If the CO2 climate narrative cannot be disproven by just disproving that CO2 level are on the rise, CO2 causes a greenhouse effect which heats the Earth, and/or humans are the cause of the rise of CO2 levels, then you are just wasting your time. The same goes to trying to disprove timelines. You guys are arguing whether the bullet that shot you is a .22 or a .38 while you are slowly bleeding out.
It isn't a Hoak it is a SCAM since most of the warming is at night and beneficial to the life of the planet.
The warm forcing effect at the 430 ppm level is negligible which is why many climate realists know this is climate change propaganda is a scam. Here in the below shows how insignificant CO2 warm forcing is after a doubling from 280 to 560 pp, level. This is why it is a SCAM as you are being misled and lied to by the warmest/alarmists cabal who gain power and money promoting it. ===== "Here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation. The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …" LINK
No, because the fact that all those three premises are true does not imply that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause any significant warming. Consider an argument that is logically equivalent to yours: Family incomes are on the rise. Income enables families to buy food, which helps their children grow. Married women entering the workforce is the cause of rising family income. So if more married women enter the workforce, children will get even taller. You see the problem here? Family income only helps children grow up to the point where they have enough nutritious food to reach their full potential height. More than that has no effect on it. Similarly, CO2 only warms the earth significantly up to the point where the effect is saturated, which occurs at a much lower level -- maybe 1ppm -- than the minimum that has ever actually been present in the atmosphere (~180ppm). Adding more CO2 after that has almost no effect on the earth's surface temperature. No idea what you are talking about.
Right. Added CO2 only has a significant effect on total infrared absorption when the air is very dry, which only occurs when it is very cold, so the water vapor has condensed out: i.e., well below freezing. So the increase in global average surface temperature caused by CO2 emissions is basically confined to high altitude locations and high latitudes in winter, especially at night -- i.e., the times and places where higher temperature is very desirable.
It's an analogy. As for what I was saying before. There are three core principles to human driven climate change. They are: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere. Humans are the cause of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's it. Disprove one or more of those, and you disprove human driven climate change. Climate change deniers biggest problem is that they can't seem to be consistent on which part they want to disprove. One person is arguing that CO2 levels are not rising, while another concedes that they are rising but it is a natural process, and another is arguing that CO2 is not even the cause of global warming. Now you guys are saying, that maybe global warming does exist, but that's a good thing! Make up your minds and get it together! All the climate scientists have. Yes, there is debate as to what the exact effects are going to be, but they all agree on the same three principles.
Notice you show no indication that you are aware of CO2 warm forcing factor drops rapidly as there is more of it in the air which is why by the time it reaches the 400-ppm level it becomes irrelevant. Notice that you ignored post #229 which destroys the stupid propaganda of CO2 driving warming trend because you can't address it.
And it is all a scam because it can not be proven either. You see, you have based your entire arguments on one of the most basic logical fallacies there is. And that is "You can't disprove a negative". And that is actually a rather well known logical flaw. It is not up to anybody to prove or disprove anything. In science, it is up to the person making the claims to prove that they are true, it is really not up to those on another side to disprove them. But here, let me humor you just a little bit. One of the biggest things when it comes to "Real Science" along with documenting your findings is the ability to replicate your research. And this is where "Climate Science" has been failing over and over again. Repeatedly. They make all these claims, which are almost completely wrong other than they in reality are in keeping with facts we know about from other things like geology. Things that have been going on for thousands of years, but they try to pretend it is something ground breaking and new. Now I have been watching this for many decades now, and want to know what I have discovered? Never once have they predicted a cool-down before the fact. Oh, we have had several, but not a one of them predicted beforehand. Oh, they will then fudge their data and claim that the cool-down was predicted, but funny how that was never made public beforehand. Or they will talk about much larger increases in temperatures or sea level rise, that never happen and those claims just get lost in future claims. And the simple fact that more than a few of these "scientists" were five decades ago predicting a "New Ice Age". By and large, most are "Snake Oil Salesmen". They lick their finger, stick it in the air, and base their prediction off of that. And if it is 180 degrees off of reality, simply make a new prediction and retroactively include the old one in some way to hide the fact they were completely wrong. This all falls squarely under "Replicating your findings". And why for well over a decade I have been saying the same thing. Take all these models and formulas they are using to predict future climates, and apply them in the past. Take a point in time, from 1880 to 1980 and plug in everything and see what their model spits out. Then we can compare it to what the climate really did, and see if there is any actual validity in their claims or not. The very fact that I see tons and tons of claims (many of them outright lies), but no attempts to actually replicate their findings shows it is not science at all. It is far more akin to a religion.
That is not how science works. And science sure as hell does not work off of logical fallacies and analogies. But here, how about you explain this to me: This is a well known geological fact. For all those that try to claim that the planet "has never been hotter than it is now" or that "sea levels are rising", that is the known sea levels around Florida during the last interglacial. This is not speculation, that is a fact. Miami is actually built upon multiple layers of limestone, all left behind during previous interglacials. And the very fact that we are nowhere near that today outright screams we are not hotter than we should be, we are far colder than we should be. Everything from the actual evolution of Homo Sapiens to the geology around the world screams our planet is still far colder than it should be. And this kind of bad science that many are pushing is abundantly clear when they push the completely false claims that deserts will increase as the planet gets warmer. That is actually completely backwards, when the planet warms it gets wetter. Deserts shrink, rainforests grow, the amount of water in the environment is tremendously higher when compared to when it is cold.
That is just a common tactic by fear mongers. Imply that not agreeing with them is fatal, as a way to force you to agree with their beliefs based on fear.
Either you completely missed my point, or you are purposely ignoring it (guess which logical fallacy I just did there!) Whether or not it has never been hotter or the sea levels are rising, does not prove nor disprove human directed climate change. Maybe our models about sea level rise are wrong, maybe there are other factors that is reducing the temperature, but none of that disproves human directed climate change. If humans are raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere and raised CO2 levels will cause the temperature to increase, then logically there will come a point where the temperature will begin to affect the Earth. How much and when? I leave that to the experts, but it is inevitable unless something changes.
That does not prove it either. There are a great many terms for this, one of them is "chasing the data", another is "Cherry Picking", and yet another is "False Causality". And what I see over and over is people "affirming the consequent". And when it comes to people pushing a climate narrative, they do all of these. That is one of the biggest failures here. That the very baseline established is that the warming is caused by humans. And every claim is made based on exactly that. Once again, that is not science, it is far closer to religion. It is the equivalent of going "You can only go to Heaven if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are going to hell. Therefore, the only way to avoid going to hell is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!" Replace "FSM" and Heaven with "Humans" and "Global Warming", and it is literally the exact same claim. As is the "Well, you can't disprove that if you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster you are going to hell" is the exact same logical fallacy. Someday in the very near future, the coastline from Northern California to British Columbia is going to plunge to around 2 meters below sea level. Just as it did 325 years ago. The Northern edge of the Great Lakes are going to continue to rise, as the Southern edge of the Great Lakes is going to continue to fall. And not a single one of those, or the fact that Venice and New Orleans are sinking below sea level has a damned thing to do with the climate.
You quoted my post twice, but apparently did not read it even once. Let's try this again: <sigh> And I stipulated in my previous message -- which you quoted twice -- that all those three are true. And then I explained why they are not sufficient to establish the CO2 climate narrative's core claim that adding CO2 to the earth's atmosphere will cause, or has ever caused, a strong warming trend. Please explain, in your own words, what is wrong with this argument: 1. Family incomes are on the rise. 2. Income enables families to buy food, which helps their children grow. 3. Married women entering the workforce is the cause of rising family income. 4. So if more married women enter the workforce, children will get even taller. Either that, or explain why the logic of that argument is not exactly the same as the logic of your argument. Or as I have done, disprove the relevant claim, which is that those three premises are sufficient to establish the CO2 climate narrative's core claim that adding a given amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will somehow cause a much larger increase in temperature now than it did all the previous times atmospheric CO2 increased at the end of Pleistocene glacial periods. That is a dishonest propaganda term. Who has denied that climate changes, or is changing? I can only speak to what I have disproved, and I have stipulated that your three premises are correct. They just don't imply the CO2 climate narrative's claimed conclusion, for the exact same reason that the three premises of my argument about income and taller children do not support the conclusion that if more women enter the workforce, it will result in a taller population. Who has argued that? And I have stipulated that both those claims are incorrect. I have explained why it is at most a minor contributing factor. It indisputably did not cause any of the previous century-scale Holocene warming episodes, so why would it have caused the most recent one? What has made all the natural factors that caused every previous century-scale Holocene warming episode become inoperative? And it is. Periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically unacceptable. I am not defending anyone's arguments but my own. In fact, I have argued against the view that recent CO2 increase is natural. No they haven't. Only the few dozen whose names appear on all the pal-reviewed CO2 climate narrative papers have. And I do too. Can you understand why those three principles do not imply the CO2 climate narrative's core conclusion that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause -- or has caused -- a dramatic warming trend? Can you understand why they do not imply that global warming is even on balance harmful?
It actually becomes irrelevant at a far lower level -- even far below the lowest it has ever been in the earth's history (~180ppm) -- when infrared absorption is saturated. This is shown by the Pleistocene record of CO2 increase at the end of glacial periods, where CO2 is much better correlated with previous temperature than with subsequent temperature. Angstrom showed more than 100 years ago that adding CO2 to ordinary sea level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its infrared absorption properties, a result that can be replicated by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab. It would be interesting to determine the threshold where CO2 becomes irrelevant by starting with air that has had all its CO2 and only its CO2 removed, and gradually adding CO2 until the air's infrared absorption is saturated and further increase in CO2 has no measurable effect (don't hold your breath waiting for Michael Mann, Phil Jones, or James Hansen to conduct that little bombshell).
But if the recent century-scale warming trend is similar to previous Holocene warming episodes -- and it is -- then Ockham's Razor tells us that human activities are unlikely to be a significant factor. It actually does, inasmuch as empirical evidence ever disproves anything. That is exactly the point. If the CO2 climate narrative is correct, and doubling CO2 will increase global average surface temperature by 3C, 5C, or some even more absurd number, that would be cause for concern. But if climate realists are correct, and doubling CO2 will only increase temperature by 1C, 0.3C, or 0.1C, then that is not cause for concern. GET IT??
Because they are demonstrating yet another logical fallacy. And that one is also rather simple. This is the logical fallacy that humans are causing the warming. It is outright bad science, and trying to connect two things that have no clear connection. Here is an absolute fact we do know thanks to geology. During every previous interglacial (and before the current Ice Age cycles even began), that the CO2 levels rose significantly. In fact, they rose faster than they have during this interglacial and reached CO2 levels much higher than they are at today. So is the CO2 driving the warming, or is the warming driving the CO2? I believe based on all of the evidence from past interglacials and knowing what I do about natural sources of CO2 that is is actually the latter. As more of the permafrost melts, that allows the natural biological processes that have been locked in place since the last ice age started to resume. Breaking down the material gathered over 100 kya to finally start decomposing. Which continues as the land transforms from ice sheets and permafrost into tundra than grasslands. The biomass trapped under ice sheets does not release CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, it is as likely to decompose as steaks are in your chest freezer. But once it thaws, decomposition can resume rather quickly. Especially as the "pioneer organisms" like Bacteria were also trapped in the same deep freeze. And people are simply not capable of imagining a planet where the conditions are not the same as they are now. That is why people have a hard time accepting basic science. Like almost the entire West Coast of the US is not really "US Land", but was originally off-shore islands and sub-continents that were slammed violently into our continent. Or during the last ice age what we know of as the "Great Plains" was not grasslands, but permafrost and tundra. And that permafrost and tundra is what helped make that land so incredibly fertile so it supports such a large biomass today. They also can not imagine either being able to walk almost all the way from Florida to Cuba as you could during the last ice age, or where almost everything south of Palm Beach is underwater. Or an era where Antarctica was not covered by a vast ice sheet but by a temperate rainforest. And that is always a failure, trying to assume the current conditions are "normal". They are not, if you want an idea what "normal" for the planet is, that is well known to geologists and paleontologists. It is known as the "Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period". Temperatures globally around 3c higher than seen today. No permanent ice caps, sea levels over 25 meters higher than they are today. And global CO2 levels in excess 400 ppm. But that was also after a period of over 50 million years of a largely stable climate. There were huge amounts of CO2 locked up in the biomass of the planet at the time, especially in plants. Plants that died off and became trapped during repeated glaciations.
How cute. You guys actually think I'm here to debate you about climate change. I'm not. I am trying to point out the error of not having a consistent message. You should be happy that someone is showing you where you can improve your debates, but y'all are too butthurt by the idea that someone is questioning your superior intellect.
There's always that risk when assuming good faith on the other side. The error is yours, then, because there is no reason people who don't know each other and have nothing in common but a commitment to truth would want to have a "consistent message." Do you also think Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists are all supposed to have a "consistent message" when criticizing Islam? Oh, please. You made a fallacious argument. I explained why it was fallacious. That's all. If anyone is now acting butt-hurt, it is you.
Actually, skeptics don’t need a straight story. They only need to point out that the orthodox narrative doesn’t make sense.
This is the same error that flat-earthers and creationists make. They think that if the narrative doesn't make sense, then the whole framework fails, but that's not how it works. Facts are facts. If you have the facts that human directed climate change is false, great, but arguing that higher temperatures are better for humans dilutes your message.
That’s two separate arguments, and skeptics are free to advance both. There’s abundant evidence that warmer temperatures are better for humans. There’s also significant evidence that those warmer temperatures are not the result of human activity.
I agree. Actually, that is the problem with religion in general. How can they claim there is a god if no one can agree what this god even is? Nuh-uh! You're butt-hurt!
Well, I didn't want to wade into the debate about warmer temperatures are better for humans, but let me ask you this. Using neolithic technology (fire, sewn furs, stone tools, etc...) how long can a human live in -18 degrees (F) conditions with 0% humidity versus 90 degree (F) conditions with 100% humidity? And just to let you know, from the human comfort zone of 72 degrees to 90 degrees is 18 degrees, while -18 degrees is 90 degrees away from the human comfort zone of 72 degrees.
Which is really easy as the Hot Spot and the Positive Feedback Loop as predicted by the AGW conjecture still hasn't showed up after 35 years. That is normally called a prediction FAILURE which the never sensible AGW idea be abandoned by now, but it hasn't because they are running a SCAM to continue its which is why they are in stagnation mode pushing the same IPCC climate models bullcrap every 5 years with their 8.5 RCP lie while an increasing number of papers getting published shows a very different picture of a much less warming trend and other factors have been shown to be a significant effect to keeping the warming trend which is surprisingly precarious embedded in an otherwise long term cooling trend that began around 3,200 years ago.
