Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[watsup]

Calling it a talking point doesn't make it unreal. It just shows you are incapable of a counter-argument.

Actually, talking points are repeptitive statments used by right wingers in almost any discussion about any topic in order to try to shut down a more inDepth discussion. That's how they are used by deniers in this forum. Each denier has their own little theme that they claim "proves" that AGW is a hoax, and instead of moving into deeper discussion, they (you) simply constantly repeat it, often daily. Color me unimpressed.

 

[watsup]

You are the one acting like you are participating in a debate forum!
Please support your position, or quit wasting bandwidth!

More psychological projection!

 

[Hafnium1979]

You are missing the point, he is fighting for Science!
What the alarmist represent is an abomination of the scientific method.

Incorrect.

The idea that something may be true, even if we have no way to actually detect it.

We do. You must really stop this gambit, though. As has been shown your personal version of empirical science fails for many sciences you don't understand. So either your position is correct and many, many sciences are no longer science OR your position is overly narrowed and flawed.

Science is about what we can detect and measure, out ability to describe observations, in a way
that others could repeat the test, and achieve the same result.

Indeed that appears to be the case in climate science.

 

[watsup]

Same thing here. Saying its a psychological projection just means you are incapable of forming a proper argument against it.

Please go away. Intelligent people are trying to have a discussion.

Then quit projecting your own attitudes and attributes on others! It's just that simple.
What you apparently do not realize is that I use the term when you or the other right wing deniers offer insults instead of relevant discussion,and the insults do indeed reflect your own attributes and attitudes. So if you se that term a lot, what it actually means is that you have offered yet another raft of ad hom. Now you know the secret. See if you can do some introspection. NOT!

 

[watsup]

Then quit projecting your own attitudes and attributes on others! It's just that simple.
What you apparently do not realize is that I use the term when you or the other right wing deniers offer insults instead of relevant discussion,and the insults do indeed reflect your own attributes and attitudes. So if you se that term a lot, what it actually means is that you have offered yet another raft of ad hom. Now you know the secret. See if you can do some introspection. NOT!

P.S. FYI, I posted this BEFORE I saw the warning in the other thread.

 

[longview]

Incorrect.



We do. You must really stop this gambit, though. As has been shown your personal version of empirical science fails for many sciences you don't understand. So either your position is correct and many, many sciences are no longer science OR your position is overly narrowed and flawed.



Indeed that appears to be the case in climate science.

What is incorrect about my statement that, "What the alarmist represent is an abomination of the scientific method."?
I disagree, my idea of Science being based on empirical evidence is the mainstream idea, and most of the sciences can be traced back to
very real empirical measurements.
The Climate sciences, carefully coach a few known physics attributes about the quantum absorption of CO2,
into a hypothesis of how it might affect the atmospheric temperature.
If we look closely at the entire greenhouse effect, we see that Earth is 33ºC warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were totally transparent.
This difference is warming is because of an TOA energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
CO2 is thought to account for some 14% of the 150 W m-2, or 21 W m-2.
Gavin Schmidt spells this out in his Real Climate Blog. The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
But I am unable to reconcile, some of his comments, for example,

Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

vs

The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995),
and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2.

If removing all the CO2 lowers the net LW absorbed by ~14%, and the total LW absorbed is 150 W m-2, then 14% of 150 W m-2 is 21 W m-2 not 30 W m-2.
In any case if we use Gavin's number of 30 W m-2, that would equal a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 W m-2.
This could run into trouble because the ratio of total energy imbalance to total warming, 150 W m-2 causing 33ºC of warming, including all of the feedbacks.
That would dictate that each W m-2 of imbalance, caused (33ºC/150 W m-2=.22ºC per W/m-2, so the 3.71 W m-2 imbalance cause by 2XCO2 would force a
fully equalized warming of 3.71 W m-2 X .22 ºC per W m-2=.816ºC.

The climate sciences, as I have stated are not based on the empirical observations, if they were, the prediction of potential warming would not be as high!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, talking points are repeptitive statments used by right wingers in almost any discussion about any topic in order to try to shut down a more inDepth discussion. That's how they are used by deniers in this forum. Each denier has their own little theme that they claim "proves" that AGW is a hoax, and instead of moving into deeper discussion, they (you) simply constantly repeat it, often daily. Color me unimpressed.

My own words are not somebody's talking points. It would be appreciated if you stopped such insulting posts.

 

[Hafnium1979]

What is incorrect about my statement that, "What the alarmist represent is an abomination of the scientific method."?

The whole thing.

I disagree, my idea of Science being based on empirical evidence is the mainstream idea, and most of the sciences can be traced back to
very real empirical measurements.

And you have been shown, in sciences you don't understand, how your definition fails. Perhaps you should learn more broadly how science operates.

