You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away.
Again, you've misunderstood:) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...
You admit again, and quite openly, that you consider the model to be falsifiable.
and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading:) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
You imagine that you can successfully conflate "not falsified" with "not falsifiable" and nobody will notice. You're wrong. You imagine that somehow, you can change the topic to something other than your constant stream of self contradictory, bizarre assertions. Wrong again.
I'll say this again: Let assume you are right and the NOAA 2008 model was falsified. Or randomly pick any other model. Not out of the question - models have certainly been falsified in the past. What then?
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right?
I guess that's the reason you haven't responded to explain why you engaged in a strawman, because this thread is closed. What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science. You just continue on in a haze of self contradiction and fallacy, or you stop posting.
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come?
Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy?
We also have weak guesses for, what is supposed to be the most rigorous part of the theory of AGW, the radiative forcing for CO2 in our world. Uncertainty of a factor of two are commonplace. From page 42 of that link:
Finally, in the ensemble studies, by far most of the climate model versions
have climate sensitivity near 3C, and only a small number of models have sensitivities below 2C or above 4C. I have argued here for the âoeconsensusâ range
of past IPCC reports of 3C +/- 1.5C, as the goal of this paper is to revisit the
basics. But taking all ensemble studies and other constraints together, my personal assessment (and that of a growing number of other researchers) is that the
uncertainty range can now be described more realistically as 3C +/- 1C.
This is a 2008 paper.
I find it kind of odd that you would say one thing and then quote from a paper that contradicts your statement. Just saying - this sort of thing tends to make observers think your theory lacks credibility.
Thus, the various models for AGW are based on weak data for all but the most recent human history. And they are based on very poorly understood climate dynamics.
Mmm. Yet your own understanding and theory is sufficient to give you confidence that anthropogenic GHG emissions magically DON'T contribute to climate whilst simultaneously GHGs of natural origin do. Yet you apparently are unable to articulate what that theory is.
(a) Why do GHGs of anthropogenic origin have different radiative properties to GHGs from natural sources? Or alternatively, what effect is currently counteracting the extra latent heat trapped by anthropogenic emissions such that we are not experiencing a temperature change due to the increased conetration of GHGs - describe this effect in detail, including observations and repeatable, experimental evidence.
(b) If the current temperature event is not due to our emissions, what is causing this event? (Whilst simultaneously dampening the effect of our own GHG's to the exact negative of the said change in baseline temperature)
Finally, it's worth noting that the sums of public money spend on AGW mitigation, such as development of renewable energy technologies and subsidies, carbon dioxide emission markets, development of alternative transportation (for example, biofuels and electric cars), and now, AGW reparations, currently are many tens of billions a year which possibly could go up to hundreds of billions a year. The same advocates for those huge expenditures also control funding for climatology research. There is a huge conflict of interest.
Yet you claim that (a) we need to maintain this research because "not enough" is understood about the climate (b) That using alternative energy will magically send us broke even though people are making so much money off it. In fact, they are (apparently) making so much money they are able to afford the expense of time travel to travel back in time to each observation of the radiative properties of CO2 (and other GHGs) and interfere with these experiments in some way, thus continuing the premise that these gases are GHGs - and even travelling to other planets to repeat the deception there. Where did this tech come from? Aliens I'd assume.
Perhaps you should repeat Tyndall's experiment and attempt to catch a chrono/astro/galacto-naut in the act of fiddling with it, thus proving this vast time conspiracy.
That is my evidence.
I remain a little sceptical...
Now, let's move on to the matter of Tuvalu. A poster, Impy the Impiuos Imp had noted that AGW mitigation involves a radical destruction of human innovation and a great increase in human poverty. You posted "Except that moving inward from the sea, fo
The chances are you don't think that about your own religion, you just think your own beliefs are somehow special and deserving of respect - this permits you to continue to hate in arbitrary way, because you are exceptional - exactly the racist mindset.
You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
And if you are wrong about this prediction, or your understanding of the science is wrong (not clear which your are referring to here), will you personally apologise or conveniently forget your error?
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability:) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much:)
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away. Where did you go, by the way?
You talk about [my] fairies - I talk about evidence.
Then feel free to present your evidence. Carry on.
Who's looking at the science here?
I'll reserve judgement on that. You think your fairy wishing is actually science? That's fine - submit your "scientific" theory for review.
Yes, I think they need to justify the need for "climate action" to me.
