{last edit evening 8/5/14, as usual, damn those typos.}
Here's the latest installment in my dialogue with K over at the "Climate Science Falsifiability" comments thread at OurChangingClimate, though he's drifted quite far from his alleged interest in examining his take on the "null hypothesis" and it's use in climate science.
It seems to be the one thing I can depend on when dialoguing with such characters, they will try every trick in the book to distract the attention away from the question at hand and waste our time and available space with off-track extraneous nonsense.
Skim through this to see how it works.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge Says:
July 31, 2014 at 19:56
Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.
K still hasn't faced the fact that there is nothing “unnatural” about current climate change. Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!
CO2 has always had it’s insulating properties, nothing has changed about those physics!
In the past there were other causes for increasing those greenhouse gas levels. Today we know, beyond all doubt, that humans have injected geologically significant amounts of CO2.
Warming will enhance our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land.
Krischel's null hypothesis is a fail –
Sadly K fights an unfair battle in that he steadfastly refuses to accept the authoritative information he’s been offered… instead believing that the “authority” of his own conviction holds supreme… thus justifying his deaf ear to all rational arguments and learning moments.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: July 31, 2014 at 20:01
@citizenschallenge: “Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!”
(K says:) That’s not true. Look at the ice core records where CO2 *lags* temperature from 400-800 years.
~ ~ ~
I didn't say CO2 was the only thing that causes our planet to warm.
I didn't say CO2 was the only thing that causes our planet to warm.
What K refuses to admit is that Milankovitch Cycle driven warming periods do nothing to change CO2 warming effects.
Those warming periods in deep time were the result of our planet's orbit around the Sun changing. That means that the sun was the primary forcing that drove those warming periods, with CO2 coming in secondarily.
Those warming periods in deep time were the result of our planet's orbit around the Sun changing. That means that the sun was the primary forcing that drove those warming periods, with CO2 coming in secondarily.
Today's situation is profoundly different in that humanity has injected geologically significant amounts of GHGs into our atmosphere.
By ignoring that fundamental difference K is simply presenting a mistaken opinion based on ignorance and misrepresenting all the facts at hand.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(CC wrote) “Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.”
(K says:) That’s an assertion, not a fact. In fact, it’s a barely tenable assertion given the great increase of CO2 we’ve had over the past 17 years with no statistically significant warming.
~ ~ ~
It's the whole physical world we are concerned about here. We are talking about a global "heat, energy and moisture distribution engine," one that includes oceans and a cryosphere along with our atmosphere.
But K wants us to focus on a cynical misrepresentation of one data set, never letting on that this dishonest meme is based on a data set that excludes most of the arctic regions (the fastest warming places on our globe's surface) - plus it ignores the heat being absorbed by our oceans. His is a criminally fraudulent assertion.
- - -
Beyond that, K denies the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases.
The reality is that we have many advanced modern marvels that depend on a thorough and commanding knowledge of the radiative physics of atmospheric gases.
US Air Force science teams measured and quantified how GHGs behave in our actual atmosphere, as opposed to in a lab or on paper. This is hard science stuff. But your denialist types won't have a bit of it, apparently certain they are smarter than all the experts… er, K's imagined zealots. I'd suggest you'll find the zealots in this group, link here.
For a simple introduction to the physics:
If you got the scientific 'chops' for getting into details, try this one:
- - -
As for looking at this claim that there has been no global warming since 1998, there are any number of articles explaining the science, along with sharing links to the supporting information.
- - -
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/this-weeks-top-six-rebuttals-of-david-roses-warming-has-stopped-claims/
- - -
This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/this-weeks-top-six-rebuttals-of-david-roses-warming-has-stopped-claims/
- - -
What has global warming done since 1998?
- - -
Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(CC wrote) “Today we know, beyond all doubt, that humans have injected geologically significant amounts of CO2 (into our atmosphere).”
(K says:) We know humans have *emitted* significant amounts of CO2 (“geologically” is a useless term here).
~ ~ ~
K again displays a willful refusal to consider the entire story. "Geologically significant"* means that we have introduced such stupendous amounts of these gases into our atmosphere, that they have initiated cascading impacts that over the coming decades and centuries will radically alter the course of life's evolution on this planet, so much so that it will leave it's lasting mark in our planet's rock record.
Thanks to the inaction of the past decades, there is no doubt about it any more: the natural world I knew in the sixties and seventies when I came of age, the world that was still filled with wonder and promises for those with gumption... as it had been for millennia before, is gone from sea to shining sea, oceans and cyrosphere too.
We burned too much too fast ... and folks like K still think that vacuous rhetorical insults, attacks and ignoring real information are OK because what they fear the most is a serious appraisal of the facts at hand.
We burned too much too fast ... and folks like K still think that vacuous rhetorical insults, attacks and ignoring real information are OK because what they fear the most is a serious appraisal of the facts at hand.
---
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme ~ Anthropocene
British Geologic Survey ~ The Anthropocene
---
K and friends have the alcoholic's denial regarding consequences of our western demand to consume and burn as much, and as fast as feasible. We have an economy literally dependent on consuming/destroying those things that our life depends on.
Take a look at humanity's massive consumption of carbon based fuels, with their unavoidable emissions. Stop ignoring it!
Posted on March 12, 2012
---
World energy consumption
---
Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(K says:) However, there is no evidence that those emissions, after being subjected to the natural forces around us, has altered global average CO2 levels by any significant amount.
~ ~ ~
I'm sure K believes himself,
{although I'd be interested in hearing him explain whatever he means with "no evidence that those emissions, after being subjected to the natural forces around us"} in any event,
an objective review of the numbers reveals a different reality:
{although I'd be interested in hearing him explain whatever he means with "no evidence that those emissions, after being subjected to the natural forces around us"} in any event,
an objective review of the numbers reveals a different reality:
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide, by CIRES & NOAA - CIRESvideos
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(CC wrote) “Warming will enhance our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land.”
(K says:) And apparently, it will also decrease our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land. :) It wins either way! :)
~ ~ ~
Yea, how do you figure that? Please do offer details.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(CC wrote) “K fights an unfair battle in that he steadfastly refuses to accept the authoritative information he’s been offered”
(K says:) You’re right, I don’t believe in authorities proclaimed by zealots :) And yes, that is unfair to true believers :) But the scientific method isn’t fair – it is, as Feynman said, the belief in the ignorance of experts :)
~ ~ ~
K likes using impressive sounding terms such as "scientific method" yet, his dialogue always steers away from the observations and geophysical fundamentals at work, obviously believing that merely labeling serious scientists, (or folks who share their findings), "zealots" is enough to disregard their findings.
Also, please notice K's absolutist approach, not a hint that there might be something for K himself to learn . . . no hint of self skepticism or curiosity to find out more.
Label them "zealots" based on a refusal to listen to what said "zealots" are actually trying to explain. As per the script, K's only intent is to demonize then disregard, just like political propagandists and their bedmate Yellow Journalism have done since time in memoriam
Label them "zealots" based on a refusal to listen to what said "zealots" are actually trying to explain. As per the script, K's only intent is to demonize then disregard, just like political propagandists and their bedmate Yellow Journalism have done since time in memoriam
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(K says:) Which, brings us to the point – why should I believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority? :) Why should *you* believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority?
~ ~ ~
We need to look at this one from a couple different levels.
On a personal one-on-one level I listen to what people say with a polite yet inwardly slightly skeptical attitude (until supporting evidence comes along) and I watch what the talkers do. I will superficially accept pretty near any story that's offered but I notice inconsistencies when they show up. I pay attention and cover my ass and in the end trust my own counsel most.
Now, here's my trick, I actually like people and thanks to my grand pappy I learned the beauty of trying to listen to others and hearing what they are trying to teach me. I dare say I'm a quick study, fit, handy and honest, so that's helped along the way ... you see, some other's do keep their skeptical eyes open too.
Now, here's my trick, I actually like people and thanks to my grand pappy I learned the beauty of trying to listen to others and hearing what they are trying to teach me. I dare say I'm a quick study, fit, handy and honest, so that's helped along the way ... you see, some other's do keep their skeptical eyes open too.
As for which scientists to trust, here too, there's a couple levels, personally I like listening to lectures and have listened to a great many over the internet in the past half dozen years. I listen and incoming information is processed against what I've already learned and my current understanding. I can hear the difference between a scientist talking about his area of expertise and the current state of knowledge, that consensus thing - and one like Dr. Lindzen who performs as some Shakespearian scientific god on high looking down his nose while spouting an endless stream of rhetorical contrarian tripe and vicious vile towards decent people (of insults over substance) the man spend no time looking at real aspects of climate science and Earth observations.
I challenge krischel to some dueling lectures,
let's compare a Ben Santer talk with any Lindzen talk he (or anyone else) cares to offer up.
How about it?
We can examine the respective substance of the two speakers
We can examine the respective substance of the two speakers
A little friendly side bet:
Spot the scientist... spot integrity vs political performance.
Spot the scientist... spot integrity vs political performance.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K writes: "If Satan came to earth, and told you he was God, how could a mere mortal like you possibly see through the supernatural lying power at his disposal? :)
~ ~ ~
Oh jeez, K get real!
I'm here trying to discuss the real world out there!
Grow up, there ain't no Satan and there ain't no "Lord Almighty" for you (or anyone else) to claim to speak for!
Nor is there a neat supernatural excuse for you to hang all of this on, this is our own doing and some of us, such as myself, have been watching this travesty against learning and understanding that you seem to stand for, so you'll excuse me speaking my mind here.
In this life it's us and our own selves and our own honesty, and integrity, and spiritual worth, ain't nothing supernatural out there, except for what's in your heart and mind.
There may be a "God" out there but I'll tell you after my 59 year journey of observing and trying to understand "God, Maker of Time and Creation" - if she's out there, she is way beyond the human ability to comprehend (Just like your precious Bible warns you !).
It's the same reason I'm much more into watching documentaries than fiction make-believe TV, movies and spiritual con jobs - I find experience and fact-based learning about our world way more interesting.
The real world and how we got here is way the blessed more fascinating that your Satan vs. God fantasizing, save that fairytale for someone else buddy!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's a talk explaining the mystery K started this dialogue with: "CO2 *lags* temperature from 400-800 years"
If you are interested in understanding what K's talking about and about the scientific explanation that resolves K's confusion, here's the lecture you should listen to and try to understand.
Professor Richard Alley explains why The Biggest Control Knob
to Earth's Climate History is Carbon Dioxide.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS. K is fast to respond and there's a bunch since this, but I'm out of time. Need to get back to my 'loafing shed'... almost finished, still need to turn one section into tack and hay rooms. ;- )
No comments:
Post a Comment