By the way, if anyone thinks that septimus has even the slightest shred of credibility, I will point out that I caught him bullshitting in another global warming thread.
He had asserted, in effect, that during Pleistocene time period there were other major influences on CO2 levels besides temperature. I asked him to name a few of these influences, which he was unable to do. It became pretty clear that he had just invented this claim in order to bolster his ridiculous argument that if two quantities move in lockstep, it implies positive feedback. This claim, in turn, was supposedly based on his expertise in “dynamical systems.”
Nah, I understand what I believe and why I believe it, with a flexible as factors change definition of believe. I also have a pretty good grip on what you believe, though I have only arrived at uncharitable hypotheses why you believe it. And weaseling I can see because I don’t gotta tell you nothin’, but when did I lie? :dubious:
I believe you should keep moving. I’ve found that if you lie there perfectly still you pique their interest, and you don’t want vultures interested in you.
Oh really? And what exactly do I believe in your view? And what exactly about my position is wrong?
Also, who in this thread denies that mankind’s activities are likely to have some kind of effect on the climate?
And what exactly about how the planet works do you think is being denied? Or to put it another way, what exactly about how the planet works is being ignored, overlooked or denied?
Last, what exactly do you believe?
Here:
As far as I can tell, this is a flat out lie. Unless you care to identify who in this thread denies that mankind’s activities are likely to have some kind of effect on the climate (and quote them).
Do you care to?
P.S. Weaseling = changing your position without admitting that you have changed your position.
Neither of your cites in any way contradicts what I said.
Are there certain parts of observed climate data that aren’t fully explained in all their details by current mainstream climate science theories involving AGW? Sure, and I never said there weren’t.
Do these observed climate data thereby invalidate or disprove any significant part of the AGW hypothesis? No, they don’t, and you have never yet provided a shred of evidence that they do.
Once again, FXMastermind, you simply fail to notice that the sources you cite don’t actually support the argument(s) you’re trying to make.
Either that, or you’re just hoping everybody else will fail to notice it. As I mentioned earlier, though, by this point you’re not fooling anybody.
Ah, the never ending evasion and denial, it’s amusing at times.
The
Well because facts clearly depend on who is viewing them, then you saying something makes it true. That’s how climate science works these days. You just claim something, and it’s true, and nobody can change your mind. Certainly not evidence or reality.
This takes us to that simple point that has come up now for the last 11 months.
What do you mean by “the AGW hypothesis”? Because until you define it, explain what you mean by it, there isn’t any possible way to “invalidate or disprove” the hypothesis. Hell, you can’t even discuss “the AGW hypothesis” until you clearly state what your hypothesis is.
Y’know, I went through the first six pages and I found that I do NOT know what you and your friends believe because it wasn’t stated, just JAQing around and FXMastermind’s obsession with only the cold data points. There simply wasn’t any substance at all. Now, my posts are insubstantial, but that’s because there are tens of thousands of climate scientists who can say it better. You lack that luxury, and I think it would be nice if you were to lay out your beliefs in a nice, clear manner. No need for cites because I don’t think you have any that could stand up to scrutiny, or even say what you think they say. But yeah, I guess you got me there. I won’t waste a few more hours scouring the other 48 pages of this thread because I assume you won’t say anything deeper than what you said in the first, and I don’t respect you enough to be bothered that you counted coup on me this time.
The keen observer will not that the words “theory” “hypothesis” and “enhanced greenhouse effect”, as well as “CO2 theory” do not appear in the article. And, as I pointed out to GIGO, there is no explanation of the theory, nor the mechanism and predictions of the theory. Wikipedia fail.
Certainly, as the authors note in the abstract, as well as the conclusion, the evidence shows that reality “has diverged” from the models. And if their research stands up to peer review, and observation shows the 25 year trend (now a 27 year trend) of colder NH winters, with increased snow, continues, then both the models, and the theory, have been wrong.
So instead of just asking politely for my position (as I did with you) you lied again.
You don’t know what I believe; you don’t know what you yourself believe. Because your views have nothing to do with facts or logic or evidence – they are 100% feelz.
I’m happy to do that if you first answer my questions. It would also be nice if you would apologize for lying.
Lol, how do you even know that? Oh, that’s right, for you it’s all about feelz.
:shrug: You are the one who keeps lying.
I await answers to the simple, reasonable questions I put to you.
I did, you claimed I “cherry-picked” it out of context. Please explain what context it SHOULD be viewed in.
The conclusion is not published in the Guardian. Pretty sure that’s copyright infringement. Posting it here is clearly “fair use”, we have no commercial interest.
Then stop burning oil … sheesh … how hard is it to use wind or solar power for electricity. If you’re not paying the extra 2 cents per kilowatt hour … then you’re a hypocrite.
Explain why “I publish regularly …” is dependent on “I am a professor” … both sentences can stand alone without the other and still convey the exact same meaning.
Nice try, you claimed the model predictions made in 1990 are accurate. You offered the Risbey paper as a citation when IF FACT the Risbey paper claims the predictions are inaccurate. That’s what the paper’s about, adjusting the models so that they ARE accurate … [giggle] … or he wouldn’t have published his paper.
Oh please please please give me the link to those posts … seriously … I gotta read that. septimus claiming to know about dynamic systems … this ought to be funny.
AFAIK, nobody was able to help him come up with a rationalization for his nonsense. Instead, I came up with a counter-example:
Rather than just concede at this point, or slink away in shame, he decided to double down:
So naturally I asked him for specifics:
He simply ignored these questions. It became clear that he was completely unable to identify these supposed influences on CO2; i.e. he was completely full of shit.
I called him on it and unfortunately got warned for an accusation of lying in GD. But it doesn’t change the fact that (1) he is a liar; (2) he is a typical arrogant idiot warmist who has no idea what he is talking about.
Well … he certainly has no idea what positive feedback is.
Put a glass of water in a 70ºF room and eventually the water will become 70ºF, that’s the equilibrium state. Raise the temperature of the room to 75ºF, and the water’s temperature will raise to 75ºF. That’s not positive feedback, that’s simple equilibrium.
Split a uranium atom in half, the energy doesn’t disperse into equilibrium, it splits 2 more atoms, which splits 4, then 8 then 16 … energy levels move AWAY from equilibrium. This is positive feedback, just splitting a uranium atom causes more uranium atoms to split.
There’s no agency known that causes more CO[sub]2[/sub] to enter the atmosphere just because there’s CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere, no known positive feedback. Indeed, the CO[sub]2[/sub] that man-kind belches into the atmosphere is somehow removed returning the atmosphere to it’s equilibrium state.
AFAIK, the AGW theory states that the capacity to remove CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere has somehow reached it’s limit. By some unknown and never observed mechanism, CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations are going to spike thus cooking all life on Earth. That’s why the alarmists are running their air conditioners a full speed, trying to cool the Earth before … it does something … not sure what.
You know, I’ve been ignoring this thread for quite a while now, but I just couldn’t let this go.
Really? 'Cause I can certainly think of one, at least- higher concentrations of CO2 result in higher average temperatures, which results in warmer ocean water. As water warms, the solubility of CO2 falls, which results in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Also, a warmer average temperature also results in melting permafrost, which also releases previously sequestered CO2.
So that’s *two *known mechanisms.
No, the theory states that we’re releasing CO2 faster than it can be re-sequestered. If we were to suddenly stop releasing CO2 today, the environment might have a chance to catch up.
You’ve been posting to this thread for months now- have you done *any *research?
I thought of that too, but the real question is whether such a feedback is important or is dominated by other relationships. There are a lot of different variables involved in the climate and it is easy enough to hypothesize positive or negative feedbacks among them.
For example, one can hypothesize that increased ice and snow cover will lead to more reflected sunlight which will lead to lower temperatures which will lead to more ice and snow cover, etc. So that a few bad winters lead to an ice age. Since we’re not in an ice age, it’s reasonable to believe that there are other important factors in play. It’s also reasonable to believe that we are in something of an equilibrium state, analogous to a ball rolling around the bottom of a bowl.
If watchwolf is claiming that the relationship between temperature and CO2 is such that positive feedback is not even theoretically possible, then I would say he is wrong. If he is saying that there isn’t persuasive evidence of positive feedback between CO2 and temperature, then I think he’s probably right.
Which leads to more CO2, which leads to warmer water, which leads to more CO2, which leads to more warming, which leads to more CO2, until the oceans start to boil.
Which leads to more warming, which leads to more melting. more CO2, more warming, until everything melts, and the atmosphere gets even warmer, and the oceans start to boil.
Of course at no time in the past did anything like that ever happen, which is why we know it doesn’t work like that. In fact, it can’t work like that.
Of course, and as Plass and others have noted, the unknowns are the real issue. Not the theoretical physics.
Which is, yes, one of the theoretical outcomes of too much CO2.
Metastability. I dunno, maybe something happens, like the ecology adapting to the new environment. You know, more plants due to an overabundance of CO2, which results in less CO2. Of course, that adaptation takes a long time…
I’m curious, though- you seem to take this all very, very seriously. Why are you arguing it here (over and over and over), instead of, say, against actual climatologists? I’m sure they would have answers for you. You might not like the answers, though.