Dentists don't need to convince you, personally, that regular brushing is good for your teeth. If your teeth fall out, that is your problem.
Doctors and Scientists don't need to convince you, personally, that smoking causes lung cancer, if you die a long, painful death in your cabin in the woods, that is your problem.
Police Officers don't need to convince you, personally, that you need to obey the law. If you don't, then be it on your own head.
See how the world works?
the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves"
I googled around but couldn't find this statement in any of my slashdot posts. Where's a link so we can look at the context for this alleged statement?
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then.
Odd way to put it. You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt - safe to assume that there is no need to pretend at all.
Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
But it's not as hot as it was then.
So what's the disconnect?
Agreed. There is no disconnect. Does this mean that you now accept the reliability of climate science? Heaven help us!
It seems imprudent to me to speak only of the dogma of one side of a complex discussion while ignoring the dogma of the other side.
Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
What bothers me is that AGW mitigation advocates have yet to justify their position.
I know that bothers you - because you imagine that they need to justify the need for climate action to you, the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves". Pro tip: Nobody cares what you think. Enjoy your new career - I hear that stale urine is actually quite good for the toenails, though I won't bother explaining why - the explanation is packed full of that sciencey stuff, and you wouldn't like it.
Interestingly it appears to easier to deny some impersonal reality than to admit a personal failing. I find, even in these latter days, that many smokers will default to arguments we would otherwise imagine were long proven false: there is no link between smoking and lung cancer, my uncle smoked all his life and died at 95 so I can too, some people enjoy taking risks etc, etc.
I suspect that these notions are just easier to have floating in your brain than being constantly confronted with an uncomfortable truth about yourself e.g. I'd give up if I could, but I can't.
Climate Change denial arises from the same mechanism. The questioning of objective facts about discernable changes in the concentrations of CO2 and measurable (and predicted) effects on the troposphere arises from the desire to avoid confronting the personal implications: I will need to do something about that and This problem arose, in part, because of me and because of an edifice I believed in. It's very confronting.
The vast majority of rape victims are raped by someone they know. Boyfriend, family friend, member of the family. In these cases, the person doing the raping is more likely to have access to a household gun than the victim. The victim is far more likely than to be intimidated by a gun (explicitly or implicitly) than they are to be in a position to defend themselves with one.
Guns are enabling rape.
In the general case the presence of guns in the house will, on average, increase the likelihood that a criminal will have a gun too. In my country, where households don't generally have guns and therefore robbers do not either, a home invasion can be effectively halted by turning on a light. The robber typically will flee the scene - they are, after all, after a DVD player or something easily liftable to sell down the pub and make a quick buck. Who needs the grief of being seen or potentially apprehended? Why risk the far bigger sentence associated with armed robbery?
Whereas if it were our habit to have guns then criminals would carry guns too, and every break in becomes a deadly confrontation. Someone will most likely be shot and killed - most likely the householder, and sometimes the criminal, who is also someones son or daughter and not really deserving of death merely because they wanted to lift my DVD player. In my case, I'm not going to kill myself or any other person for the sake of a DVD player or TV - mine are insured and I'm not a psychopath. A persons life is worth more than all my material possessions, notwithstanding whether they break the law or not.
Professor Wadhams at Cambridge already predicted the collapse by 2015. Here is a reference [guardian.co.uk]. This site predicts 2030 at the latest [arcticice.org].
Actually that link says that the collapse we see happening now was predicted to start in 2015. Which (to be explicit) is the opposite of what you claimed.
But chances are you posted it up and have never read it, relying on the summary concocted by some money grubbing reblogger to be factual, even though you've been burnt before.
Have you been visiting wattsupwiththat.com again? I thought your mom told you to stay away from that place. It does things to your head.
Nooo...it was because many of us that was for actually FIXING the problem saw the AGW platform hijacked by scammers [nakedcapitalism.com] who don't give a flying fuck about the climate or the planet, they just want to fleece you for themselves and their friends.
Then let's look at the evidence: firstly you say that in general, people on slashdot adopting a counter position do so because emissions reduction schemes (i.e cap and trade, emissions trading, direct legislation for reduction) are a scam. But they think the actual phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change is real:
This guy thinks the reduction in arctic sea ice is caused by underwater volcanoes: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43442631.
If he thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real, why is he saying that it is not? This seems disingenuous.
