Go to Realclimate.org. Search falsifiable. The first hit will be a nice tribute to Darwin back in 2006. Here, I’ll even give you the link.
It would be preferable if you read the whole thing but if you’re lazy, you can skip to the section entitled, “Does ‘Global Warming Theory’ pass Judge Jones’ science test?” There you will find many examples of experiments and field observations. Then you can google those experiments and ponder on them. Well, that’s if you’re truly interested. And if you’re really, really interested, you can study the physics that is the basis for the greenhouse effect. Hey! Maybe you’d even start being interested in science and discovering the wonders of nature. Then you can shine on you crazy diamond!
You need to switch to Intermediate to get the links to the scientific papers.
I was going to leave it at that, but that tells me that it is very likely that you did choose the basic tab to leave the links out to make your “point”.
The very simple point I made and which you missed twice, is exactly that he had a very strong thesis which he loved and endeavoured to prove. When he found out is was wrong he changed his hypothesis. For the purpose of this specific point and for nothing else in the world, it is not important what Kepler is famous for in the mind of othe people; only that he change his mind because that was the point I made.
(for the other posters: Sorry for the repetitive style, but if i don’t go first-grade level with GB, he says I’m dishonest)
How can saying something very clearly be cherry-picking?
I clearly and specifically mentioned that 1°C (number which I got from your favourite website) was without feedbacks. How can that be misleading? If I say “without feedbacks” it is evident that there is a number WITH feedbacks, number which, by the way, was mentioned in the same post.
I’ll repeat, but pay attention.
If we only considered the effects due to CO2’s heat-trapping properties and excluded all other factors, feedbacks, and forcings – while recognising that this is simply an academic issue because in very complex systems like climate no variable moves alone- and we considered that the concentration of CO2 doubled its pre-indsutrial-age numbers, the result would be a temperature increase of about 1°C, which, may I repeat, is an incomplete number and not a relfection of the TOTAL changes in temperature due to other factors, forcings, and feedbacks.
Please, DO NOT CONSIDER 1°C as a number that is the complete number, simply a starting point to calculate other factor and get the REAL, TOTAL number
The IPCC says the if we consider ALL factors, feedbacks, and forcings the TOTAL number is very likely between 2 and 4.5°C.
Sure, that what the IPCCC says.
The chart (to which you linked, not me, not the horrible earth-destroying deniers), however, lacks any temperature data so it’s simply a a doomsday chart.
[QUOTE]
[quote=“Aji_de_Gallina, post:289, topic:595281”]
First, I’ll cite what a poster tried to teach me. Maybe you know the poster and/or now the rules he’s trying to show.
Second, I already established that all my sources come from sources more evil than Attila and Mao raping Gandhi while making kitten snuff films.
Third, the sources of the money or their disdain for decency or basic human civility is irrelevant to the science they produce. However they get their money doesn’t, by itself, (in)validate their data.
Ad hominems are usually the result of not having real data.
Are there any specific points you found problematic?
Or is it simply that you’ve only got your all-purpose answer “it’s a denier”?
Actually my point was that your point here is useless for the discussion.
And also useless, can you guess what number is also between 2 and 4.5?
So, links that are on the site to the IPCC report do not exist in your universe, glad we figure that out.
And a useless attempt at being clever.
At least he is sincere
Nah, what your effort here says really to others is: “I will not deal with the evidence that the cite I brought did lie to me and I still want to peddle them around. The real science paper that GIGObuster cited on the very next post, that showed how my cite did lie about what the paper said, I will not touch and I expect that no one will notice”.
I read that section and did not notice a reference to any specific experimental result which backed up CAGW. All there are is a few general references to measurements which might be made which might back up aspects of what they refer to as “Theory of Global Warming” But no specifics.
I’m asking for is 2 or 3 of the more compelling (specific) experimental results which back up CAGW. I’m talking about actual measurements made.
Yes. YES! That’s why I’ve been asking, all this time, for the specific “data that would no longer fit the estimated projections.” That’s why I’m merely asking you what data wouldn’t fit those projections. You’ve now described the falsification criterion I’m after; all that remains is for you to name it.
