about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

The problem you have is that the AGW hypothesis is almost as tenuous as my purple elephant one. Both are based on subjective opinion not empirical science

(Citation needed)

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

The problem you have is that the AGW hypothesis is almost as tenuous as my purple elephant one. Both are based on subjective opinion not empirical science as your inability to find such science has demonstrated :waiting:

Frankly based on the evidence to date a better analogy for AGW amongst more objective realists would be 'dont piss down my neck then tell me that its raining' :roll:

Except for the massive number of papers published supporting it, the near universal consensus of those who study it, tge accurate predictions made over the decades, etc.

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Except for the massive number of papers published supporting it, the near universal consensus of those who study it, tge accurate predictions made over the decades, etc.

And the creationists are still waiting for those transitional fossils... :waiting:

 

[Jack Hays]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

And the creationists are still waiting for those transitional fossils... :waiting:

Keep bringing up creationists. I know it makes you feel better. Keep pretending that science is a matter of "consensus" rather than experimental result. I know that makes you feel better too. Don't think about the phlogiston consensus. I know that makes you feel bad.eace

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Keep bringing up creationists. I know it makes you feel better. Keep pretending that science is a matter of "consensus" rather than experimental result. I know that makes you feel better too. Don't think about the phlogiston consensus. I know that makes you feel bad.eace

Creationism and anti-AGW are both forms of anti-intellectualism. That is why I keep bringing them up.

 

[Jack Hays]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Creationism and anti-AGW are both forms of anti-intellectualism. That is why I keep bringing them up.

Yes, and no, respectively. Linking the two is your dishonest way of avoiding debate.eace

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Except for the massive number of papers published supporting it, the near universal consensus of those who study it, tge accurate predictions made over the decades, etc.

So you should have no problem finding one amongst them showing empirical proof of human culpability for the current warming then should you ? :waiting:

 

[gslack]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

He's got the right post. Trouble seeing past your flag buddy? :lol:


##################
##################



Code certainly was implying that recent warming has been a purely natural phenomenon, which I denied his graphs suggest. When something is described as "a criminally deceptive tool of the agenda driven watermelons," you kinda want to know or guess why this 'deception' is so despicable, do you not? But as it turns out, even if Code's interpretations of his graphs were strictly accurate, he has neither shown where any reputable "agenda driven watermelon" has stated anything contrary to that, and nor has he shown that his correction to the allegedly 'misstated' information is contrary to that 'agenda' so as to imply deception. On the contrary, as I've pointed out, whatever else may be said of them his graphs seem to favour an AGW conclusion.


But getting into the specifics, if you wish, it turns out that Code's interpretations of his graphs are not strictly accurate. They are blatantly inconsistent at best. He said, as you quote, that:
"the temperature of the globe seems to have increased by 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years"
And so they did; from 2000 years ago to the present there was roughly a 0.7 degree increase according to his second graph. According to that graph there was a roughly one degree increase from 400 years ago to the present, but that's okay I guess. "In the last 2000 years" can officially mean 2000 years ago to the present.

But then he said:
"The temperature has DECREASED by more than that over the last 8000 years."
So "over the last 8000 years" must also mean 8000 years ago to the present. Right? Wrong. He only gets his greater decrease if "over the last 8000 years" suddenly means "the greatest decreasing interval during that period." In fact he is ending his "over the last 8000 years" on that very point 400 years ago which would've given us that one degree increase!

Whether you spin it as the greatest increase vs. greatest decrease in the past 2-8k years, or the change in the last 2k years vs. the change in the last 8k years, recent warming wins out. Code got his claim - from this source which Flogger considers so unreliable whenever he doesn't see his kind of flag above it - by the blatantly inconsistent comparison of first finding the greatest decrease and calling it "over the last 8000 years," and then finding a period in which the increase has been smaller to call "in the last 2000 years."

Instead of trying to glean what he really means, why not address what he says.. He said A, B, C and you just tried to make it seem he actually meant the entire alphabet..The only "spin" here is from you. He made a straightforward statement, clear and concise.. You decided you know what he really means and went on a crusade for it...