This guys seems to think that the predictions of climate science can't be trusted - although bizarrely, he posted a link which indicates otherwise:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43441341. If he though those predictions could be trusted, why not say so? This seems disingenuous.
This guy thinks it's happened but won't get off his arse and do anything about it because it will mainly happen to poor people: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43443501. If, he, as you claim, is genuinely concerned about climate change, why does he not just say so? This seems disingenuous.
Notably, these positions are all:
1. Notably lacking any hard evidence
2. In contradiciton with one another
As is yours.
Why is the true position?
Which out of the whole crowd of you is telling us the truth?
hey, give them some credit - at least it's a testable prediction that can falsify their model. That's progress.
Not entirely sure what you mean - because of course models are inherently testable. If they show a meaningful result at all this result can be compared to what actually happens == testable.
By this means models which are inaccurate are discarded and models which aren't are kept. Simple enough.
Perhaps you mean that these results are testable - unlike the predictions of certain industry sponsored naysayers (Anthony Watts, Christopher Monkton et al.) which are varied and often self contradictory? I'm not sure that self contradiction means that the ranting of these lunatics cannot be falsified. Rather, they falsify themselves. As I've said before merely guessing is a better predictor of the future than climate denialists, because a random guess does not have inbuilt bias.
So uh... when Europe was having warmer weather during Winter and Spring a few years back, everyone [Citation needed] said that Global Warming was the cause [Citation needed] (and that it would never snow in Europe again, [Citation needed] skiing would be extinct, [Citation needed] etc. etc).
Fill in the required information.
You aren't able to provide a citation?
So what was happening a few years ago? Global Cooling?
You tell us. What did your model predict? How did these predictions align with actual outcomes?
You aren't able to detail what your model predicted? Why not? Is it a secret?
"You are criticising climate models for being too accurate. What result were you expecting?"
The climate models *aren't* accurate, they (notice the plural there) predict practically every possible outcome and then you apply a post-hoc rationalization to say that Global Warming has happened no matter what the actual weather is because there is one model (with all the other incorrect models conveniently ignored) that accurately predicts the weather to within some margin of error.
This being the case, you will be able to identify the model which said that the NAC (North Atlantic Current) will strengthen and cite the journal in which these results were published.
I look at it from a different direction - why support spending trillions until there's a quite well established model that has thoroughly proven itself, to the level of general relativity and evolution.
Yes indeed. Since mitigation is already costing more than we are spending on prevention, why would we continue to invest trillions in technologies we know are biting us in the arse, knowing that they will continue to cause more and more suffering into the future based merely on the assertions of a tiny minority whose only argument centres on their own ignorance? From a risk management perspective, this is absurd, like the relying on a shaman, or the world community going to a tarot card reader
Mostly toda0, however,y I'd like to see a solid explanation of existing data: why is there a quite distinct 100k climate cycle. What normally drives temperature and CO2 up, quite rapidly, every 100k years? What draws it down again? What's the mechanism?
I'm surprised that you are so open about your ignorance of the data and theory - but nevertheless such honesty is refreshing. Might I suggest that next time, you use google to apprise yourself of the basics of a topic before stepping into a forum to discuss it.
A good hypothesis is rarely made by blindly modeling historical data without proposing a (relatively) simple underlying mechanic from which the existing data can be explained and predictions made. I haven't been able to find any such model for the 100K cycles, but I find them fascinating.
Personally, I'm skeptical about those approaches as well, which might explain why I'm skeptical about your use of it!
I see. Do you have a citation that actually matches your assertion?
Also if you thought you knew what the error margin was, why did you claim that you didn't?
If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. Your use of the word "our" implies that you are part of a group. I believe based on your statement that is the Global Warming group. So your group makes a claim of Global Warming. So yes it is your responsibly defend your claims and explain your methodology used to come to your conclusions. I never made a claim I have nothing to expain, you made a claim so you do.
I note your attempt to establish, by momentous leaps of logic, a circumstance whereby the scientific community owes you an explanation for the fact that reality behaves in a way that you (personally) do not like. I note this attempt in order to highlight it's failure.
Which I guess is you asking: "Will I need to provide proof of my assertion that climate models did not predict the last 5 years of climate activity" And my answer is - yes you will.
The usefulness of a model can be determined by the accuracy of it's predictions. So for example, early climate models (pre 1980's) didn't make very accurate predictions. Neither does the baseline denialist model. If we distill denialist theory down to it's mathematical consequences, the climate of the earth would be similar to the climate on the moon. So in fact, this model is less accurate than guessing what the climate will do next.
