(12-18-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You know the old saying you can't prove a negative? Why don't you link me studies that you think prove climate change, and I will critique them.
And, hopefully, you understand what you're linking and not just copy-pasta or why even engage you?
By the way, don't even waste our time with anything less than 95% R-sq (and if you don't understand why, google it)....because I will summarily reject that study with that very one sentence. And to make it simple: Less than 95% R-sq = nothing (and most likley garbage) and less, or no R-sq at all = something even less.
So, now, please...regale me with studies that support your view. I will wait.
Donald? Is it you?
You're amazing!
So let's see. You say you get your opinion from studies you've read. You attack people who believe the "climate change lie" as little Hitlers and whatnot (that is amazing by itself). Then some more bragging of how much you understand and what little lights all others here are compared to you.
And yet you won't even do the simple thing and post links to those studies - which really is all I asked you for. And which would take way less time then keep posting condescending insults towards those that go with the opinion of merely all scientists in this world. Where are these studies? Why should I take anything you say seriously when you won't even show me a single study that allegedly exists and that you allegedly read and understood? Really, why should anyone?
Right now... you have done NOTHING but running a big mouth. You do not provide anything to support your view, you offer insults, proofless claims and a huge sense of self-confidence. Which makes me guess your hands are fairly small.
And you obviously just hope that people shy away because you use some scientific expressions you consider fancy.
I mean, cool, R². What does that even mean without any context. Guess you talk about the coefficient of determination here; posting just that without making clear what you're even referring to does not make any sense.
-- I will give you one thing right away: Predictions are indeed something different than facts. Climate models are predictions and of course do have margin of errors (or even more fundamental uncertainties). I definitely wouldn't defend a singulary prediction that is out there up to the very letter. That's all I can say to "R squared" at this point.
- I even give you a second thing: I am not really a scientist. But unlike your republican geniusses, I take from that that I'd better listen to those who actually are.
So that's that. I am aware you posted a follow-up which is somehow way more interesting than the bunch of hot air you put in here untl then. Please allow me to answer later, I can't get into it right now.
---------------------------
Well, I'll be damned to give a response right now, without having really the time to do so.
(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or we can break it down even simpler and you tell me:
That seems like a good start.
(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The % of CO2 in the atmosphere and how fast it is increasing
Well, % is tricky as I hope you know. Volume %, weight %? Anyway, the easy answer would be about 0,04%. Measuring in parts per million therefore makes more sense, as you know (I hope). Right now we have about 400 ppm (using volume as the benchmark).
in 1850, this number was more like 280 ppm, a value that was quite stable for at least 10.000 years. You know there were flucuation in earth's history, but none of the former increases was nearly as sharp, i.e. did not happen in such a short period of time.
It's man causing that increase. When you doubt that, let me know (I have no idea as of yet what exactly you are doubting in the first place).
- Increase rate about 2ppm/anno.
(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How much of the annual CO2 emissions man constitutes
About 3.5 % of annual natural CO2 emissions, from what I understand. I might be wrong on that one, but I'm running out of time to get the exact numbers.
As you know, that is additional CO2 compared to those natural sources that have emitted there for a long time, forming a pretty steady circle in the last 10.000 years or so (again, if that's what you want to talk about, I willingly get into more detail here).
(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What is the CO2 log warming equation
Sorry, honestly don't get you here. If you talk about logarithmic amplification, then well, the heating effect of CO2 doesn't go linear with its atmospheric concentration. It adds up logarithmically to the "warming" (let's say the downward forcing), i.e. double concentrations do not lead to a doubled warming effect. To talk about the main stuff heuristically, I know this is not the most exact stuff here. I do not remember the equation behind it now, but I gladly look it up if you want to deepen the conversation on that one.
(12-18-2016, 07:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And a general teaser on your thoughts on negative forcing and amplification effects....with a qualifying nod to sunspots and solar maximums
WEl, the amplication effects. It seems like a little bit of a guessing game still. I won't look it up now, just from the top of my head. There are amplification effects that could reduce the warming effect - like a warmer soil produces more evaporation, hence more clouds, hence less direct irradiance, hence less heating. Increased CO2 levels might also lead to an increase in vegetation, hence additional CO2 might be bound in more plants. Third one I remember is warmer oceans could also provide a larger CO2 sink, i.e. could hold more CO2 (but that last one might still be devastating, see sour oceans, and from what I heard is under some considerable doubt now).
