Climate Change!

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
theanimal
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by theanimal »

steveo73 wrote:
2. The temperature gauges (and there are a lot of different methods for measuring temperature) are still suspect.
Do you trust the temperature gauge in your car? How about your oven? How about for the local weather in Sydney? If these are accurate, how are more advanced thermometers not accurate? Maybe because they don't align with what you want them to read? Or are all these thermometers part of the grand consipracy as well?

It really is mind boggling to me the extent you are going to try to rationalize your argument in the face of a massive amount of opposing evidence. It is ok to acknowledge that you were wrong you know.

steveo73 wrote: You'll notice that the alarmists on this thread cannot even rationally debate the points I make. They use political arguments and they don't face the facts.
Says the man who has only presented 2 non peer reviewed, political sources as evidence.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

@the animal. Let's try and get to the facts.

Can you please provide me with the evidence where climatologists models have accurately replicated the last 15-20 years temperatures ?
Can you please provide me with the evidence how CO2 directly impacts the Earth's temperatures ? To clarify this point please provide some information that differs from the widely accepted science that CO2 directly has a minimal increase on the natural greenhouse effect. This is simply to ensure that we are on the same page with the science.
Can you please provide me with the evidence that extreme weather events are caused by global warming ?

The answer is that you won't be able to provide this to me because they don't exist.

Try and discuss this with me whilst thinking of this not as a political debate but a factual debate. So when you compare the temperature gauge in a car compared to averaging out all the temperature gauges across the Earth across time do you believe that this provides the same level of accuracy ?

When you state that there is a massive amount of opposing evidence that is hilarious. The opposite is now true. Please try and utilise facts. That should be easy for you if what you state is correct.

Just to be extremely clear as well. I have no problems with AGW being proven. I am completely cool with that. It's just at this point if anything it has been disproven however I accept that it may take some time for this proof to occur.

We can though definitely state the alarmist predictions have been disproven. We should easily be able to agree on this point. That is also a good thing. I suggest you start here - can you admit that this is true ? This will get us onto common ground and then we can discuss this issue a little more rationally.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... 5D0842FED8

To animal - there is a bunch of factual information here debunking so many of the alarmists beliefs. There are also references to peer reviewed papers in there.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1550732421 ... -challenge

This is an interesting blog post as well.
This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.

But I’m willing to be proved wrong. I kind of like it when that happens. So prove me wrong.
I know that this is now a political question/debate however I find it interesting. The science like I've stated is fairly conclusive at this point however there are still people that for some reason think that the science is somehow conclusive that the alarmists are correct. It's bizarre but it is what it is.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp_nJgkjzJA

Here is another interesting video on this whole drama.

This one is very interesting because there are links to the worst site on global warming in the entire known universe in discussing intimidation in global science. Guess what the site is ? We all know and love it.
Last edited by steveo73 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

steveo73 said: No one can state that AGW is occurring via statistical analysis and anyone telling you that they can is either lying or they have absolutely no idea.
We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6314000163
Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.
Source: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
The ASA (American Statistical Association) endorses the IPCC conclusions.
http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/PO ... Change.pdf

My personal conclusion would be that the evidence is way too boring to not be true. Can I get back to my novel?

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

7wannabe5 good post however I've only just dug into this and I can see flaws already.
There is a clear upward trend in global temperatures from 1882 to 2013 with a number of short time periods of stable or falling temperatures (Fig. 1). Of particular note, from March 1985 to December 2013 there was an unbroken sequence of average monthly temperatures exceeding the 20th century average for each corresponding month resulting in a total of 346 months
This is patently false. Please refer to my chart on temperatures via Roy Spencer who is an expert on temperature readings and other posts on temperature readings within this thread. When you play with data you will get results what is stated within that paper. The results though aren't supported by the data.

You can go back to your book but not with the belief that you currently have. That was just the first paper but it is easily discredited.

George the original one
Posts: 5356
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Climate Change!

Post by George the original one »

steveo73 wrote:7wannabe5 good post however I've only just dug into this and I can see flaws already.
There is a clear upward trend in global temperatures from 1882 to 2013 with a number of short time periods of stable or falling temperatures (Fig. 1). Of particular note, from March 1985 to December 2013 there was an unbroken sequence of average monthly temperatures exceeding the 20th century average for each corresponding month resulting in a total of 346 months
This is patently false. Please refer to my chart on temperatures via Roy Spencer who is an expert on temperature readings and other posts on temperature readings within this thread. When you play with data you will get results what is stated within that paper. The results though aren't supported by the data.
Uhm, steveo, actually the statement is perfectly true. If you average all the temperatures from 1882 to 2013, then 1985 to 2013 are all above that average (and now the years after 2013). Even the Roy Spencer chart agrees with this. The Roy Spencer chart also uses year 2000 as a basis and then virtually none of the temps after 2000 fall below that basis.

