105 replies to this topic

[Rich C]

Colion:  Wrong.  C agrees with K on the evidence but has a different opinion. 

 

Rich:    You are wrong.  The data is the data.  Nobody disagrees with the data.  Coulombe has a different conclusion to his study than Koutsoyainnis, therefore C disagrees with K.  I am correct.

 

Colion:  He said that it is reported that GMSTA “cause more CO2 than the reverse” which he notes contradicts “common wisdom”. 

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  Again you have pulled a quoted sentence fragment from C's study, and it is a conclusion that he discarded from an early erroneous part of his study.

 

Colion:  He does not provide any empirical evidence to the contrary and leaning on “common wisdom” for support is contrary to science which does not rely on “common wisdom” or consensus. 

 

You are wrong.  Coulombe's study is provided.  He does NOT lean on common wisdom in his process, not at all.  He uses it as a reasonableness check after the study is completed.  That is a valid use.

 

Colion:  Contrary to your attempt to debunk K, he clearly supports CO2 lagging T consistent with empirical data

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  Here is his conclusion:  "This last attempt is successful in reconciling the FEVD approach with the traditional wisdom that CO2 is causing GMTA “more” than the reverse."  The full quote is provided in post #73 above.

 

Colion:  You don’t understand science when you say that causality is not that important to the climate change discussion. That is nonsensical; it is key!

 

Rich:  It was Coulombe who said when each process feeds the other, it was debatable whether one could determine which was more influential.  That is where he debunked K.  That is why K does not overturn AGW.
 

Colion:  Wrong.  C, R and IPCC belief in re the amount of future rise has been debunked by the GCMs which cannot replicate in sample data without tweaking and run hot.

 

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  GCM have not debunked AGW.  They are used by the IPCC and their results are incorporated in their papers.

 

Let me tell you what is going on in the scientific community regarding climate change. 

 

First, climate, which are long term patterns, are very complex.  There are numerous factors at work, some a lot, some less.  Some of them have feeback loops and influence each other.  There is no single model that can capture all of the elements in the correct magnitudes.  All of the models are approximations.  So, everyone runs their models.  The IPCC has many people working on their reports from around the world, and the look at all of their models, and they discuss where they diverge and why, and they come to the most likely consensus.

 

Is any single person study going to disprove AGW?  That I am skeptical of.  And when I look at those single paper studies that purport to overturn AGW, I find they are not compelling.  Yet those single papers are posted on 1,000 climate denier websites.  It doesn't make any difference if they have big holes in them, like K below, but "we have overturned 120 years of climate research with a single paper.  Not likely.

 

Koutsoyainnis says in his paper, all the inputs I used are necessary.  He says I don't have all of the inputs that would be sufficient because they would be hard to get.  That is not a proof that can overturn AGW. 
 
 

 

 

 

[colion]

 

Colion:  Wrong.  C agrees with K on the evidence but has a different opinion. 

 

Rich:    You are wrong.  The data is the data.  Nobody disagrees with the data.  Coulombe has a different conclusion to his study than Koutsoyainnis, therefore C disagrees with K.  I am correct.

 

Wrong.  C agrees that the data show CO2 lags T but then goes on with his analysis and bias reflecting "common wisdom" which is BS.  Empirical evidence controls under all conditions.  Coulombe's understanding of science is inadequate and obviously not covered in his economic courses.

 

Colion:  He said that it is reported that GMSTA “cause more CO2 than the reverse” which he notes contradicts “common wisdom”. 

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  Again you have pulled a quoted sentence fragment from C's study, and it is a conclusion that he discarded from an early erroneous part of his study.

 

Wrong.  That's a lie.  You may disagree with K's methodology but you cannot change his conclusions (which are consistent with empirical data) as the words speak for themselves and he repeats them over and over, including;

 

"Abstract ... interpretation of cross-correlations of time series of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 suggests that the dominant direction is T → CO2, i.e., the change in temperature leads and the change in CO2 concentration follows."

 

"The maximum cross-correlation of the monthly series is 0.47 and appears at a positive lag, η1 = 5 months, thus suggesting T → [CO2], rather than [CO2] → T, as dominant causality direction."

