GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Of course there's the larger issue here - even if a particular solution is not perfect, that does not mean it (and other solutions) aren't worth pursuing.But when the alleged "problem" is falsified, NO "solution" to the imaginary "problem" is worth pursuing.Fair enough. However, your allegations about falsification really haven't held up in the past, and I strongly suspect they will continue to be so.The alleged "problem" with carbon dioxide has been falsified multiple times. The Vostok ice cores show that for four hundred thousand years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED global temperature changes. That means that temperature is NOT controlled in any significant degree by carbon dioxide levels. The fact that you either do not understand this, or are pretending to not understand it, does NOT mean that the falsification does not hold up.
GeneralJim: The failure of CGMs to predict within their error bars means that the hypothesis which they automate is falsified. The fact that they all predict with several TIMES more error than their error bars indicates a fundamental flaw, not a minor error. This falsification is clear and demonstrable, and therefore it "holds up."
GeneralJim: Miskolczi's mathematical proof of the falsification of the major AGW hypothesis also holds up, and further, when his corrections are applied to the CGMs, they manage to predict temperature within their error bars. This is clear evidence that Miskolczi is correct. As further evidence, the overall prediction of the process of carbon dioxide increase by Miskolczi has been the precise pattern followed by global temperature. His prediction was that rising carbon dioxide would, for a time, act as the IPCC projected -- until the decrease of water vapor in the upper troposphere kicked in, and balanced out the increase in the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. At that time, Miskolczi predicted, temperature increase would flatten out and stop. And, in violation of EVERY SINGLE IPCC-SPONSORED MODEL, global temperature has done precisely as Miskolczi predicted. This is further evidence that Miskolczi's falsification of the AGW hypothesis "holds up" -- at least it holds up MUCH better than the Chicken Little predictions of the IPCC.
GeneralJim: Your denial, and the denials of others, of these scientific observations do not alter the fact that the planet is falsifying, on many levels, the hypothesis behind the AGW panic. Keeping 2010 radiosonde data showing the drying of the upper troposphere secret until 2013, as is being done, does nothing to prove AGW correct. In the same way, claiming that the fact that absolute numbers on historical radiosonde humidity data are not reliable invalidates their determination of a drying trend does nothing to prove that upper troposphere humidity was constant or rising. It is true that we do NOT know if UT humidity fell from 29% to 24%, or from 32% to 27%, but we DO know that it fell.
GeneralJim: Ironically, the "team" supporting AGW, after pretending that anyone not buying their Kool-Aid was denying science is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing that AGW is falsified. And, again, before you put false words in my mouth, it is NOT that adding carbon dioxide to the air will not warm the planet, it is that doubling the carbon dioxide will raise the temperature, but somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K -- an amount small enough to require no "actions" to be taken. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could break out of this ice age with a temperature increase like that "promised" by the IPCC -- that just MIGHT be enough to prevent the upcoming major glaciation.So, the denial of science and the personal attacks against authors of studies falsifying AGW, and anyone unwilling to refuse to mention those, do NOT mean that the many falsifications of AGW "don't hold up," They simply mean that your arguments can no longer hold up in the scientific arena, and you must take them FULLY to the political or religious arenas, where they still have some traction among those who do not understand the science. Sucks to be you.
occamswrist: However there is 0 evidence there is any more water vapor in the air, even though scientists have been looking for it.
"AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback."This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity," Dessler said. "Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet)."That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century."
snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented. I will also throw out all obvious money grinders. Good luck, sucker.
make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.You are the worst.
Tommy Moo: If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something.
Tommy Moo: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.You are the worst.I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.
FlashHarry: everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!
Zasteva: Lot of disappointed little kids in Siberia then... (They don't let the little kids stay home from school until it gets to -30°C)
Want more news before we break it? Try
See what's behind the green doorand help keep the tap flowing
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 17 2017 05:02:42
Runtime: 0.363 sec (363 ms)