Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

We don't know. But unlike AGW screamers, I don't claim to know what I don't know.

 

But we do know. You're just angry and in denial about that, because it's in opposition to your wild-eyed political cult's beliefs.

Science is "what's the best theory that explains all the observed evidence?", as opposed to your "we know nothing unless we know everything!" nonsense. AGW theory is currently the best theory that explains all the observed evidence, so it's the accepted science. If you want to change that, you need to provide a different theory that explains all the observed evidence even better. Whining "But we don't know everything!" is just whining, and not a refutation of any science.

 

No we don't.

LOL! No. I'm not the one making wild-eyed, apocalyptic prophecies, son; you and the CO2 AGW crowd are. Here's my wild-eyed prophecy: CO2 will continue to rise; temperature won't.

No it isn't. Science is, "What can we know because we can confirm it reliably?"

That's a fabrication on your part with no relation to what I have said.

No it isn't. It requires more and more tampering with the evidence just to keep it from being laughed out of town.

Not by people who actually look at evidence honestly, it isn't.

Already done: it's the sun, stupid.

<yawn> CO2 AGW theory has already been refuted. Only massive data tampering keeps it breathing. Calgary had a foot of global warming dumped on it yesterday, shattering snowfall records for the date, and nearly breaking the one-day snowfall record for the entire month of October. On the SECOND.

 

Yep. There it is. If you can't support your viewpoint with evidence so you just make unsubstantiated claims of data tampering against those that can.

So what happens in the unlikely event that you do present data and then we start making accusations that it's all fake? What do you do then?

 

Then you need to explain these things.

1. Why is the stratosphere cooling?

2. Why is the geosphere accumulating heat while the luminosity of the Sun is declining?

3. Why does CO2 which has been shown both experimentally and theorectically (via quantum electrodynamics) to produce a radiative forcing of ~3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of concentration not actually produce any warming?

4. Why would CO2 which has an RF of ~2.0 W/m^2 since the preindustrial era not produce any warming but the Sun which had a time weighted RF difference between the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum of only -0.5 W/m^2 (and that's be very generous) produce a lot of warming?

5. Why did the response to Pinatuba [1991] yield a climate sensitivity that closely matched what Arrhenius [1896], Callendar [1938], Charney [1979] predict and yet not match the climate sensitivity that you would expect if the Sun were the only driver?

 

So let me get this straight. Please be patient with me because I'm "stupid".

We don't know what it is.
We just know that it isn't TSI.
And that it's definitely the Sun.

Did I sum it correctly?

 

Look at it this way. What would Earth's temperature be without man's C02 but without natural causes such as the sun for starters? Now compare that to what the earths temperature would be with all the natural causes but without man? See the difference? Who is in charge here us or natural causes!
By the way we can all agree without the sun it would be iceball earth. We can't all agree on the temperature without man, it's just a guess.

 

This is getting tiring. I spend days getting you to admit your false allegations against Springer and then you turn right around and do the same thing with me. I keep trying to think there is one true believer I can have an honest conversation with but maybe not.

 

I made a mistake when I confused Fred Seitz with Fred Singer. And although they both worked on behalf of the tobacco industry, both deny science, and both actively worked to scam the public into letting industry pollute the environment they are, in fact, two very different people. It is pretty egregious mistake on my part. I acknowledge that. It's a mistake that I'm not proud of. I want to extend another apology to you for making that mistake.

Rejecting the IPCC's 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts in it's AR5 report and ignoring the last 150 years of scientific research is the epitome of rejecting science. I know of no other public interest issue that has even remotely the level of supporting evidence. But, I could be wrong. That's why I'm asking for you to give me an example of something that degrades the planet and which has more supporting evidence than global warming. My question was rhetorical. It's meant to be provocative. It's meant has a challenge for you to show me how rejecting the abundance of evidence isn't rejecting science.

