Climate Science Is Not Settled

[fskimospy]

Nope, sorry. Probability doesn't factor into the scientific method. That's just a way for you to cloud the waters.

Don't be ridiculous, of course it does.

Sorry, but you do prove a hypothesis. Probabilities it is not. We don't probably know that gravity exists, or that the earth is round, or that the sun is the center of the solar system.

Sorry, hypotheses are only disproven, they are never proven. For someone with a science background you should know this.

You are on the side opposite Galileo. Everyone told him he was wrong, he was nuts, and that he had no proof. They based that on supposition and incorrect interpretation of data. Weird irony.

Actually, opposition to Galileo was based on a religion and dogma that was deeply culturally ingrained. People with a desperate need to keep believing in a geocentric model of the universe for religious reasons tried to incorrectly interpret data in order to fit what they wanted to be true as opposed to following the science, even if the science led to uncomfortable realizations.

Now you see why you're on the side of the church?

 

[xBiffx]

Don't be ridiculous, of course it does.



Sorry, hypotheses are only disproven, they are never proven. For someone with a science background you should know this.

Bullshit. It's never been about probably proving something, ever. Hypotheses can be confirmed. That is how you end up with scientific laws and theories. If the hypothesis is disproved, then you reject it, form a new one and experiment again until you can confirm one. You sir, are a complete fucking retard and the one guilty of being ridiculous while trying to inject uncertainty into the scientific process with this nonsense about probability. Your attempt to cloud the waters is a failure.

Actually, opposition to Galileo was based on a religion and dogma that was deeply culturally ingrained. People with a desperate need to keep believing in a geocentric model of the universe for religious reasons tried to incorrectly interpret data in order to fit what they wanted to be true as opposed to following the science, even if the science led to uncomfortable realizations.

Now you see why you're on the side of the church?

And again, you fail to see why you are on the side opposite Galileo with your religion of MMGW is the reason for everything.

 

[glenn1]

Step one in getting people to agree on effective policy is getting everyone on the same page with understanding the problem.

Your "effective policy" is the problem my friend, not climate change. Your proposed solutions are worse than the disease and would be even if the rest of us stipulated that your science was correct. But you refuse to accept this, so you continue to thunder on about "scientific consensus" and other ancillary discussions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They have been enumerated over and over and over again.

I 100% agree that rhetoric is one thing and the facts are quite another. I'm just asking you to look at the facts. There is nothing I've seen from you in this thread or others that makes me think it is likely that you are amenable to the facts. (the atmospheric temps while ignoring ocean data was particularly telling)

That's it? That's all you got? I'm not ignoring the ocean data...I just don't happen to think it's the overwhelming reason for the pause.

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit. It's never been about probably proving something, ever. Hypotheses can be confirmed. That is how you end up with scientific laws and theories. If the hypothesis is disproved, then you reject it, form a new one and experiment again until you can confirm one. You sir, are a complete fucking retard and the one guilty of being ridiculous while trying to inject uncertainty into the scientific process with this nonsense about probability. Your attempt to cloud the waters is a failure.

This is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. I will note the irony of you calling me a 'complete fucking retard' when getting basic facts like this wrong though.

And again, you fail to see why you are on the side opposite Galileo with your religion of MMGW is the reason for everything.

You're just ranting and raving now.

 

[fskimospy]

That's it? That's all you got?

That's it! If you're interested in seeing them all enumerated I'm sure you're able to use the search feature. The only problem I see with that is that you may get so many hits for all of the things that have been enumerated in the past that it could be difficult to sort though.

That's what happens when you ask for the same thing over and over and over again, huh.

 

[dphantom]

A good paper regarding temperature of the lower troposphere and how models and observational data over multi-decadal periods are necessary to identify an anthropogenic signal.

http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf

 

[xBiffx]

This is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. I will note the irony of you calling me a 'complete fucking retard' when getting basic facts like this wrong though.

Prove it.

 

[dphantom]

Actually, opposition to Galileo was based on a religion and dogma that was deeply culturally ingrained. People with a desperate need to keep believing in a geocentric model of the universe for religious reasons tried to incorrectly interpret data in order to fit what they wanted to be true as opposed to following the science, even if the science led to uncomfortable realizations.

Now you see why you're on the side of the church?

Clinging to Tradition?

Actually you are on the side of the Church, or rather traditionalists. More progressive thinkers are learning there is much more to climate than man alone or even primary.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's it! If you're interested in seeing them all enumerated I'm sure you're able to use the search feature. The only problem I see with that is that you may get so many hits for all of the things that have been enumerated in the past that it could be difficult to sort though.

That's what happens when you ask for the same thing over and over and over again, huh.

Why do you think that the change in ocean currents is the overwhelming reason for the pause? Or do you still believe there's been no pause as I've seen you argue for many years?

 

[Jaskalas]

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
------------

That lends itself to my argument regarding the error margins of Argo.

 

[bshole]

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
------------

That lends itself to my argument regarding the error margins of Argo.

ROFLMAO!! Time for another 180 by Eski.....

 

[xBiffx]

ROFLMAO!! Time for another 180 by Eski.....

That's like asking Joel Osteen to renounce Christ.

 

[fskimospy]

ROFLMAO!! Time for another 180 by Eski.....

Lol. Try actually reading the article.

EDIT:

Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

ie: the ocean is still absorbing more heat, we're just not sure where.

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same Nature Climate Change journal issue on ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere from 1970 to 2005. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.

