What if it isn't the CO2?

[klapse]

Thank you for your reply, tigerroast!

That may be true for Germany if the climate up there suddenly resembled Louisiana's. No more snow to blight your crops. No more having to waste so much energy to keep warm during the winter (although the summer may provide a somewhat different challenge). Y'all will no longer have Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter. It's Hot, Hot, Hot with Cold Days, and Cold with Hot Days and Maybe Some Snow.

I haven't seen anyone else imply that the seasons in northern Europe would disappear with a couple of degrees of warming, so I'll just accept that this is your opinion.

That being the case, it would be absolute hell down here. Seriously think about what you're saying. The oceans would also get warmer, resulting in stronger hurricanes with higher frequency. We can't handle many more of those on this part of the Gulf, no.

I know the warmist propaganda-mill has been churning out the-sky-is-falling articles about increased hurricanes for almost two decades, but did their predicted increase happen? Weigh the scaremongers against these 30 studies, please.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10...ection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/
If so many people are making claims about things that obviously aren't happening, could there be something worse than human error at play?

In the context regarding the statement of which this is a response to, the null hypothesis is completely irrelevant. Boiled down to the basics, your claim is that humans can't have a significant impact on the climate because the climate changed before. That's a non-sequitur.

If you 'boil down' my words to mean something other than what they say, you can have great fun refuting them, sure: that's called a strawman argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I never said or meant to imply that prior climate change proves humans can have no significant impact. I do say that warmists are making an identity between the term "climate change" and AGW, obscuring the fact that climate change is natural and always happened. They even have done this by lying about past changes and claiming they never happened..

Last time, in plain English.
No one gives a lovely motherfuck about anything Al Gore says. You're the only one who does. THE. ONLY. ONE.

I'd call that gutter English, not plain English. And it's commpletely false.

Gore's thermapocalypse flick grossed 54 million dollars in global box office sales. It won the 2006 Academy Award for 'Best Documentary'. It was shown to millions of children all across the USA and Germany. I don't know how many other countries used it to indoctrinate those impressionable soft heads, but many people obviously cared enough about it to make it part of the school curriculum. The impact online was no less significant, with "An Inconvienient Truth" search returning about 450,000 results on Google and 52,800 on Youtube.

In addition, the ice core dataset I was referring-to was also claimed to support CO2-driving causality by countless publications and websites.

The only thing correct in that was your use of the contraction "you're".

Gee-fucking-wilikers, who'da thunk? Answer the question. Other gases mankind puts into the atmosphere that are more harmful than CO2. Are they irrelevant?

What other gases that mankind puts into the atmosphere do you think are more harmful to the climate? I was focusing my attention on CO2 because that's the core tenet of the AGW theory..

Yeah, the burden of proof's on climate scientists, but you can't dismiss their claims with another non-sequitur.

You seem to like the term "non-sequitur". Why is it appropriate here? Also, if I merely dismissed their claims, I would have only typed a couple of sentences in this whole thread.

With you, it clearly doesn't. You questioned the ability of scientists to accurately measure sea level changes, but you didn't think twice about the webpage you quoted, which has sea level measurements of its own.

Just because I cite a page doesn't mean I didn't approach their claims skeptically also.

You'd think that highly-industrialized nations, nations with globalized economies (therefore, massive-scale, globalized industry), and nations with high oil/fossil fuel wealth would be so willing to fight against man-made climate change caused by fosil fuel emmisions, right? I mean, I simply cannot understand why they'd drag their feet on this issue they so clearly care about.

The first sentence is broken: "You'd think that X would be so willing to fight against Y" ... that what?"

I suspect there is some layer of sarcasm in there as well, but it is hard for me to tell what it applies to. Can you restate what you meant to say here a little more directly?

Cheers.

