3 ms·

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Do you have sources? I want to read papers, I don't want to read your unsourced statements. Can you post links to any peer-

by dagss 9y ago

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Do you have sources? I want to read papers, I don't want to read your unsourced statements. Can you post links to any peer-reviewed papers supporting your claims? Or, if there is a big conspiracy not to publish such research, at least pre-prints written by actual researchers where publishing was refused? (and which really analyses data, and which doesn't read like anti-vaxx or flat-earth rants) Following the money works both ways, you can find climate sceptics funded by the oil industry (Heartland institute for instance). So yes I do want to follow the science.

graycat 9y ago
The reasoning in my post is nearly self contained. For more, mostly all you need are just two boxes of common data: First, you need the historical data, especially the ice core data. No doubt you can find that data via many sources on the Internet. See also the video clip I mention below. For the rest of the data, just look up the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. That's enough for what I wrote from the data and its analysis. Second, you need the results of the models, and I gave a reference that showed the predictions and compared them with the actual measured temperatures. You are welcome to chase down the detailed predictions of the models, one model at a time for some dozens of models. I confess, I didn't do that chasing down. For the explanation in terms of sun spots, that the sun spot data fits the temperature data and the explanation in terms of cosmic rays, see the video The Great Global Warming Swindle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg As I recall, that video also explains the 800 year lag in the ice core data and the Medieval Warm period. If you want to argue with the video, fine with me. My main objective is to debunk the claim that CO2 is a threat, and I did that without mentioning the video. The video argues the sun spot explanation, and so far it appears to be the best, e.g., at least it appears to the only at all reasonable explanation that even begins to fit the darned data, but otherwise is tough to check -- e.g., how cosmic rays create water droplets that result in clouds to have a significant cooling effect. So, if you don't like the sun spot explanation, then fine: The CO2 argument is still solidly debunked and refuted just by my little post. Oil company money? My interest in this subject is only as a responsible citizen. I'm being paid by no one for this interest. And I seek and expect no payment, fame, or anything else but just to contribute as a citizen. Here I'm taking time from my startup to be a good public citizen. The idea that CO2 is a threat of significant global warming stands on nothing solid and is easy to debunk and refute, and I did that quite solidly and thoroughly just in my post. All that is needed to pull down the claims is JUST my little post. The argument, the subject, really is just that simple. No peer-reviewed papers are needed to say that jumping off a tall building is dangerous or that the claims of a threat of CO2 are nonsense. The claims that CO2 is a threat are a flim-flam, fraud, scam driven by money -- the video clip explains a lot about that. Really, as I wrote, it's better just to follow the money.
- dagss 9y ago
  "The argument, the subject, really is just that simple." I almost lack words at this point. I hope you never come in a decision where you need to judge a scientific inquiry in a way that has consequences for others. At least not about anything more complex than, indeed, whether it is dangerous to jump off a tall building. At the point where you have to declare that the others are just idiots you KNOW that you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At the very least, you need to spend some time looking into the counter-arguments. No, I certainly should not just find the ice core data on the internet. To do anything useful with that data I would need to understand how it was gathered, the physical processes that lead to the gases being absorbed, whether gases move within the ice after freezing, what the uncertainty in mapping centimeters to years, and a thousand questions like that which I can't even know that I should ask. At the very minimum, I should look through the data through a statistical model including uncertainties. Since I don't have a year to study the science of ice core data fulltime, I need to rely on papers written up and conclusions made by those who know the data better. Ideally both papers written by climate change supporters and sceptics. Ideally peer-reviewed, but if there's a conspiracy going on I can always read rejected papers... But just downloading and looking and drawing consequences from that myself -- or worse, look at some simplified plot made by some conspiracy theorist and draw conclusions from that -- if I do that I might as well make myself a nice tin-foil-hat and become a member of flat earth society. I've almost completed a PhD in astrophysics right now, and I know that if someone were to just download the images taken of the cosmic microwave background and conclude anything at all from them, without knowing the full details of the assumed physical models, instrumental effects, and the data analysis pipeline, the results would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean our results are ludicrous though, because we've spent years understanding the data. All data needs to be deeply understood before drawing any conclusions. I certainly don't understand ice core data, and since you're not giving me any papers I bet you don't understand ice core data either. You are simply repeating arguments made by others who, hopefully do -- hence I asked for references. Your assurances and explanations here are worthless; that doesn't mean one shouldn't discuss science in social media, but when one does, it can only be as summaries of what people who do know the data well are saying (but if you got it from the documentary I guess I can pick up the trail from there). Scientists screw it up all the time. That I can support. But the issue just being "too simple" for scientists to understand, and everyone just being stupid, and the matter really being very simple -- then I know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. If you end up being right in the end, and global warming is wrong, then it is not because you are brilliant, it is because you lucked out in seeing the right documentary first.

