Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14679293
Truth To Power wrote:It wasn't irrelevant. It's the difference between the obvious but irrelevant and the subtle but crucial.

Please note that I have definitely supported them, and your personal opinion does not change evidence into non-evidence.

Please present your evidence that the data IN THAT GRAPH were wrong.

Thought not.

So yes, in fact, it DOES count, and your claim that it doesn't is without evidence, and nothing but another of your blatant ad hominems.

And please present your evidence that Spencer knowingly used wrong data. Someone's disagreement with Spencer's use of data is not evidence that he knowingly used wrong data.

Another blatant ad hominem fallacy.

Other than the fact that I have supported them all to date, you mean....?

I see PoD cannot dispute any of the above, and simply repeats claims I have already proved false:
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, absolutely no evidence that anthropogenic climate change falsely claims that the statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 seen in the 1970-1998 period represented a causal relationship of high climate sensitivity that would continue indefinitely.

No. That is just another in your infinite series of false claims that I never present any evidence for what I say. I have provided the evidence: the model projections showing continued increase in temperature similar to the 1970-1998 period, based on nothing but the models' assumption that the rapid increase in temperature during that period was due to CO2. THAT'S THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION THEY HAVE EVER OFFERED FOR ASSUMING HIGH CO2 SENSITIVITY. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FALSELY CLAIM IT ISN'T.

GOT IT??

That was your claim. You made it here:
viewtopic.php?p=14671706#p14671706

Since then, you have posted no evidence of any kind for this claim.

False, as proved above. You don't get to say what is evidence and what isn't, sorry. You can question the quality of the evidence, but claiming it isn't evidence is just lying.
Here I asked you to specify who made this claim and when:
viewtopic.php?p=14671712#p14671712

You alluded to some climate models, and as ususal, you were vague.

I stated the type of models, and gave examples.
Finally, you linked to a graph, but that graph did not support your claim that these models have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

Yes, of course it did.
You talk big, but you never actually support your claims.

You have no facts or logic to support your claims, you just always claim evidence that proves you wrong isn't evidence. You seem to be under an erroneous impression that you can magically make evidence disappear by clicking your heels and chanting, "There is no evidence."
If anyone else wishes to show that a significant claim of anthropogenic climate change has been falsified, I would love to see it. Truth To Power was unable to do so.

False. The claim of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified, and Kevin Trenberth even admitted it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Another long post with no evidence to support any assertions.

You don't get to make evidence not evidence, sorry.
And swearing.

Is that what you are reduced to? Claiming that keycaps is "swearing"?
And calling people liars.

It is normal on Internet forums that people are allowed to lie, but not to identify the fact that someone else has lied. This is a key weakness of such forums.
I would ask you to provide evidence for any of those three claims you made, but the likelihood that you will support any claim is low.

<yawn> The likelihood that you will not say evidence is not evidence is zero.
Please note that not a single claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory has been shown to be false, at least in this thread.

The AGW prediction of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified in this thread. And I predict that with the end of the recent El Nino temperature anomaly, 2017's (unadjusted) satellite temperatures will be lower than 1997's.
#14679306
Still no links to any evidence.

Please note that the arguments put forth by the global warming side have been clear and supported by links to evidence.

The denialist side has not been able to support any argument with links to evidence, nor has a clear argument even been made.
#14679333
It is all a scam. I do not buy into the eco-neoliberals pushing for more money to pay for their failed socioeconomic policies. It's the same as the gas tax that was supposed to pay for all road repair but ended up going to general revenues and the road have been in terrible shape since. Not even any plan to invest in decent public transportation.
#14679550
Eauz wrote:It is all a scam. I do not buy into the eco-neoliberals pushing for more money to pay for their failed socioeconomic policies. It's the same as the gas tax that was supposed to pay for all road repair but ended up going to general revenues and the road have been in terrible shape since. Not even any plan to invest in decent public transportation.