 

"In brief, all above confirm the results of our methodology that the dominant direction of causality is T → [CO2]."

 

"Conclusion ... The results of the study support the hypothesis that both causality directions exist, with T → CO2 being the dominant, despite the fact that CO2 → T prevails in public, as well as in scientific, perception. Indeed, our results show that changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale." (consistent with empirical data in links/video)

 

 

Colion:  He does not provide any empirical evidence to the contrary and leaning on “common wisdom” for support is contrary to science which does not rely on “common wisdom” or consensus. 

 

You are wrong.  Coulombe's study is provided.  He does NOT lean on common wisdom in his process, not at all.  He uses it as a reasonableness check after the study is completed.  That is a valid use.

 

Wrong.  He clearly says "GMTA is reported to cause more CO2 than the reverse, a finding contradicting SMCGL’s results and common wisdom."  Then he waves his arms and argues (leans) for the "common" (which is nonsensical term) understanding.  He (and you) are free to do so but, as I said, he does not provide any empirical evidence that refutes CO2 lags T or supports CO2 leads T.  Just mathematical/analytical analysis that one can accept of reject but the empirical evidence stands.

 

Colion:  Contrary to your attempt to debunk K, he clearly supports CO2 lagging T consistent with empirical data

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  Here is his conclusion:  "This last attempt is successful in reconciling the FEVD approach with the traditional wisdom that CO2 is causing GMTA “more” than the reverse."  The full quote is provided in post #73 above.

 

Irrelevant.  That is C not K.

 

Colion:  You don’t understand science when you say that causality is not that important to the climate change discussion. That is nonsensical; it is key!

 

Rich:  It was Coulombe who said when each process feeds the other, it was debatable whether one could determine which was more influential.  That is where he debunked K.  That is why K does not overturn AGW.

 

Wrong and straw man.  Determining which is influential is not saying that causality is not important.  It is critically important to the AGW hypothesis which would not exist without directional causality.  The fact that, for example, Henry's Law supports CO2 lagging T is a plus.
 

Colion:  Wrong.  C, R and IPCC belief in re the amount of future rise has been debunked by the GCMs which cannot replicate in sample data without tweaking and run hot.

 

 

Rich:  You are wrong.  GCM have not debunked AGW.  They are used by the IPCC and their results are incorporated in their papers.

 

Wrong and straw man.  GCMs do not address the AGW hypothesis. The present ones after tweaking run hot and the IPCC acknowledges that and is looking to change in CMIP7.

 

Let me tell you what is going on in the scientific community regarding climate change. 

 

First, climate, which are long term patterns, are very complex.  There are numerous factors at work, some a lot, some less.  Some of them have feeback loops and influence each other.  There is no single model that can capture all of the elements in the correct magnitudes.  All of the models are approximations.  So, everyone runs their models.  The IPCC has many people working on their reports from around the world, and the look at all of their models, and they discuss where they diverge and why, and they come to the most likely consensus.

 

You say "There are numerous factors at work".  That is correct in terms of sources and forcings which in turn negates the "single control knob" AGW hypothesis.  As for the models it is not a question of consensus.  Their output is plotted/published and they run hot even after in-sample tweaking and each CMIP iteration is an attempt to correct that.  That doesn't always work as the last one is worse than the preceding.

 

 

Is any single person study going to disprove AGW?  

 

The AGW hypothesis has been disproven by CO2 lags T, decade long pause in T with increasing CO2, saturation of CO2 spectral bands, absence of tropical hot spot, energy balance with .002% anthropogenic CO2, etc.  Most of these are discussed in the links/videos and elsewhere.  It is understandable based on your background that you focused on a mathematical analysis but the heart of the matter is not mathematical but physical.

 

You cannot refute the empirical evidence debunking the AGW hypothesis and cannot provide any empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.  Empirical evidence always rules, always trumps analyses.  

 

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.  It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  In that simple statement is the key to science." --- Richard P. Feynman

 

 

 

 

[Rogerdodger]

Nothing to see here....