You saying otherwise is as delusional as using 1998's record year as the basis for claiming cooling since then. If there's been cooling, then where are the record cold years? Why has a new hot record been set in 2015?

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

The second paper is much more interesting.
On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.
I haven't mentioned this point within this thread but there is a real concern with even the idea that CO2 leads to increased global temperatures. It doesn't appear to be true or at least the theory needs some adjustments.
Also, as the state-of-the-art climate models mostly overestimated the global warming during the last 20 years
Exactly.
Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s
Just to touch on the point regarding the industrial revolution causing global warming. It sounds good if it's confirming your religion. Factually it isn't correct.

There are some issues with the paper though. How does the paper prove CO2 is leading to global warming ? I don't think it does.
Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s. This provides an independent statistical confirmation of the results from process based modelling studies. Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2.
Even the conclusion is far from clear cut if this is proof of CO2 being so significant within the natural greenhouse process. Please note the point regarding human influence.

Overall though at least this paper appears factual and is much less biased than the first paper.

This though is not proof of AGW and definitely not proof of the alarmist claims.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

George the original one wrote:
steveo73 wrote:7wannabe5 good post however I've only just dug into this and I can see flaws already.
There is a clear upward trend in global temperatures from 1882 to 2013 with a number of short time periods of stable or falling temperatures (Fig. 1). Of particular note, from March 1985 to December 2013 there was an unbroken sequence of average monthly temperatures exceeding the 20th century average for each corresponding month resulting in a total of 346 months
This is patently false. Please refer to my chart on temperatures via Roy Spencer who is an expert on temperature readings and other posts on temperature readings within this thread. When you play with data you will get results what is stated within that paper. The results though aren't supported by the data.
Uhm, steveo, actually the statement is perfectly true. If you average all the temperatures from 1882 to 2013, then 1985 to 2013 are all above that average (and now the years after 2013). Even the Roy Spencer chart agrees with this. The Roy Spencer chart also uses year 2000 as a basis and then virtually none of the temps after 2000 fall below that basis.

You saying otherwise is as delusional as using 1998's record year as the basis for claiming cooling since then. If there's been cooling, then where are the record cold years? Why has a new hot record been set in 2015?
It is playing with data in the worst possible way. Quite simply it is not something that should pass any sort of scientific or critical review. Who knows why a new hot record was set in 2015. We don't have long periods of times to compare the data too. Do you accept that the Earth's temperatures have been hotter than what they were in 2015 ?

The Roy Spencer chart is something I agree with. I am happy to utilise facts. The facts though do not concur with any proof of AGW occurring. You can debate this but that is reality. Plenty of scientists do not believe in AGW. So some may believe this but plenty do not. At this point it is still a hypothesis.

Now here is the real key point though. AGW may be occurring. The statistical relevance of it though appears to be miniscule. This is much more relevant to the discussion that we should be having.

I keep stating this but it needs to be made clear. The alarmist ideas in relation to AGW have been proven to be false. Do we all agree on this point ?

If you are arguing that this is not true please provide proof of the models and the predictions from those models. We all know that this is not occurring as per the second paper that was provided as proof of AGW.
Last edited by steveo73 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

This one here is patently ridiculous. It's not a scientific study at all.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

I really think that some of you that delusionally are holding to your beliefs should watch the youtube clip that I posted.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12682
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob »

I would advise everyone to read the [following] link entirely from the top down.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallo ... rospection

It [the entire page] accurately reflects this entire thread [so far] as well as the previous thread (old timers will recognize it, if not, do a search). Or you can just ignore it...

No really, read the whole thing! You'll definitely recognize the behavior! You'll also learn how to deal with it; this might save you some grief insofar you learn to disagree and just accept that some people will be, eternally, fact-resistant. Those who've taken an interest in Dreyfus learning levels will also recognize the "advanced beginner" stage of learning of the typical Gish Galloper and how it centers on the vulnerabilities/ignorance of the average [STEM educated] human in the 20/21st century. I would treat refuting arguments point by point as a personal learning experience (which can be valuable in and of itself), but realize that you're really arguing about issues that where initially discussed before World War 1.