Do you have any hard numbers to support your contention?
#14680167
Pants-of-dog wrote:Still no links to any evidence.

Lie.
Please note that the arguments put forth by the global warming side have been clear and supported by links to evidence.

No, they have often been accompanied by links to material which for various reasons does not actually support the claims being made. But a link to material that does not support the argument -- most of the links PoD offers in support of AGW theory are in this category -- is not in fact evidence to support the argument. A good example is the so-called "consensus": actual examination of the consensus shows that it does not support the claims of AGW nonscience.
The denialist side has not been able to support any argument with links to evidence, nor has a clear argument even been made.

Readers are invited to read the thread and note the clear arguments offered by the scientific (non-AGW) side and links to supporting evidence.
#14680169
Truth To Power wrote:Lie.

No, they have often been accompanied by links to material which for various reasons does not actually support the claims being made. But a link to material that does not support the argument -- most of the links PoD offers in support of AGW theory are in this category -- is not in fact evidence to support the argument. A good example is the so-called "consensus": actual examination of the consensus shows that it does not support the claims of AGW nonscience.

Readers are invited to read the thread and note the clear arguments offered by the scientific (non-AGW) side and links to supporting evidence.


You have cited two graphs made by a creationist who also does not publish his methodology. Or if he does, you refuse to provide a link to it.

----------------

This is how you provide evidence for a claim:

My claim is that Dr. Roy Spencer is claiming that there is a discrepancy between the models and the satellite data for the lower troposphere, even though he knows full well that there is not.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

So, that is the graph that started it all. Now, since Dr. spencer has not published the methodology used to construct this graph, we have no idea which satellite data he is using to plot his little blue squares.

Considering the fact that the temperatures he is using for satellite temperatures are significantly lower than the rest, we have to assume that either the satellite data he is posting is wrong, or the climate models are wrong.

Of course, Dr. Spencer is claiming that the climate models are all wrong based on the satellite data and its discrepancy with the models.

Except this discrepancy does not really exist. In this post, several sources are cited that show that algebraic errors in the calibration were responsible for the discrepancy.

Now, Dr. Spencer has known this since 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

Yet he is still lowballing it in 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

So, either Dr. Spencer is ignorant of the fact that several papers have disproved this supposed discrepancy, or he is ignoring them and continuing to make the claim that such a discrepancy exists.

Either way, the good doctor's claims are questionable.
#14680676
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have cited two graphs made by a creationist

But you have not shown that they are wrong, so you are just indulging your penchant for ad hominem fallacies. Again.
who also does not publish his methodology. Or if he does, you refuse to provide a link to it.

You haven't previously asked me for a link to it, so that's another false claim on your part.
This is how you provide evidence for a claim:


My claim is that Dr. Roy Spencer is claiming that there is a discrepancy between the models and the satellite data for the lower troposphere, even though he knows full well that there is not.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

So, that is the graph that started it all. Now, since Dr. spencer has not published the methodology used to construct this graph, we have no idea which satellite data he is using to plot his little blue squares.

Well, one is UAH, the other is either RSS or NOAA. But it doesn't even matter, because the radiosonde data essentially agree with the satellite data.
Considering the fact that the temperatures he is using for satellite temperatures are significantly lower than the rest, we have to assume that either the satellite data he is posting is wrong, or the climate models are wrong.

So, either actual instrument measurements are wrong, or made-up numbers fabricated by computer programs are wrong.

Hmmmm... I wonder which are more credible?

And what about the radiosonde data?

You seem to be very unclear on just what constitutes empirical data.

As usual.
Of course, Dr. Spencer is claiming that the climate models are all wrong based on the satellite data and its discrepancy with the models.

And the radiosonde data, and the fact that satellite and radiosonde data are actual empirical data, whereas the model data have simply been made up, based on assuming that the coincidence of global warming and increased CO2 in the 1970-1998 period represented a reliable long-term relationship.
Except this discrepancy does not really exist. In this post, several sources are cited that show that algebraic errors in the calibration were responsible for the discrepancy.

