Solar Trumps Milankovich...

[SSDD]

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?

And yet, I found it incredibly easy to find enough mainstream science to show that your claims that mainstream science hasn't failed miserably at predicting the climate to prove you completely wrong. If I am so stupid, and find it such a simple task to prove you wrong, how abysmally stupid does that make you?

 

[mamooth]

Not seen my debunking of your fairytales yet, eh? Go have a look.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

I must have really cut you to the quick for you to threaten me with murder. I won't forget this for a very, very long time.

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.

Yes, but you said it was "nothing more than an assumption".

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?

And what would you have them do? Wait? How will they know when they've got them all? When you tell them so? I've an idea. Satellites outside the atmosphere tell them precisely how much solar radiation the Earth receives. Measurements inside the atmosphere tells them where it is going and what it is doing. They have, as we have all noted recently, a budget. Their don't seem to be any significant bits missing. Do you believe in magic? Divine intervention? No? Then I suspect the accounting is complete.

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.

Do you recall the discussions elsewhere recently about views of William of Ockham on parsimony? "One should not multiply entities beyond necessity", as the saying goes. You seem to wish to do PRECISELY that. Now, obviously, the current hiatus tells us that there is something new going on here; something that was not taking place before about 1998. New, unexplained observations require new ideas and climatologists have certainly never stopped examining the Earth in an attempt to increase their knowledge of its workings. But given the quality of the fit between mainstream theory and all prior observations and given the complete absence of an alternative theory with anything like the fit of AGW, nothing tells us that AGW should be abandoned. The shortfall in our understanding lies in our knowledge of how a changing planet responds to the very changes climatologists have been studying, not in the cause behind those changes. Throwing out AGW would be an idiotic reaction.

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."

Your observations are faulty. My phrase "The Greenhous Effect from human GHG's" is an entirely appropriate construction. Humans have been emitting significant and increasing amounts of GHGs (primarily, but not exclusively CO2) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Virtually every molecule of atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppmm carries the isotopic signature of fossil fuels. The phrase does not rule out the existence of other sources of other GHGs - rather by specifying anthropogenicity, I proclaim that other sources exist. as Lao Tzu would tell us: defining a thing also defines that which is not that thing. As to the term "carbon dioxide", I haven't the faintest idea what your issue might be, but I did not use the term in the text about which you complained.

This, in and of itself, makes it nearly impossible to discuss anything with you on an actual intelligent level.

Hold on a minute. You claimed that in a single breath I combined fallacy with false information. Yet you never even attempted to show how anything I said was either fallacious or false. So, your "this, in and of itself" lacks existence. If there's been a failure of intelligence here, you might want to look for it a little closer to home.

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.

Ah... here we have something of an elucidation. I use, you claim, differing contexts (for "greenhouse gases" and "human greenhouse gases") to talk circles around failed points. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide an example.

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.

Hmm... after telling us THIS:

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

You're going to try to tell us that you are a greenhouse skeptic? That you do doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. Gosh, I don't know what to say.

Well, I guess I do know what to say. The behavior of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere wrt IR absorption and reemission is established science. You would have significant difficulty finding ANYONE with a post graduate degree in any branch of the natural sciences who did not agree with the common understanding. Now, since you failed to explain what you meant when you said "CO2 does not have the effect you like to claim"; exactly what "effect" you claim I like to claim, I strenuously suspect you will weasel out of this by identifying it as something arcane. In fact, the bulk of the arguments around here have been on the core functions of the Greenhouse Effect. Recall the repeated demands for experiments and "proof" that human CO2 is responsible for the warming we've experienced. Recall the contention that because IR penetrates only microns into seawater that it IS NOT BEING ABSORBED! Recall PolarBear telling us that IR is simply stopped after transitting 10 feet of air. The CLAIMS I have made regarding CO2 in the atmosphere is that virtually every single bit of it above 280 ppm originated from the combustion of fossil fuels and that the excess we have added is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced over the last 150 years. I have made this statement REPEATEDLY. If, for some reason, you think my position is something else, please let me know what and why you think so.

Finally, let's move on to the third fallacy: Begging the question.

The only fallacy you've accused me of at this point is your round-about suggestion that CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas or that the Greenhouse Effect is invalid. Your meaningless ramble about gases vs human gases was pointless. But let's carry on.

By and large, the "evidence" that scientists have come up with that would appear to support your position is all question begging.

Just a minor nitpick: begging the question is not a fallacy, it simply fails to make a persuasive argument as it only restates already accepted contentions. However, begging the question is NOT taking place as you suggest for a very simple reason: that CO2 is the cause of the warming we've experienced is accepted science and, therefore, VERY few people are doing work to test the point. People have moved on. You should move on too. You've already stated that you accept the Greenhouse Effect and that anyone who doesn't is foolish. Why question it now?

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.

That you think the world's climate scientists are all guilty of assuming their conclusions - a peccadillo for which a college freshman would get his work handed back to him - is only slightly better than the contention that they're all in a grand conspiracy.

Just about everything you provide is of such a nature.

