The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

[Jack Hays]

And nothing you post from Kuhn supports the idea that adherents to the AGW paradigm have not proven their case.

I point to evidence it has.


Your quotes are off topic

I'm afraid you have failed to grasp the question. The point is whether AGW adherents can solve the ECS puzzle. Nothing you have posted speaks to that.

 

[vegas giants]

I'm afraid you have failed to grasp the question. The point is whether AGW adherents can solve the ECS puzzle. Nothing you have posted speaks to that.

Oh what I post most certainly does address that. The evidence is overwhelming.....which is why I post it and will continue to do so.


But you are certainly entitled to a opinion

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh what I post most certainly does address that. The evidence is overwhelming.....which is why I post it and will continue to do so.


But you are certainly entitled to a opinion

You are merely dodging the point and attempting to derail the thread.

 

[vegas giants]

You are merely dodging the point and attempting to derail the thread.

No. I am contributing to the thread by challenging the op which is the point of debate.

Let's be clear....thomas kuhn quotes have absolutely nothing to do with AGW. His work on paradigms is only tangentially connected to this subject.


You accept the op as fact which is why you think you can just quote about paradigms.


You are wrong and I am here to show you the evidence of your errors

 

[Jack Hays]

No. I am contributing to the thread by challenging the op which is the point of debate.

Let's be clear....thomas kuhn quotes have absolutely nothing to do with AGW. His work on paradigms is only tangentially connected to this subject.


You accept the op as fact which is why you think you can just quote about paradigms.


You are wrong and I am here to show you the evidence of your errors

You are avoiding the thread topic and attempting to derail the thread.

 

[vegas giants]

You are avoiding the thread topic and attempting to derail the thread.

You said that already. Then report me and let the mods decide. If I am here tomorrow....we will know who won that argument

 

[longview]

I'm afraid you have failed to grasp the question. The point is whether AGW adherents can solve the ECS puzzle. Nothing you have posted speaks to that.

I do not believe they can solve the ECS puzzle, because they are not willing to consider all the variables.
The simple idea that the solar energy hitting the ground has increased between 1 and 4 Watts per meter squared, since the 1980's,
ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING
compared to CO2's theoretical top of the atmosphere imbalance of about .85 W m-2, means they are missing
over half of the things that contributed to warming.

 

[vegas giants]

I do not believe they can solve the ECS puzzle, because they are not willing to consider all the variables.
The simple idea that the solar energy hitting the ground has increased between 1 and 4 Watts per meter squared, since the 1980's,
ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING
compared to CO2's theoretical top of the atmosphere imbalance of about .85 W m-2, means they are missing
over half of the things that contributed to warming.

You do not need to believe it. The scientific community has reached consensus that AGW is a real concern

 

[Integrityrespec]

The variance in the weather is as old as time. Those promoting the Climate Change Hoax are all in for the money. Never will the earth be able to function without carbon fuels and never will wind and solar be more that about 10-15% of the power source. Currently it's about 8% and cannot function 24/7. The airlines and other mass transit systems will never function on renewables, the emergency services will always require a base load supply of carbon fuel and when the government stops supplementing alternative energy it will be too expensive for the working class to afford.

 

[vegas giants]

The variance in the weather is as old as time. Those promoting the Climate Change Hoax are all in for the money. Never will the earth be able to function without carbon fuels and never will wind and solar be more that about 10-15% of the power source. Currently it's about 8% and cannot function 24/7. The airlines and other mass transit systems will never function on renewables, the emergency services will always require a base load supply of carbon fuel and when the government stops supplementing alternative energy it will be too expensive for the working class to afford.

Those promoting what you call the climate change hoax work for President Trump and are led by a trump appointee.


Trump must be in on it. Lol

 

[longview]

The variance in the weather is as old as time. Those promoting the Climate Change Hoax are all in for the money. Never will the earth be able to function without carbon fuels and never will wind and solar be more that about 10-15% of the power source. Currently it's about 8% and cannot function 24/7. The airlines and other mass transit systems will never function on renewables, the emergency services will always require a base load supply of carbon fuel and when the government stops supplementing alternative energy it will be too expensive for the working class to afford.

I agree in as much as the benefit we get from the energy dense package known as hydrocarbons will be in demand as long
as a functional replacement is not found.
That said, man made hydrocarbon fuels, make a nearly idea way to accumulate and store poor density, poor duty cycle
alternative energy sources, into a functional package.
It is worth noting that man made gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, is 99.9% compatible, with all existing demands and infrastructure.
I only say 99.9%, because, artificially assembled fuels, are all high octane, so some computer timing may need to change.
I think the alarmist are not in favor of this path of emission reduction, because, it does not meet their control goals,
and would make the big oil companies wealthier than they already are!

