- 25 Sep 2021 18:00
#15192180
delete
Last edited by Truth To Power on 25 Sep 2021 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, you are not even talking about climate science any more.
You are simply telling all of us that you are smart
and clear
and awesome and perfect and blablabla.
This is not an argument.
If you have an argument or a refutation of the evidence already presented, please write it out in one or two clear sentences.
Please be advised that you will be asked to provide evidence. Thank you.
Truth To Power wrote:Demonstrating that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years and that atmospheric CO2 has increased during the same period due to human use of fossil fuels, and claiming that the latter must therefore have caused the former, is a bald post hoc fallacy, not climate science.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not what ACC theory claims.
You deliberately created a strawman.
No thinks that CO2 must have caused global warming solely because of timing.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
Then provide a quote of a climatologist or other ACC advocate saying that.
Because that is not what I believe, nor have I ever seen a climatologist argue that.
Truth To Power wrote:
That's why you -- and they -- have to ignore and dismiss Angstrom.
late wrote:They didn't ignore Angstrom, they found his mistake.
"It seems that Ångström was all too eager
to conclude that CO2 absorption was saturated based on the "insignificance" of the change, whereas the real problem was that they were looking at changes over a far too small range of CO2 amounts.
If Koch and Ångström had examined the changes over the range between a 10cm and 1 meter tube, they probably would have been able to determine the correct law for increase of absorption with amount, despite the primitive instruments available at the time.
It’s worth noting that Ångström’s erroneous conclusion
regarding saturation did not arise from his failure to understand how pressure affects absorption lines. That would at least have been forgivable, since the phenomenon of pressure broadening was not to be discovered for many years to come. In reality, though Ångström would have come to the same erroneous conclusion
even if the experiment had been done with the same amounts of CO2 at low pressure rather than at near-sea-level pressures."
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
Seriously, it reeks of desperation trying to pass off a century old mistake.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
If you insist that they are making the argument that you attribute to them and not the argument they are actually saying, you are attacking a strawman.
Should we now look back at all the evidence you have yet to provide for your various claims?
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
I asked you to provide evidence that the recent wildfires in Canada were due to drought and that this was not caused by ACC.
Since you have not done so yet, please do so now.
Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, you are not even talking about climate science any more.
You are simply telling all of us that you are smart and clear and awesome and perfect and blablabla. This is not an argument.
If you have an argument or a refutation of the evidence already presented, please write it out in one or two clear sentences.
Please be advised that you will be asked to provide evidence. Thank you.
Truth To Power wrote:
realclimate is one of the most dishonest sites on the Internet
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, and I informed you that you were trying to change the subject from global warming to Canada, and fallaciously place an invalid burden of proof on me to prove a negative.
You're so cute when you think you can get away with being petulant, manipulative and disingenuous.
late wrote:There is a certain perversity in using Big Oil propaganda, and accusing someone else of dishonesty.
When Big Oil started this nonsense, they went to old folks homes trying to get signatures from retired scientists. They sent out misleading mail trying to trick scientists into saying they agreed with them. This is an old scam, sport. I've been watching you guys deal from the bottom of the deck since the 90s.
Scientific consensus was reached over 20 years ago, with the scientific community, as a whole, throwing it's support a couple years later.
As I pointed out earlier, you are trying to create the appearance of controversy when there is no controversy.
"Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem.
In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth."
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/when-carbon-dioxide-didnt-affect-climate/
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
For the third time:
Please provide evidence for this claim that wildfires killed more people in western Canada in the 1930s than last summer.
Truth To Power wrote:Oh, right, it wasn't the 1930s, it was even earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1919
Truth To Power wrote:
Speaking of dishonesty, please quote an argument of mine that has been advanced by Big Oil.
Current Jewish population estimates in Mexico com[…]
Ukraine stands with Syrian rebels against Moscow- […]