be right?
While you are pondering, also begin a short statement (250 words or less) on the following:
1. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) is not falsifiable
2. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) has been falsified.
You said: Probably. They are just awfully hard to find. Forget individual scientists, we can't even identify successful scientific theories about climate...
And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified.
I'm (somewhat generously) giving you a chance to explain how this statement is not a lie. It looks like a lie. Now is you chance to prove it's not. Get on with it.
I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
mm. No. As I explained here climate denialism is a fraud, an organised, deliberate fraud, and sooner or later we will come for those who perpetrate that fraud. Now's your chance to offer a plausible explanation for you earlier statements.
Slashdot Mirror
But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
You are exhibiting signs of a persecution complex for no apparent reason. This makes people suspicious, as it is one of the behaviors noted in connection with Conspiracist Ideation. That's okay - if this suspicion is unwarranted, it will be assuaged when you publish.
And during the precambrian, atmospheric carbon was 500 ppm, without any humans at all. The amount of atmospheric carbon does fluctuate.
How do YOU know? Oh that's right, even though the same science that tells you about CO2 levels in the pre-cambrian era is now telling you what is driving the temperature rise NOW (CO2, CO2 that came from our burning stuff), you half believe one and reject the other. Hypocrisy much?
The amount of atmospheric carbon does fluctuate.
Yes, and the reason that it fluctuates is that something happens to make it fluctuate. Duh.
The solar activity is detected, but that is part of the evidence that is actively being censored.
Censored? by who? Elves? The illuminati?
Let's stop there and be a little more honest.
Sure - I impatiently await the promised signs of honesty.
The GP was more honestly asking what are the unknowns. How much of current warming do we attribute to human activity and how much to natural fluctuations.
The GP was actually asking what they should DO under 3 (hypothetical) scenarios - the last of which was that the prevailing science was incorrect, and that observed climate change is entirely due to "natural" causes (that is, in the more common parlance, and unobservable or "mysterious" force). The implications of not being able to detect, understand or predict the extent of the present warming trend are vast, and negative.
Are best metric for that are the models, and here's the state of the art from the IPCC's fifth assessment [www.ipcc.ch]. From Box 9.1:
Good for you, quoting AR5 like a boss - the AR5 which says, in part: No correlation is found between biases in global mean surface temperature and equilibrium climate sensitivity, and so mean temperature biases do not obviously affect the modelled response to GHG forcing. There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback. This applies to both the modern climate and the LGM. There is likewise very high confidence that, consistent with observations, models show a strong positive correlation between tropospheric temperature and water vapour on regional to global scales, implying a positive water vapour feedback in both models and observations.
(Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA)
When using the models to hindcast past temperatures, unknowns like clouds drive the energy imbalance into "an unrealistic state". The energy imbalance is the driver of climate change and the models still have to make hand tuned corrections to keep hindcasts realistic.
Oh whoops. You misunderstood.
There's not some undetectable or magical force acting to confound all our current understanding of CO2 impact on recent warming.
Correct.
There IS however a lot we still don't understand properly, enough that the impact of those unknowns drive the models HARDER than the CO2 we've been dumping.
No: AR5 says: biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter (Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA)
Did you not read it?
Now in all likelyhood the unknowns aren't pushing temperature one way or another, but that's an assumption at this stage(and a reasonable one).
No, AR5 says that the feedback from clouds has been both modeled and observed as positive - did you not read the paper you cited?
No mysterious force is stopping our emissions from warming our atmosphere. It is just that the amount of our emmissions, in total, is an extremely small fraction of the atmospheric carbon on this planet,
Hmm. So the scientists say that prior to us doing our thing the concentration of Co2 was 280ppm and now it is 400ppm which means our part of the whole is 120/400 or nigh on a 3rd as a fraction. Is that extremely small to your mind? Or are the scientists lying?
and that there is *also* solar activity that can explain a large percentage of the warming trend
Undetectable solar activity? If it is undetectable, how do you personally know that it is occurring? And if this increase is detectable, why are the scientists saying they've detected nothing of the sort? Why are they lying?
Yes, I read it - in fact it was one of the ideas I was thinking about when I wrote the above. For some reason there were some great ideas flowing at the end of that conversation: e.g. one guy described the denialist '2 mysterious forces' view of the climate as the believing that the earth was 'haunted', which i thought was an excellent illustration (and hence my reference to the 'supernatural') . The whole thread is well worth going over if you have the time.
Yes, your "counterpoint" of repeated suggestions that I kill myself was simply childish rhetoric appropriate to someone with no logical reasoning capabilities at all.
You asked what the right course of action was if the current change is not linked to our emissions. I explained what you should do, and why. You didn't explain how that reasoning is wrong.
Why are you asking us for advice and then criticising the answers?
I'm not in any way suggesting the climate doesn't change. That, in itself, is uselessly self-evident. The serious discussion starts at the point of what the trade-offs in terms of action given a -baseline- of expectation and what is therefore a "problem", and what enforced modification of human behavior is warranted on the basis of variation from that -baseline-.
Well, you should stop whining like a child. That would be a good start. So you don't like cleaning your teeth. Diddums. Reality is, good dental hygiene means less problems later in life. Or - you like coal fired power stations. Diddums. Not burning coal means less economic problems in the future.
The detail you can look up yourself. I assume you are an adult.
As good a reason as any for you to kill yourself.
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
Defensiveness? Wow did you get that wrong!