 

[Jack Hays]

Boom! Goes the dynamite.


Crisis looms in alarmist climate science
Climate science is dominated by alarmists addicted to the idea that increasing carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming. How much warming is thus the central scientific question.
Continue reading →

". . . For many decades the accepted model estimates of ECS have ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Different models give different values, but the acceptable range has not changed. That the range is so big has been a policy problem. Warming as little as 1.5 degrees might be harmless, while 4.5 might be dangerous. But the ECS range has been stubbornly persistent, refusing to narrow to a specific value.

Now, suddenly, there is a huge new problem. ECS has exploded! It is not that it is higher, or lower — it is both. Two new lines of research have diverged sharply on the estimated value of ECS.

The first line of research takes a new approach called observational ECS. The idea is that since the CO2 level is almost half way to doubling we should be able to derive ECS empirically from the observed relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase.

There have been a number of observational studies and many are getting ECS values well below 1.5, which are harmless indeed. Values of 1.2 and 1.3 are common.

But at the same time there has been a new wave of modeling studies and these are getting ECS values way above 4.5, which would be truly dangerous. Here values of 5.2 and 5.3 are to be found.

Note that the modeling community is divided over accepting these new hot model numbers. After all, they imply that the modeling done over the last forty years or so has been wrong, including a lot of the recent modeling which is still within the old range.

The upshot of all this is that the science of ECS is in a shambles. Given that ECS addresses the core science of climate alarmism, this is truly a crisis. Has the modeling been wrong for 40 years? Is it wrong now? What about observation, which is supposed to rule in science? The scientific method says observation trumps theoretical modeling. . . . ."

 

[vegas giants]

More evidence for the AGW hypothesis

climate change | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

www.noaa.gov

 

[longview]

Boom! Goes the dynamite.


Crisis looms in alarmist climate science
Climate science is dominated by alarmists addicted to the idea that increasing carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming. How much warming is thus the central scientific question.
Continue reading →

". . . For many decades the accepted model estimates of ECS have ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Different models give different values, but the acceptable range has not changed. That the range is so big has been a policy problem. Warming as little as 1.5 degrees might be harmless, while 4.5 might be dangerous. But the ECS range has been stubbornly persistent, refusing to narrow to a specific value.

Now, suddenly, there is a huge new problem. ECS has exploded! It is not that it is higher, or lower — it is both. Two new lines of research have diverged sharply on the estimated value of ECS.

The first line of research takes a new approach called observational ECS. The idea is that since the CO2 level is almost half way to doubling we should be able to derive ECS empirically from the observed relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase.

There have been a number of observational studies and many are getting ECS values well below 1.5, which are harmless indeed. Values of 1.2 and 1.3 are common.

But at the same time there has been a new wave of modeling studies and these are getting ECS values way above 4.5, which would be truly dangerous. Here values of 5.2 and 5.3 are to be found.

Note that the modeling community is divided over accepting these new hot model numbers. After all, they imply that the modeling done over the last forty years or so has been wrong, including a lot of the recent modeling which is still within the old range.

The upshot of all this is that the science of ECS is in a shambles. Given that ECS addresses the core science of climate alarmism, this is truly a crisis. Has the modeling been wrong for 40 years? Is it wrong now? What about observation, which is supposed to rule in science? The scientific method says observation trumps theoretical modeling. . . . ."

Great article! I am confident that science will win in the end, but worry about the damage to the reputation of science AGW could cause.

 

[Jack Hays]

Great article! I am confident that science will win in the end, but worry about the damage to the reputation of science AGW could cause.

It will be interesting to see whether mainstream climate science picks up on the ECS problem or continues to try to wish it away.

 

[Jack Hays]

". . . How the IPCC handles the exploding ECS range will be interesting to see, at the very least. They may choose to ignore it because it has to hurt alarmism. They may simply drop mention of the ECS altogether, it now being very inconvenient. But this glaring omission will be easy to call out.

Or they may only acknowledge the hot higher values, which favor alarmism. Here they risk making modeling look stupid (which it is). Plus this omission of critical evidence will also be easy to call out.

With the ECS range exploding the IPCC is caught between a hot rock and a cold hard place. So is alarmism. Stay tuned."