 

SUN is on track to rival some of the stronger cycles of the 20th century.

The last time sunspot numbers were this high was 20 years ago...Time to wake up Al Gore again!

We are currently in Solar Cycle 25, which forecasters didn’t expect to be this strong.

The monthly average sunspot number for June 2023 was 163, according to the Royal Observatory of Belgium’s Solar Influences Data Analysis Center.
Now, it may be on track to rival some of the stronger cycles of the 20th century.

Northern Lights visible in UK tonight as solar storm hits Earth


Extreme’ solar eruption 93 million miles away knocks radios out back on Earth

 

https://www.solen.in...ilar_cycles.png

Edited by Rogerdodger, 09 August 2023 - 10:45 AM.

[Rich C]

Let's simplify.  From Koutsoyainnis own paper:

 

 

“4.2. Complications in Seeking Causality

 

It must be stressed that the above conditions are considered as necessary and not sufficient conditions for a causative relationship between the processes ̲ and ̲. Following Koutsoyiannis [30] (where additional necessary conditions are discussed), we avoid seeking sufficient conditions, a task that would be too difficult or impossible

 

 

The study has a hole in it.  The author has no idea how big the hole is.  I give the author credit for honestly stating the shortcoming of his study.  The study is not capable of overturning AGW because of the shortcoming stated by the author.

 

Yet the deniers want to grab onto a sentence fragment where K believes that T leads CO2, and claim it shows AGW has been overturned, while ignoring the hole of in-determinant size that the author himself states.  That is the type of deceitfulness or lack of thoroughness that makes me question the deniers.  That makes the deniers look like propagandists.

[colion]

Let's simplify.  From Koutsoyainnis own paper:

 

 

“4.2. Complications in Seeking Causality

 

It must be stressed that the above conditions are considered as necessary and not sufficient conditions for a causative relationship between the processes ̲ and ̲. Following Koutsoyiannis [30] (where additional necessary conditions are discussed), we avoid seeking sufficient conditions, a task that would be too difficult or impossible

 

 

The study has a hole in it.  The author has no idea how big the hole is.  I give the author credit for honestly stating the shortcoming of his study.  The study is not capable of overturning AGW because of the shortcoming stated by the author.

 

Yet the deniers want to grab onto a sentence fragment where K believes that T leads CO2, and claim it shows AGW has been overturned, while ignoring the hole of in-determinant size that the author himself states.  That is the type of deceitfulness or lack of thoroughness that makes me question the deniers.  That makes the deniers look like propagandists.

 

 

Wrong.  K's methodology following "Occam" to overcome the "hole" produces the right result which means it might be correct, in contrast to C. C work does not debunk CO2 lags T and K's does not prove that CO2 lags T.  But K's methodology has the potential for being correct because it is consistent with empirical data and C's methodology does not which means it is wrong.

 

Straw man.  K's T leads CO2 is not just a sentence fragment but is repeated throughout.  

 

You are fixated on the analytical but the important thing is the empirical evidence that CO2 lags T.  When the analytical does not comport to the empirical evidence then it is wrong and when it does it might be right.  Sticking with the analytical when it is out of synch with empirical data is characteristic of a belief system not science.

 

The AGW hypothesis has been disproven by CO2 lags T, decade long pause in T with increasing CO2, saturation of CO2 spectral bands, absence of tropical hot spot, energy balance with .002% anthropogenic CO2, etc.  Most of these are discussed in the links/videos and elsewhere.  It is understandable based on your background that you focused on a mathematical analysis but the heart of the matter is not mathematical but physical.

 

You cannot refute the empirical evidence debunking the AGW hypothesis and cannot provide any empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.  Empirical evidence always rules, always trumps analyses.  

 

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.  It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  In that simple statement is the key to science." --- Richard P. Feynman

[Rich C]

Regarding Koutsoyainnis, it does not make any difference how many times he repeats Temp leads CO2 throughout his study.  The study if flawed, by the authors admission.  We have NO IDEA how flawed as no effort is made to quantify the sufficient conditions.

