3 ms·

> Of course there is, in the very page: Those aren't sources. >“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the ca

> Of course there is, in the very page: Those aren't sources. >“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry. This isn't a source. You need to provide the actual studies, and point out where it proves that global warming is caused by co2, and have a coherent argument. Right now seem to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me in an attempt to win the argument. > The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.” 500,000 lines of code? Oh wow, then, must be accurate! NASA did it, must be correct, right? That's how you prove things, you get NASA to sign off on them. > The link is the summary of what calculating which physical formulas gives, as I've quoted. It's you who "doubt" in the "tree rings" and I've given you the context: tree rings are just a small piece of he whole picture, and what we know, including the levels of confidence from that part of science is still good enough to have a good picture of what is happening and what has happened before. But once again: not any single historical proxy is directly used when the physical formulas are applied. When did I ever say I doubted tree rings? All I'm saying is that I'm not sure that co2 is a significant cause of global warming. > > In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global Cooling > That's a joke, right? I'm presenting you the results of the NASA's best computer models, and you are giving me a link to... what actually? Since when are TV shows a proof for anything? Actually, you're right, it was a joke, but you missed the punchline. You give me a link of a news reporter trying to interpret and regurgitate what scientists say now, and I give you an actor doing the same for what scientists said in the 1970's. You don't see the similarities? > If you don't understand physics, I can imagine that it's hard to you to believe in something you simply don't understand, and I don't know your background to help you. I do understand some physics. And what I don't I'm willing to learn. Do you? Why is it that all you do is regurgitate quotes from websites, or give arguments of authority? > It's about the formulas and measurements. Note: I'm not saying "take that guy as a reference." I'm saying: he's the guy who didn't know enough but was willing to learn and made enough notes, so if you are actually interested in some formulas "for beginners" you can find them there. If you'd want something even "more serious"... you'd need at last university level material, which of course exists too... You still haven't addressed my concerns the lack of transparency of your link from skepticalscience.com. You also didn't address the graph from co2levels.org. I was hoping you knew or would be able to say why temperature increase precedes co2 rising in the graph from co2levels.org. I was hoping you'd be able to show the sun output, the glaciation, the co2 levels against temperature, so I can see the relationship between them. At this point, though, it seems you're not interested. I thought I was talking to someone who knew what they were saying. You're telling me to read this guys entire website, but I know all I'll be left with a bunch of conflicting data and further questions, and probably still not have my questions answered. The reason I was talking to you in the first place was that I thought you had some understanding. But by now, I'm pretty convinced, you don't. Believe it or not, I'm on the fence about whether co2 is the primary cause of global warming or not. I simply was refuting the original poster's assertion that co2 being the primary cause of warming was basic physics and the relationship is undeniable. Talking to you, it seems that you don't know much about the topic, but instead believe that arguments from authority are good enough. You can't find information that directly answers my questions, but instead point to just reams and reams of data that has nothing to do with what I asked, along with snide comments (ex. me "doubting tree rings", although I never brought this up). I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.

acqq 8y ago
> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used. I never said that. What I've said was: > Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site. So no, it's not easy. If you are able to check the formulas, you can see they are right. If you aren't, you can claim that "it's not enough" and it will of course never be enough because it demands certain capabilities of the reader. You have to go slowly, formula after formula, and do simplified calculations, for which you don't need a supercomputer. Once you understand formulas, and you understand that they are right, you could say "OK but I'd like to know what the more precise calculations would bring, if I'd apply these formulas separately on every small point of the earth, and then see how the parameters dynamically change through the time." Note: You don't need that to verify the validity of the warming physics, you need that "only" to know how your part of the Earth would typically behave through the time, including all the oscillations, ups and downs. Then you would have either to write one another model, just like 63 models written by the scientists worldwide. Or you'd simply understand "from the inside" how the existing models work, and be able to accept that what is presented on the Bloomberg page I've linked is real (because once you have enough knowledge of what is in the program you don't have to repeat every step to see that the results do follow from the calculations). The scientific paper about the computing model used on the Bloomberg page was also linked on that same page: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html as well as the measurements: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ So you surely had enough references even before. Like I've said, the physics is real and there are no errors. If you can't understand the physics, then you are unable to be able to "check" anybody. And the physics is not simple as pre-school math: If you can't understand this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm and this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm just don't ask me anymore for the proofs, because you are either incapable or unwilling to work it through. You have to do a lot of work, if you haven't before, and based on what you answered up to now, it's effectively sure you haven't, otherwise you'd ask about some detail in some formula, if you missed only that. That is if you want to work through the formulas. If you don't but you want to see everything worked through, the shortest version is the Bloomberg article I've given you, and the longest the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FI... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR... (all from: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ ) In the IPCC is effectively the summary of everything all the world scientists know about the topics, together, the result of the consensus of all the world scientists qualified enough to be able to work on the topics. It's long and complex, and long exactly because it addresses many different details. And all that is full of references (which aren't lacking on the pages of the former skeptic too). So you can work through it as much as you want. Don't trust, check the formulas, really go through them yourself. The former skeptic did it too (he had the background in spectroscopy, luckily for him) . I've done it, I've did go through the points for which I didn't accept "it is said it's so" (and I, luckily for me, have enough background in physics). Every student of these sciences does it, every year the new ones. It is doable.

acqq 8y ago

> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used. I never said that. What I've said was: > Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site. So no, it's not easy. If you are able to check the formulas, you can see they are right. If you aren't, you can claim that "it's not enough" and it will of course never be enough because it demands certain capabilities of the reader. You have to go slowly, formula after formula, and do simplified calculations, for which you don't need a supercomputer. Once you understand formulas, and you understand that they are right, you could say "OK but I'd like to know what the more precise calculations would bring, if I'd apply these formulas separately on every small point of the earth, and then see how the parameters dynamically change through the time." Note: You don't need that to verify the validity of the warming physics, you need that "only" to know how your part of the Earth would typically behave through the time, including all the oscillations, ups and downs. Then you would have either to write one another model, just like 63 models written by the scientists worldwide. Or you'd simply understand "from the inside" how the existing models work, and be able to accept that what is presented on the Bloomberg page I've linked is real (because once you have enough knowledge of what is in the program you don't have to repeat every step to see that the results do follow from the calculations). The scientific paper about the computing model used on the Bloomberg page was also linked on that same page: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html as well as the measurements: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ So you surely had enough references even before. Like I've said, the physics is real and there are no errors. If you can't understand the physics, then you are unable to be able to "check" anybody. And the physics is not simple as pre-school math: If you can't understand this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm and this: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm just don't ask me anymore for the proofs, because you are either incapable or unwilling to work it through. You have to do a lot of work, if you haven't before, and based on what you answered up to now, it's effectively sure you haven't, otherwise you'd ask about some detail in some formula, if you missed only that. That is if you want to work through the formulas. If you don't but you want to see everything worked through, the shortest version is the Bloomberg article I've given you, and the longest the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FI... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w... https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR... (all from: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ ) In the IPCC is effectively the summary of everything all the world scientists know about the topics, together, the result of the consensus of all the world scientists qualified enough to be able to work on the topics. It's long and complex, and long exactly because it addresses many different details. And all that is full of references (which aren't lacking on the pages of the former skeptic too). So you can work through it as much as you want. Don't trust, check the formulas, really go through them yourself. The former skeptic did it too (he had the background in spectroscopy, luckily for him) . I've done it, I've did go through the points for which I didn't accept "it is said it's so" (and I, luckily for me, have enough background in physics). Every student of these sciences does it, every year the new ones. It is doable.