The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[westwall]

If you don't know the difference between the Word of God, and the findings of science, you are in a class by yourself.

Who told you that climatology was so simple that you are capable of understanding it? Did they charge you for that advice? Did you pay them either in money or rapt attention that they can sell to advertisers?

Ohhhh, but I DO know the difference. It is you clowns who don't. You have turned a science that was once called climatology into a cult based belief system. In other words it has been morphed into a religion.

Need help with that?

It requires you to believe that only the climatologists can understand the "science"- High Priests.

It requires you to suspend all thought and to blindly accept what those same climatologists tell you to believe-Scripture.

It demands that unbelievers be persecuted and or killed for their heresy- Inquisition.

It makes the claim that man is being punished for his perfidy-The WORD OF GOD.

Yep, climatology is a full blown religion now. I don't see any science in there at all.

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

Really? Where is it? Show it to me. Science is based on the Scientific Method. Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

 

[itfitzme]

Ohhhh, but I DO know the difference. *It is you clowns who don't. *You have turned a science that was once called climatology into a cult based belief system. *In other words it has been morphed into a religion.

Need help with that? *

It requires you to believe that only the climatologists can understand the "science"- High Priests.

It requires you to suspend all thought and to blindly accept what those same climatologists tell you to believe-Scripture.

It demands that unbelievers be persecuted and or killed for their heresy- Inquisition.

It makes the claim that man is being punished for his perfidy-The WORD OF GOD.

Yep, climatology is a full blown religion now. *I don't see any science in there at all.

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.*

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

Every ice core ever done shows that CO2 follows temperature. You have it ass backwards right out of the gate.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

That CO2 also emits what it has absorbed is a fact. A CO2 molecule has no capacity to hold on to or trap IR. The emission spectra of a CO2 molecule is the opposite of its absorption spectrum indicating that it isn't holding on to anything. IR goes in..IR goes out. No warming.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

And it can't be demonstrated in the laboratory that additional CO2 results in warming any more than it can be demonstrated out in the real world. The only place additional CO2 actually results in warming is in computer models.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

There is no empirical demonstration.

It's really just that simple.

You are really just that simple. What you take as evidence is nothing more than evidence of the fact that you don't have even a tenuous grasp of the science. Describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming without contradicting a law of physics.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

Coming out of the little ice age, one would expect as much. Of course the temperature has not yet reached the temperatures before the little ice age so what is your point?

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Well....we know that the world was warmer than the present prior to dipping into the little ice age...and the world has regained some of the temperature that it lost during that period so we should expect that either it will continue to warm at least to the temperature it was before the beginning of the little ice age or maybe it will start getting cold again.

The point is that the warming is perfectly natural...it has happened before...and there is nothing going on in the climate today that even begins to test the boundries of natural variation.

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

Back to claiming cause and corelation are the same thing. They are not. Again, ice cores tell us that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Every other factor? Are you kidding? We don't even have a handle on the in/out energy budget of the planet and you are claiming that "every other factor" that can effect temperature during this time span has been accounted for.

I AM LAUGHING OUT LOUD IN YOUR FACE. THAT HAS TO BE THE SINGULAR MOST STUPID STATEMENT EVER ISSUED ON THIS BOARD....ALL TOPICS INCLUDED. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, AT THIS STAGE IN SCIENCE, OTHER THAN A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT, WOULD CLAIM THAT WE EVEN KNOW EVERY FACTOR THAT CAN EFFECT TEMPERATURE, MUCH LESS THAT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN FAILING CLIMATE MODELS? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

It is fiction and you have told a dandy story. To bad there isn't a shred of empirical, measured data to back it up.

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

We don't know what all of the relavent factors are. Making claims that we do is a sign of your faith, not of your knowledge. At this point, we don't even know what we don't know. If you believe that we have a firm enough grip on the climate to know what all of the relative factors are, then you are a fool.

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

So what? MD's spend a hell of a lot more time in school that climate scientists and they just found out that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress after mistreating how many millions of people?

Chemists have far more education that climate scientists and just recently the found out that quasicrystals do indeed exist after poo pooing the idea for decades.

Geologists are better educated than climate scientists and it hasn't been that long ago that they finally accepted the reality of plate tectonics.

Remember eugenics? It was all the rage and the consensus was that it would advance mankind at a pace never before imagined. You couldn'teven find anyone who would acknowledge that they were ever on the bandwagon after WWII.

And the list could go on and on listing off topics in which for a short while, the consensus was exactly wrong. In short, education is no assurance of being right.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

Since climate science has abandoned the scientific method, there is no science there to reinvent.


If the preceeding jibberish is what constitutes proof of AGW in your mind, then your mother has my deepest sympathy for having born an idiot.

 

[westwall]

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.*

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

Once again...Really? Newtonian physics is settled is it? Why the need for the Feynman Constant? General Relativity is settled is it? Show me the work. I have a PhD from Caltech. What you got Willis?

 

[SSDD]

So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.

My position is that CO2 does not cause warming and for all your talk, you still have not given even the smallest bit of empirical proof that CO2 causes warming, much less proof that mankinds small contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 has any effect at all.