No, they only CLAIM that.
Now, Dr. Spencer has known this since 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

Yet he is still lowballing it in 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

Maybe because the supposed "correction" WAS ITSELF BASED ON ASSUMING THE MODELS WERE RIGHT AND THE DATA WRONG:
"The RSS and NOAA teams “apply a drift correction based on the diurnal cycle from a GCM (global climate model)..."

Get it?
So, either Dr. Spencer is ignorant of the fact that several papers have disproved this supposed discrepancy, or he is ignoring them and continuing to make the claim that such a discrepancy exists.

They haven't disproved it. They've merely ASSUMED that the models are more accurate than actual empirical data.
Either way, the good doctor's claims are questionable.

Everything in empirical science is questionable, which you seem unclear on. And just because it is questionable doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, contrary to your permanently chanted claims to that effect.

So much for your "providing evidence for a claim."
#14680680
And again, no links to any evidence.

Just insulting scientists without providing any intelligent rebuttals.

The fact that the denialist camp is unable to show a single falsified claim made by ACC strongly suggests that the climate models are correct.
#14680722
Pants-of-dog wrote:And again, no links to any evidence.

Do I have to REPEAT links that YOU provided to YOUR OWN SOURCES, now?

Is that what you are reduced to? Is that how low you have sunk?

Or is it just that YOU DIDN'T READ your own source, so you don't recognize it when I quote it back to you?


Just insulting scientists without providing any intelligent rebuttals.

Which scientists did I insult?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you just made that up.

And readers can see for themselves which of us has actually provided the more thoughtful and intelligent arguments.
The fact that the denialist camp is unable to show a single falsified claim made by ACC strongly suggests that the climate models are correct.

I've shown the falsified claim, as you know -- and it is not much of a trick to "support" climate models with empirical data when you "correct" those empirical data by ASSUMING the climate models are correct and the empirical data incorrect.
#14680730
Truth to Power,

I must have missed the claim you supposedly falsified.

Is it the one that you were in the prcoess of clarifying when you cited the creationist?

Now, if that is the one, we can pick up where we left off.

Your claim was that the falsified claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory is: that the statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 seen in the 1970-1998 period represented a causal relationship of high climate sensitivity that would continue indefinitely, and that this claim was made by all the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

Now, we haven't even arrived at the point where I ask you to support your claims.

I asked you to name the specific climate models that had made this exact claim. You provided a list by citing the creationist.

So, let us look at that list:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

Now, the first model mentioned is: ACCESS1-0_rcp85_r1i1p1. In fact, if you look closely, they are all rcp85.

For those who do not know, RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathways, which are possible scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions in the future. There are four: RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6, and RCP 8.5. They range from a best case scenario where we manage emissions more or less effectively (2.6) to a worst case scenario where we continue to pollute at an ever higher rate non-stop (8.5).

In other words, Dr. Spencer deliberately chose a scenario that would not take into account things like the global financial crisis, and other events that have caused a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

More importantly for your claim, the assumptions built into this scenario are not what has actually happened, so even if we accept that Dr. Spencer is using the properly calibrated data, all this disproves is that we have avoided the worst case scenario in the short term.
#14681460
Pants-of-dog wrote:I must have missed the claim you supposedly falsified.

Not surprising.
Your claim was that the falsified claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory is: that the statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 seen in the 1970-1998 period represented a causal relationship of high climate sensitivity that would continue indefinitely, and that this claim was made by all the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

Now, we haven't even arrived at the point where I ask you to support your claims.

Right. We are still at the point -- where we have always been and apparently always will be -- where you falsely claim that I have not supported, and never support, my statements.
I asked you to name the specific climate models that had made this exact claim. You provided a list by citing the creationist.

