"Whether we like it or not" - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15192181
Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, you are not even talking about climate science any more.

Right, because you made a deliberate choice to change the subject to my English language skills.
You are simply telling all of us that you are smart

No, you made that up. I merely informed you of the evidence that your claim that I lacked English reading comprehension ability was objectively false.
and clear

Right. I am.
and awesome and perfect and blablabla.

No, you made that up, too. You apparently like to just make $#!+ up.
This is not an argument.

Right, because YOU are simply telling all of us that you don't intend to respond to any of my arguments, preferring to pretend that you do not understand clear, simple, grammatical English.
If you have an argument or a refutation of the evidence already presented, please write it out in one or two clear sentences.

I have. Here's one:

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.

I have others. You just pretend that you can't understand them.
Please be advised that you will be asked to provide evidence. Thank you.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Identifying logical fallacies DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EVIDENCE other than the fallacious argument itself.
#15192182
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.


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.
#15192189
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not what ACC theory claims.

Sure it is. Just not as clearly and baldly as I expressed it.
You deliberately created a strawman.

No, I identified the actual underlying content of most "arguments" I have seen from anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers.

Why else do they endlessly belabor the evidence that the earth has warmed since the LIA, and then endlessly belabor the evidence that human use of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2, when no informed person denies either of those facts?

Why else do they endlessly belabor the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 must, by the laws of physics, increase the earth's surface temperature, if only microscopically, as if scientists' consensus on that fact supported the claim that it must increase the earth's surface temperature substantially?

Why else do they present the endless graphs of temperature and CO2?

Why else do they endlessly try to remove the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from the historical climate record?

Why else do they intransigently reject any index of the sun's influence on climate other than TSI, which is known not to vary enough to cause significant fluctuations in the earth's surface temperature?

Why else do they call the temperature in 1850 "pre-industrial" rather than "late Little Ice Age"?

Why else do they endlessly pretend that the tail ends of statistical distributions of temperature, sea level, glacier changes, etc. represent the whole population of data, and are not balanced by tails at the other end?
No thinks that CO2 must have caused global warming solely because of timing.

Right: they also have to ignore and dismiss the fact, demonstrated by Angstrom over 100 years ago and easily verifiable in any modern university physics lab, that adding CO2 to standard sea-level atmospheric air does not significantly alter its infrared transmissivity. They also have to ignore and dismiss all the natural cyclical factors and internal climate system variability that caused all the thousands -- maybe millions -- of previous century-scale warming episodes in the earth's history.
#15192190
@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.
#15192196
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Then provide a quote of a climatologist or other ACC advocate saying that.

Obviously they can't just admit that is their argument. But that is nevertheless what it is.
Because that is not what I believe, nor have I ever seen a climatologist argue that.

Sure you do. That's why you -- and they -- have to ignore and dismiss Angstrom.
#15192199
Truth To Power wrote:

That's why you -- and they -- have to ignore and dismiss Angstrom.



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.

You need better lies.
#15192200
@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.

I am now going to dismiss that argument as a strawman.

Should we now look back at all the evidence you have yet to provide for your various claims?
#15192204
late wrote:They didn't ignore Angstrom, they found his mistake.

No, they falsely claimed he made a mistake when he did not.
"It seems that Ångström was all too eager

That is an outright smear with no basis in fact. Typical of your realclimate source.
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.

That is just baldly false. The range Angstrom experimented with was far greater than the increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times.
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.

No, they did determine the correct law. Using shorter tubes would just reduce the absorption amount according to the logarithmic decay law, not the relationship between control absorption and +CO2 absorption.
It’s worth noting that Ångström’s erroneous conclusion

His conclusion was objectively correct, and is easily verified in any modern university physics lab. realclimate is just lying.
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

His conclusion was not erroneous, and realclimate is just lying, as usual. The modern HITRAN database uses absorption data essentially the same as Angstrom's.
even if the experiment had been done with the same amounts of CO2 at low pressure rather than at near-sea-level pressures."

Low pressure is irrelevant to the earth's surface temperature. CO2's only significant effects on IR transmissivity and temperature are at altitudes above where water vapor condenses out.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

realclimate is one of the most dishonest sites on the Internet, as proved by the disgraceful trash you have reproduced above. Modern HITRAN absorption data are effectively the same as Angstrom's.
Seriously, it reeks of desperation trying to pass off a century old mistake.

Did HITRAN copy a "century old mistake"??

Please.

You need better lies.
#15192205
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.

No, I am pointing out the dishonesty of their propaganda techniques -- which I detailed above -- and their reliance on "plausible deniability" when they are called on them.
Should we now look back at all the evidence you have yet to provide for your various claims?

You mean the evidence you pretended you couldn't understand because of some unidentified flaw in my clear, simple, grammatical English sentences?
#15192207
@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.
#15192259
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.

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.
Since you have not done so yet, please do so now.

You're so cute when you think you can get away with being petulant, manipulative and disingenuous.
#15192327
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.

Sir, Truth to Power thinks he provides evidence.
He makes statements of 'fact' such as some scientist denies what almost all other scientists say is true.
He says that NASA 's date is 'fake data'.
Etc.
You and I and many others just don't take his word for these things.
This a classic example of the "fact divide" that currently divides America.
.
#15192339
Truth To Power wrote:

realclimate is one of the most dishonest sites on the Internet




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/
#15192357
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.


No, you never said that.

Also, you are the one who misread and thought I was discussing some place other than Canada.

Also, logicians know quite well that one can prove a negative,

So, this argument of yours is also dismissed for lack of evidence.

Next piece of evidence that you were asked for and did not provide:

Please provide evidence for this claim that wildfires killed more people in western Canada in the 1930s than last summer.
#15192387
late wrote:There is a certain perversity in using Big Oil propaganda, and accusing someone else of dishonesty.

Speaking of dishonesty, please quote an argument of mine that has been advanced by Big Oil.
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.

That's nothing but a bald smear tactic. It has nothing to do with anything I have written.
Scientific consensus was reached over 20 years ago, with the scientific community, as a whole, throwing it's support a couple years later.

Yes, and the consensus did not support the anti-fossil-fuel scare campaign.
As I pointed out earlier, you are trying to create the appearance of controversy when there is no controversy.

No, you are trying to create an appearance of consensus on issues on which there is not consensus.
"Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Plass? That's your "final solution"? Plass is garbage.
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/

Plass 1956 is unscientific trash. From the abstract: "The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8° C if the CO2 amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance."

See that? That's like saying a person who exercises will die of heat exhaustion within 20 minutes provided that no other factors change which influence their heat balance. It's just stupidity. The whole point of sensitivity analysis is to determine how changes in other factors respond to increased CO2 to restore the radiative equilibrium.
#15192390
@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.
#15192397
Truth To Power wrote:Oh, right, it wasn't the 1930s, it was even earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1919



from your source:


    Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Great Fire of 1919 in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
    You cannot create this article. You may need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to start this page. Alternatively, you can use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
    Search for "Great Fire of 1919" in existing articles.
    Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Care to try again?
#15192405
Truth To Power wrote:
Speaking of dishonesty, please quote an argument of mine that has been advanced by Big Oil.



You've used a number of them.

One of them being deny everything, admit nothing, and charge by the hour.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

I'm an easy going middle of the road moderate when[…]

The GOP is the world's stupidest death cult. I ge[…]

A Big 'If'.

Hi, Steve_Amrican. My point was that if someone […]

The existing social relationship was socialism. I[…]