AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[abu afak]

Yet you never made a case for it, because you don't know how to do it.

Why are you trying hard to show how stupid you are?

You haven't posted any facts/claims, just that there's a Giant Govt\Science conspiracy.
You WUWT Clown.
10,000 Scientists in on it but not ratting it out.
`

 

[BULLDOG]

You do that because you can't address the challenge which you obviously are unable to do because it is well above your ability to handle it.

You're almost there. The challenge is absurd and unobtainable. A credible climate change model without noting previous experts in the field? Why don't you give an example of what that might look like?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet you never made a case for it, because you don't know how to do it.

Why are you trying hard to show how stupid you are?

Admitting that the average person without special training is not qualified to cretique the experts in a specific field is not stupid. Thinking that listening to a batch of conspiracy theory nuts makes your beliefs as credible as the real experts is stupid.

 

[abu afak]

From Dr. John Englander, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Makiko Sato.

View attachment 858626

I already addressed this. There is nothing unusual about this interglacial period at all.

Except it is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more CO2. See?

View attachment 857978

Ahhh, that John Englander Graphic is from THIS page:
and it DESTROYS YOU FOREVER.

The Connection: Sea Level, Global Warming, and CO2 - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert​

Over the long term, global sea level, global average temperature and the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) move together – in synchronization. When there is a shift in long-term average global temperature the polar ice sheets increase or decrease in size. Over decades of warming, the ice sheets get...

johnenglander.net

"""
[. .. .. .]

• ""With each “ice age cycle” as they are commonly called, global average temperature swings 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) warmer and colder, and sea level moves up and down almost 400 feet (~120 meters).
• As the atmosphere changes temperature, the ocean slowly follows. It can take almost a thousand years for the oceans to fully reach a new equilibrium temperature. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide as can be seen in the way that carbon dioxide (CO2) follows global average temperature. That oceanic release of CO2 shows up as increased levels in the atmosphere. You can see that the level of CO2 ranged in a pattern from 180 – 280 ppm (parts per million) throughout this 400,000 years. Obviously, until recently that was natural — not caused by human influence.
• About two hundred years ago, when we began burning fossil fuels in greater and greater quantities, it changed the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, dramatically. Note the circle in the upper right of the chart at the end of the green line – CO2, which now shows as a vertical upward line on this scale chart. The vast burning of fossil fuels correlates well with this rapid increase in CO2 level. The latest measurement is 415 ppm, 40% higher than in the last few million years. It was demonstrated two hundred years ago, that carbon dioxide had an amazing effect to trap heat, even though it is absolutely invisible. It came to be known as a greenhouse gas due to its property to trap heat like the roof of a greenhouse. So, rather amazingly temperature and carbon dioxide will move together though either one can lead the other.
• During the industrial era, Earth has warmed about one degree Celsius, which is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The global goals are all stated in Celsius. You have likely heard of goals to keep the total warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. On our current path, unless we make some big changes in the next decade, we are headed to three or four degrees of warming.
• Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken Out of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp Departure from the Natural Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that sea level is going to rise for a long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher.""

`

You poached an UNCONTEXTED graphic that just shows what I said, an Rapid and UNNATURAL Spike in CO2, with just a Lag in Ocean and Air Temp ensured to follow.

YOU LOSE BY YOUR OWN SOURCE.... Once IN CONTEXT

You FILTHY LYING POS with 50,000 LYING "Natural Interglacials" IN fact refuted even with your Uncontexted graphic showing only the UNNATURAL CO2 Spike with the lag yet to come

Ding is now Dung. Finished Forever.
`

 

[BULLDOG]

But I do get it. You don't get that we can use the same data and reach opposite conclusions. So your premise that it is an either or situation is false. I don't have to have my own personal data. I can use public domain data. Especially the kind like paleoclimate data which isn't controversial.

I can use their model outputs to show they have factored out all natural variability when natural variability is the highest it's ever been. So are we appealing to authority? No. We're actually arguing against the authority using their own data.

Read the OP. "Either or" is an OP imposed requirement for this thread. Any rational discussion beyond that is impossible.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Admitting that the average person without special training is not qualified to cretique the experts in a specific field is not stupid. Thinking that listening to a batch of conspiracy theory nuts makes your beliefs as credible as the real experts is stupid.