No, you are incorrect. I did not cite a single word he said. I provided a link to a graph that had examples of the models in question, showing how they consistently projected temperatures ranging from higher to far higher than the observed ones. Other than your relentlessly chanted ad hominem fallacies, you have not given readers any reason to doubt that the graph is accurate, nor will you ever be doing so.
So, let us look at that list:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... means1.png

Now, the first model mentioned is: ACCESS1-0_rcp85_r1i1p1. In fact, if you look closely, they are all rcp85.

Right. Because rcp 8.5 is the "business-as-usual" assumption, which is closest to the actual data on CO2.
For those who do not know, RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathways, which are possible scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions in the future. There are four: RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6, and RCP 8.5. They range from a best case scenario where we manage emissions more or less effectively (2.6) to a worst case scenario where we continue to pollute at an ever higher rate non-stop (8.5).

Which -- except for the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant -- is exactly what we have done.
In other words, Dr. Spencer deliberately chose a scenario that would not take into account things like the global financial crisis, and other events that have caused a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Will you be providing any evidence for that claim?

I can save you the trouble of wasting your time looking for it. There isn't any. Here's the latest historical graph of CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_C ... ration.svg

GET IT???

Whether emissions have been reduced or not (they haven't), CO2 concentrations, which are the relevant data for climate models, continue to rise exponentially, in lockstep with rcp 8.5 assumptions.
More importantly for your claim, the assumptions built into this scenario are not what has actually happened,

Yes, they are, as proved by the CO2 graph linked above. There is not the slightest indication of a pause in CO2 increase. In fact, in the last two years it has accelerated significantly (which is apparently a known effect of El Nino).
so even if we accept that Dr. Spencer is using the properly calibrated data, all this disproves is that we have avoided the worst case scenario in the short term.

But in fact, we haven't actually done anything of the sort. The sun just became less active, and the trendless 60-year global temperature cycle has been in its down-phase for more than 15 years.

And anyway, why would you claim that a climate optimum could be a "worst-case scenario"??
#14681483
1. No, the rcp8.5 is not business as usual, as it would not have taken into account things that actually happened, like the slowdown in emissions due to the global financial crisis.

2. Yes, you did cite his words, specifically a list of supposed wrong models. The RCP8.5 models, to be precise. See point 1.

3. You seem to be confusing quantity of emissions (your Mauna Loa graph) with the rate of emissions (what the RCP scenarios look at). It is possible for the latter to fluctuate while the former more or less rises steadily.

4. Yeah, the solar activity hypothesis has been falsified. I have no idea why are you still clinging to that.
#14682358
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. No, the rcp8.5 is not business as usual,

Yes it is, by definition.
as it would not have taken into account things that actually happened, like the slowdown in emissions due to the global financial crisis.

There was no significant slowdown.
2. Yes, you did cite his words,

No I didn't.
specifically a list of supposed wrong models.

The models aren't his words.
The RCP8.5 models, to be precise. See point 1.

On which you were wrong.
3. You seem to be confusing quantity of emissions (your Mauna Loa graph)

No I'm not. You are. The graph says nothing about emissions. It is a graph of CO2 CONCENTRATIONS, which are the only thing about CO2 that can affect climate.

You again prove you have no grasp of the relevant empirical science. None.
with the rate of emissions (what the RCP scenarios look at).

The RCP scenarios ASSUME that rate of emissions will be reflected in atmospheric concentrations. There's no other way they could affect climate.
It is possible for the latter to fluctuate while the former more or less rises steadily.

But both are irrelevant except insofar as they affect concentration.
4. Yeah, the solar activity hypothesis has been falsified.

No it hasn't, don't be absurd.
I have no idea why are you still clinging to that.

Because you have no understanding of empirical science. None.
#14682362
Truth to power,

If you have a well constructed and easy to read argument to make, please do so.

This habit you have of cutting up someone else's posts creates very long posts that fail to address the central point of the person to whom you are responding. This is why I will not be making a point by point refutation of your post.