 

[rohezal]

Ok, I don't know what kind of university education you received, but we had (pseudo) chaotic systems in our physic classes. And if you add 0.2% more energy to such a system, it can behave completely different. So if you increase the temperature, more ice melts. Ice is white and reflects sunlight, the ocean under it does not. It absorbs the sunlight and increases the temperature even more. So you go into a feedback loop. I know some of the people who build the ice thickness radar of the DLR (german air and space agency), who actually went to the north and south pole and did measurements. They were pretty sure, that the melting ice and climate change are connected.

You seem to have a personal fight with Al Gore and dishonest people instead of a scientific one about climate change. And this made you blind. I know how this feel, I have a problem with Anita Sarkeesian and Suey Park. Stupid idiots and professional victims complaining about "misogyny". But this doesn't mean, that there are no areas where you have problems, if you have a certain sex. Seperate the messenger from the message. And if the messenger talks 90% nonsense the remaining 10% still maybe correct. And other people talking about this correct 10% have most times nothing to do with the idiot messenger.

 

[ible]

the other thing that bothers me is that when all this is said and done (i.e. regarding the coming ecopocalypse), i don't expect that climate change deniers are going to apologize...

 

[klapse]

Hi rohezal, thanks for your reply!

Ok, I don't know what kind of university education you received, but we had (pseudo) chaotic systems in our physic classes. And if you add 0.2% more energy to such a system, it can behave completely different.

Theoretically true. Depending on the system, initial conditions and inputs varying much less than that can alter the outcomes. However let's note: Can does not mean does.

1. Increased CO2 downward radiance predicted by the modtrans model isn't the only variable in the system. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
   
2. You have to completely ignore the paleo geologic record to believe that man-made CO2 can drive the system out of its stable attractor. How does 500, 700 or 900 ppm atmospheric CO2 cause thermageddon when 7,089 ppm did not?
   
3. IPCC claims cloud feedback due to warming is +0.69 W/m2 per degree C warming. CERES data show the real number is negative: -1.0 W/m2 per degree C. Is that why they're screaming, "Shut up! The debate is over!!11"?
   
4. Why take it on faith that CO2 drives global temperature and not the other way around, as the ice-core data implies?

As I showed before, the IPCC predictions of thermopocalypse rely on catastrophic positive feedback built-into proven-wrong models. Why do people still believe them? Why do they ignore past periods with much higher CO2 concentrations than today? Why do they feel the need to falsify past temperature data? These and other problems have shaken the faith I once had in the warmists.

So if you increase the temperature, more ice melts. Ice is white and reflects sunlight, the ocean under it does not. It absorbs the sunlight and increases the temperature even more. So you go into a feedback loop.

It's great that you can describe an example of feedback. However I hope you don't believe that the one cycle you describe models the earth's climate. Other feedback cycles drop temperature. Describing one feedback cycle in no way proves the IPCC models are right - especially when all those models were shown to be wrong.

I know some of the people who build the ice thickness radar of the DLR (german air and space agency), who actually went to the north and south pole and did measurements. They were pretty sure, that the melting ice and climate change are connected.

Thanks for informing us that you have friends with opinions. Does building a radar give them knowledge of the problems and errors with warmist theories? Did your friends explain how Antarctica ice is gaining mass and snowfall accumulation recently set a 300 year record?

Why did you write "climate change"? "Climate change" is natural and has occurred since the Earth had a climate. Are you implying it hasn't? Why not use the term that describes your claims, "athropogenic global warming" or AGW for short?

You seem to have a personal fight with Al Gore and dishonest people instead of a scientific one about climate change.

Since the beginning of the thread I have tried to make clear that the AGW issue is politics-driven, not science-driven. The movie is just one piece of evidence among many I presented in making that case. I bring it up because it's how millions of children got terrorised into believing the AGW theocracy. It's not personal vendetta against Gore, who after all, did bless us all by "creating the Internet"

Humans haven't evolved at all since the time they believed a clique of priests who told them that God flooded the earth as punishment for their sins. Hmm wait, they still do....

 

[tigerroast]

I haven't seen anyone else imply that the seasons in northern Europe would disappear with a couple of degrees of warming, so I'll just accept that this is your opinion.

