Not clear what weird conspiracy applies in this case: might be aliens, or the zombie Arrhenius, or perhaps these "suppressionists" whom I assume are some shadowy government group "suppressing" the truth about CO2 - or perhaps contrails, or invisible pirates, or something.
By data, I mean the data that supports the denialists theory that the prevailing climate science is wrong. And explains what is causing the current warming trend. And explains what happened to the warming we expected from CO2 emissions.
And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified.
Excellent. So the theory of AGW is, in essence that CO2 (and certain other gases) absorb infrared radiation passing through the troposphere and trap heat (or more generally, energy) the more CO2 (and other GHG) molecules between the surface of the earth and the outer edge of the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped. So:
1. Arrhenius verified this experimentally in the 1800s. Please explain to us, in detail, why this cannot be verified.
2. Naturally, if Arrhenius verified it experimentally, you would naturally think it could be falsified by repeating what Arrehenius did and getting no result. In fact, all one would need to do is verify that the radiative properties of a column of CO2 was the same as a that of a non-GHG (say, nitrogen).Please explain how such an experiment would not falsify the hypothesis.
3. Please explain again, where Arrhenius went wrong. How is his result not 'verified'?
4. When was Arrhenius' result falsified? Note the date and the published paper that articulates where he went wrong.
Denialism is a fraud, designed to fool people into thinking that Climate Change is not real for the benefit of those who perpetuate the lie.
If happens here on Slashdot too. On numerous occasions, I've corrected someone's erroneous view of climate science (e.g, it's not falsifiable, it's a conspiracy, it's the sun, it's the moon, it's gravitational lensing, it's not warming, climate models don't correlate to observations) only to find them pasting the exact same next time. First time, possibly an honest mistake. Second time? Deliberately lying.
The deception is happening on a larger scale than slashdot of course. SO the question is, why WOULDN'T we? I fully expect litigation to begin sooner or later: denialists have cost us wads of money by delaying action and therefore made the problem worse. I see no issue with extracting that money from the people who caused the extra expense. Why shouldn't they pay their bill?
Show us this model, show us the model, show us the model, show us the model. Show us the data, show us the data, show us the data, SHOW US THE DATA.
we get two orders of magnitude less warming than the consensus, but instead get what the opposition models.
Show us this results. Show it to us. Show us. Show us this model and the working and conclusions.
I bet you don't produce your model. In fact, I'll bet 50 bucks you can't describe how a model would produce 2 orders of magnitude more warming than Arreheniuses black body radiation calculation.
Exactly so, or more likely, Trumps views are neither conservative nor progressive, but rather a third category: the simpleton. He doesn't plan out what his position on an issue is going to be, he doesn't have strong feelings about political issues. He just forms a view on the spur of the moment and speaks that out through his mouth. People don't like it: who cares? It sounds like something an ordinary joe might think as he is watching tv in the den wearing a dirty wife beater and slugging down a cold beer after a hard day at work. But that is not because he is an ordinary joe. It's just that his positions come from a brain at rest, formed from fleeting impressions of the world and not hard evidence or carefully crafted policy or vision of the way that America should be.
But here's the rub: would America be worse off under Trump than under any of the other options? I have no respect for Trump at all, but I find it hard to answer that question. His ideas are uniformly ridiculous and dangerous and counter-productive to America's strategic interests. He has no vision of what America should be. He has no notion of becoming President to forward an agenda that benefits ordinary Americans.
But are the others actually any different, or are they just pretending?
You didn't debunk it. You posted some links to some crappy blogs. You are incapable of debunking it, because of your inability to read scientific papers, so you link to blogs instead. Pathetic.
You really HAVE forgotten. Must have been more traumatic than expected.
I didn't post to any blogs. I pointed out:
1. That the article you linked to postulated a lack of correlation between climate model predictions of land surface temperature and the observations.
2. If the postulation was correct then we have no mechanism for determining how climate will behave when concentrations ofd CO2 increase - the situation could be far worse than the models suggest.
3. Your assertion that this means that the temperature will trend under the model trend is therefore, patently ridiculous.
So tell us again why the (supposed) failure of the climate models makes the denialist argument correct.
Given the point of the posting was to prove that climate scientists are NOT in consensus it matters a great deal if the scientists are not climatologists, as asserted.
