Strange New Climate Change Spin

[timosman]

I never said or 'conjectured' that "CO2 increase always causes temperature increase", I said there was a correlation, which is a broad statistical relationship involving dependence. It is important that you maintain focus here and it is probably best to avoid debating logical fallacies with me, because I love to haunt threads looking for people who want to use them against me.

Stay on topic, and avoid the dark pathways my friend, you can do this, I believe in you.

So what are you trying to prove here - "a broad statistical relationship involving dependence" ? Are you trying to be funny ?

[Kade]

So what are you trying to prove here - "a broad statistical relationship involving dependence" ? Are you trying to be funny ?

I'm going to let this one just hang out there, because I am vastly more persuasive when I let the interlocutor's own words echo over the audience.

[timosman]

I'm going to let this one just hang out there, because I am vastly more persuasive when I let the interlocutor's own words echo over the audience.

That's probably your best bet given you have no arguments. Let's see how well it plays out.

[dannno]

The Medieval Warm period saw unusual temperature increases in some areas (causes being solar radiation and low volcanic activity), but overall the planet was cooler than currently. Global temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years. (Source)

Not sure if I buy that.. I've been arguing this for years and scientists and people just deny that the evidence exists.. then the scientists finally come out with a bunch of nonsense to explain something that earlier they said never existed. Same with this situation in the OP.

This gets proven correct:

Study: Earth (or at least Europe) was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/st...#ixzz3n45V3x00


So then a bunch of scientists get paid by the government to make up a bunch of numbers and print up some papers that show the rest of the planet was cooler.. how convenient. I don't buy it. The problem is that climate science is more of a political science nowadays than actual science..

The other huge issue I have is that if you look at the raw temp data for the last 80+ years and you look at the adjusted data, then take the difference between the two and graph that, there is a nice clear exponential curve that is formed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Fraud-At-NOAA








Look at climategate, you had clear fraud occuring in plain english and the media tried to convince people that it was all "scientific" and you have to be a scientist to understand.. It was such bull$#@!, you don't need to be a scientist to understand english and what they said in the emails was very clear.

[Kade]

Not sure if I buy that.. I've been arguing this for years and scientists and people just deny that the evidence exists.. then the scientists finally come out with a bunch of nonsense to explain something that earlier they said never existed. Same with this situation in the OP.

This gets proven correct:

Study: Earth (or at least Europe) was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/st...#ixzz3n45V3x00


So then a bunch of scientists get paid by the government to make up a bunch of numbers and print up some papers that show the rest of the planet was cooler.. how convenient. I don't buy it. The problem is that climate science is more of a political science nowadays than actual science..

The other huge issue I have is that if you look at the raw temp data for the last 80+ years and you look at the adjusted data, then take the difference between the two and graph that, there is a nice clear exponential curve that is formed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Fraud-At-NOAA








Look at climategate, you had clear fraud occuring in plain english and the media tried to convince people that it was all "scientific" and you have to be a scientist to understand.. It was such bull$#@!, you don't need to be a scientist to understand english and what they said in the emails was very clear.

The list of sources I posted still iterates the point that the medieval warm period was still cooler than today, despite the fact that there were some unusual warming areas.

Investigators from "Climategate" were cleared, but that was not as big a story.

I don't quite understand what your differential graph is suppose to show... you'll have to explain those better.

[dannno]

Investigators from "Climategate" were cleared, but that was not as big a story.

Of course they were cleared by the establishment, but the emails were public and clearly indicated that fraud was going on in order to preserve a fictional narrative.

I don't quite understand what your differential graph is suppose to show... you'll have to explain those better.

It represents the adjustments made to the raw temperature data. They are adjusting the older data downard and adjusting the newer data upward.

I would expect with these type of adjustments to see something like, well, we started measuring the temperature a different way in 1980, so we are going to make an adjustment of 1 or 2 degrees - you would see a stair-step pattern in the adjustment of the data. Seeing that there is an exponential curve upward suggest that they are attempting to "fit" the data to what they want to see - an exponential upward curve.

Like I said before - climate science is more political science than anything. Same thing with vaccines. I think some good has from vaccines, but there are also a lot of issues with them. The conclusion I've come to is that both vaccines and many other medical breakthroughs have helped decrease the amount of certain diseases - but - the vaccine industry is also a business entrenched in government. Government is flawed, of course.. and in order to make a company like Merck the monopoly provider of vaccines, they were required to ensure that their vaccines maintained a certain effectiveness over the years. As the years went by, the vaccines naturally became less effective. In order to continue to sell the vaccines, they had to make them more effective just to be able to continue to produce and sell vaccines. That's where I think a lot of the toxic ingredients came in, they were added to increase the effectiveness. But I also think these substances have caused problem like brain damange and most likely autism in some people. The vaccine industry then has to produce studies disproving a link between these substances and brain damage or autism - they have been caught doing fraudulent research and trying to hide links between vaccines and autism. They also have to turn out fraudulent studies making the vaccines seem more effective than they actually are - the purpose of this is to maintain their multi-billion dollar empire over vaccine sales, because government regulations require that the effectiveness of the vaccines is maintained. They have been caught doing this as well. So excuse me if I don't trust entrenched establishment scientists very much.

[dannno]

Here is a good example of this happening in other areas:

Intel Analysts: US Fixing Facts Around Policy
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Around-Policy

[Acala]

I don't have a 'scientific statement of global warming', nor am I quite sure what should be done about climate change, I leave that up to you guys, the liberty policy experts.

Look, YOU are the guy who charged in here ready to bash everyone for being unscientific. So let's get scientific. Unless and until you can make a genuine scientific statement (that Popper would agree is a true scientific statement) you should pipe down and not pretend you are a font of scientific knowledge. Make a genuine falsifiable scientific statement and we can all evaluate it.

Just spouting evidence and claiming consensus does not prove anything. Global warming is a THEORY. State it as such and we will see if it holds up against the evidence.

[Acala]

The reason for the lagging equivalency ( like the year 2007) is because of a mechanism called climate variability, or a form of internal variability for statisticians. It is really just a short term variance that equals out after long term trend is analyzed. The long term trend is a solid, undeniable correlation of CO2 net levels and Global temperature increasing.

Otherwise known as a fudge factor.

There is NO established track record of predicting climate over even the very short term.

The hyper-sensitivity to initial conditions - and inherent unpredictability - of chaotic systems, was literally discovered in the context of computer modeling of weather patterns. Computer modeling of weather and climate is utterly useless. It is nothing more than guess work. Once you throw that out, all that is left is some short term temperature measurements, short term CO2 measurements, and the theory of the greenhouse effect. What scientists DON'T know about climate is about ten times what they think they DO know. Under circumstances such as this, a scientist who claims he can predict the climate thirty years from now should be flogged out of the room.

[Danke]

"
The ridiculous assumption that the complicated and ever changing climate of this planet rests upon the fallacy of a carbon dioxide induced greenhouse effect and the hysterical indictment of a single parameter of 0.04% (400ppm) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which amounts to nothing more than 1 molecule of CO2 out of every 2500 molecules that comprise the atmosphere, of which only .0016% (16ppm) or 4% of the total Atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human influence, which the Catastrophic Global Warming Fanatics and Lunatics would now have everyone believe precipitates Climate Change is not only absurdly implausible it is absolutely ludicrous,

[Kade]

Look, YOU are the guy who charged in here ready to bash everyone for being unscientific. So let's get scientific. Unless and until you can make a genuine scientific statement (that Popper would agree is a true scientific statement) you should pipe down and not pretend you are a font of scientific knowledge. Make a genuine falsifiable scientific statement and we can all evaluate it.

Just spouting evidence and claiming consensus does not prove anything. Global warming is a THEORY. State it as such and we will see if it holds up against the evidence.

But I did... what are you talking about?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Current levels of Carbon Dioxide are close to 400 ppmv (source)


From 1751-1900 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide release from carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

From 1901-2015 that number is 337 gigatonnes. (Raw Data Source)

Airborne Fraction is the ratio of the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, counting for removed emissions from biosphere and water bodies.
Humans are emitting ~30 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere a year. 43% remains in the atmosphere, accounting for the Airborne Fraction, net CO2 is highest it has been in at least 15 million years, and net CO2 is SIGNIFICANTLY higher since 1950 (Source) (source)(source)

[Acala]

But I did... what are you talking about?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Current levels of Carbon Dioxide are close to 400 ppmv (source)


From 1751-1900 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide release from carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

From 1901-2015 that number is 337 gigatonnes. (Raw Data Source)

Airborne Fraction is the ratio of the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, counting for removed emissions from biosphere and water bodies.
Humans are emitting ~30 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere a year. 43% remains in the atmosphere, accounting for the Airborne Fraction, net CO2 is highest it has been in at least 15 million years, and net CO2 is SIGNIFICANTLY higher since 1950 (Source) (source)(source)

You don't seem to understand. You came into this thread challenging people to tell you what would cause them to accept your idea that anthropogenic climate change is "real". But that is not the way science is done. You don't challenge people to tell you what will prove your theory correct. REAL science (not political "science") works like this: you state your theory as a proper falsifiable statement and then challenge people to knock it down. If they do, the theory fails and eveyone moves on.

"Anthropogenic climate change is real" is obviously not a proper scientific statement because it is vague and imprecise and so cannot be clearly falsified. I challenged you to present a proper scientific statement of your position and all you posted was some purported facts about CO2 levels. Putting aside challenges to those facts, where is your statement about climate change? Surely you do not expect scientists to accept "more CO2 = climate change" as a given?

So present your theory of "climate change as real" as a scientific statement and see if it stand up to scrutiny.

[Kade]

You don't seem to understand. You came into this thread challenging people to tell you what would cause them to accept your idea that anthropogenic climate change is "real". But that is not the way science is done. You don't challenge people to tell you what will prove your theory correct. REAL science (not political "science") works like this: you state your theory as a proper falsifiable statement and then challenge people to knock it down. If they do, the theory fails and eveyone moves on.

"Anthropogenic climate change is real" is obviously not a proper scientific statement because it is vague and imprecise and so cannot be clearly falsified. I challenged you to present a proper scientific statement of your position and all you posted was some purported facts about CO2 levels. Putting aside challenges to those facts, where is your statement about climate change? Surely you do not expect scientists to accept "more CO2 = climate change" as a given?

So present your theory of "climate change as real" as a scientific statement and see if it stand up to scrutiny.

Really bud? I'm not even sure what level of rampant incredulous lunacy you are playing at, so I will spell it out in bold.

Net Air Fraction Carbon Dioxide levels are the highest they have been in a least 15 million years, and NET CO2 is significantly (alpha significance) higher since 1950.

Or, let's pose the null:

Net Airborne Fraction Carbon Dioxide levels are not the highest they have been in 15 million years.
Falsified: source source source

I'm at a loss what is so confusing to you. I also just realized there is going to be nothing I can say to get you off the juice, that you are hell-bent on being angry and wrong about this... I sorta wish you would spend as much time knowing the science as I have, and from sources that were reliable.

It's almost like you are sitting in a pool of water screaming at the approaching rainstorm.

[Kade]

I'll give you another one, since you want me to frame the question in a way that matters to you.

Human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused majority of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

I have a question for you though... why do you care so much about being wrong? If you are wrong, (which you are), what harm does it do to you, or what you think about political science. It doesn't inform you on your specific policies. I never understood this about Climate Change Deniers, much like Holocaust denying, it is like they are personally offended by the truth of it.

We've screwed up the environment, and we continue to screw up the environment. Man (or woman) up and don't let it bother you, or take it to a conclusion that could better inform you about the world.

[Occam's Banana]

I never understood this about Climate Change Deniers, much like Holocaust denying, [...]

Godwin much?

//

[Kade]

//

Hey man, when in Rome....(or a hellish version)

[Acala]

Really bud? I'm not even sure what level of rampant incredulous lunacy you are playing at, so I will spell it out in bold.

Net Air Fraction Carbon Dioxide levels are the highest they have been in a least 15 million years, and NET CO2 is significantly (alpha significance) higher since 1950.

Or, let's pose the null:

Net Airborne Fraction Carbon Dioxide levels are not the highest they have been in 15 million years.
Falsified: source source source

I'm at a loss what is so confusing to you. I also just realized there is going to be nothing I can say to get you off the juice, that you are hell-bent on being angry and wrong about this... I sorta wish you would spend as much time knowing the science as I have, and from sources that were reliable.

It's almost like you are sitting in a pool of water screaming at the approaching rainstorm.

You are disappointing me. Saying that carbon dioxide levels have increased is not the same as saying that those carbon dioxide levels have or will cause climate change. Get it? Not hard, bro

[Acala]

I'll give you another one, since you want me to frame the question in a way that matters to you.

Human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused majority of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

Ok, now you sort of get it. Except there is no way to present evidence to falsify this statement. Or, to put it another way, what evidence would, in your view, falsify this statement? We KNOW there are other sources of heat - big ones. Radiation from the sun (which is apparently also heating other planets) radiactive decay in the earth, tidal forces. So how could we falsify the statment that human activity is causing the majority of warming?

I have a question for you though... why do you care so much about being wrong? If you are wrong, (which you are), what harm does it do to you, or what you think about political science. It doesn't inform you on your specific policies. I never understood this about Climate Change Deniers, much like Holocaust denying, it is like they are personally offended by the truth of it.

I am interested in truth. Scientific truth is derived through a process of proposing models and testing them in an attempt to prove them wrong. That process depends on skepticism. The second skeptics are attacked and demonized by, for example, grouping them with mass murderers, science has stopped. Science without skepticism is just dogma. Dogma combined with political power is a very dangerous thing. Real scientist embrace skeptics.

[Acala]

A more precise statement would be "Increases in atmospheric CO2 always cause an increase in global temperature."

But we can falsify that by showing long lapses in temperature increase in spite of CO2 levels increasing. So that model fails. Saying that an increase in atmospheric CO2 sometimes causes an increase in global temperature fails as a scientific statement and you need to go back to the lab.

[Acala]

As a practical matter, I don't generally argue about this. What I usually say is "the world's single largest user of fossil fuel is the US military. Let's agree to end the world police gig, mothball 90% of the diesel engines, shut down the bases, pare back the air force to a minimum, and we will do more to curb CO2 than we will ever achieve following Al Gore." It's win win.

[Danke]

the inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

[timosman]

A more precise statement would be "Increases in atmospheric CO2 always cause an increase in global temperature."

But we can falsify that by showing long lapses in temperature increase in spite of CO2 levels increasing. So that model fails. Saying that an increase in atmospheric CO2 sometimes causes an increase in global temperature fails as a scientific statement and you need to go back to the lab.

I was using this approach in post #28. It does not work. You should probably start at much lower level, like basic algebra.

[Danke]

Exposed! NOAA Caught Altering Weather Data Ahead of UN Climate Change Meeting

It has been suggested, with evidence, that NOAA has been a little less than forthcoming with temperature data this year ahead of all these big UN meetings addressing Agenda 21 and climate change. I’m sorry, did I say “a little less than forthcoming”? If this is true, I meant to say a bunch of big fat liars.

It has been announced that more than 190 countries are set to meet in Paris in December to see about a “new global agreement on climate change aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change” since the current “commitments” on emissions run out in five years.



In its report on this, The Guardian answers the question “Why has nobody thought of getting a global agreement on this before now?” by saying they’ve been trying to get something going in this area for 20 years now at least but only in the last two decades has “science” consistently pointed in one direction which is that greenhouse gas emissions from industry and fossil fuels are causing global temps to rise.

The science, huh? The “settled” science? The data that has “consistently pointed in one direction”?

Ignore a decades-long cooling period. Ignore Climategate — an organized climate change conspiracy and collusion in exaggerating warming data out of the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia — or that NOAA tried to erase the “pause” in warming in 1998 by saying it was just “improperly adjusted data”, for a moment.

Also ignore any anomalies that could be caused by clandestine solar radiation management aka geoengineering (spraying of particulates to reduce incoming sunlight) as has been advocated in UN IPCC reports.




more here: http://tatoott1009.com/2015/09/24/ex...hange-meeting/

[Kade]

A more precise statement would be "Increases in atmospheric CO2 always cause an increase in global temperature."