Really? This is only my following your logic regarding warmer climates. Read what that's a reply to.

Also, that's a couple of degrees AVERAGE. If the weather down here usually represents the average during summer, then it would be nothing but love (~87F+50% humidity) But it doesn't. Not even high summer and we've had almost 2 weeks' worth of 100F+ days (with humidity, so no cloud coverage will save us).

If so many people are making claims about things that obviously aren't happening,...

Again, just following your logic. Perhaps to the extreme, but regardless.

could there be something worse than human error at play?

LMAO!!!! At no point did you fail to imply some kind of conspiracy surrounding man-made climate change. I love it.

If you 'boil down' my words to mean something other than what they say, you can have great fun refuting them, sure: that's called a strawman argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I know what a strawman is, thanks.

I never said or meant to imply that prior climate change proves humans can have no significant impact.

To be fair, that's exactly what it looks like to me. Regardless, if that wasn't your point, then I apologize.

I do say that warmists are making an identity between the term "climate change" and AGW, obscuring the fact that climate change is natural and always happened. They even have done this by lying about past changes and claiming they never happened..

I've never seen anyone make that claim, ever. Probably because I don't study Al Gore.

I'd call that gutter English, not plain English.

It is plain English. It's just the local patois, y'heard me?

And it's commpletely false.

Oh, right. It's you that cares about Al Gore. My bad. A whole 1 person.

Gore's thermapocalypse flick grossed 54 million dollars in global box office sales. It won the 2006 Academy Award for 'Best Documentary'.

The new Ghostbusters did pretty well at theaters, but we see how relevant that is right now, huh?

You do realize that there's a swath of movies that perform better than that at the box office and become irrelevent much faster, right?

It was shown to millions of children all across the USA and Germany.

That's not outside of the realm of possibility when a movie becomes widespread, innit?

I don't know how many other countries used it to indoctrinate those impressionable soft heads,...

Even in the South, an indoctrination factory, it takes more than a movie and, "But muh teacher said it," to indoctrinate kids. Try again.

...but many people obviously cared enough about it to make it part of the school curriculum.

I should also point out that the only state I know of to allow that movie into the curriculum on a state-wide basis was Washington. In private schools, it's always at the school's discretion (or, if it's a for-profit school system, the president's/CEO's/board's discretion). Since American conservatives are a) by and large against the idea of man-made climate change (not for reasons that you present, btw) and b) Christian, then you can be sure that many private schools across the nation refused to touch that movie.

Obviously, I have no idea how it went down in Europe.

The impact online was no less significant, with "An Inconvienient Truth" search returning about 450,000 results on Google and 52,800 on Youtube.

HOLY SHIT! A whole 450k results on Google?!?! Someone sound the alarm!!!

In addition, the ice core dataset I was referring-to was also claimed to support CO2-driving causality by countless publications and websites.

Since neither you nor Gore are exactly experts on the matter, I'll just continue looking elsewhere to confirm or deny causality.

The only thing correct in that was your use of the contraction "you're".

Oh, so your one of those, huh? (^_^)

What other gases that mankind puts into the atmosphere do you think are more harmful to the climate? I was focusing my attention on CO2 because that's the core tenet of the AGW theory..

Re-read the original question.

You seem to like the term "non-sequitur". Why is it appropriate here?

The way I'm reading it (maybe incorrectly, but you have to clarify), this statement follows a very common form of non-sequitur.

P1: Sea levels have always changed.
P2: Sea levels continue to change when humans come around.
C: Humans don't cause sea level change.

If that's what you're saying (as that's how I'm reading it, anyway), then the conclusion doesn't follow. Just because sea levels have always changed doesn't mean that humans can't have an impact on it. In fact, that says nothing about humans not causing sea level change. It's like if I said:

P1: A is usually rational.
P2: A believes in the supernatural, maybe for irrational reasons.
C: Therefore, it's rational to believe in the supernatural.

Why is holding such a belief rational? If A is "usually" rational, then why can't believing in such a thing be the exception and not the rule?