Early (pre computer age) models were more accurate than guessing, so ranking by accuracy
GCM Models > Non GCM Models > Early paper based Models > Single Dimensional (Black Body Radiation) calculation > Guessing > Distilled Denialist model.
Which raises the question - why would we even glance twice at the least accurate model of all?
So uh... when Europe was having warmer weather during Winter and Spring a few years back, everyone [Citation needed] said that Global Warming was the cause [Citation needed] (and that it would never snow in Europe again, [Citation needed] skiing would be extinct, [Citation needed] etc. etc).
Fill in the required information.
So what was happening a few years ago? Global Cooling?
You tell us. What did your model predict? How did these predictions align with actual outcomes?
Why is is that no matter what happens, it is always the effects of Global Warming
You are criticising climate models for being too accurate. What result were you expecting?
Why are you asking us? If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. You are criticising the margins of error whilst simultaneously claiming to not know what they are. Hardly convincing.
Sure, there's no difference between a religious person and an atheist, except that one is a religious person and the other person isn't.
Assuming that non-atheists think of atheism as "not religion". That assumption is incorrect.
The elimination of one set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs in a significant difference, especially when that set of beliefs is used to influence a wide variety of aspects in a population's society.
We haven't identified any person or group which could meaningfully be considered to have a smaller set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
You misunderstand again. In an argument, I can stipulate to one of your assertions, and show that your argument still doesn't hold, without explicitly agreeing that your assertion is unassailable.
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away.
Again, you've misunderstood :) I've asserted that NOAA 2008 specified a falsification, and that falsification was observed...
You admit again, and quite openly, that you consider the model to be falsifiable.
and that falsification was observed...which you responded to, as usual, with an ad hoc special pleading :) I further asserted that a model and underlying theory which responds to every potential falsification with an ad hoc special pleading is de facto not falsifiable.
You imagine that you can successfully conflate "not falsified" with "not falsifiable" and nobody will notice. You're wrong. You imagine that somehow, you can change the topic to something other than your constant stream of self contradictory, bizarre assertions. Wrong again.
I'll say this again: Let assume you are right and the NOAA 2008 model was falsified. Or randomly pick any other model. Not out of the question - models have certainly been falsified in the past. What then?
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
As for "going away", you do realize that after a while threads get closed for comments, right?
I guess that's the reason you haven't responded to explain why you engaged in a strawman, because this thread is closed. What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science. You just continue on in a haze of self contradiction and fallacy, or you stop posting.
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come?
Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy?
We also have weak guesses for, what is supposed to be the most rigorous part of the theory of AGW, the radiative forcing for CO2 in our world. Uncertainty of a factor of two are commonplace. From page 42 of that link:
Finally, in the ensemble studies, by far most of the climate model versions have climate sensitivity near 3C, and only a small number of models have sensitivities below 2C or above 4C. I have argued here for the âoeconsensusâ range of past IPCC reports of 3C +/- 1.5C, as the goal of this paper is to revisit the basics. But taking all ensemble studies and other constraints together, my personal assessment (and that of a growing number of other researchers) is that the uncertainty range can now be described more realistically as 3C +/- 1C.
This is a 2008 paper.
I find it kind of odd that you would say one thing and then quote from a paper that contradicts your statement. Just saying - this sort of thing tends to make observers think your theory lacks credibility.
Thus, the various models for AGW are based on weak data for all but the most recent human history. And they are based on very poorly understood climate dynamics.
Mmm. Yet your own understanding and theory is sufficient to give you confidence that anthropogenic GHG emissions magically DON'T contribute to climate whilst simultaneously GHGs of natural origin do. Yet you apparently are unable to articulate what that theory is.
(a) Why do GHGs of anthropogenic origin have different radiative properties to GHGs from natural sources? Or alternatively, what effect is currently counteracting the extra latent heat trapped by anthropogenic emissions such that we are not experiencing a temperature change due to the increased conetration of GHGs - describe this effect in detail, including observations and repeatable, experimental evidence. (b) If the current temperature event is not due to our emissions, what is causing this event? (Whilst simultaneously dampening the effect of our own GHG's to the exact negative of the said change in baseline temperature)
Finally, it's worth noting that the sums of public money spend on AGW mitigation, such as development of renewable energy technologies and subsidies, carbon dioxide emission markets, development of alternative transportation (for example, biofuels and electric cars), and now, AGW reparations, currently are many tens of billions a year which possibly could go up to hundreds of billions a year. The same advocates for those huge expenditures also control funding for climatology research. There is a huge conflict of interest.
