Climate Attribution Claims Questioned

[istodolez]

It's preposterous to say that the projections from the models are not related to human activity that result in greenhouse gas concentration. Simply a unserious attempt to explain wildly different model outputs.

If I give you $300 you have several choices:

1. How much money will you have in 2 days if you gamble it all away tomorrow?
2. How much money will you have in 2 days if you PUT IT IN THE BANK?
3. How much money will you have in 2 days if you use the money to buy a gun and rob a bank?

THAT is what this is about (in an oversimplified manner).

Those three scenarious will result in you having a different outcome

 

[istodolez]

There's plenty of studies that show the MWP and LIA were global.

And yet you don't actually POINT to any of them.

(If you'd like I can help you find them. We can discuss the technical details if you are interested.)

 

[bubbabgone]

And yet you don't actually POINT to any of them.

(If you'd like I can help you find them. We can discuss the technical details if you are interested.)

I could, but shouldn't you have been curious enough to look before buying into Mann's need to eliminate it long ago. Or at least since then. It's been quite a while and there's a lot of theory depending on it.

 

[bubbabgone]

If I give you $300 you have several choices:

1. How much money will you have in 2 days if you gamble it all away tomorrow?
2. How much money will you have in 2 days if you PUT IT IN THE BANK?
3. How much money will you have in 2 days if you use the money to buy a gun and rob a bank?

THAT is what this is about (in an oversimplified manner).

Those three scenarious will result in you having a different outcome

Excuse me for saying this but that was awful. A "what were you thinking" type of awful.

 

[istodolez]

I could, but shouldn't you have been curious enough to look before buying into Mann's need to eliminate it long ago. Or at least since then. It's been quite a while and there's a lot of theory depending on it.

The important thing to ask yourself when "rejecting" science or "accepting" science is: "Do I have the requisite knowledge to understand the relative merits of the arguments?"

Most people don't.

As for my "curiosity"? Well, unlike you I can actually FIND articles that discuss global extent of the LIA. I found one based on analysis of a peatbog in South America that might show global extent of the LIA. But I honestly don't find "one peatbog in Tierra Del Fuego" to be all that compelling. I'll wait for more data.

But the funny thing is: I actually can find this stuff and you can't even be bothered to point to it and it's your point!

 

[istodolez]

Excuse me for saying this but that was awful. A "what were you thinking" type of awful.

Actually it is called a "metaphor" in hopes of explaining what the RCP's are.

They are SCENARIOS in no small part based on OUR FUTURE ACTIONS. Not necessarily physical laws or calculations, etc, but OUR ACTIONS with regards to emissions and land usage.

The metaphor was constructed so that simpletons could understand what it means. I provided 3 "SCENARIOS" each based on YOUR FUTURE ACTIONS and each with different likely outcomes.

It is an apt metaphor.

Or you could actually read the references I posted about what an RCP is. Either way.

 

[bubbabgone]

The important thing to ask yourself when "rejecting" science or "accepting" science is: "Do I have the requisite knowledge to understand the relative merits of the arguments?"

Most people don't.

As for my "curiosity"? Well, unlike you I can actually FIND articles that discuss global extent of the LIA. I found one based on analysis of a peatbog in South America that might show global extent of the LIA. But I honestly don't find "one peatbog in Tierra Del Fuego" to be all that compelling. I'll wait for more data.

But the funny thing is: I actually can find this stuff and you can't even be bothered to point to it and it's your point!

Oh I have them. I was curious why it took a challenge from someone to actually make you look. Just kidding, I wasn't curious why. I know why.

 

[bubbabgone]

Actually it is called a "metaphor" in hopes of explaining what the RCP's are.

They are SCENARIOS in no small part based on OUR FUTURE ACTIONS. Not necessarily physical laws or calculations, etc, but OUR ACTIONS with regards to emissions and land usage.

The metaphor was constructed so that simpletons could understand what it means. I provided 3 "SCENARIOS" each based on YOUR FUTURE ACTIONS and each with different likely outcomes.

It is an apt metaphor.

Or you could actually read the references I posted about what an RCP is. Either way.

Too many options for a metaphor and it was a lousy set of scenarios.
For one thing you left out a scenario that calls for spending the money on a fool's errand that leaves a person worse off than he otherwise would have been.

 

[istodolez]

Oh I have them. I was curious why it took a challenge from someone to actually make you look. Just kidding, I wasn't curious why. I know why.

Bubba, if you knew about this paper already why didn't you mention it?

Be honest, did you even know what I was talking about before I mentioned it? Did you really?

Honestly do you ever actually real real science papers?