Also, if I merely dismissed their claims, I would have only typed a couple of sentences in this whole thread.

Not entirely true. You should be very familiar with the mental gymnastics some people (politicians, "the sheeple") pull just to dismiss questions or claims. You could've done the same.

Just because I cite a page doesn't mean I didn't approach their claims skeptically also.

When you question the accuracy of one party's sea level measurements and then cite a page with similar types of measurements, it really makes me question that.

I suspect there is some layer of sarcasm in there as well,...

You think?

...but it is hard for me to tell what it applies to. Can you restate what you meant to say here a little more directly?

That actually wasn't a reply to you. Just read what it was a reply to for more context.

 

[rohezal]

Explain this to me. I know correlation is not causility, but we blew stuff that absorbs energy into the atmosphere and the temperature rose. Seems quite connected to me.

 

[klapse]

Hi tigerroast, apologies for leaving most of your responses unanswered, but I think no rebuttal is required. I'll answer this one though, since some who read this might not see through it.

The way I'm reading it (maybe incorrectly, but you have to clarify), this statement follows a very common form of non-sequitur.

P1: Sea levels have always changed.
P2: Sea levels continue to change when humans come around.
C: Humans don't cause sea level change.

No, my argument is: C: Therefore sea level changes alone aren't evidence for AGW.

You mischaracterized my position, ignored the null hypothesis and reversed burden of proof.

Cheers

 

[kuru]

I heard it's nice and cool in China

 

[klapse]

Explain this to me. I know correlation is not causility, but we blew stuff that absorbs energy into the atmosphere and the temperature rose. Seems quite connected to me.

"I know correlation is not causality": Good!
"Seems quite connected to me":

The ice core proxy datasets going back 800k years confirm a correlation. Older datasets show uncorrelated CO2 and temperature, so other factors can clearly override this correlation.

Now what about causality?
- The ice core record suggests that temperature increases caused CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around
- We understand how higher temps cause more ocean CO2 to be relased.
- We know most of the greenhouse heat trapping is caused by water vapor.

- The modtrans model predicts doubled CO2 levels cause additional CO2 heat retention on the order of a few parts per thousand at most.
- 7000+ ppm CO2 didn't cause runaway warming in the past.

What about the models?
- The planet's climate is a nonlinear dynamic system goverened by hundreds of variables.
- IPCC predictions of global warming rely on computer models which are wrong.
- To have a chance of someday fixing the models, we need to stop policy driving science and let science drive policy.

 

[rohezal]

- To have a chance of someday fixing the models, we need to stop policy driving science and let science drive policy.

At least in Germany you are free to run your code on clusters in university if you are a scientist. Yes there is some fighting between different institutes about cpu time, but in fact nothing can stop someone with an account to submit a job to the queue. At least at my university. So if you want to model something different (which a lot of people do), you are free to run it.



- The ice core record suggests that temperature increases caused CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around
Ok, there is some permafrost soil in Sibiria, which contains lots of Carbon gases. I give you that. But the ocean is getting more acidic because it binds more CO2, not releasing it.

- 7000+ ppm CO2 didn't cause runaway warming in the past.
The sun was weaker in the past, but this was quite a long time ago. I don't know enough to argue with you about this point.

- IPCC predictions of global warming rely on computer models which are wrong.
If you seriously believe that and you can prove it write to this guys: https://www.awi.de . I know some them personaly. They create a lot of models and let them run a long time on big super computers. They would be very grateful if you point them to bugs you found in their models.

Btw. the models run on grids, which account for a lot of stuff. This is a complex numerical simulation with a very fine resolution in spatial and time dimension. Not a formular with one variable which you solve via analysis.

 

[Wally]

Okay, it's probably time to close this thread, we've given it long enough. To be perfectly honest it's giving some people migraines even looking at it.

Whilst the discussion is interesting, the OP doesn't seem to be taking anyones points into consideration and isn't going anywhere..

@klapse, please refrain from posting political discussions, you've been asked several times and you know very well that this can you get you banned.