holy guacamole said..

I think my point is simple. My point is that I interpret from the science that the vast bulk of evidence points to anthropogenic causes.

You dispute this, but provide no evidence to support your claim.

You provided one report with one hypothesis from 2007, which I demonstrated contained totally inaccurate predictions when compared to the observations and the IPCC predictions of the same time. Others have refuted such reports and demonstrated that they contain serious errors.

It's very clear to me. You have no evidence, but claim something.

You think providing a paper with a hypothesis constitutes evidence. It does not. A hypothesis is not evidence.

It seems the only defence you have remaining is a claim that I'm twisting your words and changing my point, both of which are false.

So let me be absolutely clear paradox, have you got any EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the IPCC is wrong and that quote "we just don't know" and that it's probably mostly natural variance. These are all your claims, correct me if I'm twisting your own words.

And around in circles we go because you deliberatly misinterpret my words and you make the same mistake that you accuse me of? So let me use your words.

"vast bulk of evidence points to anthropegenic causes"I do not dispute that. I dispute a 95% confidence that the evidence shows all observed warming is human caused. I have stated this a number of times.

"You think providing a paper with a hypothesis constitutes evidence. It does not. A hypothesis is not evidence" firstly your question shows a lack of understand of basic scientific principles. You asked for a paper providing evidence that supports a hypothesis of a theory of natural warming and I gave you one. Whether its a strong paper or not doesn't matter. It is still valid. A paper is a body of scientific work that contribues to the knowledge of a hypothesis. Very rarely is it a "proof" of anything. I will put it back on you. The evidence that all observed warming is human caused is equally lacking in "proof" it is just a body of papers supporting the hypothesis. It is not proven, just like the opposing hypothesis that is all natural is not proven.

"It's very clear to me. You have no evidence, but claim something" yes, I claim there is no compelling evidence that all the observed warming is human caused. Why I am having to supply evidence of that? Stop twisting the argument. Feel free to supply the compelling evidence that all warming is human caused.

So let me be absolutely clear paradox, have you got any EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the IPCC is wrong and that quote "we just don't know" and that it's probably mostly natural variance. Seriously???Why is it you can't comprehend simple statements.

Once again for you.I have never said that is "probably mostly natural" In fact I have gone out of my way to say that the likelyhood that it is mostly natural is very low. My claim is that the IPCCis reaching tohave a 95% confidence that all warming is human caused. However considering that they do not have a mission to consider natural variance it is not surprising but it does force a question about thier conclusions.

Dispite all your huffing and puffing about papers and evidence for an underlying natural warming trend, all you need is a graph. A school age kid can look at a graph of temperature and mark the trend from the late 1800's. If you take this graph below and accept that human contribution and CO2 levels didn't have much of an impact until the 50s or 60's, you would be hard pressed to discount the whole trend could be natural. Unlikely maybe, impossible no.

So I will put it back on you. Where is your evidence that all warming is human caused and where is your evidence that there is no way any of the underlying warming can be natural? These are your arguments, so lets see them?

You really have no evidence to support your claims I see paradox.

And the only so-called "evidence" you have provided to support you claim that the warming we observe is probably just natural variance is a discredited 2007 paper; which has been demonstrated by many leading scientists and here to be flawed and highly inaccurate in its predictions by a factor of 100%.

So once again, where is the evidence that supports your claim that the warming we observe could be largely natural variance?

Not a hypothesis. Not semantics. Not spin.

Evidence.

I am very interested and I'm still waiting for this compelling weight of scientific evidence.

TonyAbbott said..
Imagine if we......

Conducted an experiment and smashed the global economy and made hundreds of millions of people unemployed around the world ...

If we closed down global aviation destroying the tourist sector.......

If we forced people to hide in their homes and limited the use of their cars to see what effect this would have on C02 levels in the environment?

And what if, after all the pain, suffering and hardship that this experiment had no effect on global Co2 levels?

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/04/atmospheric-co2-levels-rise-sharply-despite-covid-19-lockdowns?fbclid=IwAR3mlynLz2qkEU5hW0jJIyEYjEPg_pes0hPp7OyKRNcdyhsZEqfaQ-fpGPQ

Not to mention temperatures!

e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer

Climate scientists again.......

"And after 9/11, when all commercial flights in the U.S. were grounded for three days, the diurnal temperature difference increased by up to 1.8 degrees C. The increase was strongest where air traffic was normally densest, said the study's author, David Travis of the University of Wisconsin."

Only 3 days! What do you reckon HG? After 6 months of next to no aviation we should be cooling off?

Naturally, if greenhouse gas emissions were to fall significantly in this period and there is a measurable decrease in radiative forcing afterwards, leading to a statistically significant global temperature drop then yes, it would indicate a reinforcement of the IPCC hypothesis.

Anything within the IPCC error margins would not be significant and not provide alternative hypotheses with any further credibility - which currently stands at less than 5% certainty.

