The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jan 1, 2021.

  1. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure they do. The fact that your side dishonestly cherrypicks the estimates doesn't change that.

    What's more, your side looks insane for claiming the bizarre low estimates, being that reality says the opposite. Half a doubling (log scale) of CO2 has caused about 1.0C of warming. That puts TCS (transient climate senstivity) at 2.0C/doubling. ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) has to be significantly bigger than TCS, so anyone claimng ECS is below 2.0C/doubling looks to have a screw loose.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  2. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And Shaviv faceplants there.

    His claim is that the heat was hiding in the oceans all along, and it took decades for that heat to reach the atmosphere. Unfortunately for him, ocean temperartures have been recorded for a long time, and no, the oceans were not heating up the way he claimed. The hard data says his theory is wrong, so his theory is wrong.
     
  3. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes YOUR endless anger and hate boring and irrational, you avoided his questions over and over, doesn't sound like you have much to contribute to the debate.

    Questions YOU ignore:

    But snow cover is inversely related to temperature. Are you pretending you don't even know that?

    If it were a fact it would. It's not a fact, so it doesn't. See how that works?
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  4. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is clear you don't understand the chart which is a listing of published papers and their ECS and TCR numbers. <(Link)

    They are NOT cherrypicked numbers, don't be this dumb!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Jack Hays likes this.
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's simply not so.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You need to argue against Shaviv's actual claims rather than your own straw man version of his claims.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol: I identified your blatant logical fallacy, which you apparently lack the intellectual horsepower to understand on your own. It is you who cannot debate, which is why you always have to resort to self-evidently false and disingenuous ad hominem tripe like:
    See? You have realized you cannot offer any relevant facts or logic because when you tried to be relevant, I just demolished and humiliated you.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they most certainly do not.
    It's nothing to do with estimates. Actual physical events show that ECS cannot possibly be as high as CAGW theory claims.
    But it doesn't. Reality shows CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. That proves temperature is not sensitive to CO2.
    No, it hasn't; we already know the 20th century warming was mostly caused by the multi-millennium high in solar activity, not CO2, because the same thing happened 1000ya with no significant increase in CO2.
    That's a good example of a false premise leading to a false conclusion.
    Wrong, as proved above. When you substitute demonstrably false assumptions for facts, you will reliably reach false conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you will now merely reveal your incomprehension of his analysis:
    See? He never said the heat was "hiding." It clearly showed in the surface temperature record ~1910-2000. He merely pointed out the oceans' thermal inertia, which implies that the 20th century heating can be expected to continue in the surface temperature record for many years after the sun's activity has declined.
    How was their heating different?
    You have not identified any hard data that say his theory is wrong, and I don't expect you ever to do so.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Classic projection. It is the CAGW doomsday echo chamber that is obviously a cult.
     
  12. Starcastle

    Starcastle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2020
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    John Kerry like all libs flies long distances on private planes to save the environment!

    Another first class hypocrite!
     
  13. Mrs. b.

    Mrs. b. Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    Our worst SOS. His hypocrisy is only eclipsed by his arrogance.

    “If you offset your carbon, it’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle,” Kerry said.

    “I believe the time it takes to get me somewhere, I can’t sail across the ocean. I have to fly to meet with people and get things done,” Kerry said.

    I have two words for Mr. Kerry. Google Chat!
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But didn't the hockey stick graph show that there were never any up or down trends in temperature in the thousand years leading up to the 20th century?
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cool. Four pouty meltdown posts from you. I clearly did well. Though you've had five before, so I didn't get a new record.

    I very clearly showed how denier ECS claims are absurdlly low. In response you just declared all the warming was due to the sun. But since that's a laughable crap theory, you're wrong there, and my estimates are correct and stand unchallenged.

    Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. You're awful at basic logic.

    And absurd claim which is flatly contradicted by reality, since temps start rising fast around 1970 as the TSI drops.

    If the current fast warming was from ocean thermal inertia, ocean temps would be dropping now. They're rising, which conclusively debunks that ridiculout theory.
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why don't you tell us, in your own words, what his claims are? If you understand the material you're copying, that shouldn't be a problem.

    You won't. You never debate. You post links and then run when challenged, sniffing out "IT WAS IN THE LINK!". You clearly don't understand what you're copying.
     
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dear lord, no.

    Let's start with the basics.

    Does warm air or cold air hold more moisture? (Hint: Much of Antarctica is technically a desert)
     
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The case has already been presented.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's a key mechanism. We now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from: solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties.

    Elaborated here:
    Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is merely another fabrication on your part.
    No you didn't. But I did prove that CAGW claims of ECS are absurdly high.
    That is merely another fabrication on your part. If ECS is 1C, the warming cannot possibly all be due to the sun. You are merely so innocent of all scientific understanding that you can't figure that out.
    Your estimate is incorrect and absurd, as already proved.
    Because you are innocent of all scientific understanding, you cannot tell the difference between causal inference and logical inference.
    In the strictly enforced CAGW dogma, the only permitted index of solar influence on the earth's climate is TSI. TSI has been specifically chosen for this role because it is known to vary less than any other index of solar activity. Any measure of solar activity that varies enough to match significant changes in the earth's temperature is not permitted as an index of solar activity.
    Which is not happening.
    They aren't rising, and neither are surface temperatures. All that is rising are the adjustments to the temperature data.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  22. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And then more clouds means cooling. Good. I agree that's the theory.

    However, since 1990, cosmic ray levels have been trending up slightly. The cosmic ray theory says that should have resulted in slow cooling. Instead, there was fast warming, so the cosmic ray theory appears to be wrong.

    I read Shaviv's "debunking of the debunking", and I didn't see anything addressing that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there was no such fast warming, except in the alteration trend of temperature data.
    Because it didn't happen. It's just a fabrication.
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ". . . The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . . "

    My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Faulty Hypothesis? NASA ERB Measurements Don’t Show Significant Radiative Budget Differences
    By P Gosselin on 28. February 2021

    Share this...
    NASA earth radiation budget measurement from satellite data don’t support global warming claims.

    Analyst blogger Zoe Phin downloaded and analyzed 10 gigabytes of NASA instrumental data on the earth’s radiation budget (ERB) fully covering the years 2003 to 2019 [site] [data]. . . .
    According to the greenhouse gas theory, infrared absorbing gases are supposed to be preventing radiation from reaching space, thus causing warming at the surface.

    “Well we clearly see that’s not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error,” Zoe concludes. “Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.”

    See Zoe’s article on this.
     
    bringiton likes this.

Share This Page