Is there a 150 year long conspiracy to fake climate science? What is the purpose of this conspiracy?
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
What are you even talking about? Right number of what?
Well, if number 3 is true, it's probably time to consider killing yourself.
That scenario suggests firstly that some undetectable phenomena is driving climate change, and also that some undetectable phenomena is preventing the warming that should have occurred from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, there is a century long conspiracy plot, possibly the moon landings were faked to keep this plot secret, and presumably the entire scientific community is in on it. The level of power and authority and basic competence need to sustain such a secret over such a length of time is indicative that the power structures we thought governed the world are not actually effective, we live in a state of absolute servitude and what we think is real is probably not real. It's hard to believe that humans could achieve such a thing, implying an outside influence - supernatural, or possibly alien in nature.
Given that you are powerless, and have no ability to change that situation, I suggest in this circumstance that your best course is to top yourself, and let the blissful kiss of death ease you.
Alternatively, you could consider asking yourself "What framework or philosophy might guide our collective actions in this circumstance, and what methods can we use to help us understand the situation better?" Let me suggest that rather than making shit up as a method or listening to mouth breathing liars as a strategy to understand the situation better, that we could employ science. And lo and behold! Science has already told us what has caused the problem and given us at least a rough outline of how to make things better.
Maybe you don't need to kill yourself after all.
Now that we know who you are, can I ask you a question about emacs and vi?
No, there is a warming trend *BOTH* on Earth and Mars.
That's weird. Other deniers have told me quite confidently that the earth is not warming. Are they wrong? Why isn't your theory consistent? Which theory should I believe?
Fewer data points for Mars, of course,
Well, let's be honest. Two data points. One from 1972, one from the Mars Surveyor. Taken at different times of the year, at different points of the globe, at different times of the day, using different instruments. Two data points, 40 years apart.
but there's a clear warming trend there as well.
And what is causing this simultaneous warming trend? Is it elves again?
You see, I'm not a climate change denier. I can look at my local mountains and see the shrinking glaciers. I'm an *anthropogenic* denier.
What mysterious force is stopping our emissions from warming the atmosphere? Is it ghosts?
I believe there is something else going on,
What is this thing? Is it elves again?
and while our fossil fuel usage does have something to do with it, it is not a major component.
How big a component? Is it 80%? 10%? 99%?
And they'd tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about
Based on what?
that those effects from CO2 on a global climate have been far from proven
What part of the theory remains unproven?
and that the Earth is hardly an environment comparable to a "greenhouse."
Given that we've observed the radiative properties of CO2 experimentally, what mysterious force prevents CO2 from absorbing radiation once it is in the atmosphere? Does the CO2 know when it is in an experiment and behave differently? Is it sentient? Is it possessed?
2. Do you think there were as many Romans as there are Indians, and therefore, the sewage requirements were comparable? Did the Romans even have sewage system per se, or did they just use waste to move the raw waste to some out of the way place? Are there any 'out of the way' places in India?
How many data points are you using for your Mars trend?
Interesting.
I don't think a conspiracy is necessary. It's the natural result of the way the system is rigged. If you want funding to study climate you better be a supporter of Anthropomorphic Global Warming else you won't get funding.
Why do you need our money? It's simple enough to prove that CO2 is or is not a greenhouse gas. If you think it isn't a greenhouse gas, fund the research yourself. That would generate enough interest that further funding would surely flow to you from the enormous number of governments and non-government organisations currently striving to ignore climate science. They would kiss you on both cheeks - and probably on the arse too, for providing a lifeline to maintain the gravy train that fossil fuels provide them.
Whoa, hold on. The usual story I hear from deniers is that the Earth's temperature is NOT rising, that these are all politically-funded manipulations of faulty data.
But that would still require a mysterious force or undetectable phenomena to be keeping the earth abnormally cool, because a simple experiment demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and therefore more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Also, it requires a 150 year old conspiracy to manipulate the temperature data to create a false upward trend. What would motivate a meteorologist from 100 years ago to write down the wrong temperature? What is his motivation? How was this kept a secret for so long? Who is the beneficiary of this gargantuan, and hugely complex multi-century undertaking?
The only remaining question is: what sort of hat do they wear?
Huh.
It's kind of weird how the OP just forgot to mention that. And then when I asked specifically about that, they are somehow now too busy to follow up with the requested information. Strange how that worked out, don't you think?
Mwhah hah hah.
Guess I won that bet, but don't have any way to collect. How ironic.
Not to mention the time travel. And, probably, invisibility.
As for me, I find the occasional death threats to be invigorating.
This is not going well for you is it.
Called on your lies, couldn't make a justification, made a guess at my fashion portfolio, got it tragically wrong. Have you made any statements so far that proved to be right?
While you are pondering, also begin a short statement (250 words or less) on the following:
1. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) is not falsifiable
2. Explain how the core hypothesis of AGW (per Arrhenius) has been falsified.
And show working.
I don't have to explain anything
You said: Probably. They are just awfully hard to find. Forget individual scientists, we can't even identify successful scientific theories about climate... And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified. I'm (somewhat generously) giving you a chance to explain how this statement is not a lie. It looks like a lie. Now is you chance to prove it's not. Get on with it.
I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
mm. No. As I explained here climate denialism is a fraud, an organised, deliberate fraud, and sooner or later we will come for those who perpetrate that fraud. Now's your chance to offer a plausible explanation for you earlier statements.