• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this the end of the "consensus?"

code1211 said:
Have you found that scientific organization that has officially pronounced this notion to be a Scientific Theory or officially proposed it as a Scientific Hypothesis?
Click to expand...

You keep pounding this ridiculously stupid point.

Its the other turd you keep putting back in the sandbox.

OF COURSE AGW is a scientific theory. So is gravity. So is the theory of electron orbitals.

So is my theory that you are mentally disturbed.

A theory is a set of hypotheses that is generally seen to be true. It's not ever 'officially pronounced' by anyone, and no one is going to comb through the dozens of organizations that have issued position statements agreeing with the concept of AGW to see if the have the word 'theory' in them ( or as you like to say- Theory).

MULTIPLE scientific organizations have said they agree with the basic IPCC findings. You're perseverance over the word 'theory' and 'hypothesis' is disingenuous at best.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. The agenda is revealed. It's not a science thing....it's a liberal/conservative thing.

I personally would be just fine with conservative solutions to the problem, like a carbon tax rebated back via income taxes.
Click to expand...
So I take by your answer that you did not read Lindzen's article.
It really is a Science thing, currently the funding mechanism for research is being steered to a political destination.
 
Deuce said:
As opposed to all the evidence that has been put forth in this thread?

Or am I just supposed to take their word without question, like you seem to have done?
Click to expand...

I don't ask anyone to take anything on faith. But I expect people to disagree without indulging in personal attacks, and to discuss the data rather than the people presenting it.eace
 



By your own definition, this cannot be a theory since it also cannot be a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, it must be falsifiable and the test that can falsify the hypothesis must be defined:

http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
<snip>
HYPOTHESIS TESTING PROPOSAL
1. State the observation(s) the hypotheses are purporting to explain.
2. State one or two hypotheses purporting to explain those observations.
Skip to 3a. or 4a., as appropriate.
3a. If you state one hypothesis in (2.) above, describe a prediction of that hypothesis that can be used to falsify the hypothesis.
3b. Describe how you would perform an experiment or observation to determine whether that prediction is upheld or not.
4a. If you state two or more hypotheses in (2.) above, describe contrasting predictions of the hypotheses that can be used to distinguish among them.
4b. Describe how you would perform an experiment or observation to distinguish among the contrasting predictions.
<snip>
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
There are two ways to "test" the validity of an hypothesis:
1. by attempting to falsify it
2. by attempting to distinguish it from another hypothesis
To falsify an hypothesis, one needs to identify a novel phenomenon that is expected to occur if the hypothesis is true, and either observationally or experimentally determine if that phenomenon actually occurs. If it doesn't, the hypothesis is falsified and we reject it. If it does, we tentatively accept the hypothesis, pending further testing.
To distinguish between two hypotheses, one needs to identify a phenomenon about which the hypotheses make different predictions. Using experiments or observations, that phenomenon is examined. The hypothesis making the correct prediction is accepted as more correct than the other hypothesis.
<snip>

These things are not just awarded because it would be very convenient if they were. This is real science, not AGW Science. You actually have to prove things in real science.

Holding people who claim to be talking about science to the definitions demanded by science is not in the least disingenuous. Claiming that you are talking about science and refusing to use any science is an outright lie.

AGW claims to be talking about science and refuses to use any science including but not limited to the actual, real meaning of the words that they misuse to deceive.
 
code1211 said:
By your own definition, this cannot be a theory since it also cannot be a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

WTF does this even mean?

They are two different things. Good for you for getting a definition. Maybe you should try to read it.

Heres the kiddie version:

The basics hypotheses in the theory are :
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) it is expected that more CO2 will trap more heat on the earth
3) Gigatons of CO2 are being expelled into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels
3) We would expect to see a rise in surface and ocean temperatures over the long term with higher CO2 levels
4) We see a rise in temperatures over the past fifty years
5) Other factors woudl not be expected to elevate temperatures as observed
6) so the theory predicts more CO2 will lead to more warming, and the effects of warming will be unevenly distributed planetwide.