Another thing that I would like to point out is that the creationist's graph does not support the claim that every climate model scenario other than the RCP8.5 is also wrong.

If the other scenarios are not falsified by the creationist's graph, then the climate sensitvity of those models must be more or less correct.
#14682442
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you have a well constructed and easy to read argument to make, please do so.

As you know, all my arguments are well constructed and easy to read.
This habit you have of cutting up someone else's posts

...is called, "fisking," and makes everything clearer by attaching the response immediately after the statement it responds to.
creates very long posts that fail to address the central point of the person to whom you are responding.

That is incorrect. It is a good way to demonstrate that the central point fails because all the supporting claims are just as incorrect as the central point.
This is why I will not be making a point by point refutation of your post.

Either that, or because you have been demolished and humiliated, you know it, and you have no answers.
Another thing that I would like to point out is that the creationist's graph does not support the claim that every climate model scenario other than the RCP8.5 is also wrong.

Of course not. It just shows that all the RCP 8.5 climate models are wrong -- but they are the ones AGW screamers use to justify their nonscience. Models that don't use RCP 8.5 haven't been tested because emissions have not been reduced, and they therefore haven't been proved wrong. That doesn't mean they are right. In addition, climate models that do not assume absurdly high CO2 sensitivity and thus did not predict rapid warming over the last 18 years have also not been proved wrong, though they HAVE been tested.
If the other scenarios are not falsified by the creationist's graph, then the climate sensitvity of those models must be more or less correct.

No. You again prove you have zero (0) understanding not only of empirical science, but of model-building AGW nonscience. The different model runs using RCP 6 or 4.5 or 2 or whatever don't use different climate sensitivities. They use the same sensitivities, but different emission assumptions. That's the point of using them: to compare the (false) predictions of different AGW models under different emission scenarios to scare people into thinking the sky will fall even if they do cut fossil fuel use.
#14682452
And you cut it all up again.

I am not even going to bother replying to you.

--------------

All climate models are tested by a process called hindcasting, where they are given the climate on a certain date in the past (1910, for example) and the model then has to "predict" the climate for a date after that for which we have observational data (1984, for example).

Denialists often ignore this.

And yes, all the models use the same sensitivity and the difference is the rate of emissions. Since the other models are not falsified amd habe the same climate sensitivity, the climate sensitivity has not been falsified.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 24 May 2016 20:49, edited 1 time in total.
#14682456
Pants-of-dog wrote:All climate models are tested by a process called hindcasting, where they are given the climate on a certain date in the past (1910, for example) and the model then has to "predict" the climate for a date after that for which we have observational data (1984, for example).

Denialists often ignore this.

No, it is obvious: models have to be able to hindcast reasonably well, or they are obviously wrong. That doesn't mean they can forecast accurately, or are right.
And yes, all the models use the same sensitivity and the difference is the rate of emissions. Since the other models are not falsified amd habe the same climate sensitivity, the climate sensitivity has not been falsified.

Incorrect again. Any consistently incorrect forecast falsifies the model. If your model of body fat assumes that McDonalds food is less fattening than ethnic food, and the people who usually eat at McDonalds are fatter than the people who usually eat Chinese food, then your model has been falsified, even though it hasn't been tested against people who usually eat Indian food, Mexican food, Japanese food, Italian food, etc.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the ability to hindcast shows that they can forecast climate, as that is what the models are doing when they forecast the climate of 1980 when given the 1910 data.

Nope. Wrong AGAIN. Hindcasting just shows the ability of the model to match a known record. All kinds of tweaks can be used to make a model match a known record (consider all the stock market prediction methods that appear to "forecast" historical stock price movements). The acid test is forecasting future climate that is not known at the time the forecast is made -- and so far, not a single AGW model (i.e., one that forecasts rapidly rising temperatures in the 21st century consequent on continued CO2 emissions, similar to the increase from 1970-1998 which they attribute to CO2) is able to do that.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 24 May 2016 23:16, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 21

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]