 

I already told you what I think of so called climate scientist and how they have corrupted the very meaning of the word "science". This in no way means I reject science and in fact shows I have incredible respect for it and it saddens me that the AGW movement has made a mockery of the institution of science.
You keep asking me the same question couched in the same false accusations and once again I tire of your tactics. I gave the example of how a hypothesis is supposed to be challenged to prove it's validity but these fraudulent climate scientist do the exact opposite. They try to prop it up as it fails test and look for excuses as to why it fails test while still the same time attacking anyone who challenges their hypothesis as real scientist are supposed to do. They get ostracized as you just did with Singer and labeled shills for big oil, deniers and flat earthers. I'm tired of repeating this to you ad nauseum and won't do so again. In fact I think I'm just going to pull the plug on you for a while. Have a nice day.

 

Without the Sun there would be no atmosphere. That means the Earth would be a ideal black body radiator. It would radiate per the Stefan-Boltzman law using the only two other energy sources. They are geothermal via the radioactive decay in the core which is about 0.1 W/m^2 and the tidal forces of the Earth-Moon which initiates frictional heating in the crust at a rate of about 0.01 W/m^2. Note that the integrated solar radiation entering the atmosphere is about 340 W/m^2. Anyway, without the Sun nor an atmosphere to trap the heat the Earth and assuming the emissivity was 0.8 (snow cover) would radiate at about -235C.

With the Sun included but without an atmosphere the Earth would be -18C. With the atmosphere, which traps heat via the molecular vibrations of polyatomic molecules like H2O, CH4, and yes CO2, the Earth is actually +15C near the surface for a greenhouse effect of +33C. The addition of 130 ppm of CO2 (man made) puts new time weighted radiative forcing of about 1 W/m^2 in the lower troposphere today. That's enough to raise the temperature by about 1C and that's about what we observe.

Strawman. Scientists aren't saying that CO2 is primary driver of the temperature. They are saying that it is is the primary driver of the change in temperature. Those are two very different things one has units of K and the other is in units of K/decade. So we've increased the greenhouse gas effect by 1/34 = 3% already. When the time weighted radiative forcing gets up to 3 W/m^2 and the temperature rises to +3C then our contribution to the greenhouse effect will be 3/36 = 8%. And in the unlikely event that we let CO2 concentration get up to 1120 ppm then the radiative forcing will be 5.35 * ln(1120/280) = 7.4 W/m^2 which yields a +7C rise. Then our contribution to the greenhouse effect will be 7/40 = 17%.

Absolutely. Though to be pedantic there probably wouldn't be any ice.

You're right. We can't all agree on the temperature. But we can agree on a reasonably narrow range of temperature possibilities. That's why the IPCC is careful to publish a range of possibilities. Specifically a doubling of CO2 will cause a rise of 1.5 to 4.0C of warming. Note that the lower bound of 1.5 does not come from modeling. It comes from paleoclimate in which that is the lowest warming that resulted from a doubling of CO2. Most episodes in the Earth's past in which CO2 doubled actually experienced more warming. It's just that 1.5 is the lowest they could find. And since it's already by 1C since WWII and we're not even halfway to a doubling yet it's very unlikely the lower bound of 1.5C is going to be correct. Nevermind the fact that the 1C of warming that has already occurred is only the transient climate response. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately we'd still have to wait another few decades before the equilibrium climate response runs it's course. Judith Curry (a climate change skeptic) estimates this TCR/ECR ratio at about 0.8. That means the current 400 ppm of CO2 will likely lead to an equilibrium temperature of at least 1.2C. And I'm being intentionally conservative here which by the way would get me into a lot of ethical trouble if I were an actual scientist and didn't disclose what I had done because intentionally low balling the actual estimates is misrepresentation.

And by the way, note this range of 1.5 to 4.0C of warming is the exact same range Charney reported in his study in 1979. The IPCC not only indepedently agreed with the range, but they have kept this range largely intact the entire time except for having the audacity to up it in AR4 to 2.0 to 4.0C because they couldn't scientifically justify the lower bound of 1.5C. They relented under misguided skeptical pressure in AR5 and expanded it once again down to 1.5C despite deep oppositions by...you know...actual scientists and having little evidence to justify it. And for what it's worth Arrhenius [1896] and Callendar [1938] have figures that fall into this range.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts isn't a high enough bar for you then what is?

