Is climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

But long-term changes in them are trends. Thus, by measuring them over them, we measure the trends, and measure climate.

And you get that totally wrong, due to your lack of any training in statistics.

When I see that consensus of the smartest people in the world disagrees with what I believe, I don't think "Obviously, there must be a global conspiracy to hide the truth, as I am incapable of error". That's because I'm not consumed with narcissism and paranoia. Instead, I think "Hmm, I must have made a mistake, so I should research this more and find out where I went wrong."

You should give that a try.

 

You haven't fallen for the "97% consensus" PR, have you?

 

Nice deflection attempt. Care to address the point? The point is that it's narcissistic and paranoid to declare that, based entirely on your own feelings of specialness, that the whole world must be conspiring against you.

That's how cults draw people in. They tell them how brilliant and courageous and special they are, and that emotional manipulation is irresistible to the weak-minded.

 

Regardless of what you feel about conspiracies and weak-minded people, the 97% consensus figure has yet to be proven.

 

There are no "long-term changes" in random events. Random events do not have causal relationships, thus they cannot have trends. Do coin flips have trends?

Climate has no quantitative value. You cannot measure that which has no quantitative value. There is no "a lot of climate" or "a little bit of climate". There's just climate. There's desert climate, marine climate, etc...

Inversion Fallacy.

Insult Fallacy.
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.
Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.
False Dichotomy Fallacy.
Strawman Argument Fallacy.

Try using logic next time.

 

What??????

 

If, as I begin to suspect, English is not your first language, you and I don't have much to talk about.

 

And as climate isn't a random event, why do you bring that up? Oh, that's right. You've been reduced to looking for excuses to evade discussing the actual science.

Now, let's get back to my point.

You tell us that you know better than the smartest people in the world, and that the whole world is part of conspiracy against you. Why? Apparently, it's because you read some conspiracy blogs which told you that.

So, at this stage, you're only interesting an illustration of the paranoia and narcissism common to conspiracy cult members.

 

Like AGW theory. And totally unlike your theory.

Tell us, what is your theory? What does it predict? What could disprove it?

AGW theory can answer all those questions. You can't, because you're peddling pseudoscience.

And if each data point was an independent variable, you'd have something. But they're not. Temperature anomalies vary over distance very slowly and very smoothly. Temperature anomalies are very highly correlated, making your statistical analysis totally wrong.

 

Because the definition of climate is generally something along the lines of "weather over a long period of time", so we are talking about weather, and weather IS a random event.

Inversion Fallacy.

With regard to this particular discussion, yes, I know better than AGW Cultists.

Not the whole world. Just the AGW cultists.

Because I understand the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. I also understand mathematics and logic.

I do not read blogs. There's no need for me to. The proper authority in this case is the laws of science themselves.

Inversion Fallacy.

 

Wrong. AGW Theory fails both internal AND external testing.

I don't have a theory.

Paradox. You are now arguing irrationally.

[1] "... unlike your theory" [I have and have expressed a theory]
[2] "what is your theory?" [I don't have and haven't expressed a theory]

Which is it?

I don't have a theory.

AGW theory fails internal and external testing.

Inversion Fallacy.

They are.

Anomalies are not measurements. They are determined FROM measurements AFTER the fact. You need several global temperature measurements BEFORE you can determine any anomalies regarding them.

What statistical analysis? I never ran one.

 

Flat-earthers tell me such things as well. Just like you, each time they try to demonstrate their supposed knowledge, they do a faceplant into a cow patty. That's why greenhouse effect deniers are correctly placed into the same category as flat-earthers.

No, you get both of those topics totally wrong, and then declare that it's not you that's wrong, it's the past century of physics. Who knew we had such an Einstein among us?

Repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not evidence.

You were asked to state your theory of what's driving climate, and state what data could falsify it. Instead of answering, you tried that lame evasion. You don't have a coherent theory. All you have is the pseudoscience propaganda that your political cult told you to repeat.

No, they are demonstrably not independent variables, so your statistical claim is garbage. Your knowledge of statistics is up there with your knowledge of thermodynamics, which is to say it's abysmal.