Nothing I provide is of such a nature. If you disagree, help yourself to almost everything I would ever quote at ipcc.ch. Show us.

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.

They are not "non-human". They are effects secondary to AGW.

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.

Hey, asshole, don't try to tell me what I believe. The position I take is the IPCC's position because THAT's WHERE I GET IT. If the IPCC changes their position, I will VERY likely change mine. That their position gets voiced a great deal in the popular press should surprise no one. Neither should it surprise you that denier viewpoints get very LITTLE coverage in the mainstream media.

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.

What I am accepting here, what I choose to believe is the opinion of an overwhemling consensus of the world's experts on this topic. That would be the opposite of an exercise of faith and you sound thoughtless suggesting otherwise and more than a little desperate touching that idiotic "religion" argument with anything shorter than a ten foot pole. The bulk of the evidence you folks have presented me with has been scientifically and/or logically invalid, grossly misapplied or simply irrelevant. Deniers have presented NOTHING to make me doubt the following 7 points:

1) The source of CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is the combustion of fossil fuels
2) The Greenhouse Effect acting on that added gas has been the primary cause of the warming we have experienced.
3) CO2 levels continue to rise rapidly due to unchecked human emissions and the resultant warming is beginning to release methane and more CO2 from various sequesters.
4) Sea level is rising from thermal expansion and the addition of formerly land-based ice. It will continue to rise.
5) The Arctic will very likely be ice free in summer in less than 20 years. Warming from the loss of albedo threatens the AMOC.
6) The Antarctic and Greenland are dumping gigatonnes of fresh meltwater and glacial ice into the oceans.
7) The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is below sea level and thus is at risk of a catastrophic collapse which would raise the world's sea level, overnight, by feet.

If you think you've got something that ought to make me doubt these things, let's hear it. If it's something I've heard before, you don't have to spell out the whole thing. Just jog my memory, eh?

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

To think, you think you're qualified to judge. Nothing here and nothing I've seen from you elsewhere, has convinced me in the least that you have any more knowledge of the natural sciences than would any other psych major.

 

[SwimExpert]

Pssst, you're in the wrong thread. Nobody is talking about that.

 

[SwimExpert]

.....

 

[Abraham3]

Man, you are GIFTED.

I see you've taken on Skooks as your mentor. That's just as it should be.

And, BTW, you've misquoted me.

 

[SwimExpert]

You get what you're worth.

 

[Abraham3]

You get what you're worth.

Which would explain why you're emulating Skooks.

 

[SwimExpert]

You get what you're worth.

Which would explain why you're emulating Skooks.

Yes. Because he's all that you're worth.

 

[Abraham3]

Parsimony

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.

I don't care to be threatened but given the anger and hostility towards you it's engendered in me, I do get the enjoyment of witnessing you announcing to the world "I am a truly GIFTED ASSHOLE"

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?

Satellites outside the atmosphere tell them precisely how much solar radiation the Earth receives. Measurements inside the atmosphere tells them where it is going and what it is doing. They have, as we have all noted recently, a budget. Their don't seem to be any significant bits missing. Do you believe in magic? Divine intervention? No? Then I suspect the accounting is complete.

Any response to this budget idea? How about explaining to us how ANY science will ever get done if we declare it is impossible to rule out alternative causes to the effects under study: causes whose existence we don't even have reason to suspect? And, importantly, can you square this with your uniquely deep and subtle understanding of Occam's Rule?

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."

Any chance you can come up with examples in which I've committed this horrid equivocation?

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.

I see... I need to "knock" that out. Any examples?

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.

Now here's the kicker. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE correct my understanding here. Show me what it is that carbon dioxide does NOT do which I've somehow convinced myself that it DOES.

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.

Given that the acceptance of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas and as the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years, can you show us these widespread examples of people doing studies to determine whether or not that accepted point is true? Aren't you claiming to be widespread, the precise experiments that Gunny Seargant and Crusader Frank told us could not be found and which I have studiously declined to identify for them?

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.

Hey, asshole, don't try to tell me what I believe. The position I take is the IPCC's position because THAT's WHERE I GET IT. If the IPCC changes their position, I will VERY likely change mine. That their position gets voiced a great deal in the popular press should surprise no one. Neither should it surprise you that denier viewpoints get very LITTLE coverage in the mainstream media.

No response? Are you going to support your contention that my opinion is NOT that of the IPCC?

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.

What I am accepting here - what I choose to believe - is the opinion of an overwhelming consensus of the world's experts on this topic. That would be the opposite of an exercise of faith and you sound thoughtless suggesting otherwise and more than a little desperate touching that idiotic "religion" argument with anything shorter than a ten foot pole. The bulk of the evidence you folks have presented me with has been scientifically and/or logically invalid, grossly misapplied or simply irrelevant.

