What would it take to change your mind?

[overtone]

 

 

I have explained in other threads why I don't think CO2 sensitivity is correct and why I think solar is more.

Your explanations make no sense, and rest on no evidence. You invoke vague references to "indirect forcing" from the solar flux, and omit the numerous and larger indirect influences of CO2. You assert that people are not paying attention to stuff they've been researching and publishing on for decades. You suspect power and money dictating meager grant-funded graduate student enslaving scientific results that support AGW (all the results, essentially), and omit power and money influencing the political debate on the side of the powerful and wealthy profiteers dumping their waste for free into the public air. And so forth.

 

Evidence. Argument.

[billiards]

I currently believe the consensus that climate feedbacks enhance the slight (1 degree per doubling) warming brought about by increasing CO2.

 

To change my mind I would need to understand the negative feedback mechanisms that cause increase in CO2 not to lead to global warming, and those feedbacks would need to be demonstrably true from evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

Your explanations make no sense, and rest on no evidence. You invoke vague references to "indirect forcing" from the solar flux, and omit the numerous and larger indirect influences of CO2. You assert that people are not paying attention to stuff they've been researching and publishing on for decades. You suspect power and money dictating meager grant-funded graduate student enslaving scientific results that support AGW (all the results, essentially), and omit power and money influencing the political debate on the side of the powerful and wealthy profiteers dumping their waste for free into the public air. And so forth.

 

Evidence. Argument.

 

 

No, I explained it well. Not may fault people don't understand my points. The simplicity of it requires no paper to support cause and effect of surface warming changes to surface IR emission changes.

 

More solar hitting the earth… More IR radiating from the earth… more IR driving the greenhouse effect.

 

That simple, period. Since any energy budget shows a circulation effect of increased intensity from the solar driving it, and solar changes are amplified by about the same percentage. These increases are shown by the IPCC et.al as increased greenhouse gas forcing, when they should be accounted for as added indirect solar forcing.

 

Face it. If you dropped solar to zero, there would be no significant energy to drive the greenhouse effect. Changes in solar energy change the total greenhouse effect.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Arete]

No, I explained it well. Not may fault people don't understand my points.

 

If no one understands you, by definition, you did not explain it well.

 

The simplicity of it requires no paper to support cause and effect of surface warming changes to surface IR emission changes.

 

If something is obvious, it should be trivial to find supporting evidence. "I'm not providing evidence because it is obvious" is a terribly unpersuasive argument.

[John Cuthber]

I keep being reminded of this idea

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/will_convert_for_evidence_shirt-235354307506827804

[Wild Cobra]

 

If no one understands you, by definition, you did not explain it well.

 

 

If something is obvious, it should be trivial to find supporting evidence. "I'm not providing evidence because it is obvious" is a terribly unpersuasive argument.

 

Is the heat trapped in a car greater when the sun is stronger or not?

[Strange]

No, I explained it well. Not may fault people don't understand my points.

The problem is not understanding, it is that there is no reason to share your beliefs and opinions in the absence of compelling evidence (and in the presence of significant counter-evidence).

Not in concept. Just values.

Exactly. You claim soot is more important. The thesis, despite focussing on soot, says that CO2 is more significant.

[Arete]

 

Is the heat trapped in a car greater when the sun is stronger or not?

 

 

If something is obvious, it's trivial to prove - is that really that difficult to understand, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is not understanding, it is that there is no reason to share your beliefs and opinions in the absence of compelling evidence (and in the presence of significant counter-evidence).

 

Well, there is nothing to counter my claim either. Don't you see what I am saying? Changes of solar flux are only being accounted for at the "direct" level. They are not accounting for the "indirect" changes.

 

 

If something is obvious, it's trivial to prove - is that really that difficult to understand, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Did you say that looking in a mirror?

[Strange]

Well, there is nothing to counter my claim either.

Ah, yes. "Prove me wrong!" The battle cry of the pseudo scientist.

 

Don't you see what I am saying?

 

Yes. But I don't see any evidence.

 

Changes of solar flux are only being accounted for at the "direct" level. They are not accounting for the "indirect" changes.

 

And do you have any evidence for that claim?

 

[Arete]

Did you say that looking in a mirror?

 

Well, given I haven't made any claims, let alone claims I subsequently refuse to support, that wouldn't make very much sense. However as has been noted by several posters, evasion is a problem which permeates your argument comprehensively and significantly invalidates many of your points.

 

My unanswered point remains the same. If something is obviously true - for example, if I claim "The sky is blue" - it's trivial to support such a claim with evidence. e.g. a peer reviewed publication that explains that the sky appears blue due to Rayleigh scattering: http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/blueSkyHumanResponse.pdf

 

As such, a claim like "it's obvious, I don't have to prove it" is spurious. If it's obvious, it should be trivial to provide proof rather than continue to engage in evasion tactics.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Everyone, take a step back from the sniping. Discuss the science, please.

 

 

 

Well, there is nothing to counter my claim either.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This would be the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance and ignores the burden of proof. You made claims, and it is up to you to back them up. If people are asking for reasonable clarification because they don't understand your explanations, you are obliged to provide the clarification. A claim is not true simply because nobody has countered it.

 

Don't respond to this mod note.

 

[Essay]

Also, show me why all of Antarctica has no melt issues ....

 

Anyone up to the challenge of changing my mind?

