Solar Trumps Milankovich...

[mamooth]

Occam's Razor.....buckwheat.

Occam's says the simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely correct.

Denialism fails at explaining observed data, hence Occam's says to reject it.

AGW theory explains the oberved data perfectly, and is the simplest theory to do so, hence Occam's says AGW theory is most likely to be correct.

 

[SSDD]

Occam's Razor.....buckwheat.

Occam's says the simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely correct.

Denialism fails at explaining observed data, hence Occam's says to reject it.

AGW theory explains the oberved data perfectly, and is the simplest theory to do so, hence Occam's says AGW theory is most likely to be correct.

Really? You are detached from reality, aren't you? Stalled temperatures in the face of ever rising CO2....no tropospheric hot spot.....no accelerated sea level increase which would be the result of oceans absorbing massive amounts of heat due to thermal expansion...increasing LW escaping at the top of the atmosphere...increasing sea ice....increasing arctic ice.....all in contradiction to the claims of the AGW hypothesis. You certainly have failed miserably at observing and comparing those observations to the claims of the hypothesis.

 

[SwimExpert]

Occam's Razor.....buckwheat.

Occam's says the simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely correct.

Denialism fails at explaining observed data, hence Occam's says to reject it.

AGW theory explains the oberved data perfectly, and is the simplest theory to do so, hence Occam's says AGW theory is most likely to be correct.

Clearly, you know nothing about logic. The first problem is that you are making an argumentum ad ignorantiam, and thus your are committing fallacy. The second problem is that truth be told, Occam's Razor is generally considered a fairly weak principle, and is almost always misused. For example, you falsely claim that the razor claims that the "simplest theory" is "most likely correct." This is not Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor: All other things being equal between competing hypotheses, the hypothesis that involves the fewest assumptions should be used and usually is preferable.

In the study of science, Occam's Razor can be an important guiding principle for cultivating and building a theory. As Einstein once said: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

 

[Abraham3]

What was going on from 1941 to 1979?

Why do YOU think surface warming has slowed?

How do you explain the continuing imbalance at ToA?

How do you explain the DATA that show large increases in ocean heat content since 1998?

And he obviously DOES know something about logic. William's principle contends that it is wrong to fabricate unneeded entities. To put together some sort of scenario that would explain the observations that AGW clearly DOES explain, WITHOUT using AGW, you would have to create an absolute Rube Goldberg assemblage of hypotheses and unsupportable conjecture. Try it and see.

 

[SwimExpert]

What was going on from 1941 to 1979?

Why do YOU think surface warming has slowed?

How do you explain the continuing imbalance at ToA?

How do you explain the DATA that shows large increases in ocean heat content since 1998?

I think it was Thetans. Maybe I'm wrong. But no matter how wrong I might be, it does not change the fact that YOUR position is not adequately supported.

And he obviously DOES know something about logic. William's principle contends that it is wrong to fabricate unneeded entities. To put together some sort of scenario that would explain the observations that AGW clearly DOES explain, WITHOUT using AGW, you would have to create an absolute Rube Goldberg assemblage of hypotheses and unsupportable conjecture. Try it and see.

Neither he nor you.

 

[Abraham3]

What was going on from 1941 to 1979?

Why do YOU think surface warming has slowed?

How do you explain the continuing imbalance at ToA?

How do you explain the DATA that show large increases in ocean heat content since 1998?

I think it was Thetans.

You think wrong and you know it.

Maybe I'm wrong.

No maybe about it.

But no matter how wrong I might be, it does not change the fact that YOUR position is not adequately supported.

The position I take has the most support of any. The position I take is the one that has sufficient evidence to convince 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity.

And he obviously DOES know something about logic. William's principle contends that it is wrong to fabricate unneeded entities. To put together some sort of scenario that would explain the observations that AGW clearly DOES explain, WITHOUT using AGW, you would have to create an absolute Rube Goldberg assemblage of hypotheses and unsupportable conjecture. Try it and see.

Neither he nor you.

That would be a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Worthless. Do you actually have any science to discuss here?

 

[SwimExpert]

The position I take has the most support of any. The position I take is the one that has sufficient evidence to convince 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity.

Your position:

*The greenhouse effect and climate change are one in the same
*All climate change is the result of carbon dioxide
*The penguins are gonna die

You haven't supported a damn thing here. Oh, and we already know that support for your ideas is not so widely held by scientists. Do you need me to link you back to that thread? Can you find it yourself? Or is it hidden behind the thick fog of CO2?

 

[Abraham3]

The position I take has the most support of any. The position I take is the one that has sufficient evidence to convince 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity.

Your position:

*The greenhouse effect and climate change are one in the same
*All climate change is the result of carbon dioxide
*The penguins are gonna die

You haven't supported a damn thing here. Oh, and we already know that support for your ideas is not so widely held by scientists. Do you need me to link you back to that thread? Can you find it yourself? Or is it hidden behind the thick fog of CO2?

My position:

o The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years
o The primary cause of that warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on human GHG emissions and, more recently, additional GHG's released from warming oceans and tundra
o That warming is already producing a number of discernible effects
o That warming will eventually cause massive damage and destruction worldwide to biological systems, water supply systems, ocean circulation systems, crop and livestock health and will require the relocation of hundreds of millions to billions of people in significantly short order. The cost will be horrendous. It will beggar the planet. There will be massive catastrophes: coastal flooding and exacerbated storm surge damage from increased sea levels, powerful typhoons and hurricanes, cholera, dysentery and other sanitation-bred epidemics, refugee calamities on a completely unprecedented scale.

And you will bear some small part of the responsibility for humans not dealing with this problem when there was some chance that it could have successfully been addressed... When it could have been stopped. Our children and their children and their children will curse you every day of their miserable lives.

That's my position.

 

[SwimExpert]

o The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years

That's it? Just the past 150 years? Sure it's not longer than that?

o The primary cause of that warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on human GHG emissions and, more recently, additional GHG's released from warming oceans and tundra

And right here, and point #2 you have already failed. Because this is nothing more than an assumption. Oh, it's actually also a completely false misrepresentation of the position you have continually made. You're all about the CO2.

 

[Abraham3]

You're a fooking idiot.

 

[SwimExpert]

After all the complaining you've done about me not making real arguments, the moment I do you're left so beside yourself you can't even address what I've said. Okay, pull my finger comments it is.

 

[Abraham3]

You call THAT a real argument? For fuck's sake dude, has anyone ever suggested to you that AGW took place prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Do you even know what we're talking about here?

 

[SwimExpert]

You call THAT a real argument? For fuck's sake dude, has anyone ever suggested to you that AGW took place prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Do you even know what we're talking about here?

Okay, I have to ask you a serious question: Are you a native English speaker? Because you seem to have about a 50% comprehension rate of what you read on this forum. If there's a language barrier at work here then speak up. It would certainly explain alot of things, and would give us the info we need to make it easier for you to understand what we're saying.

 

[Abraham3]

o The primary cause of that warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on human GHG emissions and, more recently, additional GHG's released from warming oceans and tundra

And right here, and point #2 you have already failed. Because this is nothing more than an assumption. Oh, it's actually also a completely false misrepresentation of the position you have continually made. You're all about the CO2.

I assumed you wouldn't be asking for further humiliation.

An assumption, eh? I guess that's what the work of the world's climate scientists has been all these years. They just take research money and make assumptions.

All the potential forcing factors have been examined. The Greenhouse Effect from human GHGs has by far the largest, calculated forcing factor and by a significant margin best matches the observed trend. The vast majority of climate scientists have come to that conclusion.

Warming the Earth by any means will cause the release of CO2 and methane from solution in the Earth's water, from thawing tundra and from sublimating methane clathrate deposits on the deep sea floor. Warming, by simple thermal expansion and additions from Antarctic and Greenland ice melt is raising sea level. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease the ocean's pH which will have catastrophic effects on large segments of the marine biota. That has always been my position. If you think otherwise, it's simply because you don't know what you're talking about or have chosen to tell a falsehood.

My position is the IPCC position. My position is the position of the majority of the world's active climate scientists. I take it because they do. I believe in the scientific method. I believe in the rather basic logic that tells me 98 experts - all in agreement - are many times more likely to be correct than are two. I believe because during the course of my participation in debates here and elsewhere, my meager knowledge of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and meteorology has allowed me to rather consistently find flaws in the arguments of AGW deniers but not with the conclusions of mainstream science.

The work of the world's scientists in this field and the IPCC's synthesis of that work - like any human endeavour - is not without mistakes, innocent and willful. But the overall conclusions are broadly, consistently and thoroughly supported by the evidence.

That is simply not true of alternative theories.

And those who choose to do no research - to make no attempt themselves to determine the truth - but simply to attack the work of others by any means available, based solely on the conclusions they have reached, are worse than false. Their efforts have no effect but to put humanity at severely increased, real risk for two possible purposes: to protect the fossil fuel industry or for perceived political gains. The only two characteristics I know of, that can lead to such behavior, are political bigotry and ignorance.

 

[SwimExpert]

I assumed you wouldn't be asking for further humiliation.

Well, it would be illegal to murder you, so I'll just have to live with the humiliation of a fellow human being so idiotic.

An assumption, eh? I guess that's what the work of the world's climate scientists has been all these years. They just take research money and make assumptions.

There are always assumptions involved. Einstein made assumptions.

All the potential forcing factors have been examined.

BAM! An assumption right there. What makes you think that we even know "all" of the potential forcing factors? And what makes you think that we have examined them sufficiently?

See, this is the great primary failing of the AGW alarmists. They are entirely anthropocentric. You think that you have the entire planet quantified. You think that you have found everything, discovered everything. You think that if something were there, you would have discovered it. Because it's simply impossible for something to exist without you finding it. It's a ridiculous belief.

The Greenhouse Effect from human GHGs has by far the largest, calculated forcing factor and by a significant margin best matches the observed trend. The vast majority of climate scientists have come to that conclusion.

See, this is part of the reason why it's so difficult to get through your thick skull. In a single breath you combine fallacy and false information. Let's start with the first fallacy: equivocation. You seem to freely interchange "greenhouse gases" with "human greenhouse gases" as well as "carbon dioxide." This, in and of itself, makes it nearly impossible to discuss anything with you on an actual intelligent level. Because when you interchange them, you often bring along different contexts that you use to talk circles around a failed point, or use to attack someone. You need to knock that out.

Next, information: You have already been told a hundred times that carbon dioxide does not have the effect you continue to claim. You have been shown evidence of this. You refuse to accept it, but your refusal does not an argument make.

Finally, let's move on to the third fallacy: Begging the question. By and large, the "evidence" that scientists have come up with that would appear to support your position is all question begging. When a scientist begins with the presumption that carbon dioxide is responsible for observed warming trends, then sit down to chart and plot the two to demonstrate such a correlation, then calculates the amount of "effect" that would be necessary to support such a causal correlation, OF COURSE they're going to come out with a result that supports you saying that CO2 was the cause. They assumed it was the cause.

Just about everything you provide is of such a nature.

Warming the Earth by any means will cause the release of CO2 and methane from solution in the Earth's water, from thawing tundra and from sublimating methane clathrate deposits on the deep sea floor. Warming, by simple thermal expansion and additions from Antarctic and Greenland ice melt is raising sea level. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease the ocean's pH which will have catastrophic effects on large segments of the marine biota. That has always been my position. If you think otherwise, it's simply because you don't know what you're talking about or have chosen to tell a falsehood.

Cool story, bro. It's good to hear that you finally are waking up to the idea that there are natural, non-human mechanisms that can and will lead to the things you're raising red flags about.

My position is the IPCC position. My position is the position of the majority of the world's active climate scientists.

No, your position is the one that is popular in the media, and is espoused by the loudest and most vocal people.

I take it because they do.

As I've said before. You are simply accepting what someone else is feeding you. No critical thinking involved whatsoever. You just choose to believe it. Even when presented with evidence that contradicts your position, you continue to adhere. And you wonder why people say you've made a religion out of this.

And to think, you call this nonsense the scientific method.

 

[SSDD]

My position:

o The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years

The world has been getting warmer for a hell of a lot longer than that and most of that warming happened without the aid of man made CO2 and the earth was warmer than the present.

The primary cause of that warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on human GHG emissions and, more recently, additional GHG's released from warming oceans and tundra

Not a shred of proof to support that claim and the fact that it was warmer prior to man putting any significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere combined with he fact that for most of earth history it has been a hell of a lot warmer than the present, your claims of man causing any climate change at all just sound silly.

That warming is already producing a number of discernible effects

Really? What effects. What is happening today in the global climate that is unprecented?

That warming will eventually cause massive damage and destruction worldwide to biological systems, water supply systems, ocean circulation systems, crop and livestock health and will require the relocation of hundreds of millions to billions of people in significantly short order. The cost will be horrendous. It will beggar the planet. There will be massive catastrophes: coastal flooding and exacerbated storm surge damage from increased sea levels, powerful typhoons and hurricanes, cholera, dysentery and other sanitation-bred epidemics, refugee calamities on a completely unprecedented scale.

Since history tells us that life thrived when the average global temperature was in excess of 20C, your claim is foolish.

my position.

Your position is the position of either a dupe, or a liar.

 

[SSDD]

An assumption, eh? I guess that's what the work of the world's climate scientists has been all these years. They just take research money and make assumptions.

That's precisely right considering the ever growing litany of failed predictions. If they knew, then they wouldn't have such a long list of failed predictions. They assume that CO2 drives the climate and make predictions based on what would happen were that true.....clearly, it isn't.

the potential forcing factors have been examined.

That is the statement of an abject fool. Tell you what, how about you provide a complete list of all of the forcing factors along with the magnitude +- of that forcing.

Its pointless to look at any of your other points since they are based on the eroneous assumptions you have already made.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[SSDD]

Got any idea what happens to the roofs under those panels?

 

[mamooth]

That's precisely right considering the ever growing litany of failed predictions.

SSDD, you're so effin' stupid, you even fail hard at something as basic as the second law. Given that you are a proven gibbering 'tard, why would anyone take any of your 'tard claims seriously?