Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[Crick]

The POINT is, if you cannot place thermometers in Siberia, the Antarctic, Congo or Australian Outback, there's no possible WAY to "average global temperatures" in 1850 so trying to compare TODAY'S temperature with 1850's is an exercise in futility.

If you do not have thermometers in a given location, look at the nearest surrounding thermometers you DO have. Do some interpolation weighted with weather patterns and historical trends. You can come up with a pretty good estimate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you do not have thermometers in a given location, look at the nearest surrounding thermometers you DO have. Do some interpolation weighted with weather patterns and historical trends. You can come up with a pretty good estimate.

And then you can adjust those interpolations, decades later.

 

[Crick]

And then you can adjust those interpolations, decades later.

You can make it all up right from the get go. No one is checking, right? You've got the only copy of that data, right? No one else has seen it in all those decades, right? No one has used for a thesis or a published study, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can make it all up right from the get go. No one is checking, right? You've got the only copy of that data, right? No one else has seen it in all those decades, right? No one has used for a thesis or a published study, right?

You can make it all up right from the get go

When the data was originally collected and/or interpolated, we didn't have liars
like Michael Mann trying to push a false narrative.

 

[Crick]

You can make it all up right from the get go

When the data was originally collected and/or interpolated, we didn't have liars
like Michael Mann trying to push a false narrative.

Michael Mann has never pushed a false narrative. Michael Mann is not a liar. If you can't accept that Todd, it's your problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Michael Mann has never pushed a false narrative. Michael Mann is not a liar. If you can't accept that Todd, it's your problem.

He said he won the Nobel Prize, did he?

 

[Crick]

He said he won the Nobel Prize, did he?

Your problem Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your problem Todd.

He's a liar.

 

[Crick]

He's a liar.

And his error about the Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC for whom he was a principal author, how did that affect you personally, Todd? Is THAT why your reject mainstream science? Is that why you believe in that massive, perfect conspiracy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And his error about the Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC for whom he was a principal author, how did that affect you personally, Todd? Is THAT why your reject mainstream science? Is that why you believe in that massive, perfect conspiracy?

Error? Honest mistake? Did he forget that he didn't win?

Is that why you believe in that massive, perfect conspiracy?

Why do Mann's efforts to stop skeptics from publishing have to be a massive conspiracy?
What about his refusal to show his data and methods, does that have to be a massive conspiracy?
Canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants has to be a massive conspiracy?

 

[Crick]

Error? Honest mistake? Did he forget that he didn't win?

He knew precisely who had won.

Is that why you believe in that massive, perfect conspiracy?

I don't see an answer to this question.

Why do Mann's efforts to stop skeptics from publishing have to be a massive conspiracy?

It doesn't and I never said it did.

What about his refusal to show his data and methods, does that have to be a massive conspiracy?

It doesn't and I never said it did. But what data and methods would that be Todd? When asked to ID this before you jumped on the Nobel issue.

Canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants has to be a massive conspiracy?

It doesn't and I never said it did. And what skeptics has he "canceled"? Who has he gotten fired? What grant has he denied?

You're making an awful lot of accusations here Todd with awfully little in the way of specifics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He knew precisely who had won.

I don't see an answer to this question.

It doesn't and I never said it did.

It doesn't and I never said it did. But what data and methods would that be Todd? When asked to ID this before you jumped on the Nobel issue.

It doesn't and I never said it did. And what skeptics has he "canceled"? Who has he gotten fired? What grant has he denied?

You're making an awful lot of accusations here Todd with awfully little in the way of specifics.

He knew precisely who had won.

And then he lied about it.

I don't see an answer to this question.

You're ignoring the small conspiracy of Mann and his buddies.
And the larger conspiracy of silencing critics.

But what data and methods would that be Todd?

Those he used to create his bs hockey stick.

And what skeptics has he "canceled"?

No one said he did.

You're making an awful lot of accusations here Todd with awfully little in the way of specifics.

Keep ignoring my specifics, it makes it easier to claim I posted none.

 

[Crick]

He knew precisely who had won.

And then he lied about it.

I would have thought that he and all the other authors were all awardees. It's not like we all have a lot of experience with Nobel Prizes.

I don't see an answer to this question.

You're ignoring the small conspiracy of Mann and his buddies.
And the larger conspiracy of silencing critics.

Perhaps because you've mentioned no such thing. And if you are, as with everything else, I'd like to see some actual evidence.

But what data and methods would that be Todd?

