Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I agree. Let the predictions be tested despite their unreliable results so far. That is fair.

You say this despite evidence I presented to you [1,2] that climate models are reasonably accurate?

Here is a great article [3] that dives deep on the climate modeling subject, including the last 30 years or so of model prediction testing. I hope you take the time to read it. As I said earlier, it is compelling. It boggles my mind how this evidence can be discounted out of hand. To what end? Help me understand.

The truth is, despite huge analytical advances and decades of reliable data, you're using the exact same talking points that skeptics used 20 years ago. I don't believe there will ever be enough data to meet climate skeptics' standards of "reliability". Let me know when you are ready to A) admit that, or B) outline what evidence would convince you that AGW is real and actionable.

[1] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
[3] http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

Originally posted by wildgrass
You say this despite evidence I presented to you [1,2] that climate models are reasonably accurate?

Here is a great article [3] that dives deep on the climate modeling subject, including the last 30 years or so of model prediction testing. I hope you take the time to read it. As I said earlier, it is compelling. It boggles my mind how this evidence can ...[text shortened]... -accurate-than-you-thought
[3] http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

I guess if it doesn't predict the temperature within 1/10th of a degree in Peoria a year from now it is discounted out of hand.

Originally posted by wildgrass
You say this despite evidence I presented to you [1,2] that climate models are reasonably accurate?

Here is a great article [3] that dives deep on the climate modeling subject, including the last 30 years or so of model prediction testing. I hope you take the time to read it. As I said earlier, it is compelling. It boggles my mind how this evidence can ...[text shortened]... -accurate-than-you-thought
[3] http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

You said this:

" I agree with you that predictions are tricky and often wrong. But if there is to be any honest attempt to understand and mitigate potential man-made climate change, predictions have to be made."

First they are often wrong according to you, now you say they are accurate. You are contradicting yourself and I have to conclude you do not know what you are talking about and are just pretending to. You have wasted enough of my time. Good luck convincing others with your contradicting logic.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
First they are often wrong according to you, now you say they are accurate. You are contradicting yourself

NO, moron; some past models can have both often have given wrong predictions and often have given right prediction in the past but still the present models, which evolved from analysis of the failures of those past models, being accurate and correct thanks to the way science works to continually improve models to ever better fit the evidence; there is no contradiction there.
Scientific models are evolving with new evidence and improving all the time and thus get more and more accurate; that is just the way science works.

So, to put that more simply, thanks to the way science works, there is no contradiction in the past models being only partially correct and the current models being basically correct.

Read about scientific method;

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

and just for once learn something.

Originally posted by humy
NO, moron; some past models can have both often have given wrong predictions and often have given right prediction in the past but still the present models, which evolved from analysis of the failures of those past models, being accurate and correct thanks to the way science works to continually improve models to ever better fit the evidence; there is no ...[text shortened]... method;

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

and just for once learn something.

Prove it moron. Use only future predictions to prove it if you can, but don't be an idiot and call them accurate when they have not been tested with future predictions.

Stop making up stuff as you go along. You know full well you have no proof that future predictions are accurate. You merely have faith that proof will come later. That is not science, that is a wild and pathetic guess!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]Prove it moron. Use only future predictions to prove it if you can, /b]

Why "only future predictions"? The proof is that the best models have made all the necessary correct predictions in the past, moron. They correctly predicted a temperature rise that cannot be explained by natural causes (that is only part of the proof; there is more and stronger proof in the form of observations of what is going on in the stratosphere which also cannot be explained by natural causes. I have already repeatedly shown you links explaining this proof, which you ignore).

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You said this:

" I agree with you that predictions are tricky and often wrong. But if there is to be any honest attempt to understand and mitigate potential man-made climate change, predictions have to be made."

First they are often wrong according to you, now you say they are accurate. You are contradicting yourself and I have to conclude you do ...[text shortened]... o. You have wasted enough of my time. Good luck convincing others with your contradicting logic.

Reasonable accuracy. Reasonable.

I have actually had reasonable discussions with climate skeptics before, but unfortunately this is not one of them. A reasonable skeptic admits that overwhelming evidence suggests that the earth is warming and that CO2 causes it.

A reasonable skeptic lays out a series of experiments that can be tested and validated to either prove or disprove a hypothesis. This can be done, but alas you still have not even thought of what that experiment would consist of. You have not taken the time to read any articles that contradict your marginal outlook, and have used a variety of dubious conservative talking points to discount all data that you don't like.

Scientists don't do this. Reasonable people don't do this. You shouldn't do this. It's unbecoming and rude.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Reasonable accuracy. Reasonable.

I have actually had reasonable discussions with climate skeptics before, but unfortunately this is not one of them. A reasonable skeptic admits that overwhelming evidence suggests that the earth is warming and that CO2 causes it.

A reasonable skeptic lays out a series of experiments that can be tested and validated to ...[text shortened]... don't do this. Reasonable people don't do this. You shouldn't do this. It's unbecoming and rude.

"Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need the math to understand the underlying causes of that loss."

Not really. If the data is complete all that is needed is comparing glacial loss with increased C02. If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation. If there is no convincing correlation with that data it should be discounted.

Show us the data. Forget the climate models for now. If we can't see it on an accurate graph we never will. Surely you can show a bump if it is there, right?

Did you avoid this on the other thread because you could not find the bump you were looking for? I think you failed and that is why you are running like a coward while pretending I am the unreasonable one. It is you. You don't like where the facts are leading you so you run.

I have noticed that alarmists do not like fair debates. Al Gore will not appear on TV unless there is nobody to challenge his flawed arguments. The news media will not allow skeptics to appear and debate because they do not want their views heard. Ever since Scott Pruitt said CO2 is not the main cause of GW all you hear is one side of view on PBS and the major news media networks. They cannot stand the truth coming out and are suppressing true debates. If they are not afraid of the truth they would welcome a debate instead of avoiding it. You are doing the same.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/new-epa-chief-says-man-made-co2-not-to-blame-for-global-warming/8342052

Here is an excerpt from the link above:

Mr Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma's attorney-general. He said he was not convinced carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal was the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists.

Notice how it says scientists and it does not say climate scientists. That is because most climate scientists do NOT embrace that view. Scientists are NOT all climate scientists. If Freeman Dyson is not qualified to have an expert opinion then all non-climate scientists are not.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need the math to understand the underlying causes of that loss."

Not really. If the data is complete all that is needed is comparing glacial loss with increased C02. If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation. If there ...[text shortened]... reeman Dyson is not qualified to have an expert opinion then all non-climate scientists are not.

"If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation."

That correlative study would be totally useless, given what we know about our climate. What would that tell you about anything? What does substantial mean in this context? CO2 levels are higher now than they've been in 4 million years, and 2016 broke 2015's record as the warmest year ever recorded. But there is also a statistical correlation between people who eat egg rolls and people who own dogs. While it is interesting, it does not tell you anything scientifically. Do egg rolls cause dogs?

I have been more than willing to debate you on the evidence. I have presented lots and lots of scientific evidence. I don't think you read most of it, because you are approaching the entire topic from a position where you already think you know the answer. Meanwhile your evidence is descriptive and linguistic. It must be a "primary"cause (whatever that means) and scientists are biased. Based on your talking points, it sounds like you heard it on a talk radio show. I have admitted multiple times that there is a ton that science does not know and cannot explain. You seem to have already collected all the right answers, and know all the facts.

It's not that simple. In order to debate, you need to first have the ability to be proven false. Unfortunately, that opportunity does not exist in this forum.

When that article you cited says that Priutt "sued the agency" when he was AG, he did it 17 times. He also wrote a letter that he didn't actually write, except put his name on a letter written by oil companies. He's a paid shill. Pay attention to who's paying the people who are denying anthropogenic causes of climate change. I noticed he used your "primary contributor" language to get around that squeaky wheel. Technically correct, effectively worthless.

Originally posted by wildgrass
"If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation."

That correlative study would be totally useless, given what we know about our climate. What would that tell you about anything? What does substantial mean in this context? CO2 levels are higher now than they've been in 4 million years, and 2016 broke 2015's record as t ...[text shortened]... tributor" language to get around that squeaky wheel. Technically correct, effectively worthless.

There you go with that same bias again. 2016 being the warmest year has no indication that man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. All that proves is the trend that was caused by nature is continuing. I find it amusing that many who claim to embrace science cling to that false correlation.

It is the deliberate misleading of people that convinces me that alarmists are declaring war on the truth. They rarely use the word anthropogenic or man made when they clearly need to. They say 70% of people believe in global warming, but so do I. They try to mislead people into thinking global warming is the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. It is not, but a clear effort is being made to confuse people into thinking it is the same thing. This is not science, it is PROPAGANDA!

The Pliocene Epoch shows CO2 was not the main cause of that warming. Alarmists who cannot explain the main cause of that warming have no right to claim CO2 is the main cause of global warming today. It is like saying egg rolls cause dogs.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There you go with that same bias again. 2016 being the warmest year has no indication that man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. All that proves is the trend that was caused by nature is continuing. I find it amusing that many who claim to embrace science cling to that false correlation.

It is the d ...[text shortened]... to claim CO2 is the main cause of global warming today. It is like saying egg rolls cause dogs.

You put a lot of faith on the Pliocene data, which BTW has been refuted. Take a look at this perspective, a much longer time period showing mass extinctions coinciding with CO2 levels.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html

The latest on the Pliocene:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2939882/IPCC-report-confirmed-Earth-s-similar-CO2-levels-3-million-years-ago-support-climate-predictions-planet-study-warns.html

Another pliocene study from the Scripps institute:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

Originally posted by sonhouse
You put a lot of faith on the Pliocene data, which BTW has been refuted. Take a look at this perspective, a much longer time period showing mass extinctions coinciding with CO2 levels.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html

The latest on the Pliocene:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2939882/IPCC-report-c ...[text shortened]... itute:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

The Pliocene was extremely warm. All the glaciers melted. It was so much warmer that it cannot be explained by CO2 alone. That is the FACT you keep IGNORING!

Learn to read!

Originally posted by sonhouse
You put a lot of faith on the Pliocene data, which BTW has been refuted. Take a look at this perspective, a much longer time period showing mass extinctions coinciding with CO2 levels.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html

The latest on the Pliocene:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2939882/IPCC-report-c ...[text shortened]... itute:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

In response to your edit adding a link saying "what does 400 ppm look like?".

That is exactly your problem. 400 ppm looks like today and the Pliocene. The problem you keep ignoring is that All of the glaciers melted during the Pliocene, but we have plenty of glaciers now. BIG temp difference!

Since it is BOTH you need to find out what caused the Pliocene to be so much WARMER than today. If you cannot you have no right to claim CO2 is the main cause!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
In response to your edit adding a link saying "what does 400 ppm look like?".

That is exactly your problem. 400 ppm looks like today and the Pliocene. The problem you keep ignoring is that All of the glaciers melted during the Pliocene, but we have plenty of glaciers now. BIG temp difference!

Since it is BOTH you need to find out what caused the Pl ...[text shortened]... to be so much WARMER than today. If you cannot you have no right to claim CO2 is the main cause!

I think you missed the part about the SPEED of the CO2 increase. That went right by you didn't it? When CO2 levels rise there is a rise in average temperatures and that happened in the pliocence but the difference today is the rate of rise is ten time faster than it ever was back then. We are on track not to 500 PPM or 600PPM but 1000 PPM. That in maybe 200 years, a VERY fast clip VS back then.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There you go with that same bias again. 2016 being the warmest year has no indication that man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. All that proves is the trend that was caused by nature is continuing. I find it amusing that many who claim to embrace science cling to that false correlation.

It is the d ...[text shortened]... to claim CO2 is the main cause of global warming today. It is like saying egg rolls cause dogs.

What bias? You asked for evidence of a correlation. Not me. Obviously the simple fact that 2016 was warmer than ever recorded has no indication as to cause. That's what I said earlier. Doesn't that make you biased?

The same question I've been asking you over and over again still applies: How do you prove causation in the context of a global climate without a control?

The answer that scientists have come up with is..... climate models. It is what they have to work with, and it's the only way that is known. Without the models, all you have is correlation.

Those climate models are reasonably accurate (see prior references for evidence). They are congruent with most of the latest 300 year warming trend. However, they veer statistically off course in more recent years. The necessary conclusion has to be that another variable has been introduced into our climate that explains the statistical deviation.

One hypothesis to explain this was that fossil fuels may account for that deviation. Incorporate that variable into the model, and you see the model improve relative to observations. But it's still not there. What about other aerosols: methane, water vapor. The model improves further. What about land use changes? Now we're getting somewhere.

Again, where is the bias? Scientists are simply demonstrating, using models, that these variables can cause specific changes to our climate.

You keep talking about "they" as if there is some grand conspiracy. Press releases and newspapers have to dumb this stuff down because it's complicated and people don't have the expertise to check whether the standard deviation of the latest climate model fits with observed trends. To some extent, you need to trust the scientists and the peer review process, but there is no conspiracy.

It's fine if you want to argue that anthropogenic causes aren't significant. But, if you care about scientific rigor at all, you have to identify what other cause has generated the statistical deviation from what would be expected from incorporating all known natural variables into the equation.

Debunking the paradigm requires that you establish a new one.

And sonhouse is right about correlating our climate to the 3 million year Pliocene Epoch. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 today is unlike anything seen in the fossil record. I don't even think they have the level of resolution to look at a 300 year window. The data is interesting and possible parallels can be drawn, but the context is very different.