The Correlation = Causation Fallacy of Climate Alarmists

[JasperL]

Exclusively AGW-derived estimates have been in the same range since 1979.

I don't know what an "exclusively AGW-derived" estimate is, but you neatly ignored my point.

 

[JasperL]

But bad data in equals incorrect model outputs.

It's extremely unlikely they can get it right, and they haven't yet. Especially when they fail to input relevant facts.

We're kind of talking in circles.

 

[NerdcoreSteve]

The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"

But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:

Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!

By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?

And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.

After a few minutes of googling...

Climate Change Myths Part 3: How carbon dioxide and humans are warming the Earth - Science Over Everything

Carbon dioxide is at levels in our atmosphere that haven't been seen in almost a million years. Learn how is it contributing to a warming planet.

scienceovereverything.com

What climate skeptics taught me about global warming - perspicacity.xyz

Can the link between smoking and lung cancer help clear up the debate on climate change?

perspicacity.xyz

Opinion | Playing Dumb on Climate Change (Published 2015)

Scientists practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed a very high bar.

www.nytimes.com

The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis

Recent studies have shown strong temporal correlations between past climate changes and societal crises. However, the specific causal mechanisms underlying this relation have not been addressed. We explored quantitative responses of 14 fine-grained agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic...

www.pnas.org

JRC Publications Repository

Access to Joint Research Centre's publications

ec.europa.eu

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't know what an "exclusively AGW-derived" estimate is, but you neatly ignored my point.

Those are the estimates based on the conventional wisdom that CO2 is completely (or nearly completely) responsible for 20th and 21st century warming.

 

[Deuce]

What proof? Show it.

I have no interest in debating with someone who thinks CO2 absorption spectrum are some sort of liberal plot. You're not educated enough to discuss climate change.

 

[JasperL]

Those are the estimates based on the conventional wisdom that CO2 is completely (or nearly completely) responsible for 20th and 21st century warming.

Great. You still ignored my point, and I don't care to debate the merits of AGW with you. I'll trust the scientists and you can read WUWT. We'll both be happy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Great. You still ignored my point, and I don't care to debate the merits of AGW with you. I'll trust the scientists and you can read WUWT. We'll both be happy.

I'm afraid I could not discern your point in #241.

 

[JasperL]

I'm afraid I could not discern your point in #241.

You said, "And again, if the mechanism [CO2 ===> climate] were identified and understood then equilibrium climate sensitivity would not have remained an insoluble [sic] puzzle through all these decades."

That's nonsense. Scientists being uncertain of an estimate of ECS that might take hundreds or thousands of years to achieve isn't to say they don't understand the "mechanism" of how CO2 impacts the climate. CO2 is one of thousands of moving parts impacting the long-run climate. Let's say scientists knew EXACTLY what impact changes in CO2 have on the climate, after all the short term feedbacks. They don't but assume they did. Now do the oceans... Etc.

Nor does being uncertain about magnitude of the impact of just CO2 on climate mean scientists don't understand the mechanism. We know smoking causes cancer in some people, but not all people who smoke. Why are some not impacted? Who knows? Does that mean we don't understand how smoking causes cancer? Of course not because whether someone gets diagnosed lung cancer, and another person does not, depends on thousands of moving parts impacting someone's health, their immune system, how well it fights off cancer, and more. So we'd need to perfectly understand all those things before we could with certainty predict who much smoking causes cancer and when and in whom.

 

[Jack Hays]

You said, "And again, if the mechanism [CO2 ===> climate] were identified and understood then equilibrium climate sensitivity would not have remained an insoluble [sic] puzzle through all these decades."

That's nonsense. Scientists being uncertain of an estimate of ECS that might take hundreds or thousands of years to achieve isn't to say they don't understand the "mechanism" of how CO2 impacts the climate. CO2 is one of thousands of moving parts impacting the long-run climate. Let's say scientists knew EXACTLY what impact changes in CO2 have on the climate, after all the short term feedbacks. They don't but assume they did. Now do the oceans... Etc.