It seems you've come along to moan and gripe. Might I point out that while you were still trying to convince us that it was the sun or the moon or pirates causing the observed climate change, the greens were already on the money and accurate with reflecting the cause. Nobody has (yet) done a financial true up of what you've cost us in time and money to fix the problem. And you're moaning about them rather than patting them on the back.
They were right and you were wrong and that hurts your feelings.
Diddums.
Maybe you need to grit your teeth and get to it. Build the reactors with your own money. Provide the financial structures to insure them in the event of failure and to deal with the cost of decommissioning them (this capital cost being the true reason why they are so expensive). Don't socialise your risks and come to us for handouts.
You want them - you build them. And as for the greens: their track record versus yours over the time you spent sitting on your hands or actively obfuscating the science makes your attempt to belatedly blame them for the lack of action look laughable.
The crackpots with the whacky theory (AGW) have the burden of proof.
You don't get to tell people what to do. You can post proofs of your simpleton worldview and hope to convince us if you want. Or just go back to lying under a rock and quivering.
They have yet to prove anything. Until then status quo is they're still full of crap.
Why should I believe you? Your language and attitude is not conducive to convincing me that your theory involving zombies and time travelling invisible Svante Arrehenius has any merit.
You have it all backwards but that is expected from a religous whacky nut who believes cow farts are turning the planet into Venus.
Yes, exactly. Yet attempt to true up the system by pricing the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere to better reflect the (future financial) cost of cleaning it up again, and watch the screaming.
I see your crappy blog post, and answer it with an actual paper [nature.com], quote:
But this the same nonsense I debunked a year or more ago. Have you forgotten already?
You need to get some fresh material. It's like watching re-runs of Seinfeld for the 20th time: that wacky George Costanza, what will he do next? Moops!
Certainly "CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate."; the real question is how much.
So: in fact, the impact on the climate from our CO2 emissions could be worse than the science predicts?
The amount of CO2 required to produce a given amount of change is logarithmic, the amount of changed caused by increasing CO2 by 180 ppm from the depth of the last ice-age to 360 ppm is likely to be the same as increasing the CO2 by twice as much to 720 ppm; and it will not be enough to get to catastrophic levels without amplification from water vapor and presently it's unclear if that will happen because of gaps in our knowledge of clouds and oceanic effects.
The same scientists who told you that the sensitivity is logarithmic are telling you that doubling the CO2 past the pre-industrial baseline will likely be sufficient to raise the temperature by 2.5 degrees. Yet you choose to believe one thing and not the other - pretending that "could be as low as 1.5" is the same as "will be as low as 1.5" and not the same as "could be as high as 7.5".
With recent increases in Primary Production, due to increased CO2 levels, it looks like the amount of CO2 emissions is going to be a lot more than the model expect as well.
How did you reach this conclusion without having a model? Can we see your model?
Didn't we have this conversation, like, 2 days ago? Have you got a short term memory problem or do you think it's okay to repeat fallacies that have already been debunked?
Apparently you can't read. If you let me know your city or region I can direct you to basic English comprehension classes or to an eye specialist if the problem is with your eyes and not your brain.
You do get the 1st Lesson for free though: the meaning of my words don't change because you're an idiot that can't respond with facts, evidence or logic and chose to pull out a sentence and re-interpret it to suit your fevered imagination.
I recall a recent event when he criticised NOAA for incorrectly reporting some temperature figure, but it turns out he had misread the article. So he edited his own with commentary but obfuscated the flaw in his reasoning, and then at the end half admitted to the mistake, but blamed it on NOAA for not being clear in the original source. It was clear, if you have working brain cells.
Ironically I saw it when some denialists posted the article as proof that the temperature hadn't risen since 2005.
Just by the by, the GP is alleging that sceptical science (www.skepticalscience.com) is biased, not Watts' blog - hence my request for evidence to that end.
YOU shut down Greenpeace. Or better, make an actual argument as to why we should listen to you, and not Greenpeace (they were right after all, about climate change, and you were demonstrably wrong.
I'm starting to think that YOU are the problem, since your role seems to be to complain and not actually solve any problem or contribute in any useful way.
Slashdot Mirror
Not clear what weird conspiracy applies in this case: might be aliens, or the zombie Arrhenius, or perhaps these "suppressionists" whom I assume are some shadowy government group "suppressing" the truth about CO2 - or perhaps contrails, or invisible pirates, or something.
By data, I mean the data that supports the denialists theory that the prevailing climate science is wrong. And explains what is causing the current warming trend. And explains what happened to the warming we expected from CO2 emissions.