Contrast this with the 2007 paper paradox posted, which predicted a 2019 global temperature increase that was found in 2019 to be in error by a factor of over 100%. That clearly demonstrates a flawed hypothesis, flawed methodology, flawed conclusions or most likely all of the former.

Paradox said.. I have never said "that the warming we observe is probably just natural variance".

holy guacamole said..
You really have no evidence to support your claims I see paradox.

And the only so-called "evidence" you have provided to support you claim that the warming we observe is probably just natural variance is a discredited 2007 paper; which has been demonstrated by many leading scientists and here to be flawed and highly inaccurate in its predictions by a factor of 100%.

So once again, where is the evidence that supports your claim that the warming we observe could be largely natural variance?

Not a hypothesis. Not semantics. Not spin.

Evidence.

I am very interested and I'm still waiting for this compelling weight of scientific evidence.

You know you can keep claiming I say things that I never said. But I will keep correcting you. For what seems like the 10th time,That is merely something you like to argue and so attribute it to me.

The sad thing is you are not even winning an argument with yourself.

To provide a comprehensive response to what I assume is your request for "evidence" to support a hypothesis that the observed warming can occur naturally. Noting that this hypothesis really needs no supporting evidence as natural variation is the underlying case that people are trying to disprove.

Contrary to your assertion otherwise, I have previously provided three different supporting arguments for the hypothesis.

1) was a published paper on the topic
2) was a quote from one of your beloved IPCC reports agreeing that recent past climate fluctuations were a number of degrees over centuries. ie there is natural precedence for the sort of movement we are seeing.
3) I provided a graph showing the temperature change over the last 140 years and the fact that the trend started in the late 1800's and has not statistically changed.

These three on thier own are enough for anyone even of mild intelligence to accept natural variation could well be at play. Not is at play, but has a strong enough argument it cannot be dismissed. And that is my argument, not that you will remember that.

For bonus points, here is two more analysis conducted by experts also reinforcing the "hypothesis" that observed warming can be explained naturally.

jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/

A bit touchy on the "who's winning" thing. Getting a complex now?

So you accept the IPCC's conclusions then? Or are you denying that you believe the warming is largely natural?

Dear God paradox, this is what you believe is it not?

The so-called experts you cite are the very same debunked nutters and Heartland bull dust merchants. That's debunked junk. It's not evidence. He's a quack who thinks God's power will right any wrong humans can do to the ecosystem. For just one peer review debunking their methods see here.

journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

Crazy stuff.

Basically all Spencer et al do since leaving a reputable organisation (NASA) to work part time as a lobbyist for industry (Heartland) is fabricate a seemingly plausible scenario to lend credibility to long since debunked reports like the 2007 Scafetta modelling, and to CAST DOUBT on the proper science.

Got anything else?

Look, so you stop this silly claim I'm misrepresenting your beliefs/faith/statements, how about you tell me in one sentence, EXACTLY what you believe is largely responsible for the observed warming of the past 70 years.

One sentence please.

That's a long sentence.

Quantity is no substitute for quality.

Like Einstein said, '"Why 100 (scientists)? If I were wrong, one would have been enough'.

So let's look at this opinion of yours:

"There is no strong evidence that humans are the primary cause of any observed warming let alone the CO2 contribution on its own."

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Yes there is strong evidence. Mountains of it.
You just don't accept it.
You don't provide any contrary evidence to demonstrate the IPCC's conclusions are incorrect.

I asked you to provide some evidence of your own to support that opinion, but to date all you can provide is debunked papers from 2007 and nutter propaganda merchants who work with the Heartland Institute.

Now let's also look at this opinion:

"What I said was that there (sic. are) valid arguments for the warming being mostly natural. I also clarified they were unlikely to be the sole reason, but nevertheless cannot be dismissed."

Well, yes you can have an argument or you can have an opinion that something is valid in your mind, but that doesn't translate to evidence that stands the test of scientific rigour. Again, to date you've provided long since debunked papers and error laden papers from lobbyist groups.

You have nothing.

Nothing.

AUS1111 said..
Paradox, you have clearly read far more about this than I, however my understanding is that the degree of warming is not unprecedented and could readily be explained by a range of natural factors, but the rate of warming is unprecedented. This, combined with the corresponding human-induced increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses which is not in dispute, lends enormous credence to the conclusion that warming we have experienced is, in fact, AGW.

Indeed. This is key. The warming and the CO2 rise is about 100 times faster than the end of the last ice age.

As you say, this lends incredible weight to the AGW hypothesis. Nothing else comes close to explaining what we observe.

But there is more to the picture than this. The other key factor is the Carbon isotope analysis, which demonstrates that the bulk of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. When this additional build up of GHG is plugged into super computer modelling by multiple scientific institutions including universities, met offices and organisations like the CSIRO, all the models largely agree and accurately reproduce the observations, especially in the past 20 years or so since supercomputing and the modelling parameters have become very refined.