Too many times the "real experts" gets proven wrong by others over the centuries, as Michael Chricton pointed out in his excellent speech, LINK

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Excerpt:

"Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

=====

Golly, you forgot to look in the mirror since you still can't leave the thread since make clear you can't address the challenge because you lack the basic science literacy to begin that is why you are shitting all over thread.

Your stupidity is off the charts heading towards the moon.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You're almost there. The challenge is absurd and unobtainable. A credible climate change model without noting previous experts in the field? Why don't you give an example of what that might look like?

Bla bla bla, you still have nothing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Too many times the "real experts" gets proven wrong by others over the centuries, as Michael Chricton pointed out in his excellent speech, LINK

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Excerpt:

"Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

=====

Golly, you forgot to look in the mirror since you still can't leave the thread since make clear you can't address the challenge because you lack the basic science literacy to begin that is why you are shitting all over thread.

Your stupidity is off the charts heading towards the moon.

You think a prolific writer who made a fortune writing fiction about technology gone wrong is more credible than actual experts. You childish MAGAs will fall for anything, won't you?

 

[Crick]

That includes YOU and Bulldog.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

That was so easy you just walked into a hard right punch.

Most people here are sane and rational to know the models are overblown junk which is why they don't respond to the challenge whereas YOU and Bulldog does believe in them but so far ..... he he .... ha ha ha...

Then how about YOU identifying a GCM that can hindcast the last century WITHOUT AGW?

 

[ding]

Then how about YOU identifying a GCM that can hindcast the last century WITHOUT AGW?

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Yoar welcome.

 

[ding]

Read the OP. "Either or" is an OP imposed requirement for this thread. Any rational discussion beyond that is impossible.

Ok, here you go.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Ahhh, that John Englander Graphic is from THIS page:
and it DESTROYS YOU FOREVER.

The Connection: Sea Level, Global Warming, and CO2 - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert​

Over the long term, global sea level, global average temperature and the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) move together – in synchronization. When there is a shift in long-term average global temperature the polar ice sheets increase or decrease in size. Over decades of warming, the ice sheets get...

johnenglander.net

"""
[. .. .. .]

• ""With each “ice age cycle” as they are commonly called, global average temperature swings 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) warmer and colder, and sea level moves up and down almost 400 feet (~120 meters).
• As the atmosphere changes temperature, the ocean slowly follows. It can take almost a thousand years for the oceans to fully reach a new equilibrium temperature. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide as can be seen in the way that carbon dioxide (CO2) follows global average temperature. That oceanic release of CO2 shows up as increased levels in the atmosphere. You can see that the level of CO2 ranged in a pattern from 180 – 280 ppm (parts per million) throughout this 400,000 years. Obviously, until recently that was natural — not caused by human influence.
• About two hundred years ago, when we began burning fossil fuels in greater and greater quantities, it changed the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, dramatically. Note the circle in the upper right of the chart at the end of the green line – CO2, which now shows as a vertical upward line on this scale chart. The vast burning of fossil fuels correlates well with this rapid increase in CO2 level. The latest measurement is 415 ppm, 40% higher than in the last few million years. It was demonstrated two hundred years ago, that carbon dioxide had an amazing effect to trap heat, even though it is absolutely invisible. It came to be known as a greenhouse gas due to its property to trap heat like the roof of a greenhouse. So, rather amazingly temperature and carbon dioxide will move together though either one can lead the other.
• During the industrial era, Earth has warmed about one degree Celsius, which is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The global goals are all stated in Celsius. You have likely heard of goals to keep the total warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. On our current path, unless we make some big changes in the next decade, we are headed to three or four degrees of warming.
• Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken Out of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp Departure from the Natural Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that sea level is going to rise for a long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher.""

`

You poached an UNCONTEXTED graphic that just shows what I said, an Rapid and UNNATURAL Spike in CO2, with just a Lag in Ocean and Air Temp ensured to follow.