Where is this data?
And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; [openscience.org] c) verified; d) not falsified.
Excellent. So the theory of AGW is, in essence that CO2 (and certain other gases) absorb infrared radiation passing through the troposphere and trap heat (or more generally, energy) the more CO2 (and other GHG) molecules between the surface of the earth and the outer edge of the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped. So: 1. Arrhenius verified this experimentally in the 1800s. Please explain to us, in detail, why this cannot be verified.
2. Naturally, if Arrhenius verified it experimentally, you would naturally think it could be falsified by repeating what Arrehenius did and getting no result. In fact, all one would need to do is verify that the radiative properties of a column of CO2 was the same as a that of a non-GHG (say, nitrogen).Please explain how such an experiment would not falsify the hypothesis.
3. Please explain again, where Arrhenius went wrong. How is his result not 'verified'?
4. When was Arrhenius' result falsified? Note the date and the published paper that articulates where he went wrong.
Right?
AWG is so obvious and provable the CRU REFUSED to release data for 7 years
What data?
Classic.
Denialism is a fraud, designed to fool people into thinking that Climate Change is not real for the benefit of those who perpetuate the lie.
If happens here on Slashdot too. On numerous occasions, I've corrected someone's erroneous view of climate science (e.g, it's not falsifiable, it's a conspiracy, it's the sun, it's the moon, it's gravitational lensing, it's not warming, climate models don't correlate to observations) only to find them pasting the exact same next time. First time, possibly an honest mistake. Second time? Deliberately lying.
The deception is happening on a larger scale than slashdot of course. SO the question is, why WOULDN'T we? I fully expect litigation to begin sooner or later: denialists have cost us wads of money by delaying action and therefore made the problem worse. I see no issue with extracting that money from the people who caused the extra expense. Why shouldn't they pay their bill?
Engineers merely apply the rules created by other scientists and engineering.
What scientists is Sarah Palin basing her theory of climate change on?
So if we take everything you say and model it,
Show us this model, show us the model, show us the model, show us the model. Show us the data, show us the data, show us the data, SHOW US THE DATA.
we get two orders of magnitude less warming than the consensus, but instead get what the opposition models.
Show us this results. Show it to us. Show us. Show us this model and the working and conclusions.
I bet you don't produce your model. In fact, I'll bet 50 bucks you can't describe how a model would produce 2 orders of magnitude more warming than Arreheniuses black body radiation calculation.
Peer review is a dead horse. That avenue is infected, compromised, and fully biased with religious-like zeal for ONE politically approved conclusion.
Well, if a random mouth breather on the internet say's it's true, it MUST be true, right?
Just try to get a grant or fellowship if your work even hints on flaws in the CAGW narrative - and you'll see.
Well, if a random mouth breather on the internet say's it's true, it MUST be true, right?
Threats to prosecute "deniers" reveal that the science is now corrupt, twisted by politics aimed at getting money and retaining or shifting power.
Well, if a random mouth breather on the internet say's it's true, it MUST be true, right?
Climate models have failed utterly to predict temperatures - or weather variations - confounded by legitimate observations at every turn.
Well, if a random mouth breather on the internet say's it's true, it MUST be true, right?
But here's the rub: would America be worse off under Trump than under any of the other options? I have no respect for Trump at all, but I find it hard to answer that question. His ideas are uniformly ridiculous and dangerous and counter-productive to America's strategic interests. He has no vision of what America should be. He has no notion of becoming President to forward an agenda that benefits ordinary Americans.
But are the others actually any different, or are they just pretending?
Apparently you can't refute an argument without condescending remarks.
Citation?
If he misread it, why don't you show what you actually meant?
Why would I bother?
But no, you have to make comments about his person, showing that he was right all along.
Did he misread it or not? If your claim is that he did not misread my remarks, then show working below (1000 words or less):
You didn't debunk it. You posted some links to some crappy blogs. You are incapable of debunking it, because of your inability to read scientific papers, so you link to blogs instead. Pathetic.
You really HAVE forgotten. Must have been more traumatic than expected.
I didn't post to any blogs. I pointed out:
1. That the article you linked to postulated a lack of correlation between climate model predictions of land surface temperature and the observations.
2. If the postulation was correct then we have no mechanism for determining how climate will behave when concentrations ofd CO2 increase - the situation could be far worse than the models suggest.
3. Your assertion that this means that the temperature will trend under the model trend is therefore, patently ridiculous.
