Can you prove your theory? If not, why are you promoting it as fact? In my book, that, along with homeopathy comes under heading 'Behaving with an intent to deceive'.
Some denialists are denialists because their gullibility makes them easy to dupe.
Others do the duping.
It's the latter group that I'm interested in identifying - fixing climate change will cost a sum, and the extra damage directly attributable to the delay caused by denialists also translates to a sum. That sum will come from the pockets of deceivers.
By the way, I note with interest your signature. That seems to strongly imply that you see yourself as living under fascism. Why didn't your guns prevent that with their magical powers?
I thing the guys who used guns to WIN their liberty would look at you and wonder what drug you are on.
So you've talked to them about it? I've talked to many - former Sudanese Rebels, Afghani's , child soldiers. So I know what they think of guns already.
I think the guys who have used guns to protect their liberty would wonder who dropped you as a kid.
Which rules out Americans, unless you mean government issued weapons.
I think the guys that would rob you blind and assault your wife and daughter are giving each other High Fives because they's just discovered an easy target.
Well, in my country if someone breaks into your house, and then realises it's occupied, they run away. I've never hear of any instance of any family being raped, and can't conceive of how that would happen, or what it would be that would disable me such that I would permit it to happen. Civilization. You should try it sometime.
You're just butt hurt that there are girls that will be his groupies.
Is that okay? Then it ought ought to be okay to do so by the Internet.
The current situation is: it's illegal to advertise certain services on the Internet even if your are in a jurisdiction where those services are legal. Whereas, if you are the president, paying for prostitutes is a sign of your virility and attractiveness. Does that seem right to you?
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
Without picking a side, let me also point out another interesting dichotomy: with regards to the First Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the First is outdated, that the founders could never have imagined the internet, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Gun Ownership rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their First Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that gun ownership would become what it is today, a tool to support tyranny (by luring a large proportion of the population into believing that tyranny is impossible as long as they are allowed to own a gun. It's land for beads).
The difference between youir dichotomy and mine, is perhaps free speech is a fundamental right necessary of the upholding of liberty, and gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty, anymore than the "right' to buy toothpaste, or certain sorts of drugs.
Try to keep up here... what I've said is any climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun. That is, a model of the Sun that predicts what's being observed/measured. Does there exist a model of the Sun that accurately predicts sun spots and solar flares, not just surface temprature?
Your theory fails to explain what has already been observed that is, the observed increase of 1 degree average (atmospheric) temperature, increases in CO2 loading in the ocean, ocean warming, decrease in moderating secondaries (like ice caps, glaciers etc) the observed changes in differential between the troposphere and the stratosphere, the directly observable radiative behavior of CO2, observed changes in the temperature layers of the ocean.
None of those observations require a predictive model, they are observations not predictions. If I observe my neighbour has a white ute, I don't need a predictive model to have predicted him buying a white ute. I only need to see the ute. Likewise, to disprove that it was raining yesterday, I only need to refer to observations. I don't need weather forecasting model. None of those observations are explained by your theory. Your theory has no explanatory power. You are, in effect, trying to tell me it rained yesterday. It didn't rain yesterday, I observe the dry weather myself.
What else about the Sun and the rest of Nature do all these models conveniently omit? If you account for all the variables that matter, do we even have the computing power to properly crunch through it? Nature is happening in real time. If one didn't make it through grad level math classes, it's best not to focus on these predictive models. You simply don't know enough about the tools of science to know whether you're being lied to. Your best bet is to reconnect with Nature and understand ecology. Figure out how you can use less resources. Otherwise, "climate change" is just bad ideology.
What you are saying, in essence, is that you theory requires a predictive model to prove (heaven only knows why) and yet you don't have a predictive model for the suns behaviors that you claim (contrary to observations) are driving climate change.
You've reduced the Sun's output to a single variable: its temperature.
Yes, so you've said: the Sun is emitting something that can't be measured, but does have a measurable impact. Yes you haven't explained what this thing is.
Apparently we never had major weather events before the last 10 years. How about you learn some natural Earth history. Look at recent studies of ice cores. They show RAPID (as in over a 100 or less year period) cooling and heating trends that dwarf what people are freaking out about now.
