Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[NotAPhysicist]

Bit short on time at the moment but just to comment on the Antarctic sea ice. Yes, this is odd and counter intuitive. It turns out the sea temperatures in the Antarctic are high but due to various factors, principly to do with increased surface motion but reduced inter sea level mixing (if I read it right), we are presently seeing increased ice. This is very situational to the Antarctic and just shows climate change is complex... It doesn't show warming isn't happening.
Climate scientists do notice these things you know & they try to understand them...

[happyjack27]

How about the Mars warming correlated with Earth? Is that just pure coincidence?

The laws of physics are the same on every planet.

This is why we study atmospheres of other planets to better understand our own.

[happyjack27]

The laws of physics are the same on every planet.

This is why we study atmospheres of other planets to better understand our own.

[happyjack27]

I don' t think you understand science.

it's not about people, it's about facts and data and experiment and observation.

I am very surprised you would say that after insisting that 99.9% scientists agree with AGW.
I have already demonstrated that in the study the data was manipulated and no more than 0.3% scientists expressed any opinion but what does it matter what people think if "it is all about facts and data and experiment and observation"?

Talking about data, how about the experiment we first discussed where one jar with air had 400 parts per billion of CO2 and the other had roughly billion parts per billion of CO2. That is a 7 orders of magnitude more of CO2 than in atmosphere and still no noticeable effect on temperature.

7 orders of magnitude!

I think 7 orders of magnitude is a significant number that allows to draw conclusions.
Critics of the experiment say that the sample was not big enough. I don't buy that, because then why would some go to lengths to falsify it as Al Gore and Bill Nye did, but let's entertain that thought.

Lets take a bigger sample, such as an entire continent.
Have you heard that Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years
http://www.noaa.gov/south-pole-last-pla ... -milestone

If CO2 causes warming I would expect severe melting so what happened?
Antarctic Ice is at its historic high as documented in the NASA links I provided in my previous posts.

Now if CO2 was responsible for warming, wouldn't increase in CO2 cause more warming and less ice?
As we discussed in this forum, the raw satellite data shows that there is no warming since 1998, that is 18 years in which human civilization produced about 25% of the CO2 as we see concentrations rising steadily from 315 parts per million in 1960 to to 400 ppm now.
One should expect that 25% increase in CO2 would produce some effect but we see global average temperature this year is roughly the same as in 1998.

How about the Mars warming correlated with Earth? Is that just pure coincidence?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ge-retrea/


You keep saying that 99.9% scientists agree with AGW implying that if so many say so it must be true, but a the same time continue to wave away the facts and data, then you claim it is all about facts and data.

use the debunker:

https://cse.google.com:443/cse/publicur ... b_pytebcxg

i'm tired of playing Climate Myth Whack-a-Mole.

[happyjack27]

I don' t think you understand science.

it's not about people, it's about facts and data and experiment and observation.

I am very surprised you would say that after insisting that 99.9% scientists agree with AGW.

i'm sorry if i've confused you.

let me try to straighten it out for you:

scientists look at the facts and data.
having looked at the facts and the data, 99.9% of them say there's AGW.

I have already demonstrated that in the study the data was manipulated

no you haven't.

and no more than 0.3% scientists expressed any opinion

i searched the debunker, for "0.3%" and came up and it gave me this: https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?f ... sus-denial

i'll post the section for you here because it's clear that your too lazy or unwilling to do any research that might endanger your pre-conceptions:

Taking Consensus Denial to the Extreme

One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education. The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog. Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).

The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process.

Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.

When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus.

As noted above, when we perform this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers. Monckton's argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can't cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of non-greenhouse gases, but these other gases are irrelevant to the question of the CO2 greenhouse effect. The percentage of CO2 as a fraction of all gases in the atmosphere is an irrelevant figure, as is the percentage of abstracts quantifying human-caused global warming as a percentage of all abstracts captured in our literature search.

It's also worth noting that based on Monckton's logic, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.

but what does it matter what people think if "it is all about facts and data and experiment and observation"?

Now you're getting it!

Non-experts, however, having limited time and resources, are sort of hand-strapped, as they don't have time to pour over all the data and so forth, so they have to take a more pragmatic approach and appeal to the consensus of experts.

Talking about data, how about the experiment we first discussed where one jar with air had 400 parts per billion of CO2 and the other had roughly billion parts per billion of CO2. That is a 7 orders of magnitude more of CO2 than in atmosphere and still no noticeable effect on temperature.

7 orders of magnitude!

I think 7 orders of magnitude is a significant number that allows to draw conclusions.

Critics of the experiment say that the sample was not big enough. I don't buy that, because then why would some go to lengths to falsify it as Al Gore and Bill Nye did, but let's entertain that thought.

wow, you should publish this in a scientific journal.

clearly you've just debunked everything we know about atomic physics.

maybe type this into the debunker. you'll have to be more specific about the experiment though. maybe the name of the a person or something.

