If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

[kama3]

Climate Models are not blind…they are programed, from the start, to reflect the bias,.

Yes, because the models cannot reproduce present warming if they do not allow for the influence of anthropogenic CO2…

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, because the models cannot reproduce present warming if they do not allow for the influence of anthropogenic CO2…

Do you understand the problem in this thinking?

Logically:

If the models can’t project cooling trends?
If the models can’t perfectly hind-cast both warming and cooling trends?

What ARE the models actually reporting?

QUESTION: If you really support your above statement, how do you account for warming and cooling temperature trends before they were put into models? You are saying in your statement that these raw data ] would not present a graph when put into a model.

I suggest, that it would be just as warm or cool as todays temperature was at your home… if presented without the AGW bias.

What is being measured is - bias…toward the AGW hypothesis.

QUESTION: Even with this bias…how come the models didn’t project the temperature CO2 failed relationship of the past 17 years? A direct flaw within the Correlation assumed Causation AGW hypothesis.

QUESTION: If the AGW hypothesis Correlation / Causation evidence was scientifically sound …why the need to continually “adjust” the raw temperature data? Shouldn’t the Correlation / Causation link… ALWAYS apply?

.

 

[kimmielittle]

I REALLY don’t have time to read anything you write & sift thru the exact rebuttals.

Actually, you’ve had plenty of posts before this, to provide evidence in support of your claims.

We’ve been flooded out with our hot water heater bursting, and all our work has been delayed by a week or so, &

Sorry for your misfortune.

just don’t have time to address each and every** attack on climate science**

Maybe you can enlighten the readers here. How is it an “attack on climate science” when one uses observational climate science evidence to refute unsupported AGW claims made by you?

I know there were a couple of mistakes in the Working Group II sections (impacts), such as claiming Himalayan glaciers would all melt within this century (a mistake that was discovered by a glaciologist, not a skeptic, and was corrected).

I have many times before given you evidence that this was an INTENDED - ADMITTED falsification. Yet, you repeat this less than supportable claim.

For our purposes here in considering whether contributing to ACC is a sin, it doesn’t matter how long it takes for impacts to harm or kill people.

Failed logic…This would make you a sinner from your first breath.

There is no statute of limitations on murder or sin – whether the people we harm and kill through our emissions today are people of this century, next century, next millennium, or 100,000 years from now.

If you honestly believe this, why aren’t you picketing Mr Gore? One of the Worlds largest personal energy users.

Whether the Church has specifically said it is a serious sin to cause people harm and to die through ACC

There are no “maybe” or “if” sins. As others here have pointed out to you.

the 10 Commandments telling us it is a sin to kill. I think it doesn’t really matter the exact details of HOW we kill.

Produce the body. The sin you claim that I’ve committed… is not supported by observational scientific evidence. It exists only IN YOUR MIND.

You claim I’m a sinner for saying the AGW hypothesis is unsupported - Yet, I’ve on more than one occasion, presented you with references of bodies of REAL people who have died in the NAME of AGW and it’s schemes. It seems very selective to me, that you call on the horrors of hell for perceived sins …yet dismiss actual killings in the name of AGW.

 

[kimmielittle]

Because you have to use the word “IF”, it isn’t a sin at all. There would be no action or omission to act with knowledge.

 

[kama3]

What ARE the models actually reporting?

Models are not used to demonstrate present warming. Models are used to do predictions about future climate. While we’re at it, models are not derived from temperature data, but from underlying physical principles. They are tested against real temperature data, because there is nothing else one could test them against.

The fact that no model can predict today’s climate while not allowing for AGW is just another indicator that since ca. 1850 we have been living in a man-made climate. But we know that even without the models. See below.

Now, I understand that the idea of man-made climate may be difficult to accept due to your religious convictions, however, your religious convictions have no impact on its validity. As I have argued upthread, the fact that humans are able to release unlimited amounts of energy using thermonuclear weapons, proves that there is no fundamental God-imposed physical constraint which would prevent humans from altering the climate. After all, AGW amounts to increasing the amount of energy in the Earth system, and if God does not prevent us from adding energy using hydrogen bombs, then God does not prevent us from adding energy via CO2 and radiative transfer.

QUESTION: Even with this bias…how come the models didn’t project the temperature CO2 failed relationship of the past 17 years? A direct flaw within the Correlation assumed Causation AGW hypothesis.

All that your argument shows is that you have never worked with noisy data. I have.

So, I’m going to grant you that the warming indeed stopped in 1990. Not that I believe that it did, but just to demonstrate that you are still wrong.

Recall, that AGW has been theoretically predicted in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, and that, using 1800-1850 as a baseline, the long-term trend between 1850 and 1990 – i.e. over 140 years – is pretty much in line with his AGW prediction.

So first, you have 140 years of data in favor of the AGW claim, against 20 years of data against the claim. That alone is enough to judge in favor of AGW.

Second, even if we grant that warming has stopped after ca. 1990, you still have to explain what mechanism – other than anthropogenic CO2 – was responsible for the clear 1850 - 1990 trend. In other words, whatever mechanism is responsible for the past-1990 change in temperature trends, obviously did not work between 1850 and 1990. Why it is so is a very interesting question, but one which has little impact on the existence of CO2-driven warming. In fact, since we have 140 years data consistent with CO2-driven warming, then we should logically conclude that its mechanism is still in action today, while being currently masked by some other cooling factor. What this cooling factor is an interesting question in itself. My bet is that the recent cooling is due to decrease in solar activity.

Third, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature increase would be biggest in polar regions – just as observed. So your postulated alternative warming mechanism would also have to explain that.

So, your actual problem is that you have no alternative hypothesis which could explain the 1850-1990 data.

QUESTION: If the AGW hypothesis Correlation / Causation evidence was scientifically sound …why the need to continually “adjust” the raw temperature data? Shouldn’t the Correlation / Causation link… ALWAYS apply?

The Berkeley dataset, compiled from raw station data and paid for by the Koch brothers, shows a clear warming signal, consistent with the AGW hypothesis. So warming is there in the data without “continuous adjustment”.

But, forget station data. How do you explain increasing ocean acidification and poleward migration of species?

 

[kimmielittle]

Models are not used to demonstrate present warming. Models are used to do predictions about future climate.

Actually wrong.

Models do not ** “predict”** future climate. You say down in this post that you work with models…BUT you commit to this fatal flaw in logic. The fact that you chose to italicize this flaw, in your statement, adds weight to this flawed logistical thinking.

Had models been able to “predict” future climate" …they would have “predicted’” the cooling trend of temperatures we are in now - they did not.

A two-headed coin being flipped…does not "“predict” - It Projects.

Climate models become a two-headed coin because of the biases introduced toward the AGW hypothesis. They Project what the AGW hypothesis is supposed to do = according to the the AGW hypothesis and ** sensitivities assigned by keepers of that hypothesis**.

Observational empirical evidence - stands that two-headed coin model projections ] on its edge.

While we’re at it, models are not derived from temperature data, but from underlying physical principles.

Actually only half right.

The physics ARE represented by scientific law, as we know them now. The **“sensitivities” **assigned by AGW’ers IS NOT COMPLETELY SUPPORTABLE by scientific laws…e.g. water vapor…solar etc.

They are tested against real temperature data, because there is nothing else one could test them against.

Actually this ** should be true **…BUT we know it isn’t. How does one scientifically test a two-headed coin toss?

The fact that no model can predict today’s climate while not allowing for AGW is just another indicator that since ca. 1850 we have been living in a man-made climate. But we know that even without the models.

Absolute nonsense! A “wives tale” perpetrated by AGW’ers. This is called post-normal science.

This assumption depends on these factors:
1: CO2 was held at 280ppm in the 1800’s Thousands of histoirical records are ignored to present CO2 at 280ppm ].
2: Little Ice Age recovery minimized
3: Solar held to TSI measurements only.
4: “Sensitivities” albedo - water vapor etc] being present according to values issued by AGW’ers. Again, I’ll ask - Is water vapor a Positive or Negative feedback?

Now, I understand that the idea of man-made climate may be difficult to accept due to your religious convictions,

Actually wrong! You are making an subjective assumption…one in this case, is very logically wrong.

however, your religious convictions have no impact on its validity.

You call yourself agnostic about Religion - yet, you don’t question the post-normal science of AGW?

Is your belief in AGW predicated on the “cause”?

 

[kimmielittle]

As I have argued upthread, the fact that humans are able to release unlimited amounts of energy using thermonuclear weapons, proves that there is no fundamental God-imposed physical constraint which would prevent humans from altering the climate.

Actually wrong! Thermonuclear reaction IS constrained by laws of physics. A logic fail.

After all, AGW amounts to increasing the amount of energy in the Earth system, and if God does not prevent us from adding energy using hydrogen bombs, then God does not prevent us from adding energy via CO2 and radiative transfer.

Once again you present flawed logic…Correlation does not equal Causation. You are assuming a radiative transfer of energy to CO2 equals the main driver of warming.

All that your argument shows is that you have never worked with noisy data.

Actually wrong, again. This is another Assumption and the fatal flaw in your statement…It doesn’t address the question I presented you with.

The Question again:

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
QUESTION: Even with this bias…how come the models didn’t project the temperature CO2 failed relationship of the past 17 years? A direct flaw within the Correlation assumed Causation AGW hypothesis.

Are you trying to say there was no “noise” in one part of the model timeline - and not in the other part of the timeline?

“Noise” or lack of “noise” does not explain the failure of Correlation assumed Causation.

I have.

You might have - but your continued usage of failed logic in scientific examination discredits your debate. “Appeals to authority” don’t hold andsare a logical fallacy…in their own right.

So, I’m going to grant you that the warming indeed stopped in 1990. Not that I believe that it did, but just to demonstrate that you are still wrong.

Recall, that AGW has been theoretically predicted in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper,

And I will ask you to prove this. I admit - I could be setting you up on this So take care ]. Think about the words “theoretically” vs “hypothesis”…“predicted” vs 'projected". Then think about what Arrhenius had to self correct in his hypothesis AND the word “convection”.

and that, using 1800-1850 as a baseline, the long-term trend between 1850 and 1990 – i.e. over 140 years – is pretty much in line with his AGW prediction.

Predicated on what 1800’s CO2ppm content? What happens to this projection if CO2ppm was approximate 340ppm during this time-frame?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11558

So first, you have 140 years of data in favor of the AGW claim, against 20 years of data against the claim. That alone is enough to judge in favor of AGW.

Actually wrong.

While it is true the earth has been generally warming coming out of The Little Ice Age - AGW can only claim a 17 year Correlation to their hypothesis. And 1 YEAR deviation FROM that hypothesis without evidence / explanation, is all it takes to falsify that hypothesis. We now have 17 years of NO CORRELATION.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12140 .

Second, even if we grant that warming has stopped after ca. 1990, you still have to explain what mechanism – other than anthropogenic CO2 – was responsible for the clear 1850 - 1990 trend.

Actually wrong. You attempt another fallacy in logic with this argument I call it shuffling the pea ]. AGW is NOT my hypothesis - the onus isn’t mine. When Correlation fails the hypothesis…It’s the owner of the hypothesis which has to explain.

Why it is so is a very interesting question, but one which has little impact

How so? It goes directly to the AGW claim that “CO2 is the main driver of climate warming” - That hypothesis does NOT say. ** CO2 sometimes drives climate warming.**

In fact, since we have 140 years data consistent with CO2-driven warming, then we should logically conclude that its mechanism is still in action today,

Quite the contrary. Logic tells us that scientific observational evidence trumps unproven hypothesis and models of bias. That a hypothesis falsified… equals a logic fail.

while being currently masked by some other cooling factor.

Masked? If CO2 is the main driver of warming temperatures…nothing can mask it. It has to ALWAYS work…otherwise, the Hypothesis is WRONG.

What this cooling factor is an interesting question in itself. My bet is that the recent cooling is due to decrease in solar activity.

If you are objectively looking at the AGW claims - this statement should prove to you - There are problems with the AGW hypothesis. How can solar variables be applied as an excuse to “mask” AGW - When the AGW hypothesis… HOLDS SOLAR AT TSI CONSTANTS?

Third, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature increase would be biggest in polar regions – just as observed. So your postulated alternative warming mechanism would also have to explain that.

But yet polar regions have recovered - you need to explain that.

So, your actual problem is that you have no alternative hypothesis which could explain the 1850-1990 data.

Actually wrong. Natural Climatic Cycles…BUT once again I don’t have the onus…AGW’ers have the onus to disprove Natural Climatic Cycles Solor - PDO - ANO - ENSO etc ] - To Date they AGW’ers ] have not been able to this…that is why AGW remains an unproven hypothesis.

 

[kimmielittle]

The Berkeley dataset, compiled from raw station data

Prove this. The BEST dataset used existing “adjusted” data.

and paid for by the Koch brothers,

What relevance does Koch brothers have to your argument?

shows a clear warming signal, consistent with the AGW hypothesis.

Actually wrong…again - Correlation ASSUMED Causation.

So warming is there in the data without “continuous adjustment”.

Prove this. GISS NASA has just been "adjusting Iceland’s Temperatures causing the MET to question why.

But, forget station data. How do you explain increasing ocean acidification

First off, the Ocean might show spots of ALKALINE it does not show acidification. Hint…Convection is not a constant ]

and poleward migration of species?

Major logic fail…The Vikings - Native Americans - Siberians ALL migrated poleward coming out of an ICE Cycle. Don’t you expect species that enjoy warmth would gravitate toward warmth?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Much of the AGW crowd is not really about ‘global warming’ or protecting the planet. It’s about handicapping man and stopping humanity from reproducing. IMO it’s more of a sin to impose artificial handicaps on people, to destroy economies and force more people into poverty, and to treat human life as expendable and something to be eliminated in order to protect the earth.

We should treat God’s gifts of the earth and its resources with respect. That doesn’t mean degrading human life and humanity.

Even more evil than that, the genesis of the concern about the environment is to stop Africa in its tracks, from developing their own energy sources, keeping them in famine and poverty. It’s not the developed nations that are hurt by this push to stop “global warming.” It’s the developing nations and continents that are ultimately hurt the most.

Just like the LIE of Rachel Carson about DDT killed MILLIONS of children, mainly in Africa. It’s really tragic how all of these interventions seem to be aimed directly at black people…One would think there is racism going on…

 

[John21652]

I REALLY don’t have time to read anything you write & sift thru the exact rebuttals. We’ve been flooded out with our hot water heater bursting,

You may think I’m wacko,… We need to keep our noses squeaky clean, and repent and confess when we stumble (which is quite frequent for me).

Whether the Church has specifically said it is a serious sin to cause people harm and to die through ACC is not as important as the 10 Commandments telling us it is a sin to kill. I think it doesn’t really matter the exact details of HOW we kill.

Your hot water system broke?
I take it it’s an electric hot water system?

Electricity generation produces pollution.
Pollution kills.
“…it doesn’t really matter the exact details of HOW we kill”.
Your hot water system is contributing to pollution.
You are contributing to killing.

By your very own standards, your nose is not squeaky clean.

 

[kama3]

Actually wrong! Thermonuclear reaction IS constrained by laws of physics. A logic fail.

Of course that the thermonuclear reaction is constrained by laws of physics.
However, if you cared to educate yourself on the subject, you’d know that there is no inherent physical limit to the thermonuclear weapon yield and no obvious engineering roadblock either. That means a doomsday thermonuclear weapon can be built. It has simply never been built because of strategic and economic considerations regarding very large weapons, but it is completely feasible.

Feasibility of large thermonuclear weapons falsifies the notion that the world is engineered in such way that we cannot damage the Earth. We can.

Once again you present flawed logic…Correlation does not equal Causation. You are assuming a radiative transfer of energy to CO2 equals the main driver of warming.

Your adage does not mean what you think it means. If two random variables A nd B exhibit correlation, there are three possibilities:

1. A drives B.
2. B drives A.
3. Both A and B are driven by an underlying variable C.

The correlation does not equal causation mantra exists to remind people that correlation itself is not enough to establish a causal relationship because it doesn’t tell us which of the three cases we are dealing with. Additional information is needed for that.

In case of CO2/temperature correlation however, we know the corresponding physical mechanism (radiative heat transfer) so we can determine what drives what.

Are you trying to say there was no “noise” in one part of the model timeline - and not in the other part of the timeline?

Let’s deal with the noise first:

1. The temperature time series are so noisy, that averaging a large number of samples is needed before any meaningful trend can be established either way. The simplest tool in use for dealing with such data is moving average. However, if we want to use, say, 20-year moving average, then for each year we calculate the temperature for, we must average data 10 years forward and back. I.e. averaged temperature for the year 1980 is in fact average from 1970 through 1990. It follows however, that we cannot calculate such average meaningfully beyond 2001 – as we have no data past 2011 to use for averaging.
2. Since the data is noisy, then a given year can be either above or below the averaged trend; that does not disprove the trend. Even worse, a series can diverge from the averaged trend for several consecutive years. That does not invalidate the trend either.
3. The graph you are waving is done in an incorrect way, because it does not remove seasonal variation, i.e. includes a high-frequency component. The high-frequency component has no bearing on the long-term CO2/temperature trends (which, being long-term, is a low-frequency component); however, it increases the total amount of noise present on the graph. In other words, whoever did that graph did the exact opposite of what is normally done to extract a low-frequency trend. Also, something else is messed up on this graph, becase it indicates that 1997 was warmer than 1998, while in fact it was the reverse.

Thus, since the series is very noisy, I am skeptical of any claim that the warming stopped. As I said above, today we can extract a sort of meaningful trend up to maybe 2002. And that trend shows a clear warming.

Now, with noise out of the way…

Even if the CO2/temperature correlation breaks after 2000, you still have data showing that it worked for 150 years, so you cannot simply dismiss it as non-existent. In such case, it would be logical to conclude that post-2000 a different factor came into play.

Predicated on what 1800’s CO2ppm content? What happens to this projection if CO2ppm was approximate 340ppm during this time-frame?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11558

Cute. There were no systematic CO2 measurements undertaken until 1959. So prior to that, you have to combine measurements taken by different people, with different methods, and in different places, and if you do so, then of course that you are going to get a total mess!

Measurements of CO2 levels in my town back show results everywhere between 340 and 540 ppm. The measurements also show that CO2 values vary in the day/night cycle by as much as 85 ppm. If you started taking these measurements randomly, you could indeed arrive at interesting conclusions

This may be of interest: ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

How so? It goes directly to the AGW claim that “CO2 is the main driver of climate warming” - That hypothesis does NOT say. ** CO2 sometimes drives climate warming.**

Straw man. Nobody claims that CO2 is only driver. It is however an important driver, and one humans have control over (as opposed to water vapor or solar).

 

[kama3]

Prove this. The BEST dataset used existing “adjusted” data.

With pleasure. berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf

As described in the preceding section, the existing global temperature analysis groups use a variety of well-motivated algorithms to generate a history of global temperature change. However, none of their approaches would generally correspond to a statistical model in the more formal sense.

Rather than correcting data, we rely on a philosophically different approach. Our method has two components: 1) Break time series into independent fragments at times when there is evidence of abrupt discontinuities, and 2) Adjust the weights within the fitting equations to account for differences in reliability. The first step, cutting records at times of apparent discontinuities, is a natural extension of our fitting procedure that determines the relative offsets between stations, encapsulated by ̂b, as an intrinsic part of our analysis. We call this cutting procedure the scalpel. Provided that we can identify appropriate reakpoints, the necessary adjustment will be made automatically as part of the fitting process. We are able to use the scalpel approach because our analysis method can use very short records, whereas the methods employed by other groups generally require their time series be long enough to contain a reference interval.

The authors then proceed to describe their own averaging process, which does not make any assumptions about global warming. It’s described in detail, equations and all.

What relevance does Koch brothers have to your argument?

It’s public knowledge that they have financial interest in disproving AGW. So they funded the Berkeley study to re-analize station data. Thus, you cannot claim that the authors of the Berkeley study had financial interest in proving AGW. And yet, they have found the warming.

Prove this. GISS NASA has just been "adjusting Iceland’s Temperatures causing the MET to question why.

Again, why should I rely on GISS when I have Berkeley, which was done in a completely open manner, by scientists from outside the climate field, and funded by AGW skeptics? It doesn’t get more impartial than that.

First off, the Ocean might show spots of ALKALINE it does not show acidification.

Completely wrong. Ocean does not show spots, of alkaline, it is alkaline (pH=8), however, it absorbs CO2 from the air, forming carbonic acid. As a result, ocean pH decreases in line with human CO2 emissions:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/OA+Educational+Tools

Major logic fail…The Vikings - Native Americans - Siberians ALL migrated poleward coming out of an ICE Cycle. Don’t you expect species that enjoy warmth would gravitate toward warmth?

Of course. So you grant that it is warming?

 

[kimmielittle]

With pleasure. berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf

Your perceived GOTCHA fails

Your statement said this:

Originally Posted by kama3
The Berkeley dataset, compiled from raw station data

My Bold.

“Raw Data” - refers to data untouched - unadjusted data - pristine.
Scientists - researchers - Normal Science know and distinguish the difference between “Raw Data” and “Adjusted Data”.

For a Scientist to use this term Raw Data ] when in fact using “Adjusted Data” is misleading - is it not?

To “prove” your above statement that Berkeley BEST ] used “raw data” - please point to that data set.

You can not…as all data sets used by BEST have been “adjusted” - Just as I claimed. These data sets used - actually data subsets…then were “adjusted” again.

The authors then proceed to describe their own averaging process, which does not make any assumptions about global warming. It’s described in detail, equations and all.

I’m sorry once again wrong. When using preexisting data sets KNOWN for being “adjusted” toward AGW…AND making statements before Peer-review - Before releasing their data…is not objectivity.

It’s public knowledge that they have financial interest in disproving AGW.

Just what “financial interest”…I KNOW you all would like for us to make that extraordinary leap from logic - BUT you need evidence for this statement.

So they funded the Berkeley study to re-analize station data. Thus, you cannot claim that the authors of the Berkeley study had financial interest in proving AGW.

Actualy BOTH Mullers have a good financial reason in promoting AGW. mullerandassociates.com/greengov

And yet, they have found the warming.

Which warming? The “missing warming” supposedly hidden in the deep ocean?

Again, why should I rely on GISS when I have Berkeley,

Ahhh because even Berkeley says this in it’s README TXT

The current release is represents a first generation work product and some of the expected fields are currently missing (essentially reserved for future use) and there is some station metadata in the Matlab files that are not included in the Text files at the present time.

In addition, there are a number of known bugs and errors, including but not limited to mislocated stations, improperly coded data quality flags, duplicated and / or improperly merged records.

This release is not recommended for third party research use as the known bugs may lead to erroneous conclusions due to incomplete understanding of the data set’s current limitations.

which was done in a completely open manner, by scientists from outside the climate field,

Richard Muller is not outside the climate field - Nor Is Ms Judith Curry.

and funded by AGW skeptics?

This assumes Koch is a skeptic - can you prove this? They are the only ones who funded that you could be referring to as skeptics.

The funders were:

berkeleyearth.org/donors

Financial Support
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has received a total of $623,087 in financial support from:

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ($188,587)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
We have also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500.

It doesn’t get more impartial than that.

I find this statement astounding. The BEST result is the product which at most covers 15% of the surface of the planet. Even if the data were pristine with zero measurement error and infinitely dense coverage both spatial and temporal, it would still have enormous uncertainty as a proxy for global surface temperature. As presented its a GUESSTIMATES.

Not to mention it is hugely different from the satellite data set which has been running for some 33 years, covers nearly the entire planet, is vetted by two separate groups at least mildly antagonistic to each other, and has been extensively tested against balloon data.

Why do AGW’ers Run from Satellite to use land based proxies data?

Completely wrong. Ocean does not show spots, of alkaline, it is alkaline (pH=8),

QUITE RIGHT…Sorry I meant to say spots of Desalinization. NOW admit you were wrong.

It absorbs CO2 from the air, forming carbonic acid. As a result, ocean pH decreases in line with human CO2 emissions:

Actually wrong…You are ASSUMING Correlation equals Causation…to do so…one needs to ignore historic observational evidence. The Oceans have ALWAYS been a sink of CO2…WITHOUT HUMAN EMISSIONS…

Of course. So you grant that it is warming?

I acknowledge warming AND cooling cycles. NICE TRY no banana

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

If we are arguing whether Global warming is real or not I made a thread just for that, this thread is about the morality of denying it if it is true.

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course that the thermonuclear reaction is constrained by laws of physics.
However, if you cared to educate yourself on the subject, you’d know that there is no inherent physical limit to the thermonuclear weapon yield and no obvious engineering roadblock either. That means a doomsday thermonuclear weapon can be built. It has simply never been built because of strategic and economic considerations regarding very large weapons, but it is completely feasible.

Feasibility of large thermonuclear weapons falsifies the notion that the world is engineered in such way that we cannot damage the Earth. We can.

We sure aren’t doing it according to the AGW hypothesis. NO ONE has stated humankind doesn’t / can not damage the EARTH.

WHATS MORE you know that!

Try again.

Your adage does not mean what you think it means. If two random variables A nd B exhibit correlation, there are three possibilities:

My adage means exactly what I think Correlation equals Causation, as described in the AGW hypothesis, has not been proven.

In case of CO2/temperature correlation however, we know the corresponding physical mechanism (radiative heat transfer) so we can determine what drives what.

Actually in the case of AGW - You can not prove CO2 is the main driver of warming temperatures.

Once again, radiative heat transfer IS a physical mechanism - The “sensitivities” assigned to promote AGW - CO2 as the main driver of temperature warmth…is subjective speculation…IS NOT VERIFIED / SUPPORTED by observations empirical evidence.

Let’s deal with the noise first:

1. The graph you are waving is done in an incorrect way, because it does not remove seasonal variation, i.e. includes a high-frequency component. The high-frequency component has no bearing on the long-term CO2/temperature trends (which, being long-term, is a low-frequency component); however, it increases the total amount of noise present on the graph. In other words, whoever did that graph did the exact opposite of what is normally done to extract a low-frequency trend. Also, something else is messed up on this graph, becase it indicates that 1997 was warmer than 1998, while in fact it was the reverse.

Take it up with NOAA it is their data. Go to my enlarge it post and read were the data came from.

ENLARGE HERE

Even if the CO2/temperature correlation breaks after 2000, you still have data showing that it worked for 150 years, so you cannot simply dismiss it as non-existent.

I invite you to reread what I’ve stated. It works only because of assumptions.

In such case, it would be logical to conclude that post-2000 a different factor came into play.

Nonsense… the AGW hypothesis failed to project it - WHEN the AGW hypothesis said it KNOWS COMPLETELY CO2 is the main driver of warming temperatures.

Cute. There were no systematic CO2 measurements undertaken until 1959. So prior to that, you have to combine measurements taken by different people, with different methods, and in different places, and if you do so, then of course that you are going to get a total mess!

Look at the graphs again, especially the colored one. I have never denied the rise of CO2 levels. I asked you a question: what does the AGW ] correlation look like if CO2 levels start at 340ppm instead of 280ppm?

We KNOW in ICE Core samples Temperatures rise before CO2 rises.
We KNOW tree proxies are highly debatable as rings are Dependant on nourishment more than other variables.

Straw man. Nobody claims that CO2 is only driver. It is however an important driver, and one humans have control over (as opposed to water vapor or solar).

Straw man yourself. Reread what I’ve said…I DID NOT say “only” I said The AGW hypothesis claims CO2 as the Main driver

“CO2 is the main driver of climate warming”

Putting your words into what I’ve said is NOT an honest debate.

 

[kama3]

Actually in the case of AGW - You can not prove CO2 is the main driver of warming temperatures.

So show me an alternate driver, matching the data.

Once again, radiative heat transfer IS a physical mechanism - The “sensitivities” assigned to promote AGW - CO2 as the main driver of temperature warmth…

Read the 1896 paper. Arrhenius estimated climate sensitivity from basic physics, and did so correctly. He did not yet have temperature/CO2 measurements. They only came in 20th century.

Take it up with NOAA it is their data. Go to my enlarge it post and read were the data came from.

If you understood my post, you’d know the problem is not with where the data comes from, but how it is processed / graphed.

Look at the graphs again, especially the colored one. I have never denied the rise of CO2 levels. I asked you a question: what does the AGW ] correlation look like if CO2 levels start at 340ppm instead of 280ppm?

You still fail. Reliable instrumental record of CO2 starts in 1958 at around 315 ppm, and shows a clear rising trend. The temperature rises correspondingly. Explain that.

We KNOW in ICE Core samples Temperatures rise before CO2 rises.

Again, it’s painfully clear that you have never looked at the data you reference.
In ice core data, temperature rises about 1000 years before CO2 rises.
In present warming, CO2 rises together with temperature.
What gives?

 

[kama3]

For a Scientist to use this term Raw Data ] when in fact using “Adjusted Data” is misleading - is it not?

Berkeley has been compiled from raw station data (i.e. data from the metorological agencies, not data from HadCRUT, NOAA, or GISS). The compilation process included adjustments, and the resulting dataset is indeed adjusted. However, the adjusting methology used by Berekely does not presuppose global warming. If you believe otherwise, please point me to the appropriate equation in the methology paper (or the published code), which artificially introduces the warming trend. If you can’t do that, your claim has no merit.

The important point here is that even if we assume that HadCRUT, NOAA and GISS all have been adjusted to match the preconceived hypothesis, Berkeley is free from such bias, because: (1) the adjustments made by these groups do not enter the Berkeley dataset and (2) the Berkeley group did not presuppose the warming themselves.

Richard Muller is not outside the climate field - Nor Is Ms Judith Curry.

Curry was repeatedly criticised for AGW scepticism. You fail yet again.

I find this statement astounding. The BEST result is the product which at most covers 15% of the surface of the planet. Even if the data were pristine with zero measurement error and infinitely dense coverage both spatial and temporal, it would still have enormous uncertainty as a proxy for global surface temperature.

Fail. Get yourself an introductory book on statistics and read a chapter about random sampling. Then, get yourself an intro text to numerical methods and read the chapters on averaging and error propagation.

After that, show me evidence that ocean temperature is uncorrelated with land temperature.

Not to mention it is hugely different from the satellite data set

Lie. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

QUITE RIGHT…Sorry I meant to say spots of Desalinization. NOW admit you were wrong.

About what?

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

If we are arguing whether Global warming is real or not I made a thread just for that, this thread is about the morality of denying it if it is true.

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion or move the discussion to the thread referenced above. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[kimmielittle]

Berkeley has been compiled from raw station data (i.e. data from the metorological agencies,

Are you prepared to offer evidence that meteorological agencies do not “adjust” the “Raw Data” before publishing?

“Raw Data” Defined:

Noun 1. raw data - unanalyzed data; data not yet subjected to analysis

thefreedictionary.com/raw+data

Raw data is unprocessed computer data.

techterms.com/definition/rawdata

Which is the “RAW DATA” used by BEST in this example Just one example ]?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12169

The compilation process included adjustments, and the resulting dataset is indeed adjusted. However, the adjusting methology used by Berekely does not** presuppose global warming**.

My bold

How do you know? Especially when these “presupposed” statements were made.

“Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data.”

berkeleyearth.org/

(2) the Berkeley group did not presuppose the warming themselves.

“Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data.”

berkeleyearth.org/

Curry was repeatedly criticised for AGW scepticism. You fail yet again.

Actually wrong… the fail is yours. You would see this IF you actually followed what I replied to. IF you can’t / won’t follow / debate what was accurately stated - I seriously doubt your credibility in following technical / scientific debate.

You stated:

which was done in a completely open manner, **by scientists from outside the climate field, **

I ANSWERED

Richard Muller is not outside the climate field - Nor Is Ms Judith Curry.

She is a climatologist.

NOW to get BACK on TOPIC:

Natural Climatic Cycles vs CAGW unproven hypothesis, unsupported claims, “solutions” which ARE causing killings - displacement of people and poverty of energy…at the present.

Show me a “moral” Solution that actually is proven to “Change Climate” - Until that time, there isn’t a moral / ethical sin.

 

[kimmielittle]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion or move the discussion to the thread referenced above. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Noted