Mauna Loa shows that reducing economic Activity has NO EFFECT on CO2

[jc456]

And you fail at understanding an equilibrium system, something that a grade-schooler has no problems with. And you expect to be taken seriously?

Why is it 25 in Chicago today if there’s equilibrium?

 

[mamooth]

Why is it 25 in Chicago today if there’s equilibrium?

Some people say there's no such thing as a stupid question. You prove those people wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Man has adapted the world as it is, any changes in sea level will be catastrophic for many countries. An Florida.

Guam is the canary in the coal mine. When it tips over, we’re surely fucked

 

[jc456]

Some people say there's no such thing as a stupid question. You prove those people wrong.

When you have nothing to respond with huh? Equilibrium is a rather cop out position to turret out!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Geee, look at all that fancy word crafting to say, "nah, we don't need to be repeatable"

Yes, we can do ‘sound’ climate science even though it’s projecting the future

People worry Washington is losing respect for science and even the centuries-old scientific method. Two climate scientists explain how science can be done when talking about the future.

theconversation.com

And here is the rebuttal to Trenberth demanding a reversal of the null hypothesis, once again, a core principle of the scientific method.

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.141

So, basically, you have one of the leading lights of the fraud, DEMANDING that climatologists be allowed to ignore the scientific method.

You lose....idiot.

In fairness to the warmers, there are many variables in the climate and in and of itself, CO2 sucks at raising temperatures. That’s why they NEVER give a non-imaginary number for the amount of temperature increase from the additional 120PPM of CO2. Their only hope is to suspend science

 

[mamooth]

Geee, look at all that fancy word crafting to say, "nah, we don't need to be repeatable"

That's not required for the scientific method. The scientific method says put forth a theory, and see if predictions based on the theory are correct. It does not require absolute repeatability, it requires that predictions be correct. Repeatability in a lab is one way of doing that, but there are others. AGW theory passes that test with flying colors, because the predictions it makes have been correct. Your claim that something has to be repeatable in a lab to be science is nonsense.

Some things can't be repeated, generally due to scale. We can't affect the weather on the smaller scale, but that doesn't mean that meteorology isn't science. Or consider Astrophysics. It's impossible to do repeatable experiments in astrophysics. We can't adjust the properties of stars again and again and see what happens. However, no one would claim that astrophysics isn't science. Since your standard does say that, your standard is clearly not right.

And here is the rebuttal to Trenberth demanding a reversal of the null hypothesis,

Some specific null hypotheses are disproved in climate science. For example, a null hypothesis would be "CO2 doesn't affect climate". If that was the case, we would observe certain things. Since we don't observe those things, that particular null hypothesis is disproved.

You incorrectly state that "It's natural cycle!" is a null hypothesis. It's not. We know this because you can't even define what a "natural cycle" is, something that's necessary for a null hypothesis.

What's more, it's just assuming your conclusion. There's no reason to believe that's the default case.

If you want your alternate "it's a natural cycle" theory to be accepted, the burden of proof is on you. You need to make predictions based on it, and see those predictions come true. You can't simply declare that your quasi-religious belief is the default null hypothesis, because it isn't.

once again, a core principle of the scientific method.

Please list for us the null hypothesis that stands in opposition your "It's a natural cycle!" alternate theory, and then tell us how you disprove that null hypothesis. After, of course, you specifically define what a "natural cycle" is, without using circular logic.

 

[mamooth]

That’s why they NEVER give a non-imaginary number for the amount of temperature increase from the additional 120PPM of CO2. Their only hope is to suspend science

Except for all the times we did so.

You suck hard at lying, little troll.

 

[jc456]

In fairness to the warmers, there are many variables in the climate and in and of itself, CO2 sucks at raising temperatures. That’s why they NEVER give a non-imaginary number for the amount of temperature increase from the additional 120PPM of CO2. Their only hope is to suspend science

Frank, I’m watching the PGA tournament on tv, it’s in Florida today, and the temperature on the course dropped 10 degrees while I was watching. If CO2 mattered sooooo much, I need them to explain how that happened.