Well, if you have evidence to support your theory (that the earths climate changed because of the beating of magical fairies wings or unicorn farts, or whatever is the latest impossible to observe phenomena) rather than the processes detailed by science, then feel free to provide that evidence.
Our planet has had a violent past and our modern climate priests have no more control over what will happen than the average person. But, call forth the virgins anyway. The great volcano awaits.
So you say. But not all of us spend our days reminiscing fondly about the times when we weren't confronted by science and all it's nasty and scary facts. If the scientific worldview is inimical to you, I suggest that you cancel your internet, and move to the deep jungle and live there in a hut with the witchdoctors, free from all the horrors of the modern technological world.
If you would like us to stop laughing at your clownish antics, stop acting like a clown.
We have a probe on the way to the Sun which should put a lot of our ignorance to bed.
Okay. So this probe will travel back in time to observe the event(s) that you say occurred but can't provide evidence for, or even explain what they were?
That sounds like an admission that CO2 can have an effect on climate, when the OP rules that out, claiming that the observed change is due to unobserved changes in the Sun. If the changes were unobserved, how can we know they happened at all?
CO2 is a variable, but so is literally everything else.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
The effect of paving on temperature is probably larger than that of CO2.
Probably? Is the pavement effect larger or smaller that the effect of CO2?
If there is only one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it would be the output of the Sun.
And you are saying that the output of the Sun has varied, and even thought we've been observing the sun (and it's effects) for many years, we didn't notice this variance. How does something unobservable cause an observable change? Is it magic?
It was actually compensated for by a decrease in greenhouse gases, when the increased temperature increased the rate of chemical weathering of volcanic rocks. Of course, that's if by "recent" you mean "geologically recent", considering that these changes took hundreds of millions of years...
So to be clear, I'm referring to the recent increases in CO2 (from 280 ppm to 400ppm) due to human activity (and I say that in the absence of a demonstrable alternative explanation, since the 'human caused' part is easily estimable because we know how much coal we've burnt).
The effect (increase in stored energy in the atmosphere and ocean) was predict by Arrhenius. He used a black body radiation model to predict a rise in temperature as a result.
OP says that this increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) had no effect and the change in temperature is in fact due to changes in the Sun's output, which for an unexplained reason, we weren't able to observe. But if the atmosphere and ocean don't obey the laws of thermodynamics, why does the sun? think the OP's theory lacks explanatory power.
Your theory requires that increasing concentrations of ghg's from 280ppm to 400pm will have no effect on climate. It's up to you to explain how this can happen and not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
1. The predictions were wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics is wrong? For some reason, a 4 word explanation on the topic seems to lack a certain preciseness to me.
1) Is rise in greenhouse gases the cause or effect?
Your theory requires that increasing concentrations of ghg's from 280ppm to 400pm will have no effect on climate. It's up to you to explain how this can happen and not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
2) The Earth's climate is mathematically coupled to the output of the Sun. You should be asking for models that accurately predict the output of the Sun.
Very well. I might do that later. In the meantime, you haven't addressed either of the first 2 questions
1. What happened to the warming that should have occurred (and was predicted to occur) due to increases in greenhouse gases?
2. Where is the observational data to evidence your theory?
Even without humans there would easily have been that 1C upward swing at some point.
Sounds like an admission that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the recent climate change.
Yet a moment ago, I was replying to another poster who claimed the sun (changes in the sun's output) was the cause. Really, it's hard for us to get this narrative straight, because you guys keep contradicting each other. Which of these narratives should we believe now?
It's almost like you reflexively say the first thing that comes to mind, rather than researching and observing to understand the facts behind the observed phenomena.
Or, you know, don't live in Sydney: or if you must , don't catch public transport? Seems like an over complicated approach to solving a simple problem.
Not quite following your logic. If the atmosphere were 100% CO2, we wouldn't need a distinction between Greenhouse Gases and not, and nor would we be concerned about adding more CO2.
Arrhenius et. al. reached the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by testing it experimentally. All you need to do is show how that conclusion was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you prove your theory? If not, why are you promoting it as fact? In my book, that, along with homeopathy comes under heading 'Behaving with an intent to deceive'.
Some denialists are denialists because their gullibility makes them easy to dupe.
Others do the duping.
It's the latter group that I'm interested in identifying - fixing climate change will cost a sum, and the extra damage directly attributable to the delay caused by denialists also translates to a sum. That sum will come from the pockets of deceivers.
Sorry, are you some bot built to promote Mark Shephard? Otherwise what was the point of that?
Yes, that's all very well, but what about the other guy huh? What about that?
By the way, I note with interest your signature. That seems to strongly imply that you see yourself as living under fascism. Why didn't your guns prevent that with their magical powers?
I thing the guys who used guns to WIN their liberty would look at you and wonder what drug you are on.
So you've talked to them about it? I've talked to many - former Sudanese Rebels, Afghani's , child soldiers. So I know what they think of guns already.
I think the guys who have used guns to protect their liberty would wonder who dropped you as a kid.
Which rules out Americans, unless you mean government issued weapons.
I think the guys that would rob you blind and assault your wife and daughter are giving each other High Fives because they's just discovered an easy target.
Well, in my country if someone breaks into your house, and then realises it's occupied, they run away. I've never hear of any instance of any family being raped, and can't conceive of how that would happen, or what it would be that would disable me such that I would permit it to happen. Civilization. You should try it sometime.
You're just butt hurt that there are girls that will be his groupies.
Is that okay? Then it ought ought to be okay to do so by the Internet.
The current situation is: it's illegal to advertise certain services on the Internet even if your are in a jurisdiction where those services are legal. Whereas, if you are the president, paying for prostitutes is a sign of your virility and attractiveness. Does that seem right to you?
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
Without picking a side, let me also point out another interesting dichotomy: with regards to the First Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the First is outdated, that the founders could never have imagined the internet, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Gun Ownership rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their First Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that gun ownership would become what it is today, a tool to support tyranny (by luring a large proportion of the population into believing that tyranny is impossible as long as they are allowed to own a gun. It's land for beads).
The difference between youir dichotomy and mine, is perhaps free speech is a fundamental right necessary of the upholding of liberty, and gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty, anymore than the "right' to buy toothpaste, or certain sorts of drugs.
Try to keep up here... what I've said is any climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun. That is, a model of the Sun that predicts what's being observed/measured. Does there exist a model of the Sun that accurately predicts sun spots and solar flares, not just surface temprature?
Your theory fails to explain what has already been observed that is, the observed increase of 1 degree average (atmospheric) temperature, increases in CO2 loading in the ocean, ocean warming, decrease in moderating secondaries (like ice caps, glaciers etc) the observed changes in differential between the troposphere and the stratosphere, the directly observable radiative behavior of CO2, observed changes in the temperature layers of the ocean.
None of those observations require a predictive model, they are observations not predictions. If I observe my neighbour has a white ute, I don't need a predictive model to have predicted him buying a white ute. I only need to see the ute. Likewise, to disprove that it was raining yesterday, I only need to refer to observations. I don't need weather forecasting model. None of those observations are explained by your theory. Your theory has no explanatory power. You are, in effect, trying to tell me it rained yesterday. It didn't rain yesterday, I observe the dry weather myself.
What else about the Sun and the rest of Nature do all these models conveniently omit? If you account for all the variables that matter, do we even have the computing power to properly crunch through it? Nature is happening in real time. If one didn't make it through grad level math classes, it's best not to focus on these predictive models. You simply don't know enough about the tools of science to know whether you're being lied to. Your best bet is to reconnect with Nature and understand ecology. Figure out how you can use less resources. Otherwise, "climate change" is just bad ideology.
What you are saying, in essence, is that you theory requires a predictive model to prove (heaven only knows why) and yet you don't have a predictive model for the suns behaviors that you claim (contrary to observations) are driving climate change.
How is that our problem?
You've reduced the Sun's output to a single variable: its temperature.
Yes, so you've said: the Sun is emitting something that can't be measured, but does have a measurable impact. Yes you haven't explained what this thing is.
1. What happened to the warming that should have occurred (and was predicted to occur) due to increases in greenhouse gases?
2. Where is the observational data to evidence your theory?
Cite the journal in which these results are published.
Well, if you have a model that proves that there is no effect, and the observations to demonstrate it, then feel free to share same.