No one has been able to reproduce the current warming trend and forecasts correctly using any alternative theory or argument. One article paradox cited produced a prediction that was over 100% in error when compared to the observations. It is concerning for science that there are people walking the earth who believe such error margins constitute a valid argument in support of a debunked hypothesis.

(BTW a refreshing on topic post AUS. I knew you could do it.)

The graph shows it quite clearly. Nothing in the last 800,000 years comes close in terms of the rate of CO2 rise or temperature increase. Paradox expects us to believe that interplanetary oscillations or some such extra terrestrial phenomena are responsible for this dramatic temperature rise that also just happen to coincide with a similar dramatic CO2 rise. Quite fanciful really.


Another common myth is that perhaps increased solar irradiance is responsible. The facts dismiss this myth. The 70 year trend is actually decreasing irradiance that has done little to slow the global temperature rise in the same period.

Temperature yes. Historical temperature estimates are just that. We relate them to CO2, fossils of tree ring growth etc.. That's how confident we are about the greenhouse effect.

Scientists are talking about the long term - in Hundreds and thousands of years. Not 50-150

CO2, no. The CO2 trend is unequivocal.

Always room to question the data, but that doesn't mean you or paradox or any other amateur is a better interpreter of it than NASA or the CSIRO for example, dear IAN.

AUS1111 said..
Paradox, you have clearly read far more about this than I, however my understanding is that the degree of warming is not unprecedented and could readily be explained by a range of natural factors, but the rate of warming is unprecedented. This, combined with the corresponding human-induced increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses which is not in dispute, lends enormous credence to the conclusion that the warming we have experienced is, in fact, AGW.

Well the key there is unprecedented warming. No one disputes CO2 levels or the fact they have gone up. Nor is anyone disputing that temperature is at the high end of what we may have seen recently, but when people use "unprecendented" that is what sticks as it obviously has with you and there is no real justification for it.

The problem is that we don't have temp records from more than a couple of hundred years ago. Even the bom wont use records past 100 years so we have to reconstruct it via proxy's (ice cores, tree rings etc). Reconstruction is messy and inaccurate and conflicting and while it provides us a reasonable idea of the approximate temperature 1000's and tens of thousands years or more ago, it is high margin of error stuff, especially if you are trying to pinpoint the temperature between two points close in time (ie 50 or 100 years).

I posted a quote from an IPCC report earlier in this thread which clearly stated that we have previously seen 2 degree movements in a 100 to 200 year timeframe since the last iceage. Thats possibly the same or what we are seeing now. So thats a straight debunking just from the IPCC.

Here is a land temperature graph from Berkley earth also showing the temperature swings and variations over the last few hundred years. We can't even look at that and claim there is anything unprecendented in either the rate or the magnitude of temperature over 250 years, let alone the tens of thousands since the last ice age. You could claim that the temperature is as high as we have probably seen before recently. But it's not what anyone could call "unprecedented". Unfortunately people like to take these graphs and homogenise them to get a nice flat line in the middle and it misleads the public on what the real uncertainty is.



So no, for anyone to claim we are in uncharted waters and we have never seen anything like this in the last few thousand years is again misleading you. No one can make that claim on the data we have and especially the finer detail that we dont have.

holy guacamole said..
No one denies natural variability is possible.
The question is, have you got any evidence That's what's driving the warming now paradox?

Then what are you arguing about??? That is my entire point and always has been. "natural variability is possible" as an explanation for currently observed temperatures.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me, it only took 8 pages. Sheesh.....

I have posted plenty of evidence on the argument for natural warming and as such it cannot be exluded, if there was no evidence you would not have just agreed it is possible. Just as there is plenty of evidence for possible human contribution. Neither has enough solid science behind it to define what contribution each is giving to the current temperatures. There are too many unkowns to confidently quantify either of them.

Ooh circular. My favourite type of argument

holy guacamole said..
No one denies natural variability is possible.

Well you've changed your tune!

holy guacamole said..
I've been utterly consistent with the scientific method.

No you haven't.

You've gone from AGW being the only option because the infallible IPCC said so, to using phrases like "most likely".

You're making progress, good to see.

Bono - science should be observable right?

There is no first hand evidence in their life of anyone demonstrating that the sea has risen.

I therefore can only conclude the global warming alarmist theorists cultists have been led up the garden path.

petermac33 said..
Bono - science should be observable right?

There is no first hand evidence in their life of anyone demonstrating that the sea has risen.

I therefore can only conclude the global warming alarmist theorists cultists have been led up the garden path.

Bono - science?

What's that?

Oh and yes, the key to science is to back up a hypothesis with evidence. Paradox's hypothesis has zero evidence.

Sea level rises are supported by massive amounts of evidence gathered around the world and satellites.