You've been reduced to evading and auto-screaming "Nuh-uh!". Take that as a sign that you really need to research the basics here. Everyone else understands that. Sadly, those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger Syndrome are the last ones to understand that their knowledge is lacking.

 

No argumentation presented, while ignoring additional argumentation from my end, specifically the bit about anomalies as well as your paradox. Interesting.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about, throwing accusation here and there

 

Were that the case, your rebuttals would not be limited to vacuous gainsaying.

Obviously I've yet to level any accusation here, but now I will: any English teacher who gave you a passing grade ought to be flogged.

 

Quite the opposite..
AGW shills insist that humans can be the only cause, so lets have them explain all the much more rapid changes of higher magnitude before humans existed, and then keep their story that our recent small climate drift is all the fault of humans..

 

Just want to point out..

People do not care about climate change.

Last two weeks are proof.

 

Nope. Totally wrong. We looks at all causes, making us the complete opposite of your side.

They were natural. We've always said that. And your side has always lied about what we said, just like you're lying now.

So according to your bizarre train of logic, since forest fires used to be caused naturally, that proves humans can't cause forest fires.

Clearly, your logic is deeply stupid, which is why normal people ignore it. The fact that climate changed naturally before does not prevent humans from changing climate.

 

Why can't the climate change of present be natural also?

 

Because the evidence says it's not. The known natural factors are pushing the earth towards cooling. We see stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There are no natural explanations for that directly observed data.

If someone wants to invoke "but how do you know there's not some mysterious natural factor we don't know about?", I'll point out that's not science. That's invoking magic. Science makes testable claims, and "it's a mystery" is not a testable claim. We don't say "We can't be absolutely certain that an unknown mystery factor isn't causing lung cancer in smokers, therefore it's wrong to say that smoking leads to increased chances of lung cancer".

 

Changes in cloud-cover is one possibility. There have been large increases in shortwave radation reaching the surface due cloud-cover since 1980 of between 3 W/m² to 7 W/m² and depending on the source, there has been a considerable increase in TSI since 1800. A few TSI-reconstructions put the increase since pre-industrial times at between 2 W/m² to 6 W/m² which translates to a solar forcing of up to 1 W/m².

But your side is not engaged in science. That is an illusion. Your side has started off with a belief and a conviction – that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming – and have sought to gather evidence selectively to prove that conviction. That is not the way of scientists whose interest is only in finding out the truth. That is the way of tricky politicians.

 

Would you write a meaningful comment so I can answer it?

 

Of course I've not done otherwise. Your answers have been consistently idiotic.

 

How does climate, a subjective word with no quantitative value, "change" exactly? There is no such thing as "more climate" or "less climate".

 

Nope. Only the systematically falsified NOAA/NASA temperature data. The evidence of ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, like increasing arctic sea ice extent, says global temperature is not driven by CO2.

And it is cooling, as proved by the increase in arctic sea ice extent:

"The 2020 maximum sea ice extent is the eleventh lowest in the 42-year satellite record, but the highest since 2013."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

None of which are relevant to surface temperature.

But those data do not imply the earth is warming. That's always the way with anti-fossil-fuel hysteria: a big to-do over some data or other, but somehow the logic never quite comes together.

It absolutely is science. Asking such questions is precisely how we have understood the need to learn about the previously unknown natural factors that we now know about. Before Einstein, scientists said unanimously that there was no possible natural source of energy that could keep the sun burning for the many millions of years of the earth's evident age in the geological record. Religious believers took this as proof of divine intercession, and made exactly your "argument" that it would be unscientific to invoke "mysterious natural factors" -- like conversion of mass to energy.

GET IT????

Refuted above.

Sure it is. It can be falsified by revealing the mystery, like Einstein with special relativity, or Ben Franklin demonstrating that lightning -- which at the time was also a mystery -- is electricity.

And on Planet Zondo, that might be relevant. Here on earth, honest climate scientists (i.e., doesn't include lying anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers like Michael Mann) are humble enough to admit they don't understand all the factors that influence climate.