 

I would have thought that answering your specific question, with a fulfilled prediction from more than 20 years ago, which also ran counter to "common sense" (as your reasonable question indicated: why would a particular region become cooler, initially, as a response to global warming?), would have been something to change your mind. But that is asking too much; the 'fulfilled' prediction can only be viewed as further confirmation of the scientific understanding that underlies the basic "global warming" greenhouse theory.

 

~

[Tim the plumber]

Ok, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh#Biodiversity_and_climate

"Most parts of Bangladesh are less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above sea level, "

which would require that Bangladesh didn't exist before about 600 years ago if it gains 2 cm a year..

 

But it did (albeit under another name).

So when you ask "What would it take to change your mind?"

one answer might be

"​For a start, stuff that isn't a obviously nonsensical as that."

 

Why did you believe that?

Was it just because it suited you?

Are you unable to check things like that?

The figure of 2cm per year came from my reseach using wikipedia.

 

This thread is asking what it would take to change your mind. It is very interesting that you are unable to answer.

A Freudian slip? Do you see the IPCC as a predator?

 

You seem not to understand that the increase in temperature leads to extremities of weather. Increased flooding and high winds, with associated falling trees and the like lead to increased deaths. It has nothing to do with wealth. If you are hit on the head by a Welsh roofing slate your survival is largely independent of your bank balance.

 

Can you tell me, without googling, approximately how many people have died in Bangladesh as a consequence of flooding in the last 100 years? An order of magnitude number would do.

 

You really need to substitute evidence and study for self indulgent ignorance:

 

From the Guardian, 6 January 2007.

 

Sandwiched between temperate Europe and African heat, Italy is on the front line of climate change and is witnessing a rise in tropical diseases such as malaria and tick-borne encephalitis, a new report says. Italy was declared free of malaria in 1970, but it is making a comeback, said the Italian environmental organisation Legambiente.

Another failure to answer.

!

Moderator Note

 

With reference to recent refusals to provide evidence or rationale for an argument in this and in other threads; aside from asking members to re-read the rules they agreed to upon sign-up, I would like to make a few things clear.

 

1. This is a science forum - we do not exist to provide a platform for personal views but to allow scientific discussion. This means two things that are crucial for this thread and similar topics; firstly claims or arguments that run contrary to understood consensual science require a good factual basis or at least evidence to show that more work is needed and secondly we do not allow one-sided promulgation of opinion - thus our injunction against soap-boxing.

 

2.Specifically - this thread challenges established science and our membership will not allow anyone to preach such anti-rational views without real scrutiny; it is inimical to our ideals to let posters make unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to consider providing evidence (we will always back the membership when they call for evidence in any topic especially here).

 

3. We will continue to allow posters to honestly challenge received ideas and ask questions - but we will not allow posters to troll the climate science forum; reliance on rhetoric and claims of logical fallacies will not wash. If you do not want to argue the science then do not post controversial ideas - and if you do post then be prepared to defend.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread; responses will be hidden.

 

My wife has just asked if this is aimed at me or others. Clarity would be helpful.

Wild Cobra and Tim the plumber, it really doesn’t matter what you think or believe.

 

In a head on collision with a truck; death will follow unless we avoid the truck; even if it’s on the wrong side of the road.

 

The ice caps are melting whatever the cause and the only logical response is to change what we can.

Please answer the question.

Good evidence and solid argument supporting either of those claims would change my mind about the primacy of CO2 boosting in the climate change we are experiencing.

Thanks. Great post.

I currently believe the consensus that climate feedbacks enhance the slight (1 degree per doubling) warming brought about by increasing CO2.

 

To change my mind I would need to understand the negative feedback mechanisms that cause increase in CO2 not to lead to global warming, and those feedbacks would need to be demonstrably true from evidence.

Again great post. I read into that that you are not worried by such a warming. What in that case would it take to cause you to see trouble in the expected increases in CO2?

Ah, yes. "Prove me wrong!" The battle cry of the pseudo scientist.

 

 

Yes. But I don't see any evidence.

 

 

And do you have any evidence for that claim?

 

I, and all other skeptics are constantly challenged to prove the catastrophy hypothesis wrong. Trying to get an explaination of the mechanisms of such simple stuff as the projected sea level rise and the detail of what ice is vulnerable to melting are always met with avoidance.

The consensus may have changed. It may be that the burden of proof has drastically shifted onto those predicting catastrophy.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,

including 9,029 with PhDs

 

Lots of scientists who are skeptical about the scary stuff.

[Strange]

The figure of 2cm per year came from my reseach using wikipedia.

 

As they say on wikipedia: Citation Needed.

 

I, and all other skeptics are constantly challenged to prove the catastrophy hypothesis wrong.

 

I don't believe anyone has ever made that challenge. But if they have it is because you are opposing mountains of evidence based on nothing other than opinion.

[dimreepr]

Please answer the question.

 

 

I have.

 

Missing the point seems to be endemic in this argument.

[swansont]

My wife has just asked if this is aimed at me or others. Clarity would be helpful.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

It's aimed at everyone, but specifically directed at those who are having trouble following the rules. If one had been recently suspended, one should pay special heed.

 

I trust that's clear enough, though somewhat disappointing that you had to ask and ignored previous direction not to respond to moderation, which I will reiterate:

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. That means everyone including you, Tim the plumber.

 

[overtone]

 

 

Good evidence and solid argument supporting either of those claims would change my mind about the primacy of CO2 boosting in the climate change we are experiencing.

Thanks. Great post.

It was a trivial restatement, and an invitation - an opportunity to provide that good evidence and solid argument supporting either of those claims.