The acclerating amplifications include mainly a lessened earth albedo (ice that reflects sunlight melts and goes away, hence less sunlight is reflected directly fom earth's surface, hence more absorption and more IR radiation), melting tundras/permafrost surfaces releasing methane (big one), and that more evaporation might lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect (since water is a way more potent greenhouse gas).
As for the sunspots, I can look it up later, right now I just can report on my knowledge that these are considered and probably were responsible for some warming in the earth's past, but are not considered responsible for our current warming period. Really have to leave that one to a later discussion, if there is one.
Your turn. I did you the favor and answered the questions quite commonly. I'm sure (and hope) you had something special in mind here, so let's just see it.
(12-18-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You know the old saying you can't prove a negative? Why don't you link me studies that you think prove climate change, and I will critique them.
And, hopefully, you understand what you're linking and not just copy-pasta or why even engage you?
By the way, don't even waste our time with anything less than 95% R-sq (and if you don't understand why, google it)....because I will summarily reject that study with that very one sentence. And to make it simple: Less than 95% R-sq = nothing (and most likley garbage) and less, or no R-sq at all = something even less.
So, now, please...regale me with studies that support your view. I will wait.
Have you ever heard of Andre Wakefield? He is the physician who erroneously claimed there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
His research has been proven to be false, e.g. they proved a negative. Since you don't have a degree in science, I guess your science liberal arts requirement as non-science major was part of the "worthless waste" of an eduction you received.
(12-19-2016, 04:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: About 3.5 % of annual natural CO2 emissions, from what I understand. I might be wrong on that one, but I'm running out of time to get the exact numbers.
As you know, that is additional CO2 compared to those natural sources that have emitted there for a long time, forming a pretty steady circle in the last 10.000 years or so (again, if that's what you want to talk about, I willingly get into more detail here).
As for the sunspots, I can look it up later, right now I just can report on my knowledge that these are considered and probably were responsible for some warming in the earth's past, but are not considered responsible for our current warming period. Really have to leave that one to a later discussion, if there is one.
Your turn. I did you the favor and answered the questions quite commonly. I'm sure (and hope) you had something special in mind here, so let's just see it.
(12-19-2016, 04:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: WEl, the amplication effects. It seems like a little bit of a guessing game still.
I think we actually agree.
The entire basis of catastrophic global warming is the "guessing game" you acknowledge. They don't know what they don't know. To date their assumptions have been horribly wrong, and that's why their predictions are wrong year after year and model after model without going back to re-state the past.
(12-23-2016, 04:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: All that posting, and not a single link - no links at all - meeting the requirements I requested.
The only thing you demonstrated with that eye-chart of a rebutall is your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Listen buddy. I've had quite enough of this. You asked a lot of questions and I answered all of them. The questions were basic, none of these demanded "links" to get answered, and btw I do not care what you demand or "require".
You have a stance and might try to somehow defend it. But if you think you make a good case for yourself and the topic at hand by behaving the way you do right now, so be it.
(12-23-2016, 04:51 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think we actually agree.
The entire basis of catastrophic global warming is the "guessing game" you acknowledge. They don't know what they don't know. To date their assumptions have been horribly wrong, and that's why their predictions are wrong year after year and model after model without going back to re-state the past.
Guessing is the "entire basis"?
You asked about the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, do you doubt the numbers I gave? They are facts, not guesses. This is reality, not theory.
Do you doubt the glaciers melt, the oceans already rise, that there is a warming trend, the shrinking sea ice, the increased ocean acidity, the changing weather patterns, the increase of droughts and weather exremes? Now the last one is maybe still up for debate, but the rest... is quite real, don't you agree? Why do you think these things happen? (No excuses, this is not a "negative"... so you can finally fire away with your studies and links right away)
Oh, and well, since you can't respond without links, how about the 5th IPCC assesmment report, keep it simple. It makes no real sense linking to it, but well. Here you go, buddy...