Will they say someone vacuumed the CO2 out of the area? LOL

 

[westwall]

That's not required for the scientific method. The scientific method says put forth a theory, and see if predictions based on the theory are correct. It does not require absolute repeatability, it requires that predictions be correct. Repeatability in a lab is one way of doing that, but there are others. AGW theory passes that test with flying colors, because the predictions it makes have been correct. Your claim that something has to be repeatable in a lab to be science is nonsense.

Some things can't be repeated, generally due to scale. We can't affect the weather on the smaller scale, but that doesn't mean that meteorology isn't science. Or consider Astrophysics. It's impossible to do repeatable experiments in astrophysics. We can't adjust the properties of stars again and again and see what happens. However, no one would claim that astrophysics isn't science. Since your standard does say that, your standard is clearly not right.


Some specific null hypotheses are disproved in climate science. For example, a null hypothesis would be "CO2 doesn't affect climate". If that was the case, we would observe certain things. Since we don't observe those things, that particular null hypothesis is disproved.

You incorrectly state that "It's natural cycle!" is a null hypothesis. It's not. We know this because you can't even define what a "natural cycle" is, something that's necessary for a null hypothesis.

What's more, it's just assuming your conclusion. There's no reason to believe that's the default case.

If you want your alternate "it's a natural cycle" theory to be accepted, the burden of proof is on you. You need to make predictions based on it, and see those predictions come true. You can't simply declare that your quasi-religious belief is the default null hypothesis, because it isn't.


Please list for us the null hypothesis that stands in opposition your "It's a natural cycle!" alternate theory, and then tell us how you disprove that null hypothesis. After, of course, you specifically define what a "natural cycle" is, without using circular logic.

Wow, you ARE an anti science religious nutjob!

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
3. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
4. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
5. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

What Is Science?

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

www.livescience.com

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not required for the scientific method. The scientific method says put forth a theory, and see if predictions based on the theory are correct. It does not require absolute repeatability, it requires that predictions be correct. Repeatability in a lab is one way of doing that, but there are others. AGW theory passes that test with flying colors, because the predictions it makes have been correct. Your claim that something has to be repeatable in a lab to be science is nonsense.

Some things can't be repeated, generally due to scale. We can't affect the weather on the smaller scale, but that doesn't mean that meteorology isn't science. Or consider Astrophysics. It's impossible to do repeatable experiments in astrophysics. We can't adjust the properties of stars again and again and see what happens. However, no one would claim that astrophysics isn't science. Since your standard does say that, your standard is clearly not right.


Some specific null hypotheses are disproved in climate science. For example, a null hypothesis would be "CO2 doesn't affect climate". If that was the case, we would observe certain things. Since we don't observe those things, that particular null hypothesis is disproved.

You incorrectly state that "It's natural cycle!" is a null hypothesis. It's not. We know this because you can't even define what a "natural cycle" is, something that's necessary for a null hypothesis.

What's more, it's just assuming your conclusion. There's no reason to believe that's the default case.

If you want your alternate "it's a natural cycle" theory to be accepted, the burden of proof is on you. You need to make predictions based on it, and see those predictions come true. You can't simply declare that your quasi-religious belief is the default null hypothesis, because it isn't.


Please list for us the null hypothesis that stands in opposition your "It's a natural cycle!" alternate theory, and then tell us how you disprove that null hypothesis. After, of course, you specifically define what a "natural cycle" is, without using circular logic.

It does not require absolute repeatability, it requires that predictions be correct. Repeatability in a lab is one way of doing that, but there are others. AGW theory passes that test with flying colors, because the predictions it makes have been correct.

Which predictions? How many? Some of them? All of them?

Post a list.

 

[mamooth]

Wow, you ARE an anti science religious nutjob!

Poor Westwall. I destroyed a main tenet of his religious faith, and he's not taking it well. That's why he's evading by screaming his debunked scripture louder, instead of debating.

