Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

Did you use those exact words? No. Is that what you're claiming? Yes.

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

No. That's not what I am saying.

Read the words I write, not what you imagine you see.

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis.

Now according to this:

The null hypothesis is a sub-set of the Popperian falsifiable scientific statement.

Philosophical, scientific and statistical background to evidence based medicine

So please be more specific about what you're trying to say. You are endlessly vague, which does make people wonder if you're confident in what you're saying.

I posted exactly what it was earlier.

Post # 867.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.The Absorption Spectra of Gases

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

Of course, science as done by scientists, rather than flapyapping internet posiers is something alien to Sis

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.The Absorption Spectra of Gases

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

Of course, science as done by scientists, rather than flapyapping internet posiers is something alien to Sis

Si Modo has been pointing out that making a computer model that shows results confirming a hypothesis is not in and of itself proof of anything, due to the GIGO principle.

What models are good for is showing progressions of very complex algorithms very quickly and doing it in a very illustrative way using graphics, but that is it. They do not prove anything.

Anyone that says they do is simply not a well trained scientist or just not thinking clearly as a scientist when they say such nonsense.

As to your response 'How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?' that page only shows that green house gasses do what they have long been known to do and no one disputes that.

What skeptics are disputing is that there is insufficient evidence supporting two claims:
1) that CO2 is the main green house gas that has been the principle cause of the warming instead of water vapor which is the biggest amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and
2) that human activity is the principle cause of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

So far everything I have seen is either anecdotal or merely showing a correspondence which in and of itself does not prove cause.

 

[Si modo]

Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.The Absorption Spectra of Gases

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

Of course, science as done by scientists, rather than flapyapping internet posiers is something alien to Sis

When you don't understand what I am talking about, why post something that confirms that?

More directly, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying.

 

[Si modo]

Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.The Absorption Spectra of Gases

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

Of course, science as done by scientists, rather than flapyapping internet posiers is something alien to Sis

Si Modo has been pointing out that making a computer model that shows results confirming a hypothesis is not in and of itself proof of anything, due to the GIGO principle.

What models are good for is showing progressions of very complex algorithms very quickly and doing it in a very illustrative way using graphics, but that is it. They do not prove anything.

Anyone that says they do is simply not a well trained scientist or just not thinking clearly as a scientist when they say such nonsense.

As to your response 'How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?' that page only shows that green house gasses do what they have long been known to do and no one disputes that.

What skeptics are disputing is that there is insufficient evidence supporting two claims:
1) that CO2 is the main green house gas that has been the principle cause of the warming instead of water vapor which is the biggest amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and
2) that human activity is the principle cause of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

So far everything I have seen is either anecdotal or merely showing a correspondence which in and of itself does not prove cause.

More specifically, I am saying a model is not scientific if there exists no data set, real or hypothetical, where the model is false/wrong/doesn't work/whatever. By definition.

Most of the models the IPCC discusses in their Third Assessment cannot be falsified/are always valid. There are no data sets where they don't work.

A great example of a non-falsifiable theory/hypothesis/model is the "God does everything/It's because of God" theory. There is no data set, real or hypothetical, that would falsify that theory. This is one of the reasons why ID will never be accepted in the sciences.

And, the GIGO, as you said.

 

[gslack]

I would go one further SI..

I contend the the entire "greenhouse theory" as prescribed by the popular so-called consensus is a gross misuse and misrepresentation of what actually happens in the atmosphere. From the misapplied equations for the energy budget, to the completely impossible breaking of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo-dynamics that are required for this concept to work as they claim, its in the very least dubious and I would call it borderline malice..

 

[Si modo]

I would go one further SI..

I contend the the entire "greenhouse theory" as prescribed by the popular so-called consensus is a gross misuse and misrepresentation of what actually happens in the atmosphere. From the misapplied equations for the energy budget, to the completely impossible breaking of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo-dynamics that are required for this concept to work as they claim, its in the very least dubious and I would call it borderline malice..

I agree, in part. Most climate scientists (whatever that is - more correctly, climate science is a multidisciplinary study) acknowledge that the 'greenhouse' effect is a seriously bad misnomer.

 

[gslack]

I would go one further SI..