by dagss 9y ago

graycat 9y ago

The reasoning in my post is nearly self contained. For more, mostly all you need are just two boxes of common data: First, you need the historical data, especially the ice core data. No doubt you can find that data via many sources on the Internet. See also the video clip I mention below. For the rest of the data, just look up the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. That's enough for what I wrote from the data and its analysis. Second, you need the results of the models, and I gave a reference that showed the predictions and compared them with the actual measured temperatures. You are welcome to chase down the detailed predictions of the models, one model at a time for some dozens of models. I confess, I didn't do that chasing down. For the explanation in terms of sun spots, that the sun spot data fits the temperature data and the explanation in terms of cosmic rays, see the video The Great Global Warming Swindle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg As I recall, that video also explains the 800 year lag in the ice core data and the Medieval Warm period. If you want to argue with the video, fine with me. My main objective is to debunk the claim that CO2 is a threat, and I did that without mentioning the video. The video argues the sun spot explanation, and so far it appears to be the best, e.g., at least it appears to the only at all reasonable explanation that even begins to fit the darned data, but otherwise is tough to check -- e.g., how cosmic rays create water droplets that result in clouds to have a significant cooling effect. So, if you don't like the sun spot explanation, then fine: The CO2 argument is still solidly debunked and refuted just by my little post. Oil company money? My interest in this subject is only as a responsible citizen. I'm being paid by no one for this interest. And I seek and expect no payment, fame, or anything else but just to contribute as a citizen. Here I'm taking time from my startup to be a good public citizen. The idea that CO2 is a threat of significant global warming stands on nothing solid and is easy to debunk and refute, and I did that quite solidly and thoroughly just in my post. All that is needed to pull down the claims is JUST my little post. The argument, the subject, really is just that simple. No peer-reviewed papers are needed to say that jumping off a tall building is dangerous or that the claims of a threat of CO2 are nonsense. The claims that CO2 is a threat are a flim-flam, fraud, scam driven by money -- the video clip explains a lot about that. Really, as I wrote, it's better just to follow the money.

dagss 9y ago
"The argument, the subject, really is just that simple." I almost lack words at this point. I hope you never come in a decision where you need to judge a scientific inquiry in a way that has consequences for others. At least not about anything more complex than, indeed, whether it is dangerous to jump off a tall building. At the point where you have to declare that the others are just idiots you KNOW that you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At the very least, you need to spend some time looking into the counter-arguments. No, I certainly should not just find the ice core data on the internet. To do anything useful with that data I would need to understand how it was gathered, the physical processes that lead to the gases being absorbed, whether gases move within the ice after freezing, what the uncertainty in mapping centimeters to years, and a thousand questions like that which I can't even know that I should ask. At the very minimum, I should look through the data through a statistical model including uncertainties. Since I don't have a year to study the science of ice core data fulltime, I need to rely on papers written up and conclusions made by those who know the data better. Ideally both papers written by climate change supporters and sceptics. Ideally peer-reviewed, but if there's a conspiracy going on I can always read rejected papers... But just downloading and looking and drawing consequences from that myself -- or worse, look at some simplified plot made by some conspiracy theorist and draw conclusions from that -- if I do that I might as well make myself a nice tin-foil-hat and become a member of flat earth society. I've almost completed a PhD in astrophysics right now, and I know that if someone were to just download the images taken of the cosmic microwave background and conclude anything at all from them, without knowing the full details of the assumed physical models, instrumental effects, and the data analysis pipeline, the results would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean our results are ludicrous though, because we've spent years understanding the data. All data needs to be deeply understood before drawing any conclusions. I certainly don't understand ice core data, and since you're not giving me any papers I bet you don't understand ice core data either. You are simply repeating arguments made by others who, hopefully do -- hence I asked for references. Your assurances and explanations here are worthless; that doesn't mean one shouldn't discuss science in social media, but when one does, it can only be as summaries of what people who do know the data well are saying (but if you got it from the documentary I guess I can pick up the trail from there). Scientists screw it up all the time. That I can support. But the issue just being "too simple" for scientists to understand, and everyone just being stupid, and the matter really being very simple -- then I know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. If you end up being right in the end, and global warming is wrong, then it is not because you are brilliant, it is because you lucked out in seeing the right documentary first.