Global Warming

so he stated he didn't know what that contribution was. See you'd jump to doing something without the benefit of knowing what to do. There may be nothing wrong with the CO2 input into the climate. It's something you don't know. So why does something need to be done? You would leap off a cliff because someone told you to. Funny stuff.

 

wow a repeat. if you have no material to interject, than save us the adhomes.

- - - Updated - - -

EXACTLY ask Judith Curry. Respected Judith Curry about this very piece.

 

what a bunch of whooie.

 

Judith Curry doesn't see it. I'll stand with her. See, you have zero evidence. They tell you you have it, but when queried for said evidence, the discussion automatically goes to, it's already been provided, even though, it never flippin was. How is that evidence? So dude, show me what 10 PPM of CO2 does to climate and temperatures. you have that evidence? That's the evidence I'm looking for. So is Judith Curry.

 

You need to read more carefully. Your quote did NOT say that human activity is responsible for 95% of the warming. It said that 95% of those who know what they're talking about think human activity is the most important factor, out of many factors.

 

don't think so s0n. I think you need to learn how to read.

Abstract from above:

"Your quote says there's a 95% probability that human activity is the "dominant" driver of current climate change."

just admit you f'd up and let's move on. so again, 95% is a fnnn dominant percentage number don't you think?

 

Here you go:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

And this is where you wish to stand?

Anyway, as I said before, it doesn't matter. Actually doing something is vanishingly unlikely because (1) those who realize something needs to be done aren't those who hold the power to do anything; and (2) doing something is extremely expensive; and (3) most of the problem lies with China and India and other third world nations whose priorities are very different.

I won't live long enough to be able to say I told you so, so I can hope you and Curry are correct. Denial is a form of prayer.

 

I give up. Your source did NOT say human activity was 95% of the cause of warming. It said there was a 95% probability that no other cause was greater. In other words, if human activity accounts for 15% of global warming, there is a 95% probability that no OTHER cause accounts for 16% or more.

Just admit statistical reasoning is beyond your comprehension.

 

do you know who Judith Curry is? hahahahahaaha, I guess not. If you think the cartoonist can call her views myths. hahahahahaha. S0n amazing the lengths you all will go through to validate your argument. Judith Curry. Now I know you don't have any climate science knowledge or the ability to investigate it.

 

Nothing like valuing a cartoonists alarmist blog over a scientist eh?

 

s0n, holy but wipes, 95% is a dominant percentage yes or no? let me go find you a graph.

- - - Updated - - -

who was a scientist warmer when being paid. Funny eh? They loved her when she was speaking for them, now a cartoon clown has more validity. And someone doesn't know that 95% of something isn't dominant. Amazing.

 

READ my simple example. I made it so simple the veriest dunce could understand it, with a minimum of effort. You quoted it and STILL didn't grasp it.

Look, there are two percentages here. You are confusing them, getting them mixed up. One is the percentage of warming due to human activities (which might be quite low) and the other is the percent probability that human activities are most important (which is quite high). So I gave you an example, entirely realistic, showing that human contributions could be small and STILL be larger than any other factor. THINK for a change! If you can, of course.

 

Temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, not linear. See the Beer-Lambert Law. So we can start there. Is the Beer-Lambert Law a verifiable fact in your corner of Denierstan? Or not?

- - - Updated - - -

When an argument is totally unrefuted in Denierstan, it bears repeating. As often as possible.

 

What is not known is how it will react in a non-linear chaotic climate with many other forcings and many known unknowns and unknown unknowns. There is no known there when it comes to the hypothesis of CO2 forcing in the current climate. Do scientists believe adding CO2 will increase temperature, you bet and that includes the alleged 'deniar' scientists. What is not agreed on is CO2 sensitivity or even if rising CO2 is a bad thing.

 

CO2 is definitely logarithmic, and there are many graphs that will show you that as the amount of CO2 builds the increase in temperatures are very very little, in fact the most dominant increase is within the first 120 PPM of it.

It is why I have been in here for fifteen months looking for an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 on top of 280 PPM drives temperature or climate. Herr Koch 1901 the only one,

 

Climate alarmism reminds me of The blind men and an elephant.

 

Utter nonsense. We can measure how it reacts. With data. Like this.



Isn't it amazing how the denizens of Denierstan have to pretend that data doesn't exist, in order to cling to their political fantasies?

If we just throw out all the data you don't like, there's no data left! Amazing how that works.

So one sentence ago you said nobody knows how CO2 affects climate. And now you're saying everybody agrees that CO2 makes it warmer. You really need to get your story straight, because it looks like you're very confused on that point.

Here's a little math problem, Hoos. Take a look at the regression line on that graph -- the equation is right there -- and compute how much warmer it would be if CO2 doubles. Let me know what you come up with.

 

So we now agree that our side does indeed have verifiable facts. And that your previous complaint was totally bogus. Thanks for that admission.

Yes, and I keep showing you that data, and you keep ignoring it. Here it is again, so you can ignore it again.



Experiment: take one spare planet; add 1.3 trillion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. If you trash the planet in the process, no problem! Just send your kids to another one.

 

The same unattributed graph over and over again. Typical.

http://www.theusrus.de/blog/global-warming-causality-vs-timeframes/

 

It's fully attributed. Right there on the graph.
Mauna Loa CO2
Etheridge et al.
GISS

Looks like you're goose is cooked by your own source.

 

Don't play dumb. Also, the causal relationship breaks down after 2003 or did you miss that.

 

In any time series of trend-plus-noise, the uncertainty of slope always increases as you move toward the end of the series. It's mathematically required. What you have not shown (and what nobody has ever shown) is that any putative change in trend at the end of that series is statistically significant.

If your whole argument is based on ignoring more and more of the data to increase the uncertainty, you've got nothing.

 

PURE FAIL. So now only graphs that are unattributed are factual (that don't show any breakdown near the end of the series). Got it.

 

All graphs show breakdowns at the end of the series. If that's your standard, your standard is idiotic. And the graph is completely attributed. Do you want links to the data?

 

You mean the false claim on your graph that actually leaves off the last 14 years? You also don't state which GISS, 99?, 2008? The new pause buster GISS?