AGW Grudge Match

[Slim Chance]

… So… No discussion or rebuttal of my submissions then?

How many times would you like me to post them? If you just ignore it I don't really see the point in this exercise. But here they are again:

Ghosh, P. and Brand W.A., 2003. Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228, 1-33.

Schimel, D.S., House, J.I., Hibbard, K.A., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Braswell, B.H., Apps, M.J., Baker, D., Bondeau, A., Canadell, J., Churkina, G., Cramer, W., Denning, A.S., Field, C.B., Friedlingstein, P., Goodale, C., Heimann, M., Houghton, R.A., Meillo, J.M., Moore III, B., Murdiyarso, D., Noble, I., Pacala, S.W., Prentice, I.C., Raupach, M.R., Rayner, P.J., Scholes, R.J., Steffen, W.L., and Wirth, C., 2001. Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 414, 169-172.

I’ve responded to this. Reposting the same info doesn’t change the synopsis that the study is flawed.

You also ignored the blog posts which themselves are well referenced:
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Blog posts, eh?

And here I was under the assumption that this was a scholarly debate.

How do you figure that?

Because you've offered up contradictory "studies” that undermine your position.

Knock it off. Either you can specifically name an assumption from those papers that you think is suspect or you can't. I've taken graduate level statistics classes, so I'm pretty certain I'll be able to at the very least find some information about your beef.

I don’t know how to explain this better – Lord knows I’ve tried dozens of times now.

Let’s try by employing an example:

If all you understand about automobiles is how to inflate a tire, then no amount of statistical modeling, corrective techniques and assumptions will provide you with the knowledge of how to successfully build a contemporary internal combustion engine.

Get it yet?

So, enough talk. Out with it already. If this passes one more time, then I'm just writing this discussion of statistical analysis off as being without merit on your part.

As I expected….

• You propose to have an understanding of a few mechanisms
• You have an idea of many others (water vapour for example) but do not fully understand them at all
• Lastly, you don’t have a clue about all of the actual forces that exist

But somehow, you can magically apply some theoretical statistical techniques and declare that YOU have this depth of knowledge and therefore will declare causation on AGW… This defies any form of logic.

What you want from me is a specific rebuttal of one of the said corrective techniques, etc… The fact is, the flaw in your reliance on stats is that not only do you not know WHAT you’re applying the technique to; you also don’t know HOW MANY variables exist AND you have no knowledge of the INTERACTION of the variables in the equation.

This is your flaw… Call up anyone of your stats professors that educated you in advanced techniques and put the question to them in terms of our debate… They will give you the same answer that I have.

You brought up the examples of airplanes or vaccines – but conveniently omitted the reality that not only are they still learning; there was also a significant learning curve wherein planes crashed and the sera were poisons… Just so you know, those very same statistical models/techniques, etc existed then, BUT IT WASN”T A SUBSTITUTE FOR REAL FACTUAL DATA.

Get it?

Leave the trolling in other threads please. I have taken introductory, intermediate, and graduate level statistics.

Funny.. Truly hilarious – See above

How about one example?

Here's one:

"We know we're the source"

and a little later

[FONT=&quot]"The hydrological cycle interacts with other cycles and physical phenomena. Water doesn't just change on it's own. It responds to perturbations."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sure, great… You just don’t understand them and how they work in this system.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Can you name me one branch of science where the entire system is catalogued and understood?

This debate is about AGW and your confidence in assessing causation, not about other disciplines.

It's humorous to note that you ignored my follow-up of the relevance of the water vapour feedbacks the introduction to that paper talked about.

… But all of the studies YOU submitted have caveats and disclaimers stating they can’t account for water vapor – the very same studies that suggest that it is the strongest variable in the equation… Perhaps you’ll do the scientific community a favor and forward this compelling factual reality in the above study to those researchers that apparently didn’t get the memo.

Really man, don’t expect anyone to buy this nonsense if the very researchers that you lean on are complete disagreement with you.

Since the publishing of that paper, the feedbacks are much better understood, try:

Dessler, A.W., and Sherwood, S.C., 2009. A matter of humidity. Science, 323, 1020-1.

But you didn't submit that research, did you? What you did submit were studies that had massive disclaimers and admitted lack of knowledge of the system(s).