All of these things are true. These sets of hypotheses (and there are many, many more) have been tested and put together consist of the theory of AGW.
 

There is no experimental record that demonstrates CO2 causation in temperature rise.eace
 
Deuce said:
As opposed to all the evidence that has been put forth in this thread?

Or am I just supposed to take their word without question, like you seem to have done?
Click to expand...

[h=2]CO2 calculation in the global carbon cycle may be off due to a depth error[/h] Posted on August 31, 2013 by Anthony Watts
It seems that a simple assumption about where to measure CO2 in the ocean surface has drastic implications. via The Hockey Schtick

New paper finds global carbon cycle datasets may be biased
A paper published today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles finds prior calculations of the global carbon cycle may be erroneous because such calculations are based upon partial pressures of CO2 from several meters below the ocean surface instead of CO2 levels at the ocean surface ["the boundary layer"] where CO2 is actually exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean.
The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed.
Continue reading →
 



Not all of your points are accurate.

As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the warming effect diminishes incrementally. From the pre-industrial point of 280ppm, the concentration would need to double to increase the temperature by 1 degree. From that point, it would need to double again to increase it by another degree. CO2 is not able to create much additional warming on our planet at these concentrations.

So, Point 1 is valid. Point 2, the basis of the entire notion, is empty. The rest of the points hang from points 2. The notion, even constructed as you constricted it collapses because the science is not there to support it.

Warming or any kind of climate change is not a proof of AGW unless it is outside of the norms and it is supported by having been a prediction from the experts AND, and this is the big one, cannot be explained by the normal and usual climate variations caused by the normal and usual causes.

During the Holocene, we have both been warmer and been cooler than we are today. There is absolutely nothing unusual about the planet's temperature compared to the rest of the Holocene.

During the period of glaciation, the planet has been warmer that it is today. There is absolutely nothing unusual about the planet's temperature compared to the period of glaciation.

During the last 65 million years on this planet, we are currently comparatively cold. That we are so cold compared to the past is unusual.

By these measures, we should be concerned that the planet is too cold, not too warm.

You use the word theory and the word hypothesis like they are being used correctly, but you are not doing so. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

What you have presented is not the rose, but the stuff that is shoveled into the garden and mixed with the dirt.



View attachment 67152966View attachment 67152967View attachment 67152968View attachment 67152969
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
There's probably no definitive evidence you have a frontal lobe, either, but I think we accept that as fact.
Click to expand...
Could you please speak at us, instead of in the mirror?
 

3G is always wanting the discussion to focus on peer reviewed papers. I thought I should oblige him.eace

Can The IPCC Do Revolutionary Science?

Posted on August 31, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Guest Essay by Barry Brill
The timing couldn’t be worse.
On 23-26 September, scores of representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries are scheduled to meet in Stockholm to wordsmith the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the key WG1 (physical science) portion of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
The draft SPM, sent to governments on 2 August, is a 22-page condensation of 14 chapters comprising 1,914 pages of material discussing scientific papers that were published between 2006 and 15 March 2013.
This SPM is (or could be) a document of world-shaking importance. As Bloomberg points out – “it is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change”.
The timetable for the global treaty was deferred at the Durban COP because developing countries (particularly China and India) felt that the 2013 SPM was an indispensable input to the negotiations. Governments need an authoritative up-to-date assessment of both the extent and the causes of the climate change threat, present and future.
But the SPM has been sidelined by momentous climate change events that occurred after its March cut-off date – and even after the date the draft was circulated.
Continue reading →