So tell us again why the (supposed) failure of the climate models makes the denialist argument correct.
The controversy comes from the wether being a chaotic system
Having had some experiences with wethers they do, indeed behave in unpredictable ways.
The climate, not so much.
What's the point of this?
Read it again and understand the context better, and next time, don't jump in unawares.
Given the point of the posting was to prove that climate scientists are NOT in consensus it matters a great deal if the scientists are not climatologists, as asserted.
It seems you've come along to moan and gripe. Might I point out that while you were still trying to convince us that it was the sun or the moon or pirates causing the observed climate change, the greens were already on the money and accurate with reflecting the cause. Nobody has (yet) done a financial true up of what you've cost us in time and money to fix the problem. And you're moaning about them rather than patting them on the back.
They were right and you were wrong and that hurts your feelings.
Diddums.
Maybe you need to grit your teeth and get to it. Build the reactors with your own money. Provide the financial structures to insure them in the event of failure and to deal with the cost of decommissioning them (this capital cost being the true reason why they are so expensive). Don't socialise your risks and come to us for handouts.
You want them - you build them. And as for the greens: their track record versus yours over the time you spent sitting on your hands or actively obfuscating the science makes your attempt to belatedly blame them for the lack of action look laughable.
The crackpots with the whacky theory (AGW) have the burden of proof.
You don't get to tell people what to do. You can post proofs of your simpleton worldview and hope to convince us if you want. Or just go back to lying under a rock and quivering.
They have yet to prove anything. Until then status quo is they're still full of crap.
Why should I believe you? Your language and attitude is not conducive to convincing me that your theory involving zombies and time travelling invisible Svante Arrehenius has any merit.
You have it all backwards but that is expected from a religous whacky nut who believes cow farts are turning the planet into Venus.
tsk tsk. You won't convince me by insulting me.
Yes, exactly. Yet attempt to true up the system by pricing the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere to better reflect the (future financial) cost of cleaning it up again, and watch the screaming.
I see your crappy blog post, and answer it with an actual paper [nature.com], quote:
But this the same nonsense I debunked a year or more ago. Have you forgotten already?
You need to get some fresh material. It's like watching re-runs of Seinfeld for the 20th time: that wacky George Costanza, what will he do next? Moops!
Hilarious.
Certainly "CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate."; the real question is how much.
So: in fact, the impact on the climate from our CO2 emissions could be worse than the science predicts?
The amount of CO2 required to produce a given amount of change is logarithmic, the amount of changed caused by increasing CO2 by 180 ppm from the depth of the last ice-age to 360 ppm is likely to be the same as increasing the CO2 by twice as much to 720 ppm; and it will not be enough to get to catastrophic levels without amplification from water vapor and presently it's unclear if that will happen because of gaps in our knowledge of clouds and oceanic effects.
The same scientists who told you that the sensitivity is logarithmic are telling you that doubling the CO2 past the pre-industrial baseline will likely be sufficient to raise the temperature by 2.5 degrees. Yet you choose to believe one thing and not the other - pretending that "could be as low as 1.5" is the same as "will be as low as 1.5" and not the same as "could be as high as 7.5".
With recent increases in Primary Production, due to increased CO2 levels, it looks like the amount of CO2 emissions is going to be a lot more than the model expect as well.
How did you reach this conclusion without having a model? Can we see your model?
Didn't we have this conversation, like, 2 days ago? Have you got a short term memory problem or do you think it's okay to repeat fallacies that have already been debunked?
You do get the 1st Lesson for free though: the meaning of my words don't change because you're an idiot that can't respond with facts, evidence or logic and chose to pull out a sentence and re-interpret it to suit your fevered imagination.
No need for thanks.
You're ignorant of the science used demonstrate climate change, yet you are certain that it is wrong. Well, I for one am convinced.
I recall a recent event when he criticised NOAA for incorrectly reporting some temperature figure, but it turns out he had misread the article. So he edited his own with commentary but obfuscated the flaw in his reasoning, and then at the end half admitted to the mistake, but blamed it on NOAA for not being clear in the original source. It was clear, if you have working brain cells.
Ironically I saw it when some denialists posted the article as proof that the temperature hadn't risen since 2005.
Just by the by, the GP is alleging that sceptical science (www.skepticalscience.com) is biased, not Watts' blog - hence my request for evidence to that end.
I'm starting to think that YOU are the problem, since your role seems to be to complain and not actually solve any problem or contribute in any useful way.