Does this mean that you wish to restate your entire case?

The big question is; why did you forward incomplete and faulty studies in the first place?

Cloud amounts are determined in a number of ways. One is called the clear-sky index method, which you'll find discussed in this paper:

Great... It's still a chicken-or-egg argument isn't it? Are anthropogenic sources the cause of this event?... I’ll do my best to try and find some paleo-cloud studies to suggest that clouds existed before humanity, but I’m not holding my breath.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Entirely related. Science works even when we don't know everything. If it didn't, then there would be no science at all. Sorry if you can't grasp that, but that's reality, and if you worked in a science related field at all, you would get that. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
You're hopeless. "Science" as far as our debate is concerned, knows a tiny fraction of the relevant mechanisms that directly and indirectly influence the system. You are all up in arms because only the zealots are willing to believe your fantasy that you can account for all the variables in a dynamic system by only understanding that tiny fraction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Science works – in terms of assessing causation in this AGW discussion - when you have an understanding of the majority of the variables. Statistics then offer reasonable confidence in accounting for those few variables that are not understood or accounted for.

At this point, “science” is still feeling its way and developing an understanding. Your mistake is that you believe it to be complete enough to assess causation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are mistaken.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You're essentially saying that because we don't know everything, that we can't know anything. Which is completely and utterly false. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Wrong. I'm saying that based on the utter lack of understanding, it is ridiculous to suggest that you can propose causation. You on the other hand are stating that you can understand this issue enough to point to causation despite knowing relatively nothing because you'll apply theoretical statistical adaptations to substitute for this missing knowledge/data.

Admit your mistake and let's move on already.

[/FONT]

That wasn't science, not as we know it. Calling that science proves to me how out of touch you are with how science actually works.

That’s really rich considering the fact you don’t have a clue as to the totality of the mechanisms relative to this issue. The medical practitioners in medieval times likely believed that they were at the cutting-edge and knew enough to prescribe drilling holes in people’s heads.

I never said it wasn't a dynamic system...water vapour feedbacks are part of the reason why climate sensitivity is high.

Then why does your argument absolutely ignore this dynamic interaction. The studies you offered are (for all intents and purposes) are essentially analyzed in their own little vacuum. As I stated in a previous post, I don’t contest the individual theoretical framework of some of the mechanisms you’ve identified – I question their role in the overall system.

It's a hyperlink bringing you to the source. I did all the work for you, since you don't seem capable of finding them yourself...

You were the one that was pissing and moaning about proper citation techniques. You will also recall that you made a really big stink about plagiarism.

These citations – along with others in your most recent post – reek of the professional deficiencies, plagiarism and copyright infringements.

I never claimed it was my work, hence no plagiarism. The link brings you to the source.

It was bald-faced plagiarism pure and simple… Is that how you work in your professional career too?

 

[Slim Chance]

I knew eventually you'd do this.

You did know... I made very strong insinuations that I would question your sources at the outset of this thread... What did you think would be the result when you base your "facts" on a group that has been fumbling about retracting their facts as fast as they possibly can.

So when it's convenient to you, apparently they don't need a disclaimer. I see how it is...

YOU assumed the position that you knew all the answers... YOU declared that anthropogenic sources were responsible for global warming... That position is not compatible with the prevalent disclaimers upon which you founded your position.

And less than 100 posts into this thread you show that you'll use a source when it's convenient and trash it when it isn't.

You must be joking... I'm not the one that sees fit to offer newer versions of data or studies each time they get clearly rebutted. Had you known your material, you would have forwarded the best materials at the outset.

Pathetic. I'm through wasting my time with you. Other readers can have a go if they wish, though I'd advise them to save their time.

How predictable... You were sunk the moment you resorted to calling me a "denier". Clearly that is the last vestiage of one that no longer can forward a logical argument. I told you this would happen, I told you I'd be handing you a bag of bricks while you were foundering in the water.

So what was it that finally got you to see the folly of your position? Was it the realization that your complete dependence on massive theoritical statistical models was nothing more than a house of cards or was it the knowledge that the relative contributions of anthropogenic vs non-anthropogenic sources was far beyond your ability to explain?