You keep saying that 99.9% scientists agree with AGW implying that if so many say so it must be true, but a the same time continue to wave away the facts and data, then you claim it is all about facts and data.

you know more about all the facts and data than all those scientists!

I bow at your feet oh climate change master scientist!

[happyjack27]

The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.

actually no, you can't just put two jars on a table like that and call it an experiment.

were they exposed to light?

for how long?

did they have water vapor?

how sensitive was your measurement?

what were the possible errors?

what, then, are your confidence margins?

what other research has been done on this topic?

etc.

Now, having people like Al Gore and Bill Nye falsifying the experiment in order to "prove" AGW

i don't think you understand how falsification works. it doesn't prove things, it only disproves.

means that they are not honest which implies their narrative is not to be trusted.

obviously disproving something does not mean you are dishonest. that's absurd.

This is a simple conclusion.

it doesn't follow AT ALL.

If someone tries to sell you something and you catch them lying and falsifying data

like bill nye caught the people lying...

there is no reason to give them any credibility.

well it certainly harms their credibility, but i wouldn't be so black and white.

Do you find my conclusions wrong? I am not being ironic here, I am really asking.

yes, very. your "logic" is horrific. all you did was assume the conclusion the whole way through.

After the Climate Gate why would anyone trust people who admit to falsifying the data in email exchanges between themselves.

oh i did a search in the debunker for "climategate"

here are but a few of the results:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climat ... hacked.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-s ... egate.html
https://www.realitydrop.org/myths/93
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... limategate

there were LOTS! you can view them all by just typing climategate into the box: https://cse.google.com:443/cse/publicur ... b_pytebcxg

[NotAPhysicist]

The debunker search things is certainly proving informative.

So, Mars warming.

The stated Mars warming was based on two observations a good time apart. Mars temperatures are all tied up with dust storms. The problem is the first observation was made just after a major storm had spread a lot of dust around and so lowered apparent temperatures. The second observation was after an extended period where no storms had whipped things up so everything appeared warmer. If you then look at other observations made there is no determinable trend. It's possible Mars is warming up but we don't have the data to support that, what data there is would tend to suggest no change as it stands.

[happyjack27]

You keep saying that 99.9% scientists agree with AGW

If by "keep saying" you mean "said once". And no, not scientists in general but climate scientists in particularly. Though admittedly I'm not always clear on that distinction.

implying that if so many say so it must be true,

Never meant to imply anything. I was just correcting an inaccurate figure.

but a the same time

The premise is false (per above)

continue to wave away the facts and data,

Have not waved any facts or data away - on the contrary I've used facts and data to debunk myths.

(And frankly it's felt much like a game of whack-a-mole.)

then you claim it is all about facts and data.

It is all about facts and data, of course.

Reality will not bend to our wishes, the best we can do is try to better understand reality, in spite of ourselves.

[pbelter]

The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.

actually no, you can't just put two jars on a table like that and call it an experiment.

were they exposed to light?

for how long?

did they have water vapor?

how sensitive was your measurement?

what were the possible errors?

what, then, are your confidence margins?

what other research has been done on this topic?

etc.

I see you are not reading any links I am positing.
I have provided the data to the details of the experiment that answers several of the above questions with raw data and details on how to replicate, down to the equipment used

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fai ... xperiment/

What other research is done on this you ask? Surprisingly little and this should be the basic experiment. You can build a very complex theory such as AGW but if your assumptions are wrong then predictions of the theory are worthless.

Regarding the Climate Gate:

Phil Jones asked for the raw data on the complete sets of temperature records said
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone," he wrote to Mann in February 2005.

Mann himself was accused of cherry picking Siberian tree ring samples to prove that the Mediaval Optimum was not warmer then today as other research has shown.
After being accused of fraud he sued. Since the problem was to see if Man cooked the raw data the court asked him to show it.
Mann refused to show the data claiming it was "lost".

You can spin the story however you like and you may be even right. Maybe Mann is really so careless that he lost the data of his landmark research, who knows.
Maybe we didn't land on the Moon, and it is all conspiracy theory, who knows.

According to the Ockham razor principle, for practical purposes both statements need to be discarded because they are less likely to be true than the alternative.
It is what I mean that the AGW crowd has the Ockham razor in deep contempt.
It is so because they say so and who is everyone else to tell them otherwise.
When this type of a behavior reaches a critical mass, everyone from outside is being ostracized and their theories will continue to circulate until generational change comes.

As Feyman once said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". This is especially true if the experts integrity is questionable.

[happyjack27]

As Feyman once said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". This is especially true if the experts integrity is questionable.

Yes, such as when the extent of their knowledge on the subject is from spending "a day, maybe half a day, on google." !!

And not only that, but then they feel that suffices to share it in front of a roomful of scientists!

Clearly, their judgment is suspect.

