International Man made climate change

[gatchaman]

What is more parsimonious -

Except they don't. They are proxies. More than just temperature can influence them. Like global dimming due to aerosols. Or bias due to sampling live trees only. I've already put forth a review of the evidence for reasons why trees would suddenly grow at a different rate.

In the far north, how did people suddenly start calculating regional temperature differently in the 60s? Because that is your theory to explain the problem so you need a mechanism. Not global temperature, because Briffa used regional temps.

It is easier to explain the divergence of the global temperature, calculated from thermometer readings, from proxies by a biased change in the calculation since 1960 than it is to explain by a biased change in the examination of multiple proxies.

And if the explanation is bias in the proxies that I have presented, there should be better proxies that correlate with the global temperature, calculated from thermometer readings. So far, you have not presented these proxies.

 

[no fat chicks]

I don't believe you. Especially if random evaporation of water is a far bigger influence. Drink the Kool Aid.

I will drink some beer.

if by kool aid u mean peer reviewed scientific studies then i shall drink it.

 

[gatchaman]

if by kool aid u mean peer reviewed scientific studies then i shall drink it.

If you won't drink my peer reviewed scientific studies (I have cited at least 7 so far in this thread) then why would you drink his?

And have you cited even once from peer reviewed scientific literature in this thread?

 

[ocean size]

It is easier to explain the divergence of the global temperature, calculated from thermometer readings, from proxies by a biased change in the calculation since 1960 than it is to explain by a biased change in the examination of multiple proxies.

And if the explanation is bias in the proxies that I have presented, there should be better proxies that correlate with the global temperature, calculated from thermometer readings. So far, you have not presented these proxies.

No, you wouldn't necessarily expect strong correlations between regional proxies and the global temperature. Proxy sensitivity in climate reconstruction has been been well discussed in the literature. A number of proxies demonstrate an anomalous recent increase, including those in the papers you cherrypicked one ice core out of and ignored ten other proxies

You provided tree rings and an ice core that doesn't correlate well with temperature. You want to believe trees over thermometers, even though we know tree growth depends on a number of things besides heat and those things have changed. If you want to believe - without an actual mechanism- people started average thermometers regionally wrong, way wrong, right at 1960 and increasingly wrong, than go for it. I am not going to convince you otherwise so I reckon we are done here.

 

[gatchaman]

No, you wouldn't necessarily expect strong correlations between regional proxies and the global temperature. Proxy sensitivity in climate reconstruction has been been well discussed in the literature. A number of proxies demonstrate an anomalous recent increase, including those in the papers you cherrypicked one ice core out of and ignored ten other proxies

You provided tree rings and an ice core that doesn't correlate well with temperature. You want to believe trees over thermometers, even though we know tree growth depends on a number of things besides heat and those things have changed. If you want to believe - without an actual mechanism- people started average thermometers regionally wrong, way wrong, right at 1960 and increasingly wrong, than go for it. I am not going to convince you otherwise so I reckon we are done here.

I think the proxy record comes from diverse proxies (both type and location) that correlate with each other. With regards to the 'other ten proxies', do these proxies correlate with each other? What can we conclude about the Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age from those 'other ten proxies'. My proxies > your proxies.

I am not arguing that the individual thermometers are wrong. I am arguing that the single global temperature calculated from a pool of thermometer readings has diverged from good proxies since 1960. The raw data is not presented for these thermometers. The raw data would be a scatter plot of each temperature reading. In an average day there would be temperatures ranging from -30C to +30C (even -40C to +40C or more). So, this raw data is made into something to examine for trends. So, it is not about the individual thermometer readings, but rather about the how the raw data has been made into a single yearly global temperature since 1960.

 

[lifelessheap]

if by kool aid u mean peer reviewed scientific studies then i shall drink it.

Agenda driven climate "studies" by people who wouldn't have jobs without there being a problem? Okay?

There are no facts, and there are far more failed predictions of doomsday than anything else. Those peer reviewed scientific studies seem to always be proven false with TIME... oh well.

 

[ocean size]

I am not arguing that the individual thermometers are wrong. I am arguing that the single global temperature calculated from a pool of thermometer readings has diverged from good proxies since 1960.

Wrong. That isn't even what Briffa 98 says. The temperature data the trees diverged from were from regional averages. Not global temps.
You still can't provide a mechanism as for what changed since 1960.
Also why didn't southern extratropical trees get your memo about how they are supposed to not match up with temperature records anymore? Did we only start calculating temperature averages wrong in some places? Well why the disparity? https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/ cook2004.pdf

However, one or several or a combination of all of the mechanisms suggested that could affect tree growth can explain the difference in the temp - growth relationship.
Anyway, not interested in pursuing this further.

 

[gatchaman]

Wrong. That isn't even what Briffa 98 says. The temperature data the trees diverged from were from regional averages. Not global temps.

You still can't provide a mechanism as for what changed since 1960.

Briffa does not present the raw data (meaning a scatter plot of every single thermometer reading). He calculates a temperature from several thermometer readings. It does not matter the size of his region so much that it matters that he has calculated a temperature from a bunch of thermometer readings. His calculation from his group of thermometers correlates with the calculation done from more widely dispersed thermometers that constitute the global temperature (ever increasing temperatures from 1960 to present). But his data and the global temperature data (calculated from thermometers) diverge from the proxies. It is easier to explain the change since 1960 (from convergence with proxies to divergence from proxies) as a change in the calculations than it is to explain as a change in the way that multiple different kinds of geographically diverse proxies (that correlate with each other) are examined.

For me to show a change in the calculation from 1960 onward, I would need to have access to all individual thermometer readings plus how an average temperature (regional or global) was derived from the readings plus how these averages were fitted into smooth lines that make the final graphs. Absent the provision of the data needed for audit, Occam's Razor must suffice.

 

[Throttlehead]

Agenda driven climate "studies" by people who wouldn't have jobs without there being a problem? Okay?

There are no facts, and there are far more failed predictions of doomsday than anything else. Those peer reviewed scientific studies seem to always be proven false with TIME... oh well.

Why wouldn't they have jobs? They are scientists.
The only people predicting doomsday are religious people.

The fact is, climate is changing and changing rapidly. If you prefer not to research it, watch the weather around the world on your TV.

 

[Johnny Rosa]

So far I haven’t heard a scientific or even a smart argument from Climate Change deniers. Non of them seem to know what they are talking about or in the pocket of big oil. I mean, how do you start a discussion with someone who doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate or who walk around with a snowball. As unfortunately often is the case with other topics as well, it’s like discussing with stubborn children.

The ones claiming there is Climate Change but it’s not man made are slightly less retarded.

 

[no fat chicks]

If you won't drink my peer reviewed scientific studies (I have cited at least 7 so far in this thread) then why would you drink his?

And have you cited even once from peer reviewed scientific literature in this thread?

yes I have posted a few links. I shouldnt have to really do much since you try and use a single isolated area as the basis for your entire claim. . .

 

[Throwin Bombs]

So far I haven’t heard a scientific or even a smart argument from Climate Change deniers. Non of them seem to know what they are talking about or in the pocket of big oil. I mean, how do you start a discussion with someone who doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate or who walk around with a snowball. As unfortunately often is the case with other topics as well, it’s like discussing with stubborn children.

The ones claiming there is Climate Change but it’s not man made are slightly less retarded.

Are you referring to the usual blame of CO2 emissions or man made climate change through weather modification?

 

[esdoornblad]

CO2 is plant food. It has gone from 3/10,000 to 4/10,000 because of humans. Water vapor is insanely more effective as a greenhouse gas. Whatever.

You are correct that water vapour is a strong GHG. But the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. At a given temperature, you cannot add or remove water vapour. Rather, you need to change the temperature to change the concentration of water vapour. Increase the temperature and water evaporates, increasing the vapour concentration. Decrease the temperature and the water vapour condenses/rains out. So, when you add CO2, and the temperature rises a bit (say dT) then the increase in water vapour generates another incremental increase in temperature (another dT). So, adding CO2 gives a total rise of 2*dT -- half from CO2 GHG and half from water vapour feedback. This is 19th century physics.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So far I haven’t heard a scientific or even a smart argument from Climate Change deniers.

What's the falsifiable standard for the theory of man-made climate change?

A standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science".

Einstein's theory of relativity could be articulated in a few sentences. That same theories standard of falsifiability could also be articulated in a few sentences.

Without a usable standard of falsifiability, you're no longer dealing with a scientific theory, but a form of social Dogma, or perceived moral imperative.

The ones claiming there is Climate Change but it’s not man made are slightly less retarded.

By what precise measurement have humans changed the climate, and how much have they changed it, and what precise activity changed it exactly how much?

If any of these questions can't be answered, then skepticism is not only justified, but absolutely necessary in the commission of finding the truth.

 

[esdoornblad]

What's the falsifiable standard for the theory of man-made climate change?

Simple. If there is an aspect of climate science (climate science is a large collection of observations, theories, and predictions) that is incorrect, and you can demonstrate it is incorrect, then that aspect will be falsified. For example, if you could somehow demonstrate experimentally that CO2 does not have the radiative forcing properties a GHG, then you could directly refute the essence of the theory of AGW. You'd also most likely become the most famous physicist in the world. On the other hand, you could falsify some lesser aspect of the theory without having much impact on the essential parts. For example, you could demonstrate that a particular paleoclimate proxy calibration was incorrect. But this would not have any meaningful impact on the current dialogue. Most of the essential aspects of climate science have been known since the 1800s and have survived all attempts at refutation.

 

[RockstarChris]

all science needs a dash of chilli p

 

[Ares Black]

Agenda driven climate "studies" by people who wouldn't have jobs without there being a problem? Okay?

There are no facts, and there are far more failed predictions of doomsday than anything else. Those peer reviewed scientific studies seem to always be proven false with TIME... oh well.

You are fucking delusional.

 

[no fat chicks]

Agenda driven climate "studies" by people who wouldn't have jobs without there being a problem? Okay?

There are no facts, and there are far more failed predictions of doomsday than anything else. Those peer reviewed scientific studies seem to always be proven false with TIME... oh well.

reads like a trump tweet. . .

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Simple. If there is an aspect of climate science (climate science is a large collection of observations, theories, and predictions) that is incorrect, and you can demonstrate it is incorrect, then that aspect will be falsified. For example, if you could somehow demonstrate experimentally that CO2 does not have the radiative forcing properties a GHG, then you could directly refute the essence of the theory of AGW. You'd also most likely become the most famous physicist in the world. On the other hand, you could falsify some lesser aspect of the theory without having much impact on the essential parts. For example, you could demonstrate that a particular paleoclimate proxy calibration was incorrect. But this would not have any meaningful impact on the current dialogue. Most of the essential aspects of climate science have been known since the 1800s and have survived all attempts at refutation.

You're talking about niches in data, not the theory itself.

Isolated falsifiable data =/= falsifiable standard of a theory.

Now that that's been cleared up, care to answer the question?

The information you just posted is in no way a falsifiable standard of the theory of man-made climate change.

Like I said earlier in the part of the post you deleted, Einstein's theory of relativity can be articulated in a few sentences. The falsifiable standard for that same Theory can also be articulated in a few sentences.

It's fascinating that proponents of the theory of man-made climate change seem unable or unwilling to hold their theory to this basic scientific standard. There's always some convenient excuse as to why this one theory shouldn't need to hold to the basic standards of scientific rigor.

 

[esdoornblad]

You're talking about niches in data, not the theory itself.

I am talking about all aspects of climate science. You asked how "the theory" could be falsified, and I explained that the general hypothesis "man is warming the planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere" would be falsified if you could demonstrate that CO2 is not a GHG. So, that answers your original question about falsifiability. Similarly, you could demonstrate that TSI is a better correlate than CO2 for explaining the warming. This would also invalidate the theory. People have tried, in fact, to do this. Finally, I explained that you could falsify some aspect of the theory without doing any harm to the general hypothesis. So, I covered all the bases.

Isolated falsifiable data =/= falsifiable standard of a theory.

Word salad from a nonscientist.

Now that that's been cleared up, care to answer the question?

You can lead a horse to water.

The information you just posted is in no way a falsifiable standard of the theory of man-made climate change.

If the planet is actually warming because aliens are operating a nuclear reactor in the earth's core, then the theory that man is causing the warming must be falsifiable because it is wrong. Just find the nuclear reactor and you've falsified the anthropogenic theory.

Like I said earlier in the part of the post you deleted, Einstein's theory of relativity can be articulated in a few sentences. The falsifiable standard for that same Theory can also be articulated in a few sentences.

I would really like to see you articulate these things.

It's fascinating that proponents of the theory of man-made climate change seem unable or unwilling to hold their theory to this basic scientific standard. There's always some convenient excuse as to why this one theory shouldn't need to hold to the basic standards of scientific rigor.

What's fascinating is how ignorance facilitates denial.