Ouch.

 

[fskimospy]

That's like asking Joel Osteen to renounce Christ.

So sayeth the denier clergy, haha.

 

[xBiffx]

So sayeth the denier clergy, haha.

ROFL, says the guy who's running from the questions here.

 

[dphantom]

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
------------

That lends itself to my argument regarding the error margins of Argo.

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's ocean -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.

"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said JPL's William Llovel, lead author of the study, published Sunday, Oct. 5 in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is -- not much."

 

[fskimospy]

ROFL, says the guy who's running from the questions here.

Asks the same questions that have been asked and answered literally dozens of times. Acts aggrieved when people don't want to keep repeating themselves.

/smh

 

[Paul98]

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
------------

That lends itself to my argument regarding the error margins of Argo.

I thought it was already known that below 2000m there wasn't much measurable change. We have been talking about 0-700m vs 700-2000m where the changes have been, and as pointed out in the article.

The amount of lowered energy is very small compared to the amount going into the oceans. Had the ocean cycles not changed we would still be seeing rapid warming due to much more energy staying on the surface of the ocean vs going into the deep ocean(Yes I am talking about 700-2000m). Thus less energy would be pulled out of the atmosphere.

It's still the ocean cycle causing the major slowdown in air temperatures. There is just a little more energy that is causing slightly more cooling, from what i have read that is most likely from the lower solar activity.

So you think the ocean below 2000m has warmed more than they say because Argo is off? I am confused why you bring up argo accuracy considering the measurements of sea level rise aligned with argo temps + ice melt.

 

[dphantom]

It's still the ocean cycle causing the major slowdown in air temperatures. There is just a little more energy that is causing slightly more cooling, from what i have read that is most likely from the lower solar activity.

are you then saying the warmup particularly ~1980-~2000 is primarily due to ocean cycles also. Or is warming caused by CO2 while cooling caused by ocean cycles - primarily I mean?

 

[glenn1]

Asks the same questions that have been asked and answered literally dozens of times. Acts aggrieved when people don't want to keep repeating themselves.

/smh

Let me ask you an honest question. If you are truly concerned about climate change, why is your focus not on immediate and near-term solutions which would actually help? Things like government subsidies for telework, driverless cars (and resulting car sharing), increased nuclear generation, and adjusting building codes to require distributed solar generation devices with short payback periods (solar attic fans) or subsidize more than 30% those with medium term payback periods (solar water heaters, etc.)

Instead it's always carbon tax, shaming large families about owning SUVs, scaring suburbanites into thinking you want to move them into mass housing downtown, dumping endless taxpayer money into "alternative energy research" pits that never produce tangible results, and taxing middle class workers to give it to 3rd worlders.

 

[Paul98]

are you then saying the warmup particularly ~1980-~2000 is primarily due to ocean cycles also. Or is warming caused by CO2 while cooling caused by ocean cycles - primarily I mean?

I am saying overall warming is caused by CO2, and other greenhouse gasses.

Short term warming and cooling is caused by ocean cycles.

You would get a graph similar to Sin(x) + x, where the sin would be the changing ocean cycles, x being the increase from CO2. and no don't read anything into that analogy, it's simply showing the overlap of short term trend over long term trend.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me ask you an honest question. If you are truly concerned about climate change, why is your focus not on immediate and near-term solutions which would actually help? Things like government subsidies for telework, driverless cars (and resulting car sharing), increased nuclear generation, and adjusting building codes to require distributed solar generation devices with short payback periods (solar attic fans) or subsidize more than 30% those with medium term payback periods (solar water heaters, etc.)

I'm for all of those things. (well, I haven't read about the cost benefit for some of those solar things, but still I'm probably for it.)

Instead it's always carbon tax, shaming large families about owning SUVs, scaring suburbanites into thinking you want to move them into mass housing downtown, dumping endless taxpayer money into "alternative energy research" pits that never produce tangible results, and taxing middle class workers to give it to 3rd worlders.

1. Carbon taxes are a great way to implement a market friendly solution to curbing carbon emissions. They are modeled off the extremely successful sulfur dioxide regulations implemented by GHWB, a Republican, no less!

2. I have no desire to force anyone to move anywhere.

3. Alternative energy research has led to all sorts of good things for more efficient/cost effective alternative energy technology, energy efficiency technology, etc.

4. Not sure what you mean by taxing middle class workers to give it to 3rd worlders.

It all basically comes down to the idea that if someone says the solution to the problem is either behind door #1 or behind door #2 my response is to open both doors. I'm for both short term and long term solutions.

 

[xBiffx]

Asks the same questions that have been asked and answered literally dozens of times. Acts aggrieved when people don't want to keep repeating themselves.

/smh

I'm not the only one asking questions. Still, you've failed to back up some of your assertions. Deflect away.

/smh

 

[glenn1]

1. Carbon taxes are a great way to implement a market friendly solution to curbing carbon emissions. They are modeled off the extremely successful sulfur dioxide regulations implemented by GHWB, a Republican, no less!

Pretty much every carbon tax proposal your side comes up with includes tax credits to offset the higher costs caused by the tax. What fucking purpose does it serve to artificially inflate the costs of the (typically lower quality) goods the poor and middle class buy, then turn around and give them money to make up the difference? You're not causing any net reduction in consumption if you give a tax credit offset since as your side constantly points out, those people have an almost 100% propensity to spend marginal income.