[happyjack27]

The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.

actually no, you can't just put two jars on a table like that and call it an experiment.

were they exposed to light?

for how long?

did they have water vapor?

how sensitive was your measurement?

what were the possible errors?

what, then, are your confidence margins?

what other research has been done on this topic?

etc.

I see you are not reading any links I am positing.
I have provided the data to the details of the experiment that answers several of the above questions with raw data and details on how to replicate, down to the equipment used

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fai ... xperiment/

What other research is done on this you ask? Surprisingly little and this should be the basic experiment. You can build a very complex theory such as AGW but if your assumptions are wrong then predictions of the theory are worthless.

Regarding the Climate Gate:

Phil Jones asked for the raw data on the complete sets of temperature records said
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone," he wrote to Mann in February 2005.

Mann himself was accused of cherry picking Siberian tree ring samples to prove that the Mediaval Optimum was not warmer then today as other research has shown.
After being accused of fraud he sued. Since the problem was to see if Man cooked the raw data the court asked him to show it.
Mann refused to show the data claiming it was "lost".

You can spin the story however you like and you may be even right. Maybe Mann is really so careless that he lost the data of his landmark research, who knows.
Maybe we didn't land on the Moon, and it is all conspiracy theory, who knows.

According to the Ockham razor principle, for practical purposes both statements need to be discarded because they are less likely to be true than the alternative.
It is what I mean that the AGW crowd has the Ockham razor in deep contempt.
It is so because they say so and who is everyone else to tell them otherwise.
When this type of a behavior reaches a critical mass, everyone from outside is being ostracized and their theories will continue to circulate until generational change comes.

As Feyman once said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". This is especially true if the experts integrity is questionable.

You know we don't have the raw data any more of Copernicus proving the earth was round.

Ergo, the earth is flat.

Seems legit.

Maybe we should sue Copernicus.

[happyjack27]

The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.

actually no, you can't just put two jars on a table like that and call it an experiment.

were they exposed to light?

for how long?

did they have water vapor?

how sensitive was your measurement?

what were the possible errors?

what, then, are your confidence margins?

what other research has been done on this topic?

etc.

I see you are not reading any links I am positing.
I have provided the data to the details of the experiment that answers several of the above questions with raw data and details on how to replicate, down to the equipment used

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fai ... xperiment/

What other research is done on this you ask? Surprisingly little and this should be the basic experiment. You can build a very complex theory such as AGW but if your assumptions are wrong then predictions of the theory are worthless.

Regarding the Climate Gate:

Phil Jones asked for the raw data on the complete sets of temperature records said
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone," he wrote to Mann in February 2005.

Mann himself was accused of cherry picking Siberian tree ring samples to prove that the Mediaval Optimum was not warmer then today as other research has shown.
After being accused of fraud he sued. Since the problem was to see if Man cooked the raw data the court asked him to show it.
Mann refused to show the data claiming it was "lost".

You can spin the story however you like and you may be even right. Maybe Mann is really so careless that he lost the data of his landmark research, who knows.
Maybe we didn't land on the Moon, and it is all conspiracy theory, who knows.

According to the Ockham razor principle, for practical purposes both statements need to be discarded because they are less likely to be true than the alternative.
It is what I mean that the AGW crowd has the Ockham razor in deep contempt.
It is so because they say so and who is everyone else to tell them otherwise.
When this type of a behavior reaches a critical mass, everyone from outside is being ostracized and their theories will continue to circulate until generational change comes.

As Feyman once said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". This is especially true if the experts integrity is questionable.

I don't think pointing to one example of raw data being lost among billions of data points by hundreds of thousands of researchers could be called "cherry picking".

No, I'd call that "dust picking".

[pbelter]

I don't think pointing to one example of raw data being lost among billions of data points by hundreds of thousands of researchers could be called "cherry picking".

No, I'd call that "dust picking".

Well, I can't address "hundred of thousands data points" and discuss every single paper or research, but only the ones getting most visibility.
Einstein when confronted with pamphlet titled "100 Authors Against Einstein" where 100 of Nazi scientists claimed to refute the theory of General Relativity said:
"If I were wrong, one would be enough."

There are many opinions but there is only one truth and hiding behind a crowd does not make one's view point more likely.

One data point is enough to refute the entire AGW and that is the Mars warming.
The other points I made are just auxiliary to show that the AGW proponents do not have much respect for the tools of the scientific method.

[hanelyp]

More on data cooking:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/ ... teorology/
Before the cooking, the hottest year on record was 1934:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/

[happyjack27]

To expand on the Mars thing, the climates on earth vs mars are ruled by totally different factors. On the point of dust storms, mars climate is primarily ruled by particulates, not so much by co2 and other such gases. Indeed, not only is it's atmospheric composition drastically different, but it is drastically thinner.

This of course speaks nothing to the problem of two (TWO!) far separated data points.

But this is just me "waving away the facts and data."

Ironically, with facts and data.