Media Science

So what?

It shows a lack of an intellectual argument on your side.

Why do you need to attempt to shame people into your point of view?This issue appears to be far from conclusive. If you disagree please articulate a clear hypothesis that can be tested.

No, it’s atypical alarmism on display. 450 arrests so far.

But hey, if it’s as typical as you say, then you can’t judge the cause by the activists.

LOL! Thanks for my early morning chuckle Bill. You’ve dodged every last bit of science shown to you in the last several years on numerous topics like evolution and AGW yet still have the cheek to whine about a lack of intellectual argument. :smile:

1 Like

No it doesn’t. I have already explained in great detail my rationale for using the term “AGW denialism”. I don’t use the label without justification. I provide an intellectual argument.

I don’t want to shame them into my point of view. But I do want science deniers like these to stay out of the way of people who are living in the real world, and who are actually trying to do something about the predicament we all face.

You can read my previous posts in this thread. Try this one for a start. But I already know you’re not going to pay any attention, because you’re a science denialist. You can’t avoid science denialism, because you’re YEC.

1 Like

I have addressed the argument you made… that the graphs do not show future predictions are correct…
The RF values for carbon dioxide are the issue.

That’s the main point you were making. That graphs such as these show accurate predictions for 100 years ago and hence can be relied upon for prediction of the future, doesn’t hold.

The graphs make a good case that Co2 emissions have a role to play in global warming. We will know whether this is true once carbon emissions come down and it can be seen whether global warming trends change. That’s the only sure way to know.

Again I asked you to state a clear hypothesis. Instead you attempt to label me. Why do you think I am a YEC?

This is the point you are making… I will quote you as you seem to have forgotten. I don’t have a problem with what @T_aquaticus has been saying.

The argument I made was that “The models are remarkably accurate for the last 140 years”. You have not even acknowledged that fact. As I said, on this basis we know that even though the models will be increasingly uncertain the further ahead we predict, we know they are very likely to be substantially accurate, especially over the next ten years. That is what I actually said. You have avoided all that.

The point I made was this.

Thus far the models have been remarkably accurate, so even though the further ahead we predict the greater the degree of uncertainty, what we know for certain is that AGW is real and it’s getting worse, and the models are very likely to be substantially accurate, especially in the next decade.

You have ignored that and tried to change the subject. You even tried to claim the graphs are only “fairly accurate for 15-20 years”.

Why? Where is your scientific evidence for this claim?

Finally you get at least part of the point.

No, we already know. That’s the whole point of the three graphs, and the explanation with the words in bold. How could you miss it?

Why not? Unless the laws of physics change, why would the same models not be applicable to the future?

This experiment has already been done. Carbon dioxide levels were lower in the past, and the models accurately predicted lower temps that matched observations.

1 Like

No, I gave you a clear hypothesis. It’s in the link I provided. Clearly you haven’t read it. The link provides an explanation of several hypotheses, as well as details of how they were tested, and predictions and how they were validated.

Because of the way you make the same kind of arguments. As a cdesignproponentist, you are bound to science denialism.

Do you think it is possible you might be wrong about your assessment here?

1 Like

Is this research wrong?

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
Stips et al
Nature Scientific Reports,vol 6, no.: 21691, Feb 2016

Abstract: We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing, and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.

Given all the empirical support you’ve provided for the idea, the term “not a snowball’s chance in hell” comes to mind. :slightly_smiling_face:

The models are accurate about available data. There is room to fine tune the values by adjusting the RF values.
Your response was to my comment that the predictions seem ok for 10-15 years… so whats the argument there? The main point is that uncertainties kick in as we go further into the future.

I have shown you an example, where even a prediction a few years into the future went wrong because of over estimations and under estimations in the RF values.
I have also read some papers stating that the error on these years were due to lower temperatures in the Pacific region because of increased Pacific wind.

Do you know the uncertainties involved in the model?
Do you know predictions above been wrong for the period of 1988 to 2012 even as per the IPCC?
Just read AR5 chapter 9, it lists the issues involved.

What is the estimate level of carbon over the next 20 years?

How much is the US contributing to that level?

How much is the temperature going to change in the next 20 years given that level of carbon? What is the error factor in that prediction?

Does it make predictions for temperature change by 2100?
That’s what I was talking about.

Now you’ve confused me. I pointed to an ongoing criminal activist action in London, which you attributed to typical climate denialists. I pointed out that the activists are actually on the other side, and you don’t miss a stride whilst changing the argument.

As far as I know, there hasn’t neen a mass act of civil disobedience from homeopaths and chiropractors recently, but maybe it’s different in your part of the world.

No you weren’t. You claimed the only way to tell if CO2 was affecting temperature was to lower CO2 and see if the temperature trend changed. The paper shows you are wrong.

Yes. The uncertainties are the width of the bar in the model. As you can see from the graph above, nearly all observations stay within those bars.

Again, if these models work for past climates, why wouldn’t they work for future climates?