Those he used to create his bs hockey stick.

How about all the other people that have made hockey stick graphs?

This is NOT a Hockey Stick

In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick – cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself...

www.desmog.com

A Review of Michael Mann's Exoneration

In the endless – and senseless – assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia. Most convincingly, its results...

www.desmog.com

The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its
uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013
reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013.

Hockey stick graph (global temperature) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And what skeptics has he "canceled"?

No one said he did.

Really?

Toddsterpatriot said:

Why do Mann's efforts to stop skeptics from publishing have to be a massive conspiracy?​

What about his refusal to show his data and methods, does that have to be a massive conspiracy?​

Canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants has to be a massive conspiracy?​

---

This certainly SEEMS to be you saying that Mann was "canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants". If that's NOT what you meant, you did a bang-up job of giving precisely that impression.

You're making an awful lot of accusations here Todd with awfully little in the way of specifics.

Keep ignoring my specifics, it makes it easier to claim I posted none.

I feel free to say you posted none because I see none. I've been trying to find out from you folks what data he witheld, what lies he told, when he lost that court case and, just today, when he was charged with contempt. Except for the Nobel issue, you've given me nothing. I had rather been expecting something to do with his work, with his data, his process, you know, something that might actually matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would have thought that he and all the other authors were all awardees. It's not like we all have a lot of experience with Nobel Prizes.

Perhaps because you've mentioned no such thing. And if you are, as with everything else, I'd like to see some actual evidence.

How about all the other people that have made hockey stick graphs?

This is NOT a Hockey Stick

In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick – cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself...

www.desmog.com

A Review of Michael Mann's Exoneration

In the endless – and senseless – assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia. Most convincingly, its results...

www.desmog.com

The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its
uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013
reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013.

Hockey stick graph (global temperature) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Really?

Toddsterpatriot said:

Why do Mann's efforts to stop skeptics from publishing have to be a massive conspiracy?​

What about his refusal to show his data and methods, does that have to be a massive conspiracy?​

Canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants has to be a massive conspiracy?​

---

This certainly SEEMS to be you saying that Mann was "canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants". If that's NOT what you meant, you did a bang-up job of giving precisely that impression.


I feel free to say you posted none because I see none. I've been trying to find out from you folks what data he witheld, what lies he told, when he lost that court case and, just today, when he was charged with contempt. Except for the Nobel issue, you've given me nothing. I had rather been expecting something to do with his work, with his data, his process, you know, something that might actually matter.

I would have thought that he and all the other authors were all awardees. It's not like we all have a lot of experience with Nobel Prizes.

You'd be wrong.

How about all the other people that have made hockey stick graphs?

Did they also hide their data and methods?

This certainly SEEMS to be you saying that Mann was "canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants". If that's NOT what you meant, you did a bang-up job of giving precisely that impression.

You keep talking about the 100% participation needed in the green idiocy conspiracy.
Climate gate showed how Mann and a couple others were stopping skeptics from getting
published.

Colleges and other employers canceling skeptics doesn't require 100% complicity.

Sorry if showing that dozens or hundreds can silence skeptics was confusing for you.
The mob mentality does the rest. Shuts everyone up or even gets them to join in the attacks.

I feel free to say you posted none because I see none.

The Jordan Peterson video I posted a while back gave first hand testimony.

I've been trying to find out from you folks what data he witheld, what lies he told, when he lost that court case

Drag a court case out for a decade, and then get it dismissed because you fight discovery
by withholding your data. He's such an asshole, the judge ordered him to pay Ball's legal fees.
Which, as far as I've seen, he still hasn't done. What a piece of shit, eh?

Except for the Nobel issue, you've given me nothing.

He's a miserable human being....still getting away with molesting the data.

I had rather been expecting something to do with his work, with his data, his process, you know, something that might actually matter.

Maybe the truth will come out before he dies, disgraced and alone.

 

[Crick]

I would have thought that he and all the other authors were all awardees. It's not like we all have a lot of experience with Nobel Prizes.

You'd be wrong.

Really? That doesn't change what I would have thought.

How about all the other people that have made hockey stick graphs?

Did they also hide their data and methods?