Now if there's anything special you wish to dispute, feel free to use this report as a basis for a rebuttal. It's an easy one for you, well known and all.
And yeah, I do acknowledge it's a guessing game. And that's all what saying "climate change isn't real" is too - just another guess. Just very unlikely to be true.
(12-23-2016, 04:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If you understood the scientific method, then you'd know the burden is not on me to disprove your claim.
I didn't make a claim. You did.
You claimed climate change is a hoax based upon the actual studies you have read. I haven't asked you to prove or disprove anything. I've asked you to post the actual studies you have read so I can read them for myself which is exactly what you have asked others to do. I haven't asked you to do anything you haven't already asked others to do: post the studies.
You've made some ridiculously specious and uninformed comments about cancer research that I have to assume were fueled by a large consumption of alcohol because the content is so painfully embarrassing in your childlike understanding of cancer, cancer research, and the science behind each. At least, I hope you didn't make those comments sober so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't understand the science behind the statistical analysis of the data then your understanding of statistics isn't very helpful when critiquing the conclusions. Which is why you made those embarrassingly uneducated comments regarding cancer research in the first place.
You really have no room to criticize other's understanding of the scientific method when you clearly don't understand it yourself.
(12-23-2016, 09:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't make a claim. You did.
You claimed climate change is a hoax based upon the actual studies you have read. I haven't asked you to prove or disprove anything. I've asked you to post the actual studies you have read so I can read them for myself which is exactly what you have asked others to do. I haven't asked you to do anything you haven't already asked others to do: post the studies.
That's how I remember it.
When asked to post his denial "studies", Justwin suddenly threw up the specious "can't prove a negative" argument (after having claimed to have read such "proven negatives"), conflating a logical fallacy with scientific testing of existing studies. This does not illustrate understanding of scientific method, which works by testing claims positive or negative.
Then after making claim to competent understanding of science (denied to everyone else on this thread) and views based on studies he claims "prove a negative", he did an about face and put the onus on Hollo to produce something. Which Hollo did, and still no effective response--only the re-invocation of his specious "requirements."
The absurd demand for a study showing "nothing less than 95% R-sq" is odd on several accounts. First, how one measures confidence and probability in cases where all parameters/conditions cannot be effectively known is part of the current debate in climate science.
And second, the thesis of anthropogenic climate change is not based upon one study somewhere which tracks the volume and growth of C02 or some such. It rests upon a synthesis of data from any sources and many independent measurements--not only made by atmospheric scientists and meteorologists the world over and across continents, but also oceanographers, glaciologists, hydrogeologists and even speleologists working in every single national science organization in the world.
Some exceptions to this consensus come from nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US which have large extraction interests, or from those like the UK and Australia which have strong neo-liberal politics. And from these sources comes funding for climate science denial, debunked by the scientific community, but touted everywhere by (to borrow a term from Justwin) "useful idiots" in the press and politicians like new Trump appointee Rick Perry of oi-rich Texas. And of course across online forums the world over.
(12-23-2016, 01:57 PM)Dill Wrote: That's how I remember it.
When asked to post his denial "studies", Justwin suddenly threw up the specious "can't prove a negative" argument (after having claimed to have read such "proven negatives"), conflating a logical fallacy with scientific testing of existing studies. This does not illustrate understanding of scientific method, which works by testing claims positive or negative.
Then after making claim to competent understanding of science (denied to everyone else on this thread) and views based on studies he claims "prove a negative", he did an about face and put the onus on Hollo to produce something. Which Hollo did, and still no effective response--only the re-invocation of his specious "requirements."
The absurd demand for a study showing "nothing less than 95% R-sq" is odd on several accounts. First, how one measures confidence and probability in cases where all parameters/conditions cannot be effectively known is part of the current debate in climate science.
And second, the thesis of anthropogenic climate change is not based upon one study somewhere which tracks the volume and growth of C02 or some such. It rests upon a synthesis of data from any sources and many independent measurements--not only made by atmospheric scientists and meteorologists the world over and across continents, but also oceanographers, glaciologists, hydrogeologists and even speleologists working in every single national science organization in the world.
Some exceptions to this consensus come from nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US which have large extraction interests, or from those like the UK and Australia which have strong neo-liberal politics. And from these sources comes funding for climate science denial, debunked by the scientific community, but touted everywhere by (to borrow a term from Justwin) "useful idiots" in the press and politicians like new Trump appointee Rick Perry of oi-rich Texas. And of course across online forums the world over.
Time to put up or shut up.
This will be answered by further unproven conspiracy theories everyone who is involved with climate (and cancer) research is on the take. Thus what is the point to posting any of the actual studies he has read indicating climate change is a hoax.
I went out into the yard and did my part, to combat Co2 levels.
I went to each of my trees and said "Listen, BUDDY !! You need to suck it up, here !! Start breathing deeper, you bastard !!".
(12-23-2016, 05:02 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I went out into the yard and did my part, to combat Co2 levels.
I went to each of my trees and said "Listen, BUDDY !! You need to suck it up, here !! Start breathing deeper, you bastard !!".
(12-23-2016, 09:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just post the studies you have read which indicate climate change is a hoax so we can be as informed as you.
Again, post for me the studies that you think prove your case, and I will critique them. It's never the case that an extraordinary claim has to be disproven, but rather you have to show the merits of your case - and the more extraordinary the claim typically the more extraordinary the proof. That's the scientific method, in case you were never taught it.
Your failure to link studies can only be assumed to mean you've never read or understood an actual study relevant to this debate. But then that's clear to anyone reading the last several posts.
(12-23-2016, 01:57 PM)Dill Wrote: The absurd demand for a study showing "nothing less than 95% R-sq" is odd on several accounts.
No, it's not absurd, it's a gold standard. You're ignorant. That's not an attack, it's a fact. Some of us have actual experience and training in science and statistics, and others of you do not. Also a fact.
That's why I ask you to post studies that support your view, despite knowing you've neither read nor understood those studies.
(12-23-2016, 09:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't make a claim. You did.
You claimed climate change is a hoax based upon the actual studies you have read.
Actually, no.
This is an important distinction that you don't get but would serve you well in life, in general: "I haven't read a study that convinces me CC isn't junk science"
That's why I asked you for links to studies that led you to believe what you believe. I know full well you don't believe what you believe based on any scientific study you actually read or understood. Connect the dots.
(12-23-2016, 09:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You've made some ridiculously specious and uninformed comments about cancer research that I have to assume were fueled by a large consumption of alcohol because the content is so painfully embarrassing in your childlike understanding of cancer, cancer research, and the science behind each.
LMFAO...Like what? Because I think the point being made with that sailed way over your head. Happy to explain it to you, but I have no idea what you think you read.
(12-23-2016, 05:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: Listen buddy. I've had quite enough of this. You asked a lot of questions and I answered all of them. The questions were basic, none of these demanded "links" to get answered,
Indeed. But the point was to show how astonishingly the claim of AGT is and to ask why you aren't naturally more skeptical of the claims made. That point was lost on you, because you've suspended the most remote of healthy skepticism that those questions should have slapped you in the face with.
(12-24-2016, 12:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, post for me the studies that you think prove your case, and I will critique them. It's never the case that an extraordinary claim has to be disproven, but rather you have to show the merits of your case - and the more extraordinary the claim typically the more extraordinary the proof. That's the scientific method, in case you were never taught it.
Your failure to link studies can only be assumed to mean you've never read or understood an actual study relevant to this debate. But then that's clear to anyone reading the last several posts.
(12-19-2016, 04:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: So that's that. I am aware you posted a follow-up which is somehow way more interesting than the bunch of hot air you put in here untl then. Please allow me to answer later, I can't get into it right now.
Yes, let's dispense with the hot air and have you post the studies that lead you to believe what you believe.
Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. You're the one buying, so give us your extraordinary proof.
Donald? Is it you?![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 957917384.jpg?1480952297]](http://nationalgeo.ucoz.com/_ph/14/957917384.jpg?1480952297)
