Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Sub, you waste your time if you swallow this bait-and-switch trap.

1. The subject is: 'Does MCGW and whether the the MCGW cult have the data to support their outragous claims'.
2. Phil is attemting to change the subject to making you support alternative theories...
3. The burden of proof is on the MCGW cult. We don't have to prove anything.
4. It is foolish to debate more than one subject at a time... Better to be focus on on subject.

Start a new post on alternative hypotheses if you like but if you plays Phil's game you allow him to dodge the tough questions on whether MCGW...

[Phil153]

Felix,

It's not bait and switch. Submariner made two specific claims to discredit global warming:

1. He stated with certainty that cloud increases from increased temperatures will negate any forcing
2. He stated that CO2 is washed from the air by increased rain, so it's irrelevant to global warming

The first one is an unsupported claim. There is zero evidence that this will stop or largely mitigate forcing. The best scientific opinion is that it has a small effect.

The second one is an utter howler that shows zero understanding of the most basic concepts.

If he's willing to explicitly admit these two points, we can go on to discuss evidence for MCGW, as you desire. Actually we'll discuss it anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is...

[samsonh]

Felix,

You keep bringing up the hockey stick graph as if it has been completely discredited. I owned you on this topic once in the past and you completely ignored it(no shock there). Here is a second graph that contains 10 studies of climate change, please tell me they are all wrong.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The tone of this post is alot more reasonable than the tone of your earlier posts which implied that recent downward trends of solar output practically disproves solar input to recent warming.

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering that they've followed fairly close in the past, yes. For example, the 30s/40s can be very easily attributed in large part to the sun. The forcing is obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it because of the consensus of scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's just general common sense, the lack of evidence for the other position, the lack of of viable mechanism, the recent divergence, and the known and indisputed forcing properties of CO2. Taken as a whole, it's very hard to have the sun as the culprit.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the recent divergence between solar output and global temperature, can it not be explained by thinking the temperature as a integrator function of solar output?

[/ QUOTE ]
That makes no sense to me. Where is the physical mechanism?



[/ QUOTE ]
This looks interesting, and different to other graphs I've seen. I'm not sure why they're leaving out irradiance though - that's a crucial component. Give me a day or two to investigate the origin and meaning of this graph.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix,

You keep bringing up the hockey stick graph as if it has been completely discredited. I owned you on this topic once in the past and you completely ignored it(no shock there). Here is a second graph that contains 10 studies of climate change, please tell me they are all wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you include some information about the graph, or a link to some? Looking at the graph itself is meaningless, wtf.

[samsonh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felix,

You keep bringing up the hockey stick graph as if it has been completely discredited. I owned you on this topic once in the past and you completely ignored it(no shock there). Here is a second graph that contains 10 studies of climate change, please tell me they are all wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you include some information about the graph, or a link to some? Looking at the graph itself is meaningless, wtf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will do, although Felix knows where its from and this post was mainly pointed at just him. Wiki source that feliz loves

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep bringing up the hockey stick graph as if it has been completely discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]
Michael Mann has been discredited...and his hockey stick graph...


[ QUOTE ]
I owned you on this topic once in the past and you completely ignored it(no shock there).

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? I don't know what you are talking about. Link the post. No one has answered my MCGW challenge yet...except pehaps ice cream does not cause crime. Pot calling the kettle black. Yes?

1. Since there were no thermometers a 1000 years ago how did the ESTIMATE the temperature? Michael Mann used his infamous tree ring thermometer which turned out to be crap...but his top-secret 'mathematical algorythms' magically transformed the data.
2. Also, for area does this represent? the World? Europe? Noth America?
3. There is a LOT of temperature fluctuations in the periods before industrialization. These graphs are less than convincing. The spike in temps in the 20th century is where the MCGW cult rests their entire argument.

Europe was certainly warmer in the Medieval warming period than it is today..... We know this because of tree growth in the Swiss Alps as well as the fact Greenland could grow crops.

The devil is in the details. I will focus most of my scuntiny on how they ESTIMATED the temperature. They did NOT measure the temp...they ESTIMATED the temperature. An error of 0.5 degrees invalidates the data. Also, there is significant variation between the studies..... This does not make your case look that compelling....

Again the burden of proof is on the MCGW cult to prove this data is accurate.....not me. NASA can not even measure the temp properly with modern equipment...so it is not unreasonable to ask how they ESTIMATED the temp since there no thermometers back then...

[samsonh]

felix,

the post, or rather series of posts was several months back. I do not care to dig it up bc you will do the same thing. You will ignore evidence(as you just did by completely ignoring that graph). Why are you so against global warming, it won't kill you if it exists. You will just have to admit you're wrong.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

OK the data is for the Northern hemisphere....
Well besides not knowing how they ESTIMATED the temperature I see a HUGE RED FLAG during the Medieval Warming Period. The temps during this period were MUCH HIGHER in Europe, Iceland, Greenland, and North America. We don't know whether this phenom extended beyond these areas.... Again we did not have thermometers back then...

To show theses temps to be lower than today then the temps in Asia must have been VERY LOW to drag the data down.... So I would love to know how they estimated this temp data...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Again, I'm open-minded to well contructed counter-arguments. For scientific post, I'm not open to posts which does not contain this basic criteria....preferable backed by supportable facts. You have not done this....

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any interest in arguing the science with you. It's your hubris I find fascinating (and destructive).

[/ QUOTE ]
I will try to sound more wishy-washy in the future.
No one else has been able to argue science with me so far so you are in good company...

[ QUOTE ]
and I just don't see how it's possible to reconcile those two statements. If all of your conclusions are so completely final and unshakable, then there is, almost by definition, no hope for any honest and reasonable debate. Is this not obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.....you are showing your close-mindedness...AGAIN.

1. I'm open-minded to well constructed counter-arguments.
2. I know that the MCGW cultists can not fully answer my questions because I am knowledgeble in statistics and data collection.

As for #2, it is a matter of math. Two people can argue whether apple pie is better than cherry pie. And neither can prove who is right. You can NOT argue that 2+3 does not equal 5. The MCGW cult has not collected the necessary data to rule out the sun's role in GW. They would need a minimum of 1000 years data and this not even be enough. This is not me talking....THIS IS MATH TALKING....