Someone, for the love of God, change the f---ing subject please!
My scientific explanation of the extinction of the unicorn didn't even slow things down. I'll have to find stronger evidence of other historical things with some merit, the Ordovician Period perhaps.
Er, yes, that you are wrong. Oreskes quote isn't implying causation.
Do you need comprehension lessons?
Also, when Oreskes says scientists treat the “95 percent confidence limit” as a “causal claim” she is wrong. The confidence level (and the confidence interval) speaks to the probability that we would see temperatures this warm or warmer if they were simply random fluctuations. No causes can be interpreted, regardless of how the chips fall based on temperature data alone
My scientific explanation of the extinction of the unicorn didn't even slow things down. I'll have to find stronger evidence of other historical things with some merit, the Ordovician Period perhaps.
Then it could be caused by natural mechanisms that change climate.
Absolutely. But for that to happen you need to both find a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere.
Absolutely. But for that to happen you need to both find a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere.
Good luck with that.
But climate scientists do not understand all the natural mechanisms. Heck they forgot to include the effect of oceans to their full capacity.
I suspect that hockey stick meme is causing you think screwy.
But climate scientists do not understand all the natural mechanisms.
Ah, the old "we don't know everything so we know nothing" fraud.
Still no-one has both found "a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain[ed] why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere"
Heck they forgot to include the effect of oceans to their full capacity.
I suspect that hockey stick meme is causing you think screwy.
Still no-one has both found "a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain[ed] why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere"
It is clear climate scientists have yet to explain why any warming in the last 30 years has followed the scenario in which CO2 emissions stopped at year 2000 levels. When in fact levels have risen.
Of course climate scientists understand parts of the system. But that kind of hubris has already been pulled to pieces.
Back to the article I linked to: statistical significance does not imply causality.
It is clear climate scientists have yet to explain why any warming in the last 30 years has followed the scenario in which CO2 emissions stopped at year 2000 levels. When in fact levels have risen.
That's just a fallacy. What you're talking about is an example of this:
Then it could be caused by natural mechanisms that change climate.
If it's not random is has to have a cause. At the moment the only cause we have that fits is man's CO2, because neither you nor anyone else can "find a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere"
Hahahaha. Citing another false meme with no sense of irony.
Why are you citing that step graph when I am referring to the climate model projections based on different scenarios?
Because you are using an equally false premise, that precise small periods and intervals have any significance. You can't possibly ascribe temps in 2000 to any particular scenario given the error bars involved so early in the projection scenarios.
Eel was only recently telling us about the uncertainty in the annual mean measurements themselves, let alone the models.
Yes, and climate scientists have yet to show the main cause is man.
Only to your and your ideologically driven friends, despite you having no other plausible explanation.
Every major world scientific institution accepts that it's man's CO2.
... climate scientists have yet to show the main cause is man.
We have a few pieces in a puzzle:
1. We know CO2 is a GHG
2. We know that humans have released large quantities of CO2 from fossil fuels and also reduced the planet's natural ability to recycle it eg by deforestation
3. We know atmospheric CO2 level has risen in line with human-released CO2
4. Carbon isotope measurements show the additional CO2 is what we humans released
5. Temperatures have been rising - not smoothly but fairly consistently
6. Other signs of warming: reduced ice-sheets & glaciers, increased humidity, rising sea level ....
Can you join the dots solenoid?
It's not absolute proof (as recently pointed out and you must already be aware there's no proof in empirical science) but there's a great deal of evidence pointing to a plausible link between human activities, increased CO2 and warming. Since this gives us a good explanation of the evidence, AGW becomes the one to beat. If anyone has a better explanation let them present it.
Are you trying to tell us that a climate model over 25 years old wasn't as accurate as more modern models? As the realClimate artilce Watts references says "Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3ºC)"
And, of course, Hansen overestimated other forcings, but you can't acknowledge that as it goes against another favourite sceptic meme, that climate scientists don't take natural factors into account.
No, he is trying to educate you. You are very resistant to education, especially where said education is in conflict with your ideology and your enthusiasm for conspiracies.
Yes, and climate scientists have yet to show the main cause is man.
They have shown it to rational people's satisfaction. But there will always be people who deny science they find inconvenient.
That's just a different usage of "trapped". Water is still trapped by a dam.
Andy, it doesn't matter how many times you say that it's still going to be wrong.
No water is trapped because the dam resevoir is simultaneously filling and emptying and the flow out is equal to the flow in.
Similarly thermal energy is being simultaneously absorbed and readiated by the Earth.
If heat were actually trapped the planet would not follow the Stefan/Boltzman law and we'd end up with a violation of the third law of thermodynamics.
Since that can't happen you can't have trapped heat.
Andy, it doesn't matter how many times you say that it's still going to be wrong.
No water is trapped because the dam resevoir is simultaneously filling and emptying and the flow out is equal to the flow in.
The flow out is often equal to the flow in in a prison. Doesn't mean the prisoners aren't trapped while they're there.
If you don't think water behind a dam is trapped there you don't know what trapped means.
Ah, the old "we don't know everything so we know nothing" fraud.
Still no-one has both found "a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain[ed] why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere"
Something is causing you to not think at all.
It's the sun wot done it and CO2 hasn't stopped being a greenhouse gas.
Easy when you think it through.
Comments
Not familiar with the concept of forum threads?
Er, yes, that you are wrong. Oreskes quote isn't implying causation.
And your quote fails to explain what the converse of "by chance" is.
My scientific explanation of the extinction of the unicorn didn't even slow things down. I'll have to find stronger evidence of other historical things with some merit, the Ordovician Period perhaps.
Do you need comprehension lessons?
Nope, that's you, what if they're not "random fluctuations"?
Then it could be caused by natural mechanisms that change climate.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BULLSEYE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutely. But for that to happen you need to both find a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere.
Good luck with that.
But climate scientists do not understand all the natural mechanisms. Heck they forgot to include the effect of oceans to their full capacity.
I suspect that hockey stick meme is causing you think screwy.
Still no-one has both found "a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain[ed] why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere" Something is causing you to not think at all.
Of course climate scientists understand parts of the system. But that kind of hubris has already been pulled to pieces.
Back to the article I linked to: statistical significance does not imply causality.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif You just said: If it's not random is has to have a cause. At the moment the only cause we have that fits is man's CO2, because neither you nor anyone else can "find a natural mechanism that is operating in the right way AND explain why CO2 has stopped being a warming gas in the atmosphere"
Why are you citing that step graph when I am referring to the climate model projections based on different scenarios? Yes, and climate scientists have yet to show the main cause is man.
Eel was only recently telling us about the uncertainty in the annual mean measurements themselves, let alone the models. Only to your and your ideologically driven friends, despite you having no other plausible explanation.
Every major world scientific institution accepts that it's man's CO2.
1. We know CO2 is a GHG
2. We know that humans have released large quantities of CO2 from fossil fuels and also reduced the planet's natural ability to recycle it eg by deforestation
3. We know atmospheric CO2 level has risen in line with human-released CO2
4. Carbon isotope measurements show the additional CO2 is what we humans released
5. Temperatures have been rising - not smoothly but fairly consistently
6. Other signs of warming: reduced ice-sheets & glaciers, increased humidity, rising sea level ....
Can you join the dots solenoid?
It's not absolute proof (as recently pointed out and you must already be aware there's no proof in empirical science) but there's a great deal of evidence pointing to a plausible link between human activities, increased CO2 and warming. Since this gives us a good explanation of the evidence, AGW becomes the one to beat. If anyone has a better explanation let them present it.
Joining dots is a fun pastime for children but potentially flawed when applied to the scientific method.
Are you trying to tell us that a climate model over 25 years old wasn't as accurate as more modern models? As the realClimate artilce Watts references says "Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3ºC)"
And, of course, Hansen overestimated other forcings, but you can't acknowledge that as it goes against another favourite sceptic meme, that climate scientists don't take natural factors into account.
They have shown it to rational people's satisfaction. But there will always be people who deny science they find inconvenient.
Andy, it doesn't matter how many times you say that it's still going to be wrong.
No water is trapped because the dam resevoir is simultaneously filling and emptying and the flow out is equal to the flow in.
Similarly thermal energy is being simultaneously absorbed and readiated by the Earth.
If heat were actually trapped the planet would not follow the Stefan/Boltzman law and we'd end up with a violation of the third law of thermodynamics.
Since that can't happen you can't have trapped heat.
If you don't think water behind a dam is trapped there you don't know what trapped means.
It's the sun wot done it and CO2 hasn't stopped being a greenhouse gas.
Easy when you think it through.
Invalid analogy and you are still wrong.
So tell me how do you side step Stefan/Boltzman a the third law to get trapped heat?