Therefore, if you're interested in actual science rather than the appearance of it, you'll learn a lot faster by reading a basic book (see book recs. above a few pages ago) first than via the process of debating, just like your time is spent better reading a basic textbook on microbiology than debating whether "humans evolved from monkeys" with someone who've "done their science" because they "read all the facts on the interwebs" and have "all the youtube videos from Dr J. S. Carberry to prove it".

As far as the scientific insight goes, this entire forum thread as well as most of the previous one still revolves around issues that were scientifically settled somewhere prior to the 1960s. Yeah ... pretty much like the previous thread. It's just repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again.

For those who are still frustrated as to why we're still "debating" climate science issues that were mostly resolved 50-100 years ago, realize that creationists still complain that "humans didn't evolve from monkeys" almost 150 years later and that they will likely keep complaining for a long time. On the interwebs, the same issues will be brought up over and over as long as a sufficient number of people care to comment on them. It's a viral memetic reservoir.

Straw man argument or perhaps not?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_fl ... _societies (yes, that's still a thing almost 400 years after the fact. Nutters never die! Just realize that you can't get all of them and that maybe 9/10 is good enough?)

This is also the case for climate science even if it's is as old or older than evolution. Here's a bunch of seminal papers for the scientifically inclined to enjoy just to point out how far back this goes ... not surprisingly, it is, after all, based on basic science:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/paper ... 7Trans.pdf (Fourier in year 1827 explaining the greenhouse effect---that's 6 years after Napoleon died... and 8 years before the first electric car was devised, and just after humanity discovered the existence of Antartica) --- That's the Fourier of the Fourier-transform which most STEM folks should be familiar with. I realize I have to be careful here having previously put my foot in it claiming that "every high school student knows this" and then learning that this is not always the case).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724 (Tyndall in year 1861 (around the time the six-shooter was invented) measuring the absorption spectra of CO2 and putting some numbers on it. That's still on the level of those spectrometric measurements I otherwise claimed would be within the capabilities of the average HS student these days although I should probably revise. Point being that anyone with an appropriate MSc and who actually cares to do so can replicate that experiment for less than $5000 or so. This showed that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that Fourier discussed.)

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896 ... 173546.pdf (Arrhenius in year 1896 pretty much starting the theoretical foundations. Now this is some serious work that remained largely unaltered for almost 50 years and still serve as the foundation for undergraduate noobs. It used the idea of Fourier and the data of Tyndall to put a number on the impact/energy balance. His number is incidentally quite close to the currently accepted number. Obviously we were nowhere near using general circulation models at that time---those started around the 1980s. We're just about the point of page 10 or 15 of a modern climate science textbook /sarc/ ... point being, though, that the proper understanding from 120 years ago was quite close to current results that use far more advanced models.)

I'll mostly stop here because I know that only wonks will read this far so why bother :-P You can ask, but I'll only answer insofar I get the impression that you're somewhat beyond basic scientific understanding of this field as per year 1940.---The biological equivalent of knowing/acknowledging the existence and connection between DNA and genes. If not ... well ... there's not much anyone can do. It is what is it.

The AIP (American Institute of Physics) has a several pages on this suitable for the average concerned scientist: http://history.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm ... suffice to say, the skeptical points that has be brought up in this thread and the previous thread mostly date back to before WWI. I've yet to see any kind of skeptic argument that's more advanced than year 1960 or so (one-zone models).

One of the cooler things about the AIP link is how the US military had to go beyond the simplistic slab-models (in astrophysics, these are known as zero-dimension (0D), point-, box-, or one-zone models) which prevailed in years 1900-1950 in order to get their heat-seeking missiles to work above the cloud level. (Keyword cloud: remember this whenever some denier mentioners water vapor and realize that clouds are only relevant in the troposphere whereas GW happens above that ... something that scientists realized in the 1950s because they needed to shoot down enemy planes .. yet deniers keep bringing it up over and over and over ... hmmm, derp derp, oh well.)

Key point: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, so if your fox 2 munitions is dialed on a frequency that happens to be absorbed by CO2 in the upper atmosphere, ... well, then you're SOL. This research actually contributed some important research to climate science ... so remember to support your basic military science. It often yields useful side-effects.

Anyhoo ... while skeptics keep dealing in youtubers, practical scientists now have to deal with the Suess effect (Not to be confused with Dr Seuss). There's obviously way more arguments ... like 3000+ pages more ... but ...