I contend the the entire "greenhouse theory" as prescribed by the popular so-called consensus is a gross misuse and misrepresentation of what actually happens in the atmosphere. From the misapplied equations for the energy budget, to the completely impossible breaking of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo-dynamics that are required for this concept to work as they claim, its in the very least dubious and I would call it borderline malice..

I agree, in part. Most climate scientists (whatever that is - more correctly, climate science is a multidisciplinary study) acknowledge that the 'greenhouse' effect is a seriously bad misnomer.

Perfect example: My daughter went on her campus sleepover at College of Wooster last weekend. An among possible minors was "climate change"...WTH is that? I mean why not just call it "give us $2000 dollars"...

 

[SAT]

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure I have.

I'll get the links for you again.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

The idea that you, with your poor understanding of science, can dismiss the work of climatologists is really incredible. You bleat some phrase until you realize you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and then you bleat another phrase.

And BTW-

The predictive models have been validated repeatedly. At a certain point, a rational person has to deal with that.

 

[SAT]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The human fingerprint in global warming

In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming.

Charts are at the link.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals:

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.

 

[westwall]

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure I have.

I'll get the links for you again.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

The idea that you, with your poor understanding of science, can dismiss the work of climatologists is really incredible. You bleat some phrase until you realize you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and then you bleat another phrase.

And BTW-

The predictive models have been validated repeatedly. At a certain point, a rational person has to deal with that.

Si has a PhD in a natural science. She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

You are not even capable of understanding the basic concepts of science much less getting into the fundamental body of any particular field.

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

If you had a brain you would understand just how big a problem like that is. As you don't you continue with your ignorant diatribes.

As an aside, you should just start posting under your original username. We all know you're incompetent so it no longer matters.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Si has a PhD in a natural science. She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

And how many climatologists have you spoken with who didn't also have Ph.D's in "a natural science" ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.

Hey what is your Ph.D in? Poster above says "a natural science" - just wondering which one.

 

[SAT]

Si has a PhD in a natural science. She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

You are not even capable of understanding the basic concepts of science much less getting into the fundamental body of any particular field.

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

If you had a rain you would understand just how big a problem like that is. As you don't you continue with your ignorant diatribes.

As an aside, you should just start posting under your original username. We all know you're incompetent so it no longer matters.

Then I suggest that she sue the university that graduated her.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure I have.

I'll get the links for you again.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

The idea that you, with your poor understanding of science, can dismiss the work of climatologists is really incredible. You bleat some phrase until you realize you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and then you bleat another phrase.

And BTW-

The predictive models have been validated repeatedly. At a certain point, a rational person has to deal with that.

Si has a PhD in a natural science. She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

You are not even capable of understanding the basic concepts of science much less getting into the fundamental body of any particular field.

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

If you had a rain you would understand just how big a problem like that is. As you don't you continue with your ignorant diatribes.

As an aside, you should just start posting under your original username. We all know you're incompetent so it no longer matters.

Using observed distribution shifts among 116 British breeding-bird species over the past ∼20 years, we are able to provide a first independent validation of four envelope modelling techniques under climate change.

Validation of species–climate impact models under climate change - Ara[]jo - 2005 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library

 

[SAT]

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

1. Please provide the evidence for that claim.

2. My original user name is SAT. Your ideas about me are as crazy as your ideas about AGW.

 

[westwall]

Si has a PhD in a natural science. She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

And how many climatologists have you spoken with who didn't also have Ph.D's in "a natural science" ?

What is truly sad is it is more difficult to get a Bachelors in Geology then it is to get a PhD in Climatology. And yet, you clowns will bend over and spread your cheeks for them at the drop of a hat!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

1. Please provide the evidence for that claim.

2. My original user name is SAT. Your ideas about me are as crazy as your ideas about AGW.

I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.

 

[SAT]

I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.

This is the part I'm asking him to back up:

Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

He appears to be referring to a specific attack on climate change models. It sounds as if someone has put in random numbers and still shown a prediction of warming, in order to show that the models are flawed. I'd like him to back that up, or explain what he's getting at.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The human fingerprint in global warming

In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming.

Charts are at the link.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals:

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Most? Likely?