[QUOTE=heatmiserfl]
This doesn’t even come close to your very own standards. You need to read a historical perspective on smoking and cancer research. Epidemiological studies on smoking and cancer didn’t even begin until people happened to notice a rise in lung cancer. This correlated with a rise in smoking. There were alternative hypotheses such as pollution and the simple fact that people were living longer due to antibiotics. Epidemiology is useful but the clincher and proof of principle was in experimentation.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what you think my “very own standards” are – but in the post you copy-and-pasted, I said the key is testing “significantly similar” folks by “making sure” that “all else is equal aside from the cigarette smoking”. And so I’d rule out a hypothesis like pollution by looking at smokers and nonsmokers who live with the same amount of pollution.
(Go back and re-read the copy-and-pasted quote; if you can’t find those words in the first sentence, I’ll repost it for you with bolding.)
So there will be “widespread warming” which will be “large” and “rapid” – and while he’s deliberately leaving out the severity of the impacts, and mentioning that he’s uncertain about the hard part involving reduced or increased sensitivity, that’s still almost a falsifiable prediction; all it’s missing are definitions for “large” and “rapid”, such that we can see whether or not they occur. Maybe he means one degree is “large” and one decade is “rapid”. Maybe he means half that warming in twice that time? Maybe, with regard to warming, “rapid” means “the next century’s climate”.
Maybe every person who believes the warming will be “large” and “rapid” has different criteria for “large” and “rapid”; tell me his, tell me yours, tell me GIGO’s if you can; maybe some of you will prove to be correct and some incorrect?
I confess I had to look up CAGW. Looks like a deniers term in the strawman category. I assume it means that positive feedback is so huge that all our oceans burn up. Call me crazy, but I think CAGW is not needed in this discussion. I figure human CO2 activity may be eliminated long before something like that happens. Then we’ll reach an equilibrium that was catastrophic for humans and lots of other life forms. Not so much for the earth itself. Looks like Realclimate agrees with me (even though I came from a completely naive perspective on this):
So CAGW is an irrelevant term in the discussion. I don’t blame you, really. Our popular media loves to use hyperbole, but Realclimate does a good job here. The link does discuss positive feedback. How did I find that link? I googled CAGW, found out that catastrophic was in the phrase, figured they were referring to positive feedback, typed “positive feedback” into the Realclimate search and, PRESTO!, found the link.
Here’s another link that has terms for you:
Now I know you’re very interested in this topic so you’ll want more, including the physics behind global warming. What you do is google search some of those terms with the term global warming. Or you can look up the references in the IPCC. Original articles will likely be too difficult to read (they are for me). OTOH, you can use the authors names in those articles to look up review articles that may be a little more reader friendly. You’ll probably need a subscription for some of those articles. Or you can just google the authors and see if they have explanations in available science magazines like Scientific American. If you really are a go-getter, you could go to your local college/university. Many times you can access their library system online and get into the articles even as a guest.
If you’re a bit more lazy or busy, you can just google the terms and find plenty of websites that pull out the data from the IPCC just for you. Take the term “Whole planet albedo”. One may wonder how that could be measured. Google albedo effect and measurement or experiment. TA-DA! Another website with graphs from the IPCC. If you don’t trust the website, there are citations so that you can check whether the author is pulling your leg. Once you see that it is a proper representation, you read what he has to say and learn about the albedo effect.
Here, you can learn that the earth’s albedo is partially quantified by measuring earthshine. This provides an opportunity for you to learn about planetshine and so on. Once you get a better feel for the science, and I know you will because you’re very interested in this, you can come back and teach the rest of us who are not experts but have a general interest. It would really help GIGO out.
Sorry, but I’m not your research associate. It’s not my job to go looking for evidence to back up the claims you have made.
Look, it’s very simple:
(1) Do you believe that mankind’s CO2 emissions, if unchecked, are likely to lead to amplified warming which will result in serious negative consequences for mankind (and/or the rest of the environment)?
(2) If your answer to the first question is “yes,” do you claim that this hypothesis has been backed up by extensive experimentation?
(3) If your answer to the first two questions are “yes,” then what are 2 or 3 of the more compelling (specific) experimental results which back up this hypothesis?
Your answer was vague but it suggested comparing people and normalizing for variables. Not bad, but not sufficient. What I wanted you to do is see the parallels between research on cancer and tobacco smoke and AGW by looking at the history of tobacco research. If you google smoking cancer history, you should have found two nice hits. One is through wikipedia. The other would be right in the google results:
One is a study and the other is a review that give a fantastic perspective of what people were thinking about at the time. It wasn’t as obvious as you think. But this was just the beginning. Furthermore, epidemiology typically brings up the issue of correlation vs. causation. That’s why you need proof of principle experiments. Many of these experiments use cultured cells. Others involve whole animals. Climate science also relies on experimentation as well as centuries of physical principles.
All the sciences do. For example, you’d think that social science would simply involve observation and statistics gathering. However, it is backed up by lots of biological experimentation designed to get at mechanisms for certain behaviors.
It’s not so much that I’m saying it was obvious. It’s that, upon reaching such a conclusion, one should be able to make falsifiable predictions about what will happen.
So long as the folks pushing AGW can’t make falsifiable predictions to help their cause, I see a parallel between them and the tobacco industry shills who couldn’t make falsifiable predictions to help their cause. The folks who established the cigarettes-cancer link could keep making falsifiable predictions, because, y’know, they were right.
That’s great for figuring out whether a predicted case of correlation is in fact a case of causation; predict a given amount of warming on a given timetable and all the other stuff mentioned in this thread then becomes relevant in establishing causation. But if you won’t spell out what’s actually being predicted, why bother clarifying that it’s causation and not correlation? If I don’t know what hypothetical evidence would be inconsistent with your prediction, it makes no difference to me what kind of prediction it is.
Yes, but it eventually comes back to the gold standard of observation and statistics, right? Sooner or later falsifiable predictions get made, and at some point folks go back to the drawing board if the anticipated results spectacularly fail to materialize?
Nope, it wasn’t. IUt wasn’t useless until you figured it out and saw there was no good answer agaisnt it.
This is how it went.
1)I mentioned Kepler’s changing his mind
2) I said climate science needed a Kepler.
3) You mentioned Plass
4) I asked: Did Plass changed his mind?
5) You said he changed other people’s minds.
6) I said that wasn’t my point. Plass had to have changed his mind fior the analogy to work.
7) You said that Kepler is famous for other stuff.
8) I said it wasn’t my point.
9) Finally, you say the point is useless.
If it was useless, why mention Plass?
Also, it isn’t useless because my point was suggesting that climate science need someone like that.
You may disagree that climate science needs a change of mind, but the point isn’t useless.
Unless in your language “useless” means “I disagree” or “I can’t contradict it”.
Interesting that you find temperature-increase numbers in the context of an AGW discussion useless, especially coming from a website you constantly cite.
If you point to a chart, I’ll discuss the chart. Did you read all the links in the cites I gave you?
Nice, dude. You start the fight and tthe go cying to momma when you nose is broken.
Poor thing.
There there.
Yes. So, what’s the point in discussing a point where both parts agree. We can, it’s an idea, discuss the science.
Man, it’s even worse than I thought.
OK, let’s do something. Find someone who’s been participating in the thread who thinks it was a lie (my post with the 1ºC mention) and I’ll retract it fully and without reservations.
If you can’t, it’d be nice for you to admit it.
Remember, the supopsed lie was my 1ºC mention which you claimed was to confuse people into thinking it was the REAL number; especially since I more than expanded the answer to eliminate any hint of a mistake.
This is like wondering why Newton decided to keep his alchemy research secret. There is nothing magical about this, whereas Kepler changed his mind or if he had followed the right path from the beginning, what counts is what others confirmed.
This point here is just of the “oh that is nice” variety, but not much helpful to the issue.
The point was a “I’m just saying” I’m just saying that more often than not deniers love to only mention numbers with no context.
The Feynman treatment saves a lot of time, one just look at them and as soon a 10:20:30 item shows up, dismiss it.
As It happened I also check if they do link to published science (no, their own cites on a blog are useless unless others are confirming it)
It turns out that the scientific paper they linked for support was saying the opposite of what they claimed, and you are still acting like a clueless dofus ignoring that.
And as the facts showed what happened was that it was your nose the one that was broken and continues to be, when you do not check how gullible you are.
When will you? The quote I found clearly says that ocean acidification is a worrisome thing, the cite you wrought cherry picked the scientific paper.
Sorry. you don’t get to decide what points I try to raise. You only decided it was useless after your mentioning Plass was shown to be irrelevant to my point (however useful or useless it was).
I don’t care nor do I answer for what “deniers” say. I answer about me, what I say and the links and cites I provide say.
Being a sceptic (or denier) doesn’t mean I have to defend every other sceptic in the same way tht you, being a proponent/beleiver in AGW do not have to defend what really crazy people might say trying to defend AGW.
If you want me to read a cite or link, I’ll do it. i won’t, however, start checking all the cite and links in a site just because I’m there.
Momma will clean you face, don0t worry.
Can you be specific as to what factual points are wrong or out of context?
Because “it’s a denier” is not very useful.
I’ll repeat the challenge then adding the “of omission” bit. Will you chicken out again?
Hey, I do not mind if in the long run the point becomes idiotic, mentioning Plass was useful to mark the point a great shift among the researchers that happened 60 years ago, your idea that what Kepler did, was not in the end, just the same is really idiotic.
That is fine with me, as you only appear to others as a dofus for not being able to notice how you are being had.
Whine, whine, whine.
Fine with me, you are just saying that you will remain a willful ignorant, I have no problem with you confirming it to others.
Meh, sticks and stones..
I already did on the post that followed your trash from the CO2 “scientific” AstroTurf site. But thank you for showing others once again who is really the one getting trashed.
Meh, by this time there are other issues that show that you are an incompetent or a liar.
As I already put the numbers in perspective your request here is useless. Live with your disappointment.
Speaking solely as someone who doesn’t know the science and is lost in the details of the debate, nothing you have said more thoroughly convinces me that you are wrong and dishonest than this form of sneering.
GIGObuster: A million and a million thanks to you for your patience and proper netiquette, and a couple billion more for your concise, clear, explicit, readable answers. I’ll never be a climate scientist. I’ll never qualify to read the literature for myself. But if I were nothing more than a juror in a trial, I’ve found your posts (both here in the Pit and in the regular Great Debates forum) vastly more persuasive than those of the opposition. The “crybaby” type sneering above goes a long way to persuading more against their viewpoints. It isn’t reasoning!
(Heh! It could be that you’re the fibber and they’re the honest ones! You might simply be a master of presentation and diplomacy! There was a guy in the nineteenth century who went around defending the “Flat Earth” model – but he did so with such grace, charm, patience, and eloquence that he often persuaded audiences to his views, solely by the superiority of his presentation! But…I don’t think you’re of his ilk!)
Trinopus (joined the Flat Earth society on a lark…)
Thanks for that Trinopus! I was wondering if that was just a pox to both houses point but as you in the end say that I’m not of that “ilk” it is clear that you are saying that the Gallina is pouting, hard to imagine a chicken doing that, but he does manage somehow.
As for FXMastermind I do wonder if he has read your post correctly, as I pointed on the other Pit thread on Science deniers, snark is not the only weapon used here, there are already many scientific or serious sources that help us find who is correct, to me the most telling fact of where the evidence is pointing at is that the few skeptical scientists that are left are coming up with mega fails, and gain discredit among their peers.
It is getting so bad that even Ars Technica (With expert contributors from academia too) noticed:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Hear hear! Sneering, snark and sarcasm don’t do much to convince anyone of your POV, but they are great for tearing down your enemies.
[/QUOTE]
I see you are branching out. Not getting enough attention in your other thread?
Just wanted to also say thanks to GIGO for fighting the good fight on this subject and trying to fight ignorance. It’s probably taking a hell of a lot longer than GIGO thought it would…
