What Could Falsify Man Made Global Warming Theory?

[Paprika]

Now, at this point, and please forgive my Pavlovian reflex for assigning homework, if you'd like to continue the discussion in a more meaningful way, it's time to get some brain sweat flowing. While the synthesis report is still many months away, the IPCC has recently released the first installment of its fifth assessment report (AR5), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Yes, I know, it's huge. Don't let that intimidate you. Make a plan, schedule your time, and prepare yourself to do the work. Print out the report, by chapters, one at a time, and get them ring-bound at a Staples store or something similar. Start with the Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Do a chapter a week until you've covered it, and feel free to bring your questions back to TWeb. I guarantee others, and not just myself, will chip in to help answer them, even if we have to do homework of our own.

Thanks for the link. If I am going to start on this, it'll take a significant amount of time. I'll need to consider it but I doubt I will commit.

[HMS_Beagle]

Thanks for the link. If I am going to start on this, it'll take a significant amount of time. I'll need to consider it but I doubt I will commit.

FRAUD ALERT! FRAUD ALERT! The IPCC report is filled with summary graphs that don't have error bars! That obviously means the graphs are fraudulent, probably made by godless communist left-wing liberals, and the whole thing should be rejected! Right Paprika?

[Paprika]

FRAUD ALERT! FRAUD ALERT! The IPCC report is filled with summary graphs that don't have error bars! That obviously means the graphs are fraudulent, probably made by godless communist left-wing liberals, and the whole thing should be rejected! Right Paprika?

I have never said anything of the sort. You and the baseless assumptions you make are getting tiresome.

[HMS_Beagle]

I have never said anything of the sort. You and the baseless assumptions you make are getting tiresome.

Why aren't you being consistent Paprika? When I posted the CO2 / Temperature summary graph you screamed bloody murder and accused the scientists of cherry picking data. You even went so far as to start a new thread on the topic. Where's all your snark over error bars now?

Makes you look like a rank hypocrite or a troll, or both.

[Paprika]

Why aren't you being consistent Paprika? When I posted the CO2 / Temperature summary graph you screamed bloody murder and accused the scientists of cherry picking data. You even went so far as to start a new thread on the topic. Where's all your snark over error bars now?

"bloody murder"? You're just being ridiculous now.

As regards the report Jesse has linked me, if I do go through it I will investigate the data, including the propagation of systematic error, but for obvious reasons I am hesitant about committing to the effort of reading a report 1552 pages long, as well as the dozens and possibly hundreds of scientific papers cited.

[HMS_Beagle]

"bloody murder"? You're just being ridiculous now.

As regards the report Jesse has linked me, if I do go through it I will investigate the data, including the propagation of systematic error, but for obvious reasons I am hesitant about committing to the effort of reading a report 1552 pages long, as well as the dozens and possibly hundreds of scientific papers cited.

So it was hypocrite and troll. Got it.

[Jorge]

Jorge, I don't disagree with a lot that you said especially about the political, economic and ideological influence. Now I'm a layman and from what I read, there has been warming over the last century or so - scientists on both sides seem to agree with this. And since this coincides with the industrial age and increased Co2 being pumped into the atmosphere - that is the likely driver. I'm not sure if that is an illogical jump. I mean what else could be causing it?

Fair enough, seer. You ask, "what else could be causing it?" There is a huge amount of rock-solid evidence supporting that it is the sun - specifically, solar cycles - that is the main cause. Yes, CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities. But from what I've gathered, CO2 levels are a second or third order term determining global temperature.

The agenda-driven liars/crooks promoting this stuff know all of this. I'm sure you heard of the data falsification and other malfeasance revealed by emails among themselves that were intercepted. This created quite a scandal a few years back and then it was quickly buried and forgotten. But many of us haven't forgotten.

By the way, have you noticed the humongous size of their carbon footprint as they jet-and-limo back and forth all over the planet spreading the word on "global warming". Why don't they begin practicing what they preach? They are a bunch of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.

Enjoy.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Fair enough, seer. You ask, "what else could be causing it?" There is a huge amount of rock-solid evidence supporting that it is the sun - specifically, solar cycles - that is the main cause. Yes, CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities. But from what I've gathered, CO2 levels are a second or third order term determining global temperature.

You gathered wrong.

More than a few people have noted that AGW deniers have much in common with their Biblical Creationist brethren. Both tend to be scientifically illiterate, have a lower education level, lack critical thinking skills, and have a propensity to make up stuff as they go. The kind who would buy a fake PhD on the web to try and pad their credentials.

[Juvenal]

So it was hypocrite and troll. Got it.

Chill, Beagle.

He's not talking error bars anymore because I took him aside earlier, sans the name-calling, and talked error bars, 1/sqrt(n), and why the latter means you don't see the former on averaged data. Turns out, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, that's a lot more effective. I know how easy it is to get worked up around here, but please trust me when I say I'm convinced his questions which, quite naturally, seemed highly offensive, were merely skeptical, and asked in good faith, the kind we should expect given the abundance of misinformation we see in the popular press.

Give him a break. Please?

As ever, Jesse

[Juvenal]

Thanks for the link. If I am going to start on this, it'll take a significant amount of time. I'll need to consider it but I doubt I will commit.

Summary for Policymakers (PDF), which is only 33 pages. I still recommend printing it out and getting it wire bound for convenience and ease of reference. It's formatted for double-sided printing.

As ever, Jesse

[Juvenal]

Oh, and ... Beags!

Two things:

1. Save the red font for the mods. They like it that way.
2. Save your typing fingers with Jorge. He's hopeless. Just ignore him and move on, or these threads will get hopelessly cluttered. The rest of us like it that way.

Other than that, thanks for joining. I've appreciated your posts.

As ever, Jesse

[Roy]

2. Save your typing fingers with Jorge. He's hopeless.

Post #83 suggests our new colleague knows all about Jorge and is actually an old colleague taking advantage of the reboot to get a new name.

Roy

[Juvenal]

Post #83 suggests our new colleague knows all about Jorge and is actually an old colleague taking advantage of the reboot to get a new name.

Roy

I'll engage the foils with anyone in eloquence, but in perspicacity, I bow at the feet of the master.

Thank you, Roy.

[Roy]

Thank you, Roy.

You are welcome.

Roy

[Cow Poke]

I'll engage the foils with anyone in eloquence, but in perspicacity, I bow at the feet of the master.

Thank you, Roy.

Why can't you just speak splane?