Yet you claim that (a) we need to maintain this research because "not enough" is understood about the climate (b) That using alternative energy will magically send us broke even though people are making so much money off it. In fact, they are (apparently) making so much money they are able to afford the expense of time travel to travel back in time to each observation of the radiative properties of CO2 (and other GHGs) and interfere with these experiments in some way, thus continuing the premise that these gases are GHGs - and even travelling to other planets to repeat the deception there. Where did this tech come from? Aliens I'd assume.
Perhaps you should repeat Tyndall's experiment and attempt to catch a chrono/astro/galacto-naut in the act of fiddling with it, thus proving this vast time conspiracy.
That is my evidence.
I remain a little sceptical...
Now, let's move on to the matter of Tuvalu. A poster, Impy the Impiuos Imp had noted that AGW mitigation involves a radical destruction of human innovation and a great increase in human poverty. You posted "Except that moving inward from the sea, fo
The chances are you don't think that about your own religion, you just think your own beliefs are somehow special and deserving of respect - this permits you to continue to hate in arbitrary way, because you are exceptional - exactly the racist mindset.
You assume that Australians use guns for self-defense, as Americans do.
Do Americans actually use these guns for self defence?
You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt
I remain skeptical of the short scale accuracy of CO2 proxies, because of the natural smoothing that occurs with poor resolution sampling. Aren't you?
You've previously relied on the climate record for one of your arguments - suffice to say, you accept it's accuracy.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
For the purposes of our discussion, it's a fine SWAG to put out...especially if the implication is that "oh noes, we've hit the CO2 levels of the Eocene, now tomorrow we'll get the same temperatures!"
And if you are wrong about this prediction, or your understanding of the science is wrong (not clear which your are referring to here), will you personally apologise or conveniently forget your error?
Show me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then we can talk about reliability :) Show me CO2 reconstructions claiming we've never seen 400ppm for 3 million years, or hand waving articles worried that we might suddenly pop over 400ppm and then get Eocene like temperatures and apocalypse, and not so much :)
You've previously admitted that both the models and underlying theory were falsifiable, then when this fact was pointed out to you, you went away. Where did you go, by the way?
You talk about [my] fairies - I talk about evidence.
Then feel free to present your evidence. Carry on.
Who's looking at the science here?
I'll reserve judgement on that. You think your fairy wishing is actually science? That's fine - submit your "scientific" theory for review.
Yes, I think they need to justify the need for "climate action" to me.
Dentists don't need to convince you, personally, that regular brushing is good for your teeth. If your teeth fall out, that is your problem.
Doctors and Scientists don't need to convince you, personally, that smoking causes lung cancer, if you die a long, painful death in your cabin in the woods, that is your problem.
Police Officers don't need to convince you, personally, that you need to obey the law. If you don't, then be it on your own head.
See how the world works?
the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves"
I googled around but couldn't find this statement in any of my slashdot posts. Where's a link so we can look at the context for this alleged statement?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43443501 .
Can you not even remember what you said in the past? Or is this a "deny everything!" strategy?
Excellent question. Let's pretend for a moment that we accept that the last time we were at 400ppm was millions of years ago, and it was significantly hotter then.
Odd way to put it. You've previously said that it was, and I've never expressed any doubt - safe to assume that there is no need to pretend at all.
Pretend for a moment that indeed, were we to have those same temperatures today, it would be apocalyptic.
So this is your definition of apocalyptic? That the temperature rises to the same level as the Eocene?
But it's not as hot as it was then. So what's the disconnect?
Agreed. There is no disconnect. Does this mean that you now accept the reliability of climate science? Heaven help us!
*** Function PresentFacts() requires at least one argument.
It seems imprudent to me to speak only of the dogma of one side of a complex discussion while ignoring the dogma of the other side.
Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
What bothers me is that AGW mitigation advocates have yet to justify their position.
I know that bothers you - because you imagine that they need to justify the need for climate action to you, the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves". Pro tip: Nobody cares what you think. Enjoy your new career - I hear that stale urine is actually quite good for the toenails, though I won't bother explaining why - the explanation is packed full of that sciencey stuff, and you wouldn't like it.