Apparently we never had major weather events before the last 10 years. How about you learn some natural Earth history. Look at recent studies of ice cores. They show RAPID (as in over a 100 or less year period) cooling and heating trends that dwarf what people are freaking out about now.
Well, if you have evidence to support your theory (that the earths climate changed because of the beating of magical fairies wings or unicorn farts, or whatever is the latest impossible to observe phenomena) rather than the processes detailed by science, then feel free to provide that evidence.
Our planet has had a violent past and our modern climate priests have no more control over what will happen than the average person. But, call forth the virgins anyway. The great volcano awaits.
So you say. But not all of us spend our days reminiscing fondly about the times when we weren't confronted by science and all it's nasty and scary facts. If the scientific worldview is inimical to you, I suggest that you cancel your internet, and move to the deep jungle and live there in a hut with the witchdoctors, free from all the horrors of the modern technological world.
Calm the fuck down.
If you would like us to stop laughing at your clownish antics, stop acting like a clown.
We have a probe on the way to the Sun which should put a lot of our ignorance to bed.
Okay. So this probe will travel back in time to observe the event(s) that you say occurred but can't provide evidence for, or even explain what they were?
CO2 is a variable, but so is literally everything else.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
The effect of paving on temperature is probably larger than that of CO2.
Probably? Is the pavement effect larger or smaller that the effect of CO2?
Any observational evidence for your theory?
If there is only one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it would be the output of the Sun.
And you are saying that the output of the Sun has varied, and even thought we've been observing the sun (and it's effects) for many years, we didn't notice this variance. How does something unobservable cause an observable change? Is it magic?
It was actually compensated for by a decrease in greenhouse gases, when the increased temperature increased the rate of chemical weathering of volcanic rocks. Of course, that's if by "recent" you mean "geologically recent", considering that these changes took hundreds of millions of years...
So to be clear, I'm referring to the recent increases in CO2 (from 280 ppm to 400ppm) due to human activity (and I say that in the absence of a demonstrable alternative explanation, since the 'human caused' part is easily estimable because we know how much coal we've burnt).
The effect (increase in stored energy in the atmosphere and ocean) was predict by Arrhenius. He used a black body radiation model to predict a rise in temperature as a result.
OP says that this increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) had no effect and the change in temperature is in fact due to changes in the Sun's output, which for an unexplained reason, we weren't able to observe. But if the atmosphere and ocean don't obey the laws of thermodynamics, why does the sun? think the OP's theory lacks explanatory power.
why did you post your theory if you didn't want us to believe it?
Your theory requires that increasing concentrations of ghg's from 280ppm to 400pm will have no effect on climate. It's up to you to explain how this can happen and not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
1. The predictions were wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics is wrong? For some reason, a 4 word explanation on the topic seems to lack a certain preciseness to me.
2. Freely available in the public record.
And yet you can't cite it.
1) Is rise in greenhouse gases the cause or effect?
Your theory requires that increasing concentrations of ghg's from 280ppm to 400pm will have no effect on climate. It's up to you to explain how this can happen and not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
2) The Earth's climate is mathematically coupled to the output of the Sun. You should be asking for models that accurately predict the output of the Sun.
Very well. I might do that later. In the meantime, you haven't addressed either of the first 2 questions
1. What happened to the warming that should have occurred (and was predicted to occur) due to increases in greenhouse gases?
2. Where is the observational data to evidence your theory?
Even without humans there would easily have been that 1C upward swing at some point.
Sounds like an admission that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the recent climate change.
Yet a moment ago, I was replying to another poster who claimed the sun (changes in the sun's output) was the cause. Really, it's hard for us to get this narrative straight, because you guys keep contradicting each other. Which of these narratives should we believe now?
It's almost like you reflexively say the first thing that comes to mind, rather than researching and observing to understand the facts behind the observed phenomena.
1. What happened to the warming that should have occurred (and was predicted to occur) due to increases in greenhouse gases?
2. Where is the observational data to evidence your theory?
Or, you know, don't live in Sydney: or if you must , don't catch public transport? Seems like an over complicated approach to solving a simple problem.
Arrhenius et. al. reached the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by testing it experimentally. All you need to do is show how that conclusion was wrong.
Seems pretty easy to falsify to me. Just falsify the prevailing conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Have you done that yet?