YOU LOSE BY YOUR OWN SOURCE.... Once IN CONTEXT

You FILTHY LYING POS with 50,000 LYING "Natural Interglacials" IN fact refuted even with your Uncontexted graphic showing only the UNNATURAL CO2 Spike with the lag yet to come

Ding is now Dung. Finished Forever.
`

I need a translator to understand your incoherent gibberish babbling.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're almost there. The challenge is absurd and unobtainable. A credible climate change model without noting previous experts in the field? Why don't you give an example of what that might look like?

The Challenge still stands. Why do your models FAIL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Please provide one that does not.

All anyone has done is appeal to authority and no science is presented. This is an epic failure of the CAGW faithful.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Challenge still stands. Why do your models FAIL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Please provide one that does not.

All anyone has done is appeal to authority and no science is presented. This is an epic failure of the CAGW faithful.

I don't have any models. As I stated multiple times, I am just another anonymous poster on the internet, like most are. I don't have extensive trainng in climate science, and don't understand most of the charts, graphs, and cute little pictures used to define data concerning climate science. The vast majority of people have no more special knowledge of the subject than I do. My only recourse is to accept the statements of the most credible sources available. Those denying climate change have largely adopted a long list of other batshit crazy conspiracy theories. Those previous theories remove any credibility they might have had. Sorry, but I can't seperate your denial of climate change from all your other nutbaggery.

 

[The Duke]

I don't have any models. As I stated multiple times, I am just another anonymous poster on the internet, like most are. I don't have extensive trainng in climate science, and don't understand most of the charts, graphs, and cute little pictures used to define data concerning climate science. The vast majority of people have no more special knowledge of the subject than I do. My only recourse is to accept the statements of the most credible sources available. Those denying climate change have largely adopted a long list of other batshit crazy conspiracy theories. Those previous theories remove any credibility they might have had. Sorry, but I can't seperate your denial of climate change from all your other nutbaggery.

What have you seen happen in nature as a result of "climate change"?

You know it's about taxing people because the weather changes, right? Right?

OK, So what is Agenda 21? And why should I care? Part 1

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of...

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

^Why did I post that in here, you ask?

Because of this:

"The rise of the environmental movement became the magnet which attracted several disparate elements of social change, now coalesced into a massive global movement, euphemistically described as sustainable development."

All the AGW and "Climate Change" it has been rebranded to leads back to "Sustainable Development".

Sustainable Development Article

eco•logic Special Report Sustainable Development: Transforming America by Henry Lamb Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock, Tennessee December 1, 2005 A s the "sustainable...

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

 

[BULLDOG]

What have you seen happen in nature as a result of "climate change"?

You know it's about taxing people because the weather changes, right? Right?

OK, So what is Agenda 21? And why should I care? Part 1

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of...

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

If you ever post something that doesn't claim some sort of conspiracy, it might be worthwhile to hear what you are blabbering about. Till then, I'll go with real experts over the tinfoil hat bregade.

 

[The Duke]

If you ever post something that doesn't claim some sort of conspiracy, it might be worthwhile to hear what you are blabbering about. Till then, I'll go with real experts over the tinfoil hat bregade.

It's a worldwide plan that's being implemented by NGOs regardless of governments and citizens, shitbird.

That's the source of all the kookery.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's a worldwide plan that's being implemented by NGOs regardless of governments and citizens, shitbird.

That's the source of all the kookery.

You bet. I'll bet Bigfoot has some part to play in it too, right?

 

[The Duke]

You bet. I'll bet Bigfoot has some part to play in it too, right?

No. Bush and Clinton did though.

"In the last days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for profit-making activities. Much to the chagrin of the proponents of sustainable development, some of these policies have been slowed, but not reversed, by the Bush administration. Nevertheless, agencies of government, supported by an army of non-government organizations, continue to transform the landscape into the vision described in the Wildlands Project, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment."

^This led to the "Bundy" thing.

"This 300-page document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to govern virtually every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It is a "soft law" policy document which was signed by President George H.W. Bush, and which does not require Senate ratification. One of the recommendations contained in the document is that each nation establish a national council to implement the rest of the recommendations. On June 29, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order Number 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. "

Sustainable Development Article

eco•logic Special Report Sustainable Development: Transforming America by Henry Lamb Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock, Tennessee December 1, 2005 A s the "sustainable...

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com