Define apocalypse for us.
I suspect that these notions are just easier to have floating in your brain than being constantly confronted with an uncomfortable truth about yourself e.g. I'd give up if I could, but I can't.
Climate Change denial arises from the same mechanism. The questioning of objective facts about discernable changes in the concentrations of CO2 and measurable (and predicted) effects on the troposphere arises from the desire to avoid confronting the personal implications: I will need to do something about that and This problem arose, in part, because of me and because of an edifice I believed in. It's very confronting.
Guns are enabling rape.
In the general case the presence of guns in the house will, on average, increase the likelihood that a criminal will have a gun too. In my country, where households don't generally have guns and therefore robbers do not either, a home invasion can be effectively halted by turning on a light. The robber typically will flee the scene - they are, after all, after a DVD player or something easily liftable to sell down the pub and make a quick buck. Who needs the grief of being seen or potentially apprehended? Why risk the far bigger sentence associated with armed robbery?
Whereas if it were our habit to have guns then criminals would carry guns too, and every break in becomes a deadly confrontation. Someone will most likely be shot and killed - most likely the householder, and sometimes the criminal, who is also someones son or daughter and not really deserving of death merely because they wanted to lift my DVD player. In my case, I'm not going to kill myself or any other person for the sake of a DVD player or TV - mine are insured and I'm not a psychopath. A persons life is worth more than all my material possessions, notwithstanding whether they break the law or not.
Professor Wadhams at Cambridge already predicted the collapse by 2015. Here is a reference [guardian.co.uk]. This site predicts 2030 at the latest [arcticice.org].
Actually that link says that the collapse we see happening now was predicted to start in 2015. Which (to be explicit) is the opposite of what you claimed.
But chances are you posted it up and have never read it, relying on the summary concocted by some money grubbing reblogger to be factual, even though you've been burnt before.
Have you been visiting wattsupwiththat.com again? I thought your mom told you to stay away from that place. It does things to your head.
Nooo...it was because many of us that was for actually FIXING the problem saw the AGW platform hijacked by scammers [nakedcapitalism.com] who don't give a flying fuck about the climate or the planet, they just want to fleece you for themselves and their friends.
Then let's look at the evidence: firstly you say that in general, people on slashdot adopting a counter position do so because emissions reduction schemes (i.e cap and trade, emissions trading, direct legislation for reduction) are a scam. But they think the actual phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change is real:
This guy thinks the reduction in arctic sea ice is caused by underwater volcanoes: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43442631. If he thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real, why is he saying that it is not? This seems disingenuous.
This guys seems to think that the predictions of climate science can't be trusted - although bizarrely, he posted a link which indicates otherwise: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43441341. If he though those predictions could be trusted, why not say so? This seems disingenuous.
This guy thinks that the arctic ice is not melting at all: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43441403 - if he thinks that AGW is real (and evidenced by melting arctic ice) why did he not just say it? This seems disingenuous.
This guy thinks it's happened but won't get off his arse and do anything about it because it will mainly happen to poor people: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43443501. If, he, as you claim, is genuinely concerned about climate change, why does he not just say so? This seems disingenuous.
Notably, these positions are all:
1. Notably lacking any hard evidence
2. In contradiciton with one another
As is yours.
Why is the true position?
Which out of the whole crowd of you is telling us the truth?
I don't care for some odd reason.
I'm not convinced that it really matters - but the reason is probably because you are a psychopath.
They can always move the country somewhere else or figure out how to conduct the business of government in the sea, if they really want to keep it.
Here's a thought - we could take you stuff and give it to them. That would at least partially alleviate their loss.
hey, give them some credit - at least it's a testable prediction that can falsify their model. That's progress.
Not entirely sure what you mean - because of course models are inherently testable. If they show a meaningful result at all this result can be compared to what actually happens == testable.
By this means models which are inaccurate are discarded and models which aren't are kept. Simple enough.
Perhaps you mean that these results are testable - unlike the predictions of certain industry sponsored naysayers (Anthony Watts, Christopher Monkton et al.) which are varied and often self contradictory? I'm not sure that self contradiction means that the ranting of these lunatics cannot be falsified. Rather, they falsify themselves. As I've said before merely guessing is a better predictor of the future than climate denialists, because a random guess does not have inbuilt bias.
So uh... when Europe was having warmer weather during Winter and Spring a few years back, everyone [Citation needed] said that Global Warming was the cause [Citation needed] (and that it would never snow in Europe again, [Citation needed] skiing would be extinct, [Citation needed] etc. etc).