You have set a synthetic bar based on your own preference for "empirical" and that bar would cause the field of geology to no longer be a science. That is how I have shown your bar to be overly narrow,

The fact that you don't understand the science of geology in large part is NOT a benefit to your argument but rather a means for you to ignore the failures of your argument.

 

[watsup]

My own words are not somebody's talking points. It would be appreciated if you stopped such insulting posts.

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

What is incorrect about my statement that, "What the alarmist represent is an abomination of the scientific method."?
I disagree, my idea of Science being based on empirical evidence is the mainstream idea, and most of the sciences can be traced back to
very real empirical measurements.
The Climate sciences, carefully coach a few known physics attributes about the quantum absorption of CO2,
into a hypothesis of how it might affect the atmospheric temperature.
If we look closely at the entire greenhouse effect, we see that Earth is 33ºC warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were totally transparent.
This difference is warming is because of an TOA energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
CO2 is thought to account for some 14% of the 150 W m-2, or 21 W m-2.
Gavin Schmidt spells this out in his Real Climate Blog. The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
But I am unable to reconcile, some of his comments, for example,

vs

If removing all the CO2 lowers the net LW absorbed by ~14%, and the total LW absorbed is 150 W m-2, then 14% of 150 W m-2 is 21 W m-2 not 30 W m-2.
In any case if we use Gavin's number of 30 W m-2, that would equal a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 W m-2.
This could run into trouble because the ratio of total energy imbalance to total warming, 150 W m-2 causing 33ºC of warming, including all of the feedbacks.
That would dictate that each W m-2 of imbalance, caused (33ºC/150 W m-2=.22ºC per W/m-2, so the 3.71 W m-2 imbalance cause by 2XCO2 would force a
fully equalized warming of 3.71 W m-2 X .22 ºC per W m-2=.816ºC.

The climate sciences, as I have stated are not based on the empirical observations, if they were, the prediction of potential warming would not be as high!

All this you have shown in your last sentence is that you still do not comprehend the true meaning of empirical as it is used in science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What is incorrect about my statement that, "What the alarmist represent is an abomination of the scientific method."?
I disagree, my idea of Science being based on empirical evidence is the mainstream idea, and most of the sciences can be traced back to
very real empirical measurements.
The Climate sciences, carefully coach a few known physics attributes about the quantum absorption of CO2,
into a hypothesis of how it might affect the atmospheric temperature.
If we look closely at the entire greenhouse effect, we see that Earth is 33ºC warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were totally transparent.
This difference is warming is because of an TOA energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
CO2 is thought to account for some 14% of the 150 W m-2, or 21 W m-2.
Gavin Schmidt spells this out in his Real Climate Blog. The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
But I am unable to reconcile, some of his comments, for example,

vs

If removing all the CO2 lowers the net LW absorbed by ~14%, and the total LW absorbed is 150 W m-2, then 14% of 150 W m-2 is 21 W m-2 not 30 W m-2.
In any case if we use Gavin's number of 30 W m-2, that would equal a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 W m-2.
This could run into trouble because the ratio of total energy imbalance to total warming, 150 W m-2 causing 33ºC of warming, including all of the feedbacks.
That would dictate that each W m-2 of imbalance, caused (33ºC/150 W m-2=.22ºC per W/m-2, so the 3.71 W m-2 imbalance cause by 2XCO2 would force a
fully equalized warming of 3.71 W m-2 X .22 ºC per W m-2=.816ºC.

The climate sciences, as I have stated are not based on the empirical observations, if they were, the prediction of potential warming would not be as high!

In all fairness, you do have a few errors there.

The TOA imbalance is thought to be under 1 W/m^2. Not the 150. There are other variables.

The approximate 30 to 31 watts of CO2 forcing is rather well agreed upon. There are other factors in play, like the aerosols called clouds. Nobody has really pinned down a percentage that CO2 has, except that it is assumed to be between 30-31 W/m^s total.

 

[longview]

The whole thing.



And you have been shown, in sciences you don't understand, how your definition fails. Perhaps you should learn more broadly how science operates.

You have set a synthetic bar based on your own preference for "empirical" and that bar would cause the field of geology to no longer be a science. That is how I have shown your bar to be overly narrow,

The fact that you don't understand the science of geology in large part is NOT a benefit to your argument but rather a means for you to ignore the failures of your argument.

We will have to agree to disagree!

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact that you don't understand the science of geology in large part is NOT a benefit to your argument but rather a means for you to ignore the failures of your argument.

LOL.

This is rather funny. I have the same thoughts of the people arguing with the AGW because of CO2 is dangerous narrative.

 

[Hafnium1979]

We will have to agree to disagree!

If you are able to show how your definition does not destroy entire fields of accepted science then I will remain unconvinced.

This is how good arguments are made: you take in new information and re-adjust. But the key is you have to take in new information, to "learn".

 

[Hafnium1979]

LOL.

This is rather funny. I have the same thoughts of the people arguing with the AGW because of CO2 is dangerous narrative.

I am sure you do.

 

[longview]

In all fairness, you do have a few errors there.

The TOA imbalance is thought to be under 1 W/m^2. Not the 150. There are other variables.

The approximate 30 to 31 watts of CO2 forcing is rather well agreed upon. There are other factors in play, like the aerosols called clouds. Nobody has really pinned down a percentage that CO2 has, except that it is assumed to be between 30-31 W/m^s total.

I was using numbers from Gavin's blog, where he claims the total greenhouse effect is based on the 150W m-2 of imbalance.
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around

(~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

You are correct, I assumed they implied the TOA, when they did not, that is the amount absorbed by all the greenhouse substances.

 

[longview]

If you are able to show how your definition does not destroy entire fields of accepted science then I will remain unconvinced.

This is how good arguments are made: you take in new information and re-adjust. But the key is you have to take in new information, to "learn".

You would first have to show which fields of science cannot be traced back to some type of empirical evidence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am sure you do.

Can you prove its "dangerous?"

 

[watsup]

Can you prove its "dangerous?"

Where did you get the term “dangerous”? Do you have a source?
It depends on what you mean by “dangerous”. At what level?
Quite frankly, this just sounds like another denier talking point rather than a real attempt to have an in-depth discussion.

 

[Glitch]

I love how you non-scientists diss models. As if you know first foreign thing about them. It's positively hilarious.

Get a science degree, work for a couple decades in R&D and then get back to me on this.

But as for empirical or measured systems establishing climate sensitivity here you go:

Gregory et al. (2002): http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jmgregory0201.pdf

They utilized observed ocean temperatures and land temperatures to understand sensitivity


Ring et al (2012): http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24283
Aldrin et al (2012): http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11325330356963596372&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48&as_ylo=2012
Lewis (2013): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1


The list goes on.

The only thing that is necessary to know about climate models is that they are always wrong. Not a single climate model has even come close to matching actual observations. Furthermore, those climate models were intentionally created for the purpose of pushing a political agenda and to deliberately deceive.

Even scientific frauds, like Michael Mann, are admitting that all climate models are completely bogus.

Climate scientists admit their models are wrong | Principia Scientific, Intl.

Ben Santer and Michael Mann, authored a peer reviewed paper which acknowledges that their climate models are wrong

principia-scientific.com

Yet you leftists continue to push the same lies over and over again. As if people will believe you if you repeat your deliberate lies often enough. We've got more than 50 years of leftist lies pushing bogus climate models with every one of those predictions proven wrong.

In the words of one scientist, "the climate models agree, all our observations are wrong." Which is exactly how the left approaches science. They derive their conclusion first, then manufacture fictitious models that never come close to matching any observation to prove their conclusion. In case you were not aware, that is not the scientific method.

FYI, I have a degree in science. Do you?

 

[Hafnium1979]

The only thing that is necessary to know about climate models is that they are always wrong.

Incorrect.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - NASA Science

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Yet you leftists continue to push the same lies over and over again. As if people will believe you if you repeat your deliberate lies often enough. We've got more than 50 years of leftist lies pushing bogus climate models with every one of those predictions proven wrong.

You know the quickest way to figure out if someone doesn't have any technical expertise in a debate? Just look at how quickly they resort to calling anything they don't know about "lies" or formulating a world-wide super-conspiracy.

They derive their conclusion first, then manufacture fictitious models that never come close to matching any observation to prove their conclusion. In case you were not aware, that is not the scientific method.

FYI, I have a degree in science. Do you?

What science specifically?

 

[Glitch]

Incorrect.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - NASA Science

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

I'll see your NASA source, and include the same one - the article proves my point, and demonstrates you to be a liar.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - NASA Science

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Every climate model that has ever been produced since the 1970s has been flat out wrong.

You know the quickest way to figure out if someone doesn't have any technical expertise in a debate? Just look at how quickly they resort to calling anything they don't know about "lies" or formulating a world-wide super-conspiracy.

Which is precisely what someone who intentionally lies would say.

I have demonstrated those lies, why haven't you proven me wrong? All 73 climate models used by the UN were fabricated for one purpose, to push a political agenda.

CNSNews

www.cnsnews.com

What science specifically?

I asked you first. What science degree do you possess?

 

[Hafnium1979]

I asked you first. What science degree do you possess?

I don't recall claiming I had a science degree.

Now you. I'm curious what science you got your degree in, given your posts.

 

[Hafnium1979]

and demonstrates you to be a liar.

Too many 'roids today? Didn't get to blow off steam in the gym with your muscly buddies? Dial back the vitriol for a bit, please.

Take some time, enjoy a cool beverage. Cool off.

 

[Glitch]

I don't recall claiming I had a science degree.

Now you. I'm curious what science you got your degree in, given your posts.

Then you are certainly in no position to criticize anyone who does have a degree in science.

I have a BSCS from the University of Minnesota.