Severe weather alert!!!!

so there is no ability to claim a trend that is nothing more than noise on the earths time scale.

what past ? do you have significant data of the past to determine this, on a time frame adequate to establish a long term trend relative to the earths time scale ?
establishing a trend from even 100 years of data is like trying to establish a trend on the S&P using 5 minute moving averages for a couple of hours and extrapolating to 10 years

 

Correct. But, AGW isn't trying to make predictions over the Earth's entire existence. It's trying to make predictions from about WWII and onward.

Over the time period in which the anthroprogenic effect is said to have become dominant we have very reliable data. This data confirms that modern scientific understanding which incorporates natural AND anthroprogenic processes adequately explains and predicts various properties of the climate. In fact, the smoking gun signal for greenhouse gas warming is the simultaneously warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. No other process can explain or predict that behavior. And any theory that intentionally ignores the anthroprogenic component fails badly at explain and predicting the observations. The failure is bad, in fact, that those who intentionally ignore the anthroprogenic component can't even get the direction of the global mean surface temperature change correct. This is a fact backed up by an abundance of evidence from countless independent groups using wildly different techniques and subset of available data and spanning many disciplines of science.

 

Without knowing the older data, you don't know if you're looking at a trend or simply noise

 

And just as science eventually broke lockstep and decided the "nutjob" that said a huge flood created the scablands they will eventually wake up and figure out they have been scammed by false data and group think into believing AGW is a sound hypothesis.

 

Exactly as they always have

 

The hypothesis of AGW says the warmer waters of the gulf would create more intense and frequent hurricanes and that just hasn't happened. Your attempt at obfuscation is a fail.

 

You can if and suppose all you want but that proves nothing except that you want to believe in AGW

 

"When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"

 

You don't see a trend here?

 

I think you missed the point. While there are strokes of brilliance from individuals their ideas almost always start out with a dearth of evidence on the topic in general. As more evidence piles on that individual is either is vindicated or shunned depending on which way the evidence points. We are at a point now where there is so much evidence supporting Wegener's continental drift theory that it is extremely unlikely that another lone stroke of brilliance will undermine it. It's the same with Arrhenius' anthroprogenic theory. There's so much evidence from so many people using wildly different techniques spanning many scientific disciplines that it is extremely unlikely that another lone stroke of brilliance will undermine it. I think your statement summarizes your position quite well. You know deep down that the evidence is so vast that it's basically an impossibility at this point to refute all of it so revert to the easy tactic of just calling it all fake.

 

How do you know?

I mean I look at post #80 and see that you called into question the data by saying "they will eventually wake up and figure out they have been scammed by false data".

So which is it? Do you believe the data or not? If you don't then you can't be making statements like the above.

 

I think you missed the point. Group think is sometimes wrong and using it as evidence to support a hypothesis is a fail

 

No, it doesn't. This is a strawman argument. I have no doubt that the theory of climate change as proposed by Josephwalker makes that claim but the theory anthroprogenic warming as proposed by the scientific consensus does not make that claim.

What AGW says is that by the year 2100 hurricanes will be less frequent, but when they do occur they will be more intense on average.

 

How is accepting the fact that earth has always had severe weather accepting AGW pushers data?

 

Ahh so the time frame gets pushed out farther as the predictions fail.SOP for AGW.

 

You don't see the major uptick between 2010 and 2015?

How do you know your not on an uptick of a down trend on a longer timeline.
I await your very specific answer

 

I think you're mixing up group think and abundance of evidence. They are not the same thing.

The idea of a luminiferous ether was group think because scientists were desperate to formulate a theory of light propagation with little or any evidence to go on either way.

The idea of anthroprogenic warming is different because it is born out of an abundance of evidence.

The luminiferous either was rejected rather quickly once the evidence started piling up. We've had 120 years of evidence piling up for AGW and for each new piece of evidence that is added to the pile the more likely it seems that AGW is the best path to the truth. It is the exact opposite of group think specifically because it is backed up by the abundance of evidence.

 

There is no evidence for AGW, only conjecture and correlation which has led to group think.

 

That's been the leading of the scientific community for 20 years now so I don't know what you think has changed.

And by the way lets talk about changing predictions shall we. If you formulate a hypothesis or a prediction and it doesn't pan out should stick with it or change it based on what you learned?

Those who are ideological and politically minded are reminded to never change a statement because you'll be seen as flip-flopper. However, in the world of engineering and science if at first you don't succeed then for God's sake don't be stupid enough to make the same mistake again. Yet, this is exactly the trap deniers are falling into right now. Easterbrook, Soon, Baliunas, D'Aleo, Heller, Watts, etc. have been predicting global cooling as much as 3 decades and now and no matter how much the Earth continues to warm and how frequently their hypothesis are falsified they continue to march with the same drum beat and they keep being wrong. So you tell me. Is it better to be wrong all of the time or is it better to be wrong once and learn from your mistakes?

 

Just because I don't accept the predictions of warmers doesn't mean I accept the predictions of coolers

 

Of course I see it. I also see the longterm secular downward trend.

Because multiple lines of evidence converge on the same answer. That is the Arctic and Antarctic regions (but especially the Arctic) are seeing warming rates that are 2.5x higher than the global average so only makes sense to expect sea ice volumes would decline as well. And that's exactly what we observe. There's certainly short term noise evident in the data that is due to the chaotic nature of the heat flux processes in which heat moves from one medium to another, but the long term trend is undeniable.

 

You don't get to pick and choose which predictions you accept based on your personal views. Either the prediction is right or it's wrong. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it.

It just so happens that theories which specifically ignore certain physical process make predictions that are definitively wrong.

And theories which incorporate all physical process (both natural and anthrprogenic) make predictions that are in reasonable agreement with the observations.

 

You are burying your head in the sand because the evidence is everywhere. It is from multiple sources spanning many disciplines of science. It is massive.

And it's not just conjecture. Multiatomic molecules like CO2, H2O, CH4, etc. really do have their molecular vibrational modes activated by photons of specific frequencies. That's not a correlation. That is physical process that is real and observable. It has been proven time and time again by 150 years of laboratory experiments explained quite well by quantum electrodynamics theory. CO2 absolutely produces a positive radiative force on the troposphere and a negative radiative force on the stratosphere. In fact, that is the only physical process that can explain the warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere simultaneously cools. And guess what...that is exactly what we observe today.

 

My question was how do you know that Earth has always had severe weather if you call into question any of the data you could cite to prove your point?

 

Very good. You're catching on

Now go get the longterm data and see what you're actually dealing with.
Until then, you dont know