Deniers have presented NOTHING to make me doubt the following 7 points:

1) The source of CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is the combustion of fossil fuels
2) The Greenhouse Effect acting on that added gas has been the primary cause of the warming we have experienced.
3) CO2 levels continue to rise rapidly due to unchecked human emissions and the resultant warming is beginning to release methane and more CO2 from various sequesters.
4) Sea level is rising from thermal expansion and the addition of formerly land-based ice. It will continue to rise.
5) The Arctic will very likely be ice free in summer in less than 20 years. Warming from the loss of albedo threatens the AMOC.
6) The Antarctic and Greenland are dumping gigatonnes of fresh meltwater and glacial ice into the oceans.
7) The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is below sea level and thus is at risk of a catastrophic collapse which would raise the world's sea level, overnight, by feet.

If you think you've got something that ought to make me doubt these things, let's hear it.

Well, have you got reliable scientific evidence that you believe OUGHT to make me doubt any of these points?

 

[SwimExpert]

TL,DR

 

[Abraham3]

I see that even given repeated opportunities, you have no inclination to defend your position, support your charges or engage in the sort of discussions for which this board was created.

So... what was it, exactly, that led anyone to ever believe you were GIFTED?

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[Abraham3]

You're letting Skooks down. The horse needs a voice balloon. "You can't make me" or "I don't WANT to" or "I am a GIFTED horse".

 

[SwimExpert]

You're letting Skooks down. The horse needs a voice balloon. "You can't make me" or "I don't WANT to" or "I am a GIFTED horse".

So get your filthy fingers out of my mouth.

 

[Abraham3]

Parsimony Redux

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.

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?

How about explaining to us how ANY science will ever get done if we declare it is impossible to rule out alternative causes to the effects under study: causes whose existence we don't even have reason to suspect? And, importantly, can you square this with your uniquely deep and subtle understanding of Occam's Rule?

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.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE correct my understanding here. Show me what it is that carbon dioxide does NOT do which I've somehow convinced myself that it DOES.

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.

Ignoring the fact that no one is wasting their time testing CO2's effect as a Greenhouse gas, if said scientist sits down and accurately plots CO2 and warming, he DOES demonstrate a correlation.

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.

Hey, asshole, don't try to tell me what I believe. The position I take is the IPCC's position because THAT's WHERE I GET IT. If the IPCC changes their position, I will VERY likely change mine. That their position gets voiced a great deal in the popular press should surprise no one. Neither should it surprise you that denier viewpoints get very LITTLE coverage in the mainstream media.

No response? Are you going to support your contention that my opinion is NOT that of the IPCC?

1) The source of CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is the combustion of fossil fuels
2) The Greenhouse Effect acting on that added gas has been the primary cause of the warming we have experienced.
3) CO2 levels continue to rise rapidly due to unchecked human emissions and the resultant warming is beginning to release methane and more CO2 from various sequesters.
4) Sea level is rising from thermal expansion and the addition of formerly land-based ice. It will continue to rise.
5) The Arctic will very likely be ice free in summer in less than 20 years. Warming from the loss of albedo threatens the AMOC.
6) The Antarctic and Greenland are dumping gigatonnes of fresh meltwater and glacial ice into the oceans.
7) The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is below sea level and thus is at risk of a catastrophic collapse which would raise the world's sea level, overnight, by feet.

Well, have you got reliable scientific evidence that you believe OUGHT to make me doubt any of these points?

 

[Abraham3]

Parsimony Redux

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?

How about explaining to us how ANY science will ever get done if we declare it is impossible to rule out alternative causes to the effects under study: causes whose existence we don't even have reason to suspect? And, importantly, can you square this with your uniquely deep and subtle understanding of Occam's Rule?

Well, we never got a response here. This very point has come up again. How are humans to advance ANY field of knowledge if they must forever assume they are unaware - and perhaps not physically or psychologically capable of BECOMING aware - of overwhelming factors controlling the processes we are attempting to study?

Isn't that the point and function of the scientific method's falsification?

 

[SwimExpert]

Parsimony Redux

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?

How about explaining to us how ANY science will ever get done if we declare it is impossible to rule out alternative causes to the effects under study: causes whose existence we don't even have reason to suspect? And, importantly, can you square this with your uniquely deep and subtle understanding of Occam's Rule?

Well, we never got a response here. This very point has come up again. How are humans to advance ANY field of knowledge if they must forever assume they are unaware - and perhaps not physically or psychologically capable of BECOMING aware - of overwhelming factors controlling the processes we are attempting to study?

Isn't that the point and function of the scientific method's falsification?

I can't respond because what you're saying is so ridiculously stupid and lacks even a grade school level of reading and language comprehension, I haven't a clue where to begin.

 

[Abraham3]

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?

I can't respond because what you're saying is so ridiculously stupid and lacks even a grade school level of reading and language comprehension, I haven't a clue where to begin.

Begin here:

1) Explain how researchers would determine that they had learned of ""all" of the potential forcing factors"

then

2) Explain how researchers would determine that they had "examined all of them sufficiently".

 

[Abraham3]

I can't respond because what you're saying is so ridiculously stupid and lacks even a grade school level of reading and language comprehension, I haven't a clue where to begin.

How many people, even among those here who dislike and disagree with me, do you think you're going to convince that I lack grade school reading and language comprehension?