 

I'm curious what you believe will happen to you if you place your car in a garage, close all the windows and door, turn on the radio to a nice channel, recline your seat to be comfortable, roll down all windows, turn on your car and just let it idle, to see what happens to you after an hour or so?

 

I'm quite content listening to credible scientists...

 

Someone doesn't know the difference between C0 and C02. Here I'll Google that for you.

About Carbon Monoxide

• CO is produced naturally in trace amounts by the partial oxidation of methane in the atmosphere, volcanoes and forest fires
• CO is produced at dangerous levels by oxygen-starved combustion in improperly ventilated fuel-burning appliances such as oil and gas furnaces, gas water heaters, gas ovens, gas or kerosene space heaters, fire places and wood stoves
• CO is produced at dangerous levels by internal combustion enginesthat DO NOT use a catalytic converter
• It is the most common type of fatal poisoning in the world

https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/1209952-co-and-co2-what-s-the-difference

 

So am I but unfortunately today's climate scientist have lost all credibility. They seek to prove The AGW hypothesis instead of disprove it which is the way science is supposed to work and in fact all research and researchers that do challenge the hypothesis are rejected and labeled deniers.

 

You're making stuff up as you go along again. Scientists are actively researching natural climate forcing processes some are even doing it specifically to try and disprove AGW. The reason why falsification attempts have been rejected thusfar is because they aren't convincing. They aren't convincing because they either don't match observations and/or because they violate well established laws of physics.

Just to point out some examples of unconvincing falsification attempts...Easterbrook's solar-only theory isn't convincing because the predictions it makes don't match observations. And I'm not talking about being off by a reasonable margin of error. It is a completely and absolute failure because he can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. It also can't explain climate changes in the past nor the faint young Sun problem. Or how about Steven Goddard's (or is it Tony Heller) ideal gas law argument PV=nRT? He claims T is increasing because P is increasing. But the only way for that to happen is via a polytropic process in which the volume decreases. But the only way for the volume to decrease is if it got compressed by Earth's gravity. But Earth (or any planetary body for that matter) does not spontaneously increase it's gravity. No, what's happening is that the P is increasing because the T is increaing via an isochoric process. Note that the ideal gas law is a diagnostic equation; not a prognostic equation. Steven Goddard totally misapplies it.

And don't think I missed the fact that you repeatedly ask for "proof" of the AGW hypothesis while at the same time you reject all of the evidence given to you even though it is massive. And I'm still waiting for an answer to me question. How much evidence do you need to be convinced?

 

Feel free to show me the research and or studies that question the validity of AGW that the AGW so called scientist have given credence to and deemed credibile. Seems to me any and all scientist and their studies and their conclusions that question AGW are immediately dismissed as you just did.

 

The vast majority of publications that make claims that humans are the cause must include a thorough review of alternative ideas in an attempt to falsify their claim. They often (and perhaps even usually) get rejected by the journals if they don't perform this step. It's basically the heart of the scientific method. For example when Hansen and Santer did their "fingerprint" studies in the 70's, 80's and 90's that research was designed to eliminate the possibility that CO2 could be warming the planet. They idea is that a warming troposphere in conjunction with a cooling stratosphere is the smoking gun signal. If you can show that the stratosphere is also warming then you falsify the GHG (and by extension CO2) cause. Hansen tackled this question with an observational slant. Santer tackled this question with a modeling slant. As you probably already know Hansen could not eliminate the possibility that CO2 was causing warming because he showed that the stratosphere was cooling. Similarly Santer was trying to falsify the hypothesis that computer models would fail to predict a cooling stratosphere because GHGs weren't the cause of the tropospheric warming they predicted. He failed at falsifying that hypothesis because he found that computer models did indeed overwhelmingly predict that the stratosphere would cool. But even the IPCC includes AGW skeptical literature in their own reports. For example the IPCC includes Santer's work which showed that early generations of computer models overestimated the tropical mid-tropospheric warming and underestimated Arctic warming. Model improvements since the late 1990's and early 2000's have eliminated much of the discrepancy but they still overestimate tropical warming and underestimate polar warming.