During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared:
• von Storch & Zorita[SUP][1][/SUP] found that observed temperatures 1998-2012 were not consistent with 23 tested CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, even at the 2% confidence level. The inconsistency increases rapidly with trend length and a 20-year trend (ie to 2017) would lie outside the ensemble of all model-simulated trends.
• von Storch & Zorita (the same paper) concludes that ‘natural’ internal variability and/or external forcing has probably offset the anthropogenic warming during the standstill. Overestimated sensitivity may also have contributed.
• Tung & Zhou[SUP][2][/SUP] reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models.
• Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Zie[SUP][3][/SUP] plausibly found that climate models have vastly under-estimated natural variation. La-Nina-like cooling in the Eastern Pacific throughout the 21st century (since the PDO turned negative) has conquered the projected greenhouse warming. The 0.68°C warming trend during 1975-98 (when the PDO was positive) would have been[SUP][4][/SUP] 0.4°C natural and only 0.28°C anthropogenic.
• Katz et al[SUP][5][/SUP] says the critical uncertainty measures used by the IPCC are “out of date by well over a decade”. Modern statistical techniques could improve assessments “dramatically”.
• Fyfe Gillett & Zwiers[SUP][6][/SUP] focused on the extraordinary gap between the temperature simulations of 37 CIMP5 models and the observed outcomes. Due to a ‘combination of errors’, the models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years and by 400% over the past 15 years.
Come the revolution…
These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill).


 




This should not have much of an impact on the Diehards.

They have been ignoring the Science for years.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. All the scientists have missed the science that 'Guest Blogger ' knows.


This changes everything.
Click to expand...


They probably haven't missed it.

They are probably simply ignoring it in order to continue their agenda through the cooling period.
 
Last edited:



I didn't endorse the blogger. I was only commenting on how the experts you revere seem to be missing the cooling that is going on world wide and in the oceans.

Interesting bit of blindness, don't you think?
 

As usual, going for the ad hominem rather than discussing the data. I'll give you another chance.

During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared:
• von Storch & Zorita[SUP][1][/SUP] found that observed temperatures 1998-2012 were not consistent with 23 tested CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, even at the 2% confidence level. The inconsistency increases rapidly with trend length and a 20-year trend (ie to 2017) would lie outside the ensemble of all model-simulated trends.
• von Storch & Zorita (the same paper) concludes that ‘natural’ internal variability and/or external forcing has probably offset the anthropogenic warming during the standstill. Overestimated sensitivity may also have contributed.
• Tung & Zhou[SUP][2][/SUP] reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models.
• Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Zie[SUP][3][/SUP] plausibly found that climate models have vastly under-estimated natural variation. La-Nina-like cooling in the Eastern Pacific throughout the 21st century (since the PDO turned negative) has conquered the projected greenhouse warming. The 0.68°C warming trend during 1975-98 (when the PDO was positive) would have been[SUP][4][/SUP] 0.4°C natural and only 0.28°C anthropogenic.
• Katz et al[SUP][5][/SUP] says the critical uncertainty measures used by the IPCC are “out of date by well over a decade”. Modern statistical techniques could improve assessments “dramatically”.
• Fyfe Gillett & Zwiers[SUP][6][/SUP] focused on the extraordinary gap between the temperature simulations of 37 CIMP5 models and the observed outcomes. Due to a ‘combination of errors’, the models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years and by 400% over the past 15 years.
Come the revolution…
These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill).eace
 

Ah, yes. When the cut and paste doesn't work because the source is shown to be a joke, just repost WITHOUT the source! Problem solved!

Please note that by reposting a bunch of articles editorialized from a biased, unqualified source, that is NOT discussing the science. You didn't read the articles, and ill be damned if I get led off on a silly goose chase to do it either.

When the consensus is seriously challenged, we will need scientists to describe why. And that isn't really happening, except for the odd bird here and there, which (if you understood how science works, and its painfully obvious you don't) is typical.
 

You'll really have to do better. The poster was not a source; he was merely an aggregator. The sources are the peer reviewed professional journals in which the papers appeared.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
You'll really have to do better. The poster was not a source; he was merely an aggregator. The sources are the peer reviewed professional journals in which the papers appeared.eace
Click to expand...




It's telling that 3G has no evidence to post so he attacks the real world scientists who doubt the conclusions that his real world politicians have published.

I really think it's cute that he thinks the IPCC is a Scientific Organization.
 
code1211 said:
It's telling that 3G has no evidence to post so he attacks the real world scientists who doubt the conclusions that his real world politicians have published.

I really think it's cute that he thinks the IPCC is a Scientific Organization.
Click to expand...

It's his religion. They're the priests.eace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…