How accurate do you think "roughly one degree" is? Would 0.7 of a degree fit in the claim of "roughly one degree"? I think so... So you arguement there is that it might be as high as 1 degree.. Okay.. LOL sure.. Might be, but it also might be less than that as well...You did say "roughly one degree"..

Now you are trying to be pedantic rather than address his point.. Nice...

The fact is he made one statement, and you asked where he got the info from. He supplied it and you decided to change your argument rather than face the fact one of the very same graphs you guys would use to show warming, in fact supports his claim. So now you want to have a pedantic argument over his choice words...

Face it, you asked for something and when you got it, you didn't like it...

 

[gslack]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Do you have a proof of similar quality that supports AGW?

Save your breath code... He doesn't understand the difference between proving somethings existence, and gaining quantified, verifiable proof of it's mechanisms and how it works.. Which is why he makes such ridiculous comparisons.. He doesn't understand it..

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Save your breath code... He doesn't understand the difference between proving somethings existence, and gaining quantified, verifiable proof of it's mechanisms and how it works.. Which is why he makes such ridiculous comparisons.. He doesn't understand it..

So you should have no problem finding one amongst them showing empirical proof of human culpability for the current warming then should you ? :waiting:

Why don't you accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming? Let's start there, and I will see if I can address your concerns. Please be
very specific in your response about what problems you see.

 

[Jack Hays]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Why don't you accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming? Let's start there, and I will see if I can address your concerns. Please be
very specific in your response about what problems you see.

There's no evidence for AGW. That's a start.eace

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

There's no evidence for AGW. That's a start.eace

"While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity."
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

"What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found 'direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect.'"
How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Why don't you accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming? Let's start there, and I will see if I can address your concerns. Please be
very specific in your response about what problems you see.

Jack pretty much nailed it despite what our cartoonist friend thinks.

Not only has the human impact on temperature ever been quantified empirically, its very fingerprint has never even been discerned as yet against natural background variation/noise. Thats not to say that humans do not contribute a miniscule percentage to the overall greenhouse gases its just that it is too small to be distinguishable in terms of its climate impacts to warrant legitimate concern much less economy wrecking legislation to address it. The whole hypothesis rests on modelled subjective speculation nothing more

 

[gslack]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Why don't you accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming? Let's start there, and I will see if I can address your concerns. Please be
very specific in your response about what problems you see.

Well then please point to any scientific paper, study, or statement that calls Anthropogenic Global warming a fact... Please, it's never stated as fact by any scientific measure, if you beleive it has, please post it now..

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Well then please point to any scientific paper, study, or statement that calls Anthropogenic Global warming a fact... Please, it's never stated as fact by any scientific measure, if you beleive it has, please post it now..

Look up, my friend

 

[Jack Hays]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

"While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity."
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

"What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found 'direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect.'"
How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

Correlation is not causation. No link to higher temperatures. Of course there have been no higher temperatures for 17 years.eace

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Jack pretty much nailed it despite what our cartoonist friend thinks.

Not only has the human impact on temperature ever been quantified empirically, its very fingerprint has never even been discerned as yet against natural background variation/noise. Thats not to say that humans do not contribute a miniscule percentage to the overall greenhouse gases its just that it is too small as to be distinguishable in terms of its climate impacts to warrant legitimate concern much less economy wrecking legislation to address it. The whole hypothesis rests on modelled subjective speculation nothing more

That's a lie. I just posted a study right above what you wrote that found that humans are MOSTLY responsible for the rapid carbon dioxide concentration increase.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

That's a lie. I just posted a study right above what you wrote that found that humans are MOSTLY responsible for the rapid carbon dioxide concentration increase.

A ten year old climate model study is empirical proof of nothing but the subjective guesses made by the modeller for its inputs, which given real world observations over the period period since its publication is far from compelling.