For the fourth time, what data and methods did Mann hide? Your missing what actually happened here - or maybe you just don't want to admit it. Mann shared his data and methods with lots of other climate scientists. Stephen McIntyre isn't a climate scientist, had no need for the data or the methods, couldn't even understand what MBH was actually doing. He just wanted to shoot down the man of the hour. Numerous people that have dealt with McIntyre have described him in less than flattering terms. Being transparent with your data and methods doesn't mean you have to jump through hoops for ANYONE that asks you to. McIntyre didn't need it, he was a demanding asshole about and Mann opted not to wait on him hand and foot. Big fucking whoop.

This certainly SEEMS to be you saying that Mann was "canceling skeptics, getting them fired and denying them grants". If that's NOT what you meant, you did a bang-up job of giving precisely that impression.

You haven't answered this point Todd. That did seem clearly as if you were saying Mann did those things. Try admitting it.

You keep talking about the 100% participation needed in the green idiocy conspiracy.
Climate gate showed how Mann and a couple others were stopping skeptics from getting
published.

No it didn't. It might have shown that they would have liked to prevent some individuals from getting published, but that's a lo-o-o-o-ng ways from blocking EVERY PERSON the disagrees from communicating anything anywhere. There is no evidence in the Climategate emails that they succeeded in preventing ANYONE from getting published.

Colleges and other employers canceling skeptics doesn't require 100% complicity.

Then why do you have such a hard time finding peer reviewed material that supports your position?

Sorry if showing that dozens or hundreds can silence skeptics was confusing for you.

You've shown no such thing Todd.

The mob mentality does the rest. Shuts everyone up or even gets them to join in the attacks.

Sure it does. With perfect compliance.

I feel free to say you posted none because I see none.

The Jordan Peterson video I posted a while back gave first hand testimony.

I must not have watched it because the name means nothing to me. I can try to look it up. He has several if I've got the right guy. Is this him? " Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian psychologist, author, and media commentator. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative. Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal and a traditionalist." -- Wikipedia

What do you mean by "first hand testimony"?

I've been trying to find out from you folks what data he witheld, what lies he told, when he lost that court case

Drag a court case out for a decade, and then get it dismissed because you fight discovery
by withholding your data. He's such an asshole, the judge ordered him to pay Ball's legal fees.
Which, as far as I've seen, he still hasn't done. What a piece of shit, eh?

No. I think he's an innocent man that the right has decided to persecute because the science he did embarrassed some idiots that thought they could get away with another Big Lie. I think the fact that a lot of people on the right seems to be okay persecuting people they KNOW are innocent tells me some unpleasant things about folks.

Except for the Nobel issue, you've given me nothing.

He's a miserable human being....still getting away with molesting the data.

What you're convincing me of here Todd is that I really misjudged you.

I had rather been expecting something to do with his work, with his data, his process, you know, something that might actually matter.

Maybe the truth will come out before he dies, disgraced and alone.

What you're convincing me of here Todd is that I really misjudged you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? That doesn't change what I would have thought.

For the fourth time, what data and methods did Mann hide? Your missing what actually happened here - or maybe you just don't want to admit it. Mann shared his data and methods with lots of other climate scientists. Stephen McIntyre isn't a climate scientist, had no need for the data or the methods, couldn't even understand what MBH was actually doing. He just wanted to shoot down the man of the hour. Numerous people that have dealt with McIntyre have described him in less than flattering terms. Being transparent with your data and methods doesn't mean you have to jump through hoops for ANYONE that asks you to. McIntyre didn't need it, he was a demanding asshole about and Mann opted not to wait on him hand and foot. Big fucking whoop.

You haven't answered this point Todd. That did seem clearly as if you were saying Mann did those things. Try admitting it.

No it didn't. It might have shown that they would have liked to prevent some individuals from getting published, but that's a lo-o-o-o-ng ways from blocking EVERY PERSON the disagrees from communicating anything anywhere. There is no evidence in the Climategate emails that they succeeded in preventing ANYONE from getting published.

Then why do you have such a hard time finding peer reviewed material that supports your position?

You've shown no such thing Todd.

Sure it does. With perfect compliance.

I must not have watched it because the name means nothing to me. I can try to look it up. He has several if I've got the right guy. Is this him? " Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian psychologist, author, and media commentator. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative. Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal and a traditionalist." -- Wikipedia

What do you mean by "first hand testimony"?

No. I think he's an innocent man that the right has decided to persecute because the science he did embarrassed some idiots that thought they could get away with another Big Lie. I think the fact that a lot of people on the right seems to be okay persecuting people they KNOW are innocent tells me some unpleasant things about folks.

What you're convincing me of here Todd is that I really misjudged you.