But we can falsify that by showing long lapses in temperature increase in spite of CO2 levels increasing. So that model fails. Saying that an increase in atmospheric CO2 sometimes causes an increase in global temperature fails as a scientific statement and you need to go back to the lab.

Legit science would not make that claim because there is only a correlation. The science of relationships is a real thing. It looks, with great probability, that we are causing global climate change. That is not a definitive certainty, but the chances are far greater than what most deniers believe, being the global climate is not changing at a dangerous rate.

I think most people who don't like the conclusions are people who fear what it may mean...

[Kade]

the inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

sciencebits.com really? Why are you trolling this forum?

[Acala]

Legit science would not make that claim because there is only a correlation. The science of relationships is a real thing. It looks, with great probability, that we are causing global climate change. That is not a definitive certainty, but the chances are far greater than what most deniers believe, being the global climate is not changing at a dangerous rate.

The science of relationships is fraught with peril. Although correlation can be valuable evidence of some relationship, it can also be a total red herring. There used to be a STRONG correlation between lung cancer and carrying matches in your shirt pocket. But the proximity of matches to your lungs does not cause lung cancer. Correlation simply is NOT causeation although on a good day it might point to it. To publicly shame and stifle skeptics and propose vast new government controls and enormous costs based on correlation alone is alarming.

The irony here is that YOU were the one who got me interested in Popper. Reading his work, along with more Hayek, has honed my understanding of proper scientific inquiry and epistemology. So thanks to you there.

[timosman]

Legit science would not make that claim because there is only a correlation. The science of relationships is a real thing. It looks, with great probability, that we are causing global climate change. That is not a definitive certainty, but the chances are far greater than what most deniers believe, being the global climate is not changing at a dangerous rate.

I think most people who don't like the conclusions are people who fear what it may mean...

More fear mongering not backed up by anything.

[Danke]

sciencebits.com really? Why are you trolling this forum?

Attack the website where the article was publish, not the contents? Why are you trolling?

[Kade]

Attack the website where the article was publish, not the contents? Why are you trolling?

Okay, I'll bite. I mocked sciencebits because it was a blog posting... Follow me here, this is an important maneuver in this constant back and forth. I am going to use the tactic of climate change deniers, which is the ability to cherry pick and falsify one subset of a paper instead of looking at the thousands, and thousands of papers. You chose a blog post by our Israeli Jewish Physicist friend Nir Shaviv, who, unfortunately for you, still believes in anthropogenic climate change, just that there is too much alarmism about it (a position perhaps some of you should take?).

Here is an exchange with Dr. Shaviv and a Willis Eschenbach a garage mechanic (who is on your side). Perhaps you want to ... vet the people you are willing to throw at me?

Scientific consensus is almost total and complete regarding the truth of climate change and the enormous majority of them believe it is anthropogenic.

Why, pray tell, is Glenn Beck and the garage mechanic and you correct on climate change and most every knowledge expert in this field wrong?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Okay, I'll bite. I mocked sciencebits because it was a blog posting... Follow me here, this is an important maneuver in this constant back and forth. I am going to use the tactic of climate change deniers, which is the ability to cherry pick and falsify one subset of a paper instead of looking at the thousands, and thousands of papers. You chose a blog post by our Israeli Jewish Physicist friend Nir Shaviv, who, unfortunately for you, still believes in anthropogenic climate change, just that there is too much alarmism about it (a position perhaps some of you should take?).

Here is an exchange with Dr. Shaviv and a Willis Eschenbach a garage mechanic (who is on your side). Perhaps you want to ... vet the people you are willing to throw at me?

Scientific consensus is almost total and complete regarding the truth of climate change and the enormous majority of them believe it is anthropogenic.

Why, pray tell, is Glenn Beck and the garage mechanic and you correct on climate change and most every knowledge expert in this field wrong?

You seem so serious about this issue.

Why don't you read an analysis of the subject, from someone who knows a little something about science.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Global-Warming

I'd be interested in your thoughts.