(I note that you haven't even discussed the nature of the study I found for you, so either you have no ability to discuss it or you can't even figure out how to use the "google machine" to find it. (LOL).

 

[bubbabgone]

Bubba, if you knew about this paper already why didn't you mention it?

Be honest, did you even know what I was talking about before I mentioned it? Did you really?

Honestly do you ever actually real real science papers?

(I note that you haven't even discussed the nature of the study I found for you, so either you have no ability to discuss it or you can't even figure out how to use the "google machine" to find it. (LOL).

I already knew of it.
I told you the point was to find out if you ever thought to look for yourself.
And you never did.
Yet you accepted something without thinking, gee, that doesn't sound plausible.
If it's any comfort, that practice is not uncommon among alarmists.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 20. August 2020
Share this...


[h=4]Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. [/h]According to scientists (Song et al., 2016), the total net forcing for Earth’s oceanic atmospheric greenhouse effect (Gaa) during 1992-2014 amounted to -0.04 W/m² per year. In other words, the trend in total greenhouse effect forcing had a net negative (cooling) influence during those 22 years despite a 42 ppm increase in CO2. This was primarily due to the downward trend in cloud cover that overwhelmed or “offset” the longwave influence from CO2.

[h=6]Image Source: Song et al., 2016[/h]

 

[istodolez]

I already knew of it.
I told you the point was to find out if you ever thought to look for yourself.
And you never did.

Well, to be fair I was the only one to mention anything about peat bogs in South America or Tierra Del Fuego. (You do know what I'm talking about, don't you?)

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, to be fair I was the only one to mention anything about peat bogs in South America or Tierra Del Fuego. (You do know what I'm talking about, don't you?)

Yeah. And if I mentioned bristlecone pine proxies ... would you know what I'm talking about?

Why'd you not quote the rest of the comment you replied to?

"Yet you accepted something without thinking, gee, that doesn't sound plausible.
If it's any comfort, that practice is not uncommon among alarmists."
​

Too close to home was it? Ya know, being true and all.

 

[istodolez]

Yeah. And if I mentioned bristlecone pine proxies ... would you know what I'm talking about?

Yes. And I know that McIntyre is unhappy with them as a proxy. Thankfully they are not the only proxy out there. Whew!

"Yet you accepted something without thinking, gee, that doesn't sound plausible.

For the simple reason that it isn't true! I've probably got far more experience with this entire topic than you. Perhaps it is due to my doctorate in geology, or my experience in chemical oceanography, or perhaps it is the fact that I've been watching this topic for literally decades now.

For pretty much every "denialist" or "skeptic" thing you can point to I've already heard about it long ago.

Too close to home was it? Ya know, being true and all.

You know nothing. And while I am obviously not going to "prove" my bona fides here the fact that you speak so out of turn on something I actually do know about (ie my general familiarity with the topic) and that you can be so alarmingly wrong gives me no small amount of comfort in simply dismissing most of your comments.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes. And I know that McIntyre is unhappy with them as a proxy. Thankfully they are not the only proxy out there. Whew! . . .

Actually, it's the National Research Council that advised against their use (published in PNAS, I believe). And no, they're not the only proxies, but they are the only proxies that produce a hockey stick.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes. And I know that McIntyre is unhappy with them as a proxy. Thankfully they are not the only proxy out there. Whew!



For the simple reason that it isn't true! I've probably got far more experience with this entire topic than you. Perhaps it is due to my doctorate in geology, or my experience in chemical oceanography, or perhaps it is the fact that I've been watching this topic for literally decades now.

For pretty much every "denialist" or "skeptic" thing you can point to I've already heard about it long ago.



You know nothing. And while I am obviously not going to "prove" my bona fides here the fact that you speak so out of turn on something I actually do know about (ie my general familiarity with the topic) and that you can be so alarmingly wrong gives me no small amount of comfort in simply dismissing most of your comments.

Poseur alert! Poseur alert!

You had to look up bristlecone pines as proxies too didn't you.
You're too much.
Mann damn near depended on those proxies, flawed as they were, to flatten the MWP warming.
Couldn't have done it without them.
Think about it ... you'd have to believe a thousand years of climate without significant warming/cooling fluctuations.

All that alleged experience and you had no idea there had been studies that demonstrate the warming/cooling during the MWP/LIA .
The IPCC has been dragging itself grudgingly, toward acknowledging that fact since the Mann-made change to history.
Looks like you've been too narrowly "watching this topic".

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Media Blame Heat Wave on Climate Change – It’s Called Summer[/h][FONT=Muli !important]EXTREME HEAT AUGUST 20, 2020[/FONT]

 

[istodolez]

Poseur alert! Poseur alert!

I'm outta here.

Buh bye.