I ask you how much of the fraction of one degree of temperature increase we have seen in the past 100 years that you believe is due to that 14 parts per million and you have no answer and then go on to claim that we know and have accounted for every factor that could effect the temperature on planet earth.

 

[Oddball]

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.

Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data

Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or;*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well.*Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right. CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

This is what you get. This is science. Like a heart surgeon can successfully stop a heart, open a chest, install a new valve, and have the patient walk away healthy, it is able to predict the future to a reasonable level of certainty. And that reasonable certainty guarantees that the climate will change.

Anyone can whine and complain about what doesn't make sense to them. *You didn't spend two decades learning two centuries of detailed, and precisely described, specialized, science. *You are not going to recreate 2000 years of science, reading Wikipedia. *You can't predict the changes. Some of you don't even know what photosynthesis is.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

At this point, some of you will be full of whiny complaints about each and every point. In your mind, it is all wrong. *It isn't. *You just don't get it. *You will never get it because you simply refuse to learn what has been figured out already. You will spend your life trying to reinnvent 2000 years of science, science that takes two decades to just grasp a specific specialty. *

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme

We've all seen those charts and graphs, Skeezix..Ooooooooollllld news.

When any one of them have been physically bench tested, accounting for all the possible terrestrial and extra-terrestrial variables, repeated and compared against a physical static control group, you come get us.

In the meantime, all you have is a multi-colored popcorn fart.

 

[PMZ]

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

Once again...Really? Newtonian physics is settled is it? Why the need for the Feynman Constant? General Relativity is settled is it? Show me the work. I have a PhD from Caltech. What you got Willis?

"I have a PhD from Caltech."

The most frightening thing that I've read in a decade.

 

[PMZ]

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.*

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.

 

[itfitzme]

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

Once again...Really? *Newtonian physics is settled is it? *Why the need for the Feynman Constant? *General Relativity is settled is it? *Show me the work. *I have a PhD from Caltech. What you got Willis?

Oh, give it up.

 

[PMZ]

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.

Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data

Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or;*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well.*Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right. CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

This is what you get. This is science. Like a heart surgeon can successfully stop a heart, open a chest, install a new valve, and have the patient walk away healthy, it is able to predict the future to a reasonable level of certainty. And that reasonable certainty guarantees that the climate will change.

Anyone can whine and complain about what doesn't make sense to them. *You didn't spend two decades learning two centuries of detailed, and precisely described, specialized, science. *You are not going to recreate 2000 years of science, reading Wikipedia. *You can't predict the changes. Some of you don't even know what photosynthesis is.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

At this point, some of you will be full of whiny complaints about each and every point. In your mind, it is all wrong. *It isn't. *You just don't get it. *You will never get it because you simply refuse to learn what has been figured out already. You will spend your life trying to reinnvent 2000 years of science, science that takes two decades to just grasp a specific specialty. *

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme

We've all seen those charts and graphs, Skeezix..Ooooooooollllld news.

When any one of them have been physically bench tested, accounting for all the possible terrestrial and extra-terrestrial variables, repeated and compared against a physical static control group, you come get us.

In the meantime, all you have is a multi-colored popcorn fart.

"you come get us."

We decided to leave you behind a long time ago and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.

 

[PMZ]

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

Once again...Really? *Newtonian physics is settled is it? *Why the need for the Feynman Constant? *General Relativity is settled is it? *Show me the work. *I have a PhD from Caltech. What you got Willis?

Oh, give it up.

I'm pretty sure that giving it up would require more intelligence and education than they can muster.

 

[PMZ]

So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.

My position is that CO2 does not cause warming and for all your talk, you still have not given even the smallest bit of empirical proof that CO2 causes warming, much less proof that mankinds small contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 has any effect at all.

I ask you how much of the fraction of one degree of temperature increase we have seen in the past 100 years that you believe is due to that 14 parts per million and you have no answer and then go on to claim that we know and have accounted for every factor that could effect the temperature on planet earth.

You are completely free to maintain your position. Forever. However, with no more credibility than you've demonstrated so far, the rest of us have wisely decided to move on without you. You stay here. We'll send someone back to get you some day. We promise.

 

[PMZ]

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

Every ice core ever done shows that CO2 follows temperature. You have it ass backwards right out of the gate.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

That CO2 also emits what it has absorbed is a fact. A CO2 molecule has no capacity to hold on to or trap IR. The emission spectra of a CO2 molecule is the opposite of its absorption spectrum indicating that it isn't holding on to anything. IR goes in..IR goes out. No warming.



And it can't be demonstrated in the laboratory that additional CO2 results in warming any more than it can be demonstrated out in the real world. The only place additional CO2 actually results in warming is in computer models.



There is no empirical demonstration.



You are really just that simple. What you take as evidence is nothing more than evidence of the fact that you don't have even a tenuous grasp of the science. Describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 causes warming without contradicting a law of physics.



Coming out of the little ice age, one would expect as much. Of course the temperature has not yet reached the temperatures before the little ice age so what is your point?