By the way, here but only a couple of recent AGW skeptical a papers that were accepted by the scientific community for publication.

Christy [2017]
Curry [2018]

 

Both names you give are routinely slandered by the AGW cult as shills for big oil and frauds.

 

Curry is paid by the oil industry. Christy is not to my knowledge. Christy's problem lies mostly with his methodology. When you brag about how accurate your dataset is and then submit a revision (revision C [1997] to revision D [1998]) that increased the warming rate by a whopping factor of 10 only a few months later you typically lose a lot of credibility. And when the scientific community continues to point out flaws with your dataset and you don't fix them scientists start losing interest in your work pretty fast. Afterall no one wants to use a dataset that has problems. Furthermore, when you use your own dataset (which is known to underestimate the warming trend) and then remove all of the warming that occurred during El Nino's but not remove the same amount of cooling from La Nina's when trying to establish the natural variability you also lose interest among scientist. Nevermind the fact that after all of that Christy still couldn't eliminate anthroprogenic causes as the primary mechanism by which the global mean surface temperature is increasing.

 

Thank you for proving what I initially stated. Any and all climate scientist that question anything about the AGW hypothesis are immediately dismissed. AGW is not just science it's super science and has no weak spots and no flaws. More than that there has never been any criticism of the hypothesis that is valid in any way shape or form, it is settled science and has been since the day it was postulated. Anyone who dares question the hypothesis will immediately be sent to scientist Siberia with denier tattooed on their forehead. Be warned. Resistance is futile, assimilate or die.

 

Curry's problem is that she is really unprofessional. Instead of taking her complaints to the community via the peer review process which everyone else does she goes to the media and indicts her peers of shoddy work at the least and sometimes even with the implication of fraud. And with all of that her attempts at arriving at lower CO2 sensitivites keep getting met with scathing critiques not based on her personally but based on her work. And it's important to note that these critiques get published through the appropriate channels and through the peer review process so as to be both vetted for accuracy and to remove any hint of a personal attack unlike how she deals with problems. Anyway, she's been forced to correct her mistakes on multiple occasions. That 2018 paper is a correction from her last paper that increased the sensitivity from I think it was 1.2C to 1.7C. And note that 1.7C is in the IPCC range of 1.5C to 4.5C though albeit on the low side.

 

Hi, new to the forums. I saw this discussion and thought it was interesting so signed up. The dispute over AGW appears to me to have revealed misunderstandings on both sides.

The IPCC’s logarithmic equation that you used does not predict changes of temperature. In order to convert that equation into a predictor of resultant temperature-changes we must apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law and if we do that the equation that we end up with looks like this: ΔT = {[σ*T^4/+ 5.35Ln(C/Co)]/σ}^0.25-T Where T is the temperature, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, C is the final CO2 concentration (in ppmv) and Co is the reference CO2 concentration. Assuming a CO2 rise of 1120ppmv from 280ppmv we get a temperature rise of: Introducing magnitudes: {[0.000000056704*288^4+5.35Ln(1120/280)]/0.000000056704}^0.25-288 gives a warming of 1.4°C. You can copy-and-paste the highlighted bold text into the online “Web 2.0 Calculator” (here: https://web2.0calc.com/) and change C and Co for different CO2 concentrations. You can also alter the temperature of 288°K if you want as the IPCC sometimes use a temperature of 255°K which is the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) temperature.

 

But note that it is their work that is being dismissed and for reasons that community articulates as opposed to them being personally dismissed. This is different than how deniers use unsubstantiated claims of fraud, outside of the well established scientific procedure for doing so mind you, as a form of character assassination. Deniers can't refute the actual work so they refute the person. This is exactly what happened with Santer and Mann. To this date none of the unsubstantiated claims of fraud have been validated. In fact, it's quite the opposite. After trying really hard multiple independent reviews have reaffirmed that neither Santer nor Mann have faked any data or analyzed in inappropriate ways. And yet further still, scientists have overwhelming confirmed and replicated their work.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on answer to my question. How much evidence is required to convince you of something?