Crisis looms in alarmist climate science

 

[Jack Hays]

“Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of science indicates that, particularly in the early developmental stages of a new paradigm, it is not even very difficult to invent such alternates. But that invention of alternates is just what scientists seldom undertake except during the pre-paradigm stage of their science's development and at very special occasions during its subsequent evolution. So long as the tools a paradigm supplies continue to prove capable of solving the problems it defines, science moves fastest and penetrates most deeply through confident employment of those tools. The reason is clear. As in manufacture so in science-retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it. The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for retooling has arrived.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

[Juks]

“Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of science indicates that, particularly in the early developmental stages of a new paradigm, it is not even very difficult to invent such alternates. But that invention of alternates is just what scientists seldom undertake except during the pre-paradigm stage of their science's development and at very special occasions during its subsequent evolution. So long as the tools a paradigm supplies continue to prove capable of solving the problems it defines, science moves fastest and penetrates most deeply through confident employment of those tools. The reason is clear. As in manufacture so in science-retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it. The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for retooling has arrived.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare – "Anyone can make a mistake, but no one but the fool persists in his mistakes." (Cicero)

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[Lord of Planar]

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare – "Anyone can make a mistake, but no one but the fool persists in his mistakes." (Cicero)

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Yes, supporting that failed consensus is a mistake that fools persist in supporting.

Read the references to that climate blog, and you will see that their statement is not in line with the studies.

As for the science groups, let's take the first one. "Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." All this means is that 97% of the scientists agree we have an effect on the climate. Please notice that there is no quantification of how much our role is.

 

[Juks]

“Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of ...

Yes, supporting that failed consensus is a mistake that fools persist in supporting.

Noo… I believe you need to take away your likes to my previous post.

I meant the other way around: No matter how much evidence and how many scientists that say that climate changes are happening as we speak, you will look for the odd one out to confirm your already decided misconception that it isn’t. Short off sea-level rising and putting Texas under water, there is nothing that can persuade you of the opposite. And this is only if you yourselves live in Texas. Otherwise…

 

[post]

The variance in the weather is as old as time. Those promoting the Climate Change Hoax are all in for the money. Never will the earth be able to function without carbon fuels and never will wind and solar be more that about 10-15% of the power source. Currently it's about 8% and cannot function 24/7. The airlines and other mass transit systems will never function on renewables, the emergency services will always require a base load supply of carbon fuel and when the government stops supplementing alternative energy it will be too expensive for the working class to afford.

James L. Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

".....In November 2019, Powell published "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming."[17] He reviewed over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 but found none that rejected anthropogenic global warming..."

 

[longview]

Noo… I believe you need to take away your likes to my previous post.

I meant the other way around: No matter how much evidence and how many scientists that say that climate changes are happening as we speak, you will look for the odd one out to confirm your already decided misconception that it isn’t. Short off sea-level rising and putting Texas under water, there is nothing that can persuade you of the opposite. And this is only if you yourselves live in Texas. Otherwise…

I live about 25 miles from the coast in Texas, and while the sea level is raising, the land is subsiding more.
Houston gets flooded, not because of sea level rise, but because we get a lot of rain, and always have.
As for combined subsidence and sea level rise, NOAA's 2 feet per century is likely fairly accurate.
NOAA Galveston
The jetties were built about 1910, at 6 feet high, and are now about 4 feet above water, at high tide.

 

[vegas giants]

James L. Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

".....In November 2019, Powell published "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming."[17] He reviewed over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 but found none that rejected anthropogenic global warming..."

This confirms that the AGW paradigm is currently the most accepted view of this issue

 

[Jack Hays]

Noo… I believe you need to take away your likes to my previous post.

I meant the other way around: No matter how much evidence and how many scientists that say that climate changes are happening as we speak, you will look for the odd one out to confirm your already decided misconception that it isn’t. Short off sea-level rising and putting Texas under water, there is nothing that can persuade you of the opposite. And this is only if you yourselves live in Texas. Otherwise…

My like remains. ☀

 

[vegas giants]

Noo… I believe you need to take away your likes to my previous post.

I meant the other way around: No matter how much evidence and how many scientists that say that climate changes are happening as we speak, you will look for the odd one out to confirm your already decided misconception that it isn’t. Short off sea-level rising and putting Texas under water, there is nothing that can persuade you of the opposite. And this is only if you yourselves live in Texas. Otherwise…

Some people NEED to believe AGW is fake. And they will do anything they can to fill that need