Nor does being uncertain about magnitude of the impact of just CO2 on climate mean scientists don't understand the mechanism. We know smoking causes cancer in some people, but not all people who smoke. Why are some not impacted? Who knows? Does that mean we don't understand how smoking causes cancer? Of course not because whether someone gets diagnosed lung cancer, and another person does not, depends on thousands of moving parts impacting someone's health, their immune system, how well it fights off cancer, and more. So we'd need to perfectly understand all those things before we could with certainty predict who much smoking causes cancer and when and in whom.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has dominated climate science in recent decades, certainly since about 1995. See Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. In a nutshell, the AGW paradigm holds that greenhouse gases are the vastly predominant driver of climate change in our time. The paradigm has however failed its test, as we shall see. I recently re-read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, within which the following passage is found (p.144, University of Chicago Press, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition):

"In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. . . . Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm."

The noteworthy puzzle is the specification of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and the failure to solve it presents the crisis of the AGW paradigm. Professor Nir Shaviv put it well.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

"The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think."

Insoluble | Definition of Insoluble by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › insoluble

: not soluble: such as. a : incapable of being dissolved in a liquid and especially water also : soluble only with difficulty or to a slight degree. b : having or admitting of no solution or explanation an insoluble problem. c archaic : indissoluble.

 

[JasperL]

I learned a new word, which I enjoy. Seriously - thanks for that. "insoluble"

As to the cut and paste, If you want to address my comment in your own words, you can, but I don't really care what some guy said in a debate in 2016 because it doesn't address my point at all.

 

[PoS]

Right, I'm supposed to disbelieve the vast majority of actual climate scientists.

You call them scientists, but theyre not. Most of them are lefty grad students who hate modern technology and want to bring mankind back to the Stone Age. When it comes to their predictions, they have never been right, but you dont care.

And if not me, who is this "armchair worshipping quack (singular)" who is "still at it with his usual bullshit." Which person is that?

Your idol, Dr Ferguson, you know the one who predicted 1.1 million dead Americans even if we took all the precautions. You kneel to his altar every day.

I have no interest in debating with someone who thinks CO2 absorption spectrum are some sort of liberal plot. You're not educated enough to discuss climate change.

Ah so its back to insults. Im not surprised you have no facts to debate with.

 

[PoS]

After a few minutes of googling...

Climate Change Myths Part 3: How carbon dioxide and humans are warming the Earth - Science Over Everything

Carbon dioxide is at levels in our atmosphere that haven't been seen in almost a million years. Learn how is it contributing to a warming planet.

scienceovereverything.com

What climate skeptics taught me about global warming - perspicacity.xyz

Can the link between smoking and lung cancer help clear up the debate on climate change?

perspicacity.xyz

Opinion | Playing Dumb on Climate Change (Published 2015)

Scientists practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed a very high bar.

www.nytimes.com

The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis

Recent studies have shown strong temporal correlations between past climate changes and societal crises. However, the specific causal mechanisms underlying this relation have not been addressed. We explored quantitative responses of 14 fine-grained agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic...

www.pnas.org

JRC Publications Repository

Access to Joint Research Centre's publications

ec.europa.eu

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

An easy counter:

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

notrickszone.com

 

[Jack Hays]

I learned a new word, which I enjoy. Seriously - thanks for that. "insoluble"

As to the cut and paste, If you want to address my comment in your own words, you can, but I don't really care what some guy said in a debate in 2016 because it doesn't address my point at all.

You're welcome. Much of that post was my own words, and the linked/quoted passages anchored them. Together they addressed your point thoroughly.

 

[JasperL]

You call them scientists, but theyre not. Most of them are lefty grad students who hate modern technology and want to bring mankind back to the Stone Age. When it comes to their predictions, they have never been right, but you dont care.

Your idol, Dr Ferguson, you know the one who predicted 1.1 million dead Americans even if we took all the precautions. You kneel to his altar every day.

Odd that you'd lie about calling me a "quack." Displays a low level of basic integrity. SHOCKED!!

 

[PoS]

Odd that you'd lie about calling me a "quack." Displays a low level of basic integrity. SHOCKED!!

How many times do I have to explain that I didnt call you a quack. Youre not a scientist or a doctor, so you dont even qualify.