Now, I used to think that debating Gish Gallopers was a [righteous] public service, but frankly, I think time is better spent trying to convince the general public to go read a damn book for the first time, even a simple one (see above, now several pages back, once again), and bring the level of public discourse up from 1901 to about 1960 and ideally 1985 which should be good enough. Just to get their bearings straight. But I don't know---probably not gonna happen anytime soon. Reading books. Pffft... Clearly, trying to get the average person to read even a basic book instead of googling and clicking on whatever confirms their beliefs on the first page to confirm their ideology is a long shot these days. As far as I know, there's no solution that will convince more than a fraction of people---that'd be those who are willing to read.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

Jacob - I honestly think it would be a better approach to watch the youtube video. That gives a great description from someone working in the trenches of climatology and the "science" that is occurring.

Alternatively you just have to look at the facts but I think that is hard for the average person. I mean how can anyone actually believe in global warming when the models have been so wrong. If there are any believers out there who can explain this one to me I would really like to understand why.

Another point I'd like to understand is why all the alarmist arguments appear to be based on hiding the evidence, providing explanations for why the science isn't working or attacking the critic/s of their beliefs. Can someone explain this one as well ?

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by black_son_of_gray »

... aaaaaaaand QED. You walked into that @steveo

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

black_son_of_gray wrote:... aaaaaaaand QED. You walked into that @steveo
What have I walked into. Another political argument that misses the facts and can't explain the massive problems that I've clearly articulated.

The facts are clear cut. No one has disputed it rationally or logically at all. Let's have a guess why that is the case ?

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote:Jacob - I honestly think it would be a better approach to watch the youtube video. That gives a great description from someone working in the trenches of climatology and the "science" that is occurring.
You can find anything you want to support your personal political biases on YouTube.

steveo73
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

ducknalddon wrote:
steveo73 wrote:Jacob - I honestly think it would be a better approach to watch the youtube video. That gives a great description from someone working in the trenches of climatology and the "science" that is occurring.
You can find anything you want to support your personal political biases on YouTube.
Agreed. This is though by a respected climatologist on the "science" of global warming.

I tell you what is interesting. I offer facts, I offer proof, no one responds on those issues. It's basically a put your head in the sand approach and yell as loud as you can that "you are wrong despite the facts".

I can debate the issue calmly, rationally and logically. It's the believers who don't have that ability.

I'm actually though getting over trying to reason with you. If the evidence proves you wrong and you want to believe I say good on you. What I am interested in now though is why you believe. This is what I find extremely interesting.

My hypothesis on the belief of alarmists is that some people want to believe that somehow human beings are scourges of our planet. So when a theory like global warming comes up they want to jump on that cause.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote: I tell you what is interesting. I offer facts, I offer proof, no one responds on those issues. It's basically a put your head in the sand approach and yell as loud as you can that "you are wrong despite the facts".

I can debate the issue calmly, rationally and logically. It's the believers who don't have that ability.

I'm actually though getting over trying to reason with you. If the evidence proves you wrong and you want to believe I say good on you. What I am interested in now though is why you believe. This is what I find extremely interesting.

My hypothesis on the belief of alarmists is that some people want to believe that somehow human beings are scourges of our planet. So when a theory like global warming comes up they want to jump on that cause.
You keep asserting this without offering anything other than links to blogs offering discredited evidence, some of them even accept AGW which you say isn't happening. You continue to call people alarmists or warmists whilst they politely debate the subject. Jacob has made several very detailed posts offering plenty of strong evidence which you refute with a link to a YouTube video. I'm sorry but I can't take anything you say seriously now.

batbatmanne
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:35 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by batbatmanne »

steveo73 wrote:Another political argument that misses the facts and can't explain the massive problems that I've clearly articulated.

The facts are clear cut. No one has disputed it rationally or logically at all. Let's have a guess why that is the case ?
Going back to the previous climate change thread a few years ago, Jacob and others have made multiple attempts to engage you on the science. Jacob has given up this method of persuasion, as suggested by his linking to the Gish Gallop article, since it requires intense effort in order to meet the standard of rigor required by careful reasoning (Gish Rebuttal), and there are a number of tactical downsides to employing such rebuttals. That is the reason that nobody is disputing your claims "rationally and logically," since clearly those kinds of attempts haven't persuaded you in the past and everyone is becoming skeptical that it ever will. From what I gather his most recent post was largely for those of us who have been engaging with you and following the thread all along and so it is not a political argument directed towards you in support of the truth of AGW.

The reason nobody is engaging with you the way you want is because your plethora of facts are not based on a well developed understanding of the science but from blogrolling and watching youtube videos of people who agree with you. For obvious reasons, this is a bad standard for evaluating the truth of scientific claims.

Locked