What you're convincing me of here Todd is that I really misjudged you.

For the fourth time, what data and methods did Mann hide?

The ones he didn't turn over in discovery. POS.

It might have shown that they would have liked to prevent some individuals from getting published,

That's the first thing an honest scientist does when the data backs his claims,
he prevents skeptics from publishing.

I think he's an innocent man

That's the first thing an innocent man does when the data backs his claims,
he refuses to release his data in court.

What you're convincing me of here Todd is that I really misjudged you.

You should whine some more....about that honest, innocent Michael Mann a-hole.

 

[Crick]

G'nite

 

[Pappadave1]

If you do not have thermometers in a given location, look at the nearest surrounding thermometers you DO have. Do some interpolation weighted with weather patterns and historical trends. You can come up with a pretty good estimate.

Which was my point. All those guesses are just that...guesses (Otherwise known as "estimates.")

 

[Crick]

Which was my point. All those guesses are just that...guesses (Otherwise known as "estimates.")

No, they are not guesses if by guesses you mean random numbers selected wtihout cause. Temperature estimates are based on data and physical laws.

 

[Samofvt]

Hello, nice to meet you

Chart's don't show cause-and-effect relationship. I put up that chart in response to poster PappaDave1 claiming that AGW theory was not supported by any facts.

CO2 has two relationships with temperature. Gas solubility of all liquids is inversely proportional to temperature, so, as you say, when the ocean's temperature rises, less gas can go into solution there. Another point, however, is that the amount in solution is proportional to that component's partial pressure, opposing the first tendency. The second relationship, of course, is the greenhouse effect. When you increase CO2 or any of the Greenhouse gases into the air, temperatures will rise when it starts trapping IR coming off the surface of the planet.

Right away, I have to call bull shit. Your statement is not a fact: CO2 also has been proven to reflect energy back into space. It would take less than a 2% error in the mathematical model used in some of the theoretical calculations to reverse the scenario.

There has also been little observed change in tropical average temperatures. The majority of temperature change has been observed in northern, temperate, regions. This indicates that the theory that a larger, more robust, more NORMAL atmosphere (as opposed to the sickly, glacial period atmosphere) with higher CO2 will act as a blanket, fostering better growth in northern latitudes as well as tropical regions (tropics may actually be moderated due to the insulation effects).

In other words, we are getting ready to see Northern Africa become a vibrant powerhouse of vibrant life. This may take hundreds of years, but you have to stop thinking in terms of your own minuscule life expectancy in order to see the full picture.

Question for thought: Why was Egypt such a huge global power 3000 to 4000 years ago? Was it because of dry sand? Could it be that there was something else going on, and the mini-ice age we recently experienced put an end to it? Could it be that as the atmosphere heads back toward a more normal (geologically speaking) composition that we will see changes in weather patterns?

That is not well known. The Earth's climate has changed rapidly on a few rare instance under rather special conditions. For the vast bulk of the Earth's history, climate has changed at a "glacial" pace.

It shows what I intended it to show. I have posted many graph in this forum at every timescale available. I have explained why I posted that particular graph. Sorry you didn't notice.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. We were already OUT of a glacial period and were slowly descending into the next before AGW overwhelmed normal glacial cooling. Examine these graphs:

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

RealClimate: Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years – that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013). The results are striking and worthy of further discussion, after the...

www.realclimate.org

On this one, note the behavior of all the previous interglacial peaks and then the temperatures just prior to the present time. We had already passed the peak (the Holocene Optimum) and were headed down.

These charts do not help your case about any reason to fear CO2, my friend. Map the timeline to known archaeological discoveries as far as plant and animal fossils.

Climate Change Resource Center | US Forest Service Research and Development

The Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC) connects land managers and decision makers with useable science to address climate change in natural resources planning and management.

www.fs.usda.gov

The warmng experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is most assuredly NOT part of our glacial cycle.


If you want to see glacial cycles, the best plots are the EPICA ice cores

That is incorrect.

Let me know if you can find someone sufficiently ignorant as to not realize that point.

Ohh... never mind that last...

Again, these charts do not show a cause-and-effect pattern, although they do show a correlation.

I will say it again: Mankinds use of fossil fuel is part of God's plan, and we have rejuvenated the possibility that life on Mother Earth will flourish again as it has in the past.

There is no reason to fear CO2. There IS reason to celebrate at the prospect of having an abundance of carbon available for life to flourish.

Thanks!