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Correlation is not causation. No link to higher temperatures. Of course there have been no higher temperatures for 17 years.eace

There is a causation there. When there is a drop in outgoing radiation, by definition the Earth is receiving more of the Sun's light energy. As the study above shows, this increase in CO2 concentration is mainly caused by human activity.

As for your question:

"Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time.

Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2.

The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:



The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing.

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation."

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

A ten year old climate model study is empirical proof of nothing but the subjective guesses made by the modeller for its inputs, which given real world observations over the period period since its publicationn is far from compelling.

That's not a theoretical model. That is O16/O18 analysis.
Oxygen isotope ratio cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't understand anything about models, anyway. That's just something you tell yourself to make you feel better.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

That's not a theoretical model. That is O16/O18 analysis.
Oxygen isotope ratio cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't understand anything about models, anyway. That's just something you tell yourself to make you feel better.

Oh I understand what they can and cannot do a darned sight better than you .Here is a list of many of the things climate models cannot do.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

That being the case why would any rational person trust their results especially when viewed against their record with current real world observations

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

One can deduce that things other than a pursuit of truth and genuine environmental concern are your real motivation here

 

[gslack]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Look up, my friend

One link to a paper, and one to a blog page by the same cartoonist responsible for the last 97% claim, and neither one state AGW as confirmed and undeniable fact... The really silly part is you just used a link from the same guy who made the ridiculous 97% paper this topic is referring to, and you called it scientific...

Let me save you some time here... Science likes to avoid statements of fact when they can. First; it can be embarrassing for them when they have to recant or accept some new information that may make their previous claim incorrect. Second; Science is always learning, always moving forward and very seldom is it ever "settled".. Einsteins' THEORY of relativity is still called a theory. Even Newtons laws took a long time before being called laws.. And those two examples have been pretty much spot on every time they are tested.. Unlike AGW which is seldom correct..

You won't find any genuine scientific claim of AGW being fact.

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Oh I understand what they can and cannot do a darned sight better than you .Here is a list of many of the things models cannot do.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

That being the case why would any rational person trust their results especially when viewed against current real world observations

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

One can deduce that things other than a pursuit of truth and genuine environmental concern are your real motivation here

I'm sorry, but your partisan rags that you have shared do not constitute an academic source.

You are creating a red herring to divert the issue. The source I posted has NOTHING to do with theoretical models, and the fact that you
suggested its age (10 years old) somehow undermines its validity shows your lack of knowledge. O16/O18 analysis is chemistry: it has not changed
in 10 years in this area, and it has nothing to do with mathematical models

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

One link to a paper, and one to a blog page by the same cartoonist responsible for the last 97% claim, and neither one state AGW as confirmed and undeniable fact... The really silly part is you just used a link from the same guy who made the ridiculous 97% paper this topic is referring to, and you called it scientific...

Let me save you some time here... Science likes to avoid statements of fact when they can. First; it can be embarrassing for them when they have to recant or accept some new information that may make their previous claim incorrect. Second; Science is always learning, always moving forward and very seldom is it ever "settled".. Einsteins' THEORY of relativity is still called a theory. Even Newtons laws took a long time before being called laws.. And those two examples have been pretty much spot on every time they are tested.. Unlike AGW which is seldom correct..

You won't find any genuine scientific claim of AGW being fact.

gslack's argument condensed:

DUDE, scientists are wrong sometimes and it's embarrassing. Science is always learning and moving forward. Therefore, all academic studies
are wrong ROFL.

If science is built on such shaky foundations, I'm not sure why you trust it when you ride in airplanes?

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I'm sorry, but your partisan rags that you have shared do not constitute an academic source.

Really ? What bit was in error then ?

You are creating a red herring to divert the issue. The source I posted has NOTHING to do with theoretical models, and the fact that you
suggested its age (10 years old) somehow undermines its validity shows your lack of knowledge. O16/O18 analysis is chemistry: it has not changed
in 10 years in this area, and it has nothing to do with mathematical models

You are trying to conflate two disparate and unrelated types of modelling disciplines in a fairly obtuse way ,to inferr that one somehow buttresses the other. Heads up ! It doesnt

And you call my understanding into question ? :lol: