On a superficial level, it's different because you've reduced the number of unique elements from three to two. On a fundamental level, it's different because while cars obviously don't generate tools, it's just as obvious that science does generate knowledge, such as, e.g., 2LTD - which is, after all, the whole damn point of science. You're welcome.
It's pretty annoying when someone comes on here and arrogantly calls us idiots and insinuates that all of the world's leading experts are idiots as well. I'll make a prediction. The poster either will not be seen again on this thread or will continue with the deflection and diversion and not answer tough questions. Zosimus, if you're still out there just know that I'm more than willing to answer any tough questions you might have regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. I may not have all of the answers, but I'll do my best to answer or point you to resources that might have the answer.
Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. You did not ask how 300e21 joules could have arrived. You asked what the source was. The source is obvious: It's the Sun. What you have failed to do is to say why any of this is relevant. Why should I care whether the Earth has 300e21 joules or 600e22 joules of accumulated energy? So what? What is the conclusion of all this data vomiting? Oh wait... there is no conclusion. All right — then why should any of us care? Because, news flash, we don't. Then why do you keep asking about it? None of these data matter because you have stated no conclusion that these data supposedly support. But, for the sake of argument, I will invent a conclusion, which I will call P. Whenever you are ready to pull your head out and supply us with the content of the conclusion, let us know. Your argument seems to be: If P then the Earth will have accumulated 300e21 joules of energy. The Earth has accumulated 300e21 joules of energy. Therefore, P. This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. So you see, it has nothing to do with the data. The data are completely irrelevant unless they can be placed into a logically valid argument. No logical fallacy is persuasive. Now, I realize that you want to call an insistence on logically valid arguments a "Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias," but it's just not true. Now it's not because I'm smarter than you, sexier than you, wealthier than you, or more of an expert than you. I reject the argument because I have been trained in logic. The first time I heard about the scientific method, I was a 12-year-old kid, and I accepted it without further thought. Fortunately for me, I was later trained sufficiently to recognize logical fallacies. Completely irrelevant. IPCC is not a valid source.
Well, that's a pretty piss poor argument. Look — the first thing you would need to demonstrate is that there really is a physical world. For all you know, you are just a brain in a vat being studied with electrical stimuli. Or you may be a part of some alien's dream, and you will vanish when it wakes up. Next, you would need to demonstrate that you can actually perceive that physical world. This is a problem because you have no way of verifying your perceptions except by using your own perceptions. How can you know that a specific blade of grass (if it even exists) is green? All you can do is look at it again and say that what you see is consistent with your previous observations. Yet, how do you know that your mental state when you see grass is the same as my mental state when I see grass? Maybe when I look at grass, I see something that you would call blue. Yet, I have been told that this color is actually "green." So, later when I say, "My favorite color is green" but I actually am thinking of something that you would call blue. Yet you say, "How strange. My favorite color is blue." But maybe we're both thinking of the same inner mental experience, but we have different names for it. If science is right, we never see the real world anyway. The time it takes for light stimuli to reach your brain is 0.7 seconds, so our brain constantly guesses what the world looks like 0.7 seconds in the future and shows us that. If it didn't, you would not be able to catch a ball that was thrown to you. So again — how do you know that what you see is "true" rather than just a useful fiction that lets you catch baseballs when thrown at you? If you believe in evolution, you believe that your senses evolved only to aid your survival. So what reason do you have to believe that what you see/hear/smell etc. is "true" as opposed to just a useful fiction designed to help you find food and make offspring? Going further than that, most of what science postulates about are things that cannot even be seen. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. No one has ever seen a gamma ray or the number of protons and neutrons in uranium. No one has ever seen potential energy. How do we know that potential energy actually exists as opposed to just being a useful fiction that lets us calculate how far up an incline a moving object will travel before it starts going back the other way? On top of that, how do we know that what we observed yesterday will occur again tomorrow? How do you solve the problem of induction or the problem of holistic underdetermination? The claim that "it's just obvious that science makes knowledge" is an idiotic one.
No. I did not ask what the source was. Post #257: "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" Post #281: "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" Post #315: "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" Post #385: "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" Post #400: "How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate ~300e21 joules of energy since 1985 during a period when total solar irradiation has been declining? How do you explain that?" As you can clearly see I identify the source in the question. I'm not asking where the energy came from. I feel my questions are already articulated well enough so I will let them speak for themselves; no further clarification necessary. It is relevant because it is a metric that quantifies how much heat the geosphere has accumulated in all of it's energy storage mediums (hydrosphere, troposphere, cyrosphere, land, etc.). If you'd like to focus only on the atmosphere that's fine. I'm open to that as well. Just know that the troposphere accounts for < 5% of the heat uptake and it's also been warming since 1985 so you'll be faced with the same challenge. Again, I'm not asking where it came from (see posts 257, 281, 315, 385, and 400). I'm asking because I'm challenging you to provide a narrative that explains how the Sun can cause the geosphere to accumulate energy during a period of time when solar radiation has been flat to declining. And I keep asking because you keep deflecting and diverting. The conclusion is that the Earth is warming. What we are debating here is the why. I support the scientific consensus that it is the net result of all physical processes acting on the climate system which includes the modulating effect from both natural AND anthroprogenic agents. We happen to live in an era today where the anthroprogenic modulation is dwarfing the natural modulation. And just so we're clear here I'm using the term modulation in the context of a change that has occurred. You are claiming that the Sun is the modulating agent that explains the warming. I'm telling you that scientists disagree with this. That's the point of contention right now. You've got this backward. Let's assume for a moment that the misunderstanding is in my failure to articulate. Let's get this cleared up right away. The Earth has accumulated 300e21 joules of energy since 1985. Therefore global warming has occurred from 1985 to present. During this period total solar irradiance has declined. Less irradiance means less radiative forcing. Therefore total solar irradiance (i.e. the Sun) cannot explain the warming. Sure, there are lot of details here that I've glossed over for sake of brevity. But, this is the gist of the rebuttal you get from scientists. If you want to ask clarifying question then please do so. Perhaps. I'm just letting you know that my statements in no way are meant to imply that the arguments, theories, explanations, etc. contained within are my own. They are not. They all come from the established scientific consensus of climate change. They come from experts in the field. If you feel I have misrepresented the scientific conclusions then please bring this to my attention. And why not? Keep in mind that the IPCC is not the original source of any relevant scientific research. They do not do their own research. What they do is aggregate all available lines of evidence to form a consensus of what the scientific evidence suggests. They are a proxy for the consensus. The AR5 report is the culmination of all scientific works available (30,000 of which are directly cited) reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary of the science as it exists at the time of publication. AR6 is in progress right now and it will evaluate all of the works used previously in AR5 plus all of the works submitted to the scientific community after AR5 was published. A new consensus will be built around the existing evidence plus all of the new evidence. And since there has been no revolutionary lines of evidence that have been submitted recently this means the consensus will be more evolutionary in nature and not revolutionary. In other words, the consensus isn't likely to change much. Conclusions with margins of errors may see those margins of error shrink. Some tertiary or even secondary hypothesis may be falsified. Predictions may be refined. New hypothesis may be introduced. Stuff like that...
"How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985?" What about my question would you like clarification about? What about my question is idiotic? And again, I'm open to answering any questions you might have regarding global warming.
Yes, you did. In this very post you said, "The geosphere is accumulating ~10e21 j/yr of energy. Where is that energy coming from?" Well, do you see that big blazing ball of fire up there in the sky? That's called the Sun. It's the source of most of the energy coming to our planet. As for the source of that energy, I'm betting on the Sun. Where did you think it was coming from? Don't lie, bro. You're busted. No, it's not relevant. You only think it's relevant because you go beyond what the data tell you. The data indicate that a certain amount of energy has gone into the atmosphere from 1985 till now. You reframe this as "The geosphere is accumulating ~10e21 j/yr of energy," but you don't know that. The most you can comment about is the past. You have no idea what is happening at the moment nor what will happen in the future. Don't lie. First of all, the data do not support your contention. Second, I do not claim that the Sun is the modulating agent that explains the warming. You asked what the source of energy was. I'm telling you right now — it's the Sun. The Sun is the source of energy for the planet. Finally, even if it is true that the planet has warmed all of 1ºF since the 1980s... so what? Again — so what? I'm tired of all the snow. I say we could use some warming. What clarifying questions might we want to ask? Of course I do. You are assuming that the past is a good guide to the future. Why do you think so? And please, don't say something stupid like, "Because that's what I've always observed in the past. So the past will continue to be a good guide in the future." As has already been pointed out, the IPCC exists not to determine whether global warming is occurring or human caused but rather to offer policy recommendations to governments round the world.
You know exactly what I mean. Joules is a measure of energy. Joules/year is a measure of power. The Sun is NOT the source of the additional power in the climate system. It can't be because it's own power has declined and thus the power flux received by Earth has declined as well. It might be the source of the energy, but only in so far as the shortwave photons that are received are eventually transformed into longwave photons that get partially trapped by the atmosphere. The sun is certainly NOT the source of the positive perturbation in the power. There is a different mechanism in play that acts as the source for this perturbation. If you disagree then just explain how the Earth could accumulate 300e21 j since 1985 and with the power of about 10e21 j/yr in recent years with declining solar radiation. We absolutely know this. And just like scientists can predict the future trajectory of planets in orbit so too can they predict the future trajectory of the global mean surface temperature and oceanic heat content based on fundamental physical principals. That's great. I happen to hate cold weather as well though I do like a big snowstorm every now and then. But the feelies we have aren't very interesting in terms of explaining why that warming is happening and whether it will continue happening in the future. If you're not interesting in understanding why then why are you participating in a global warming thread? You could ask about whether there are other properties of the Sun that might explain the warming. You could ask what do scientists think is the cause of the warming. You could ask how that warming occurs. You could ask what fundamental physical processes are in play. You could ask what mechanisms or agents are modulating these physical processes. There's a lot you could ask. I think the past is great avenue of research. It helps us to gauge the range of possible climate sensitives that have occurred. It helps us identify agents and mechanisms that modulate the climate. It helps us gauge the results in a number of different aspects of climate events in the past. It helps us back test hypothesis. We can use this information to help calibrate our understanding of how climate change today might play out. We cannot simply use what happened in the past as a predictor for the future because things are different today. But we can use what happened in the past guide for better understanding the climate system as whole and construct a theory of how it behaves that works equally well for the past, present, and future. Oh they definitely form conclusions regarding whether global warming is happening, how much it is happening, which agents are causing it to happen, etc. They do this by assimilating all of the available scientific evidence. The result is that they act as an adequate proxy for the scientific consensus. I recommend you read the IPCC AR5 so that you can understand the jargon and arguments that the scientific consensus is making. Their charter is to advise public policy makers on the science of climate change. This includes advising them on the science and the result of what-if scenarios. If you are opposed to the IPCC for whatever reason there are plenty of other institutions that do essentially the same thing. What you'll find is that they all come to the same conclusion though.
Thanks for the imbecility, and happy trails. Pilgrim, you're not gonna make him any smarter. He's just gonna make you more stupid.
I lost count, did anyone keep track of how many times he's refused to answer the question?...6, 7, 8 times?...dodge, deflect and deny...
I just don't get how people can come in here and insinuate that all of the world's leading experts are wrong and that they are so much smarter. They do this by arrogantly calling us idiots and liars. Then we get lectured about critical reasoning and being incapable of answering tough questions. And finally they condescendingly claim that the Sun is the cause of the warming but dodge away from answering tough questions themselves by trying to shift the discussion to topic that are unrelated to this thread.
And what makes it really head-scratching is that all it does is expose them as idiots. It makes you wonder what they think they are accomplishing. Do they really think that if they dodge and weave enough, it will somehow convince people they are right?
Yes, I studied physics. I know what joules are. I also know that the energy reaching the Earth from starlight, moonlight, and cosmic radiation is negligible compared to that provided by the Sun. If there's extra energy in the atmosphere, it's come from the Sun. It's not about disagreeing. I'm asking you the same question I did before: So what? The more energy the Earth has, the more it radiates out into space. At some point it will reach equilibrium. Why should I care? No, you don't know the future. For all you know, mankind will be living in space by the year 2100. For all you know, climate panickers will be back to proclaiming global cooling as they did in the 1970s. If there's one thing we know for certain, it is this: current scientific "truths" will not be considered true 100 years from now. I'm participating in this thread because there are idiots everywhere who think that 1ºF hotter since 1985 means that we need a harebrained idea such as a Green New Deal that will eliminate planes, rebuild all buildings the world over, and provide free money to people who don't want to work in favor of saving the planet. It's time to realize that global warming isn't science — it's religion. It comes complete with holy days, confession, ritual sacrifice, food prohibitions, and end-of-the-world apocalyptic scenarios unless we repent for the sin of breathing. I'll become a scientologist first, thanks. The spaceship will come and take me away from global warming. Yes, I do have some questions. 1. To what extent will the new bills in New York and Virginia allowing women to slaughter their partially born children affect global warming? 2. Assuming that the goal is to find a big, new carbon sink, why not simply ban recycling of paper and require that it all be buried? 3. Considering that insects produce 48 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year and humans produce only 34 billion tons (through breathing, cars, livestock, etc.) do you support the legalization of DDT as a method of fighting global warming? 4. If we euthanized every liberal in California, what effect would that have on global warming? 5. Since we already know how to produce global dimming, why isn't that a valid solution to global warming?
You should care, because the equilibrium point will be a major change from the temperatures of today. And, that change will impact the wellbeing of humans trying to live on this planet. You got fooled by the nonsense that Ocasio-Cortez's staff disseminated rather than the actual green new deal. While that's on her, of course, it's also on you - it was just plain too easy to read what happened there for you to claim that as some sort of excuse. I assume your point is that it would be really stupid to listen to you on mitigation when you've failed to grasp the issue to start with. And, I agree with you on that.
One would think after all the failed predictions that the climate hysteria would be noticed but I guess many have very short memory spans. What is the tipping point? So far we have passed many predicted tipping points and not much has happened.
The issue isn't where it comes from. The issue is that it is getting trapped. Of course there is an equilibrium temperature. The equilibrium is higher when the radiation is getting trapped. You should care because a higher global mean temperature comes with consequences. Of course we can predict the future. That's one of the defining goals of science. We learn about the world around us so that we can make predictions and consider what-if scenarios so that we can get wealthier, healthier, etc. Global cooling was never a prediction from the scientific consensus. It was born primarily out of the overwhelmingly rejected and misguided "human volcano" theory from Reid Bryson. In fact, the 1970's were an era where the scientific research began progressing from verifying earlier predictions that the Earth would warm under the influence of higher CO2 to figuring out what the effects of the warming would be. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Then attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for an ill conceived proposal instead of erroneously attacking the science that says the Earth will warm and that humans are responsible. This is borderline trolling. Anyway you could figure this out by multiplying the carbon footprint of people living in NY or VA with the number of abortions that you think would result and finally by the climate sensitivity of CO2. I don't know the first two inputs, but I could certainly help with the 3rd figure. What are you thinking here? How would banning the recycling of paper reduce global warming? No, I wouldn't support the use of DDT to control CO2 emissions. This is a pretty complex topic that deserves it's own thread. I'm not going to dignify this with a response. This is definitely a solution. Is it viable though...there's a lot of debate here. One thing to keep in mind about dimming (assuming you mean the use of aerosols or reflective agents in the upper atmosphere) is that they many of the candidates have short residence times and fallout quickly. CO2 on the other hand has extremely long residence times being on the order of 1,000s or even 10,000s of years. In fact, from the paleoclimate evidence there is reason to believe that it might take a 100,000 years for it to return to preindustrial levels. But yeah, this is a good question that deserves its own thread.
Which tipping points are you thinking of? Even the most aggressive predictions of tipping points are around the 2C level of warming. There is still debate about whether the Arctic sea ice melt has reached tipping point levels. I believe it has. And keep in mind that the IPCC severely underestimated sea ice declines in the Arctic and I truly mean severely. It's a lesson in the fact that having wrong predictions is a double edged sword.
What you believe and facts can be two separate things. It doesn't matter that Arctic ice has actually been expanding or even if it all melts since it will not raise sea levels.
Arctic sea ice extents have been declining and much faster than predicted. Sea ice extents aren't important because of sea level rise (afterall they. They are important because they modulate albedo which is one of the Arctic tipping points.
That's what the toad on the hotplate said. Climate change is slow. Any attempt to slow that change or even just to prepare for it requires years. What we want for 2100 needs to be created by what we do today.