 

[NerdcoreSteve]

An easy counter:

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

notrickszone.com

Maybe next time don't cite a a blog post by a weirdo who's been debunked by snopes

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

An article stakes its claim on a regurgitation of false information from a blogger who rejects mainstream climate science.

www.snopes.com

 

[skeptic llc]

You call them scientists, but theyre not. Most of them are lefty grad students who hate modern technology and want to bring mankind back to the Stone Age. When it comes to their predictions, they have never been right, but you dont care.

And you can prove this assertion, with the same level of proof you demand for climate change?

 

[longview]

Maybe next time don't cite a a blog post by a weirdo who's been debunked by snopes

There is no need, and no one is saying climate change is a myth.
The climate does change, and Human activity is involved to some extent.
The outstanding question is, what amount of the warming in the last 40 years,
is attributable to Human activity, and of that, what portion can Humans do anything about?
The IPCC is focused on controlling CO2 levels, but the actual attribution of added CO2 to the observed
warming, is not based on Lab experiments, but by subtracting out all the other known causes of warming.
If a new study, isolates and can confirm a new cause of warming, that removes that portion of the warming from CO2 attribution.
I think, most of the data sets, place the warming since 1980, at about .7C.
Of that .7C, the IPCC assigns ~.61 C to 2.04 W m-2 of energy imbalance forced from added greenhouse gasses since 1980.
Unlisted in the IPCC report, is a massive amount of increased solar energy striking the ground, over that same time period.
The increase cam not from changes in the Sun, but Human activity reducing pollution.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/847
"Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to
an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22). "
Such a large variable, not accounted for (at that level) by the IPCC, would make the models that did not include it, useless.
FYI, the IPCC assigns -.82 W m-2 for aerosols and cloud changes, from 1750 to 2011.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe next time don't cite a a blog post by a weirdo who's been debunked by snopes

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

An article stakes its claim on a regurgitation of false information from a blogger who rejects mainstream climate science.

www.snopes.com

Of course it's debunked.

There is no way of "proving" such thgings in science. Notice how many times the highlighted "prove" to make the debunking accurate.

 

[PoS]

Maybe next time don't cite a a blog post by a weirdo who's been debunked by snopes

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

An article stakes its claim on a regurgitation of false information from a blogger who rejects mainstream climate science.

www.snopes.com

Your silly Snopes article claims these papers were published in 2017, but my link clearly states they were published in 2018, so it looks like you either cited the wrong article or Snopes screwed up.

Fail harder.

 

[Jack Hays]

Maybe next time don't cite a a blog post by a weirdo who's been debunked by snopes

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

An article stakes its claim on a regurgitation of false information from a blogger who rejects mainstream climate science.

www.snopes.com

Maybe next time don't just parrot propaganda. The only damage here is to the Snopes brand.

 

[vegas giants]

But bad data in equals incorrect model outputs.

It's extremely unlikely they can get it right, and they haven't yet. Especially when they fail to input relevant facts.

Oh but YOU figured it all.out. lol

 

[Jack Hays]

The Lungs of Gaia
A fundamental concept at the heart of climate science is the contention that the solar energy that the disk of the Earth intercepts from the Sun’s irradiance must be diluted by a factor of 4. This is because the surface area of a globe is 4 times the interception area of the disk silhouette (Wilde and Mulholland, 2020a).
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Lungs of Gaia
A fundamental concept at the heart of climate science is the contention that the solar energy that the disk of the Earth intercepts from the Sun’s irradiance must be diluted by a factor of 4. This is because the surface area of a globe is 4 times the interception area of the disk silhouette (Wilde and Mulholland, 2020a).
Continue reading →

Yes, the divide by 4 only has a close approximation to the total average energy at the TAO. It has far less to do with surface insolation.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, the divide by 4 only has a close approximation to the total average energy at the TAO. It has far less to do with surface insolation.

". . . This geometric relationship of divide by 4 for the insolation energy creates the absurd paradox that the Sun shines directly onto the surface of the Earth at night. The correct assertion is that the solar energy power intensity is collected over the full surface area of a lit hemisphere (divide by 2) and that it is the thermal radiant exhaust flux that leaves from the full surface area of the globe (divide by 4). . . ."