Well....we know that the world was warmer than the present prior to dipping into the little ice age...and the world has regained some of the temperature that it lost during that period so we should expect that either it will continue to warm at least to the temperature it was before the beginning of the little ice age or maybe it will start getting cold again.

The point is that the warming is perfectly natural...it has happened before...and there is nothing going on in the climate today that even begins to test the boundries of natural variation.



Back to claiming cause and corelation are the same thing. They are not. Again, ice cores tell us that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.




Every other factor? Are you kidding? We don't even have a handle on the in/out energy budget of the planet and you are claiming that "every other factor" that can effect temperature during this time span has been accounted for.

I AM LAUGHING OUT LOUD IN YOUR FACE. THAT HAS TO BE THE SINGULAR MOST STUPID STATEMENT EVER ISSUED ON THIS BOARD....ALL TOPICS INCLUDED. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, AT THIS STAGE IN SCIENCE, OTHER THAN A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT, WOULD CLAIM THAT WE EVEN KNOW EVERY FACTOR THAT CAN EFFECT TEMPERATURE, MUCH LESS THAT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN FAILING CLIMATE MODELS? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.




It is fiction and you have told a dandy story. To bad there isn't a shred of empirical, measured data to back it up.



We don't know what all of the relavent factors are. Making claims that we do is a sign of your faith, not of your knowledge. At this point, we don't even know what we don't know. If you believe that we have a firm enough grip on the climate to know what all of the relative factors are, then you are a fool.

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

So what? MD's spend a hell of a lot more time in school that climate scientists and they just found out that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress after mistreating how many millions of people?

Chemists have far more education that climate scientists and just recently the found out that quasicrystals do indeed exist after poo pooing the idea for decades.

Geologists are better educated than climate scientists and it hasn't been that long ago that they finally accepted the reality of plate tectonics.

Remember eugenics? It was all the rage and the consensus was that it would advance mankind at a pace never before imagined. You couldn'teven find anyone who would acknowledge that they were ever on the bandwagon after WWII.

And the list could go on and on listing off topics in which for a short while, the consensus was exactly wrong. In short, education is no assurance of being right.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

Since climate science has abandoned the scientific method, there is no science there to reinvent.


If the preceeding jibberish is what constitutes proof of AGW in your mind, then your mother has my deepest sympathy for having born an idiot.

There's just no question that science is so unreliable we should abandon it here and move to voodoo.

 

[PMZ]

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.*

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

They're all pissed off because not a single scientist asked Rush Limbaugh for his opinion. Not a single one.

 

[Oddball]

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.

Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data

Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or;*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well.*Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right. CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

This is what you get. This is science. Like a heart surgeon can successfully stop a heart, open a chest, install a new valve, and have the patient walk away healthy, it is able to predict the future to a reasonable level of certainty. And that reasonable certainty guarantees that the climate will change.

Anyone can whine and complain about what doesn't make sense to them. *You didn't spend two decades learning two centuries of detailed, and precisely described, specialized, science. *You are not going to recreate 2000 years of science, reading Wikipedia. *You can't predict the changes. Some of you don't even know what photosynthesis is.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

At this point, some of you will be full of whiny complaints about each and every point. In your mind, it is all wrong. *It isn't. *You just don't get it. *You will never get it because you simply refuse to learn what has been figured out already. You will spend your life trying to reinnvent 2000 years of science, science that takes two decades to just grasp a specific specialty. *

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme

We've all seen those charts and graphs, Skeezix..Ooooooooollllld news.

When any one of them have been physically bench tested, accounting for all the possible terrestrial and extra-terrestrial variables, repeated and compared against a physical static control group, you come get us.

In the meantime, all you have is a multi-colored popcorn fart.

"you come get us."

We decided to leave you behind a long time ago...

"We"?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?

...and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.

That's not how science works, buttpipe.

You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.

The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.

 

[itfitzme]

We've all seen those charts and graphs, Skeezix..Ooooooooollllld news.

When any one of them have been physically bench tested, accounting for all the possible terrestrial and extra-terrestrial variables, repeated *and compared against a physical static control group, you come get us.

In the meantime, all you have is a multi-colored popcorn fart.

"you come get us."

We decided to leave you behind a long time ago...

"We"?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?

...and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.

That's not how science works, buttpipe.

You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.

The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.

Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.

If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey ItFitzMe:

I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix..

What do ya think of this one???

I like that limp part at the end better than yours....

 

[Oddball]

"you come get us."

We decided to leave you behind a long time ago...

"We"?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?

...and you have demonstrated zero evidence that that was not a good and necessary decision.

That's not how science works, buttpipe.

You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.

The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.

Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.

If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.

There's nothing to give up.

You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.

You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.

 

[itfitzme]

Hey ItFitzMe:

I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix..

What do ya think of this one???

I like that limp part at the end better than yours....

Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit. That'll be interesting.

 

[itfitzme]

"We"?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?




That's not how science works, buttpipe.

You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.

The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.

Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.

If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.

There's nothing to give up.

You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.

You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.

Bla bla bla bla bla.