Fill in the required information.
You aren't able to provide a citation?
So what was happening a few years ago? Global Cooling?
You tell us. What did your model predict? How did these predictions align with actual outcomes?
You aren't able to detail what your model predicted? Why not? Is it a secret?
"You are criticising climate models for being too accurate. What result were you expecting?"
The climate models *aren't* accurate, they (notice the plural there) predict practically every possible outcome and then you apply a post-hoc rationalization to say that Global Warming has happened no matter what the actual weather is because there is one model (with all the other incorrect models conveniently ignored) that accurately predicts the weather to within some margin of error.
This being the case, you will be able to identify the model which said that the NAC (North Atlantic Current) will strengthen and cite the journal in which these results were published.
I look at it from a different direction - why support spending trillions until there's a quite well established model that has thoroughly proven itself, to the level of general relativity and evolution.
Yes indeed. Since mitigation is already costing more than we are spending on prevention, why would we continue to invest trillions in technologies we know are biting us in the arse, knowing that they will continue to cause more and more suffering into the future based merely on the assertions of a tiny minority whose only argument centres on their own ignorance ? From a risk management perspective, this is absurd, like the relying on a shaman, or the world community going to a tarot card reader
Mostly toda0, however,y I'd like to see a solid explanation of existing data: why is there a quite distinct 100k climate cycle. What normally drives temperature and CO2 up, quite rapidly, every 100k years? What draws it down again? What's the mechanism?
I'm surprised that you are so open about your ignorance of the data and theory - but nevertheless such honesty is refreshing. Might I suggest that next time, you use google to apprise yourself of the basics of a topic before stepping into a forum to discuss it.
A good hypothesis is rarely made by blindly modeling historical data without proposing a (relatively) simple underlying mechanic from which the existing data can be explained and predictions made. I haven't been able to find any such model for the 100K cycles, but I find them fascinating.
Personally, I'm skeptical about those approaches as well, which might explain why I'm skeptical about your use of it!
Oft-quoted Princeton scientist and climate-change advocate Michael Oppenheimer speaks of a 65% margin of error in their temperature predictions. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/
I see. Do you have a citation that actually matches your assertion?
Also if you thought you knew what the error margin was, why did you claim that you didn't?
If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. Your use of the word "our" implies that you are part of a group. I believe based on your statement that is the Global Warming group. So your group makes a claim of Global Warming. So yes it is your responsibly defend your claims and explain your methodology used to come to your conclusions. I never made a claim I have nothing to expain, you made a claim so you do.
I note your attempt to establish, by momentous leaps of logic, a circumstance whereby the scientific community owes you an explanation for the fact that reality behaves in a way that you (personally) do not like. I note this attempt in order to highlight it's failure.
Which I guess is you asking: "Will I need to provide proof of my assertion that climate models did not predict the last 5 years of climate activity" And my answer is - yes you will.
Early (pre computer age) models were more accurate than guessing, so ranking by accuracy
GCM Models > Non GCM Models > Early paper based Models > Single Dimensional (Black Body Radiation) calculation > Guessing > Distilled Denialist model.
Which raises the question - why would we even glance twice at the least accurate model of all?
So uh... when Europe was having warmer weather during Winter and Spring a few years back, everyone [Citation needed] said that Global Warming was the cause [Citation needed] (and that it would never snow in Europe again, [Citation needed] skiing would be extinct, [Citation needed] etc. etc).
Fill in the required information.
So what was happening a few years ago? Global Cooling?
You tell us. What did your model predict? How did these predictions align with actual outcomes?
Why is is that no matter what happens, it is always the effects of Global Warming
You are criticising climate models for being too accurate. What result were you expecting?
What exactly are the margins of error.
Why are you asking us? If you are ignorant of something, that is not our responsibility to correct. You are criticising the margins of error whilst simultaneously claiming to not know what they are. Hardly convincing.
So the moon base will be able to save 7 billion humans?
Sure, there's no difference between a religious person and an atheist, except that one is a religious person and the other person isn't.
Assuming that non-atheists think of atheism as "not religion". That assumption is incorrect.
The elimination of one set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs in a significant difference, especially when that set of beliefs is used to influence a wide variety of aspects in a population's society.
We haven't identified any person or group which could meaningfully be considered to have a smaller set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs.