Why AGW must be wrong.

[Toronado3800]

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

* Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

I disagree. Like demanding I produce a sustainable sun mass black hole to prove they exist.

Oh well, back to a new argument. This one is boring.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Golly...Only took you eight posts to get down to the standard recriminations and invective!

"Falsifiable" means that you can positively explain away all other possibilities via the Socratic method (i.e. asking questions as to what else could account for the given phenomena).

No it doesn't. Falsifiability means there is a logical possibility that something can be shown to be false by experiment OR observation. You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?

Somebody else help out here....Didn't I pretty much say the same thing in other words?

No, you didn't.

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

He didn't guess. You haven't even read the paper I'm talking about. You're clueless. The same as the rest of the anti-science crowd.

How did the predictions of Malthus, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich work out?...They had equally "scientific" guesses as to what was supposed to happen in the future and all were monumentally wrong. Lest we fail to mention Y2K, the Red Scare, ancient religious nuts who claimed that Halley's comet was a harbinger of imminent doom....?

Oh, yeah, I guess I forgot to mention - AGW must obviously be wrong, since other scientists in other fields have been wrong before.


(that's the absolute dumbest argument i've ever seen you make - or anyone, for that matter. Seriously, were you standing on the wrong end of a nail gun at some point in your life?)

The Y2K scare turned out to be mostly BS - therefore, AGW is wrong. Seriously?

 

[Old Rocks]

Were the CO2 GHG theory wrong, we should have seen that in 2007 and 2008. A strong and persistant La Nina, and a low TSI, as well as the almost complete abscence of sunspots. What did we get? Both years rank in the top ten warmest years on record.

That leaves only the 40% increase in CO2, the 150% increase in CH4, and the additional industrial GHGs to account for the continued warmth, when every other source was at a many year low.

You see, had we seen those years as, say, the 100th and 110th warmest on record, then the theory of GHGs would have been falsified. Instead we saw robust confirmation that the GHGs really are the major driver in the warming that we are seeing.

 

[Oddball]

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

* Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

I disagree. Like demanding I produce a sustainable sun mass black hole to prove they exist.

Oh well, back to a new argument. This one is boring.

You can prove they exist through consistency and reproducibility of data, which is sorrily lacking in AGW junk "science".

Hell, they won't even show and submit their work to truly independent review.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

* Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

I disagree. Like demanding I produce a sustainable sun mass black hole to prove they exist.

Oh well, back to a new argument. This one is boring.

Its even more idiotic than you think - take it to the limit - its like requiring a be able to produce an entire UNIVERSE in order to prove anything about the universe.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then, you can add that AGW science fiction is not:

* Physically reproducible on demand and in the context of a virtually infinitely variable and flexible ecosystem.

I disagree. Like demanding I produce a sustainable sun mass black hole to prove they exist.

Oh well, back to a new argument. This one is boring.

You can prove they exist through consistency and reproducibility of data, which is sorrily lacking in AGW junk "science".

Hell, they won't even show and submit their work to truly independent review.

Particularly, what data would like reproduced?

 

[Oddball]

Golly...Only took you eight posts to get down to the standard recriminations and invective!

No it doesn't. Falsifiability means there is a logical possibility that something can be shown to be false by experiment OR observation. You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?

Somebody else help out here....Didn't I pretty much say the same thing in other words?

No, you didn't.

Didn't ask you.

That someone 100 years ago guessed that temperatures might rise and speculated as to why is of no more scientific merit than a Nostradamus quatrain.

How did the predictions of Malthus, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich work out?...They had equally "scientific" guesses as to what was supposed to happen in the future and all were monumentally wrong. Lest we fail to mention Y2K, the Red Scare, ancient religious nuts who claimed that Halley's comet was a harbinger of imminent doom....?

Oh, yeah, I guess I forgot to mention - AGW must obviously be wrong, since other scientists in other fields have been wrong before.


(that's the absolute dumbest argument i've ever seen you make - or anyone, for that matter. Seriously, were you standing on the wrong end of a nail gun at some point in your life?)

The Y2K scare turned out to be mostly BS - therefore, AGW is wrong. Seriously?

Again, long on invective and short on fact.

Fact is that the historical track record of doomsayers --even those with supposedly "iron clad" scientific numbers-- is of an extremely dubious nature.....But let's cut the crap here and get to the real killer question:

What evidence would you accept, that would prove your doomsday prophesies wrong?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Golly...Only took you eight posts to get down to the standard recriminations and invective!
Somebody else help out here....Didn't I pretty much say the same thing in other words?

No, you didn't.

Didn't ask you.

How did the predictions of Malthus, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich work out?...They had equally "scientific" guesses as to what was supposed to happen in the future and all were monumentally wrong. Lest we fail to mention Y2K, the Red Scare, ancient religious nuts who claimed that Halley's comet was a harbinger of imminent doom....?

Oh, yeah, I guess I forgot to mention - AGW must obviously be wrong, since other scientists in other fields have been wrong before.


(that's the absolute dumbest argument i've ever seen you make - or anyone, for that matter. Seriously, were you standing on the wrong end of a nail gun at some point in your life?)

The Y2K scare turned out to be mostly BS - therefore, AGW is wrong. Seriously?

Again, long on invective and short on fact.

Fact is that the historical track record of doomsayers --even those with supposedly "iron clad" scientific numbers-- is of an extremely dubious nature.....But let's cut the crap here and get to the real killer question:

What evidence would you accept, that would prove your doomsday prophesies wrong?

Oh, OK, I get it - since AGW predicts something bad will happen, it must obviously be wrong. Great logic there.

Also, I'd like to see some literature from the international 1000+ scientific panel that said overpopulation would destroy the world, as well as the statements from virtually every American major scientific society supporting it. THanks.

 

[Oddball]

Appeal to authority doesn't answer the question.

Want me to put in big red #7 CAPS?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Appeal to authority doesn't answer the question.

Want me to put in big red #7 CAPS?

Why should I answer yours? You don't answer mine, particularly, the question:


Particularly, what data would you like reproduced?


If you want to have a debate it goes two ways, this isn't you ask questions and I answer, it works both ways.



But I'll answer you question anyway. Then you answer mine.


AGW could be disproven by producing a self-consistent climate model which accounts for the recent warming trend without adding man-made greenhouse gases to the system. So far no one has been able to do this. As I'm sure you have the expertise, since you're smarter than all the scientists of the world put together - get to it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, those damn Vikings and their industrial polution heated the earth so much that Greenland had trees and foliage a thousand years ago and they had a colony there that is now under ice...oh wait, they didn't have industry a thousand years ago.

Jared Diamond did a very good chapter on the Greenland Colony in his book "Collapse". Were you to read it, and other real histories of the era, you would find that nothing that you have stated is true. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

And they died out because they refused to recognize that the way they were living was not sustainable. The same lesson that we are currently refusing to learn.

 

[Meister]

I've assembled a list of facts which disprove AGW:

1) The Earth's temperature has been influenced by natural factors in the past. Everyone with a 2nd grade education knows that if the temperature of a system can be influenced by natural forces, its physically impossible for man made forces to affect it.

2) The Sun is hot. Look at it. its right there. its really hot.

3) grapes grew in England in the medieval warm period. Nevermind the fact they grow there now as well, that's irrelevant.

4) Cavemen didn't have SUV's, therefore AGW MUST be wrong.


Does this about sum it up?

Your getting close....you forgot that other planets in our solar system also have warmed up. Or, did you forget that one?

But some are also cooling. Does the sun play favorites?

I'm stating that other planets are warming as ours is. Perhaps, it's not because of MAN MADE global warming. I tried to make it a simple statement, I'm sorry you were confused by it, rocks.

 

[Oddball]

It's plain to see your disingenuousness in the creation of the OP and thread premise.

You've been given criteria, and rather than scientifically explaining them away, you've very gauchly attempted to make this about me.

AGW could be disproven by producing a self-consistent climate model which accounts for the recent warming trend without adding man-made greenhouse gases to the system. So far no one has been able to do this. As I'm sure you have the expertise, since you're smarter than all the scientists of the world put together - get to it.

Could you be just a little more vague?

Aside from the vagary, it has been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations follow periods of increased ambient temps, rather than cause them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's plain to see your disingenuousness in the creation of the OP and thread premise.

You've been given criteria, and rather than scientifically explaining them away, you've very gauchly attempted to make this about me.

Now....What evidence would you accept, that would prove your doomsday prophesies wrong?

Its like talking to a fucking wall


Why should I answer yours? You don't answer mine, particularly, the question:


Particularly, what data would you like reproduced?


If you want to have a debate it goes two ways, this isn't you ask questions and I answer, it works both ways.



But I'll answer you question anyway. Then you answer mine.


AGW could be disproven by producing a self-consistent climate model which accounts for the recent warming trend without adding man-made greenhouse gases to the system. So far no one has been able to do this. As I'm sure you have the expertise, since you're smarter than all the scientists of the world put together - get to it.

 

[Meister]

Well, those damn Vikings and their industrial polution heated the earth so much that Greenland had trees and foliage a thousand years ago and they had a colony there that is now under ice...oh wait, they didn't have industry a thousand years ago.

Jared Diamond did a very good chapter on the Greenland Colony in his book "Collapse". Were you to read it, and other real histories of the era, you would find that nothing that you have stated is true. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

And they died out because they refused to recognize that the way they were living was not sustainable. The same lesson that we are currently refusing to learn.

They were living in a marginal area to begin with, where the warming and cooling of temperatures over time made a huge difference, I do agree with that. but, it WAS caused by the natural cycles.
So your point being?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's plain to see your disingenuousness in the creation of the OP and thread premise.

You've been given criteria, and rather than scientifically explaining them away, you've very gauchly attempted to make this about me.

AGW could be disproven by producing a self-consistent climate model which accounts for the recent warming trend without adding man-made greenhouse gases to the system. So far no one has been able to do this. As I'm sure you have the expertise, since you're smarter than all the scientists of the world put together - get to it.

Could you be just a little more vague?

I'm sorry, what specifics are you lacking?

1) produce a self-consistent climate model
2) remove man-made CO2 from the model
3) run it
4) If it accounts for recent warming trends, you have disproven AGW


WHAT IS IT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

 

[Old Rocks]

Your getting close....you forgot that other planets in our solar system also have warmed up. Or, did you forget that one?

But some are also cooling. Does the sun play favorites?

I'm stating that other planets are warming as ours is. Perhaps, it's not because of MAN MADE global warming. I tried to make it a simple statement, I'm sorry you were confused by it, rocks.

No, you are the one confused. You state that the earth is warming because of increased iradiance of the sun. Yet, records show no increase, and, indeed, a minor decrease in the last 30 years.

Not only that;

Global warming on other planets in the solar system
Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system." (Ian McClintock)

What the science says...
There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.


The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

That begs the question - what is causing warming on other planets? With the exception of Pluto, climate change on other planets are fairly understood:

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, those damn Vikings and their industrial polution heated the earth so much that Greenland had trees and foliage a thousand years ago and they had a colony there that is now under ice...oh wait, they didn't have industry a thousand years ago.

Jared Diamond did a very good chapter on the Greenland Colony in his book "Collapse". Were you to read it, and other real histories of the era, you would find that nothing that you have stated is true. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

And they died out because they refused to recognize that the way they were living was not sustainable. The same lesson that we are currently refusing to learn.

They were living in a marginal area to begin with, where the warming and cooling of temperatures over time made a huge difference, I do agree with that. but, it WAS caused by the natural cycles.
So your point being?

A natural cycle that they did not adjust to doomed them and their children to death.

A manmade climate change that we refuse to recognize or prepare for can do the same for our culture.

 

[Oddball]

It's plain to see your disingenuousness in the creation of the OP and thread premise.

You've been given criteria, and rather than scientifically explaining them away, you've very gauchly attempted to make this about me.

AGW could be disproven by producing a self-consistent climate model which accounts for the recent warming trend without adding man-made greenhouse gases to the system. So far no one has been able to do this. As I'm sure you have the expertise, since you're smarter than all the scientists of the world put together - get to it.

Could you be just a little more vague?

I'm sorry, what specifics are you lacking?

1) produce a self-consistent climate model
2) remove man-made CO2 from the model
3) run it
4) If it accounts for recent warming trends, you have disproven AGW


WHAT IS IT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

I understand just fine.

Now add in the variable and unpredictable nature of the magnetosphere....Now add in the fact that roughly 332 million cubic miles of water don't warm or cool overnight......Now add in the fact that CO2 is a mere trace element in the atmosphere and that the change in concentration of a paltry .01% is statistically infinitesimal....Have we taken a census of cloud cover lately?....The wildly varying nature of planetary wobble....The varying nature of the elliptical orbit around the sun...The fact that everything is moving in space......

Those are just off the top of my head.

Like I said, there are so many variables to account for, that any mere human who can claim that they've taken them all into consideration can't be doing anything but lying out their ass.

 

[Oddball]

1) produce a self-consistent climate model

There's your first logical landmine.

The ecosphere of the planet is not now, nor has ever been, self-consistent.

You're working off a logical flaw from the get-go.