Again, I point out that according your loony claims, astrophysics and meteorology aren't science. Since they clearly _are_ science, you're clearly wrong. That's not debatable.

No, cherrypicking and misusing bad definitions won't change that. Science doesn't have to be repeatable in a lab. It has to make predictions that are repeatably correct. That's the repeatability required by the scientific method. A lab is one way to do it, but it's not the only way.

So, how would you go about proving astrophysics repeatably in a lab? If you can't, doesn't that mean you define astrophysics as not being science? Why the double standards?

What is the specific definition of "natural cycle"? After all, to have a theory, you have to define it specifically. You refuse to do so.

And what is the null hypotheses that you tested your religious "it's a natural cycle" alternate theory against?

 

[mamooth]

Which predictions? How many? Some of them? All of them?

Post a list.

Sure.

The rise in CO2 levels, and the isotope ratios that show the human origin of the CO2.

The direction and magnitude of the temperature change.

The rising oceans.

The tropospheric hot spot being right where predicted.

The stratospheric cooling.

The polar amplification.

The greater warming at night and in winter.

The increase in backradiation.

The last 4 there have no natural explanation, which is how we know the current fast warming isn't natural.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure.

The rise in CO2 levels, and the isotope ratios that show the human origin of the CO2.

The direction and magnitude of the temperature change.

The rising oceans.

The tropospheric hot spot being right where predicted.

The stratospheric cooling.

The polar amplification.

The greater warming at night and in winter.

The increase in backradiation.

The last 4 there have no natural explanation, which is how we know the current fast warming isn't natural.

The rise in CO2 levels, and the isotope ratios that show the human origin of the CO2.

That's a prediction?

The direction and magnitude of the temperature change.

What's the date and starting point of the temperature change?

The rising oceans.

What's the date and starting point for the ocean level?

The greater warming at night and in winter.

How much greater? What should the warming be?

The increase in backradiation.

What was the prediction for the increase? When was it made?

The last 4 there have no natural explanation

The last 4 what?

 

[jc456]

Poor Westwall. I destroyed a main tenet of his religious faith, and he's not taking it well. That's why he's evading by screaming his debunked scripture louder, instead of debating

Says who? What evidence did you use?

 

[mamooth]

The rise in CO2 levels, and the isotope ratios that show the human origin of the CO2.

That's a prediction?

Well, yeah. Why would you think it isn't? I mean, if there was no CO2 rise, then clearly CO2 wouldn't causing the fast warming.

The direction and magnitude of the temperature change.

What's the date and starting point of the temperature change?

The 1970s is where the temperature starts to shoot up.

The rising oceans.

What's the date and starting point for the ocean level?

I tire of the trolling. Make a point.

 

[jc456]

The tropospheric hot spot being right where predicted.

Post it then!

 

[jc456]

Well, yeah. Why would you think it isn't? I mean, if there was no CO2 rise, then clearly CO2 wouldn't causing the fast warming

It’s truly obvious you’re out of your league.

That wasn’t a prediction, but I’ll call you mister obvious!!

 

[mamooth]

Post it then!

No problem.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

<p>Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.</p>

skepticalscience.com

An interesting thing about the tropospheric hot spot is that nobody knew it was there. Then AGW theory predicted it would be there, so they went and specifically looked for it, and there it was.

 

[jc456]

The last 4 there have no natural explanation, which is how we know the current fast warming isn't natural

How do you know any warming rates?

And, it’s not warming

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, yeah. Why would you think it isn't? I mean, if there was no CO2 rise, then clearly CO2 wouldn't causing the fast warming.


The 1970s is where the temperature starts to shoot up.


I tire of the trolling. Make a point.

Well, yeah. Why would you think it isn't?

Where is the prediction in "the increase in CO2 is from humans"?

The 1970s is where the temperature starts to shoot up.

What was the CO2 level in 1970? What was the predicted increase?
It should be in some form of degrees/PPM.

I tire of the trolling. Make a point.

None of your predictions are predictions.