 

 

“4.2. Complications in Seeking Causality

 

It must be stressed that the above conditions are considered as necessary and not sufficient conditions for a causative relationship between the processes ̲ and ̲. Following Koutsoyiannis [30] (where additional necessary conditions are discussed), we avoid seeking sufficient conditions, a task that would be too difficult or impossible

 

 

That one paper does not overturn AGW because it has an unquantified hole in it.

[colion]

Regarding Koutsoyainnis, it does not make any difference how many times he repeats Temp leads CO2 throughout his study.  The study if flawed, by the authors admission.  We have NO IDEA how flawed as no effort is made to quantify the sufficient conditions.

 

“4.2. Complications in Seeking Causality

 

It must be stressed that the above conditions are considered as necessary and not sufficient conditions for a causative relationship between the processes ̲ and ̲. Following Koutsoyiannis [30] (where additional necessary conditions are discussed), we avoid seeking sufficient conditions, a task that would be too difficult or impossible

 

Wrong. As a result of the insufficiency he simplified his methodology. The result of this simplification is consistent with empirical evidence so it might be the correct approach.  It makes no difference whether or not you think the methodology is invalid. In contrast, you approve of Coulombe's analysis but he gets an answer that is contrary to empirical evidence and so is incorrect.  Only mathematical analyses that are consistent with empirical evidence have the potential for being valid.

 

That one paper does not overturn AGW because it has an unquantified hole in it.

 

Straw man.  This paper does not overturn the AGW hypothesis and such was not claimed.  However, the empirical evidence in the links/videos (and similar) do which you obviously cannot dispute.  This paper does provide an analytical analysis that is consistent with the empirical evidence and so might be correct.  Even if it concluded that the AGW hypothesis (CO2 leads T) was correct that would not debunk the irrefutable empirical evidence that kills the AGW hypothesis.  Mathematics/analyses/theories are not correct if they are not in agreement with empirical evidence which eliminates Coulombe.

 

The AGW hypothesis has been disproven by CO2 lags T, decade long pause in T with increasing CO2, saturation of CO2 spectral bands, absence of tropical hot spot, energy balance with .002% anthropogenic CO2, etc.  Most of these are discussed in the links/videos and elsewhere.  It is understandable based on your background that you focused on a mathematical analysis but the heart of the matter is not mathematical but physical.

 

You cannot refute the empirical evidence debunking the AGW hypothesis and cannot provide any empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.  Empirical evidence always rules, always trumps analyses.  

 

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.  It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  In that simple statement is the key to science." --- Richard P. Feynman

Edited by colion, 10 August 2023 - 10:06 PM.

[Rich C]

If the empirical evidence disproves AGW, then show it to me, instead of showing me these mathematical analysis papers with holes in them.

 

If AGW had really been overturned, believe me it would be on Fox News every night for six months.  That would get huge ratings from both sides.  But Fox does not touch it.  That is a good clue there is no proof that overturns AGW.

 

I've been reading and thinking about the next paper you showed on page 6 of this topic, by Munshi, and I am unimpressed by it.  I don't think it will overturn AGW either.

[colion]

If the empirical evidence disproves AGW, then show it to me, instead of showing me these mathematical analysis papers with holes in them.

 

If AGW had really been overturned, believe me it would be on Fox News every night for six months.  That would get huge ratings from both sides.  But Fox does not touch it.  That is a good clue there is no proof that overturns AGW.

 

I've been reading and thinking about the next paper you showed on page 6 of this topic, by Munshi, and I am unimpressed by it.  I don't think it will overturn AGW either.

 

 

You have the links/videos that provide empirical evidence the kills the AGW hypothesis and cannot refute them or provide empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.  I am not impressed with your "not impressed" and your question indicates that you do not understand what the AGW hypothesis is.  This is the final response and if you have anything meaningful in the future open a new thread.

[Rogerdodger]

"following "Occam"...SUN is on track to rival some of the stronger cycles of the 20th century.

 

Hot Tea holds more sugar that cold tea...

 

Doctrine based theories don't hold water.