A single experimental failure under the scientific method means the theory is false. Therefore, if I can find a single failure, the entire theory is invalid.
Under the scientific method, a single experimental failure means the theory is not completely valid. Therefore, if I can find even a single experimental failure, under the scientific method you have to go back and do more work.
A multitude of observations are in rough agreement that any increase in global average temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 is more likely to be about half a degree than the 3.3 degrees determined by the IPCC3.
Every which way we measure it, the models predictions don’t match the observations.
The exception proves that the rule is
wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to
any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
Richard Feynman, according to The Meaning of it All, 1999
Ah, good, the missing comments seem to have been resurrected recently, minus the proper avatar icons. Astute readers will more easily see Mr Keating never could answer my challenge about proving skeptic climate scientists were involved in a quid pro quo arrangement with industry officials or anyone else allegedly paying them 'dark money' to lie and spread misinformation.
I thought her use of references was interesting, the ranges I mean. But there was so little discussion on the points in her article I was not even tempted to see if the references actually backed up her statements or not.
Talking about that Roy Spencer graph, I am wondering if the IPCC chart on page 87 is it's inspiration:http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdfIn my opinion it is a more honest representation as it uses a 20 year (1986-2005) baseline instead of 5 years (1979-1983), and does NOT zero all it's measurements at the start point of 1986).
You sure wasted a lot of time typing up a meaningless statement. Based on the correlation, if the solar activity goes down, the global temperature goes down. If the solar activity goes up, the global temperature goes up. But, after the 1970s, the solar activity went down and the global temperature went up. That is a violation of the correlation.
That is a very interesting graph. Thanks for sharing that reference.
Professor Keating, I admire your patience in answering some of the submissions. Some are better than others. The sort of submission or comment I would find particularly difficult to deal with are the ones which consist almost entirely of insults. I have a question: you say that Nature absorbs about half of our current CO2 emissions, currently about 18 billion tons per year. This is clearly true, and I would guess that one of the major carbon dioxide sinks would be the oceans. (As a self proclaimed expert on fish I know a little bit about the dramatic reduction in the alkalinity of the ocean waters.) But many of these sinks are dependent on both temperature and on the amount of carbon dioxide already adsorbed. Logically as their temperature increases and the concentration in these sinks approaches saturation there could come a time when they become net releases of carbon dioxide. At this point global warming would become difficult to reverse. If the emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase as shown on your graph, how long do you estimate it will be before more carbon dioxide is released by nature than is adsorbed?
Your analysis is spot on. You are correct in your conclusion that the sinks (principally the oceans) will slowly become less efficient and even, at some point, become sources. The amount of time for this to happen is not clearly defined. All I have ever found is the statement that it will take 'centuries.' Is that two hundred years, or is that 20,000 years. Both are 'centuries.' So, I can't really give you an definite answer to your question except to say that the literature indicates it won't be a problem for quite some time.
Since I never claimed "AGW is not real" your article is absolutely moot.
Excuse me? You make some remarkable comments. Let me refresh your memory - "The current rise in temperature started prior to a major use of fossil fuels. So unless CO2 works by time machine you have your proof it's mostly natural."That is the comment you posted in this string just last week. Your statement, "you have your proof" refers to my challenge and the challenge was for people that claim AGW isn't real. So, it sure sounds to me that you stated AGW is not real. Are you now saying that AGW is real?
You don't have to "refresh my memory" but you certainly do have to work on your reading comprehension skills. Look up what the word "mostly" means. Duh. I mean really if you can't understand simple English then what makes you think you can understand a complex scientific paper? "Are you now saying that AGW is real?"I never "denied" that humans have effects on the climate. In fact it is implicit in the statement you just quoted. "Mostly natural" implies partially unnatural. Certainly an increase in CO2 will, all other things being equal, increase temperatures but it really isn't all that much to be worried about. In fact, it seems to be quite beneficial. It makes plants grow faster, and will help reduce the quite real catastrophic effects of the next glacial period.What I deny is that you have any good evidence that CO2 is the majority cause of the current upswing. The upswing was already in play and prior swings have been larger. It appears completely in line with prior variability, and so it is quite impossible to tell exactly how much is due to humans. The uncertainty is extremely high.Bad science papers like Michael Mann's statistically incompetent performance don't change my outlook. This isn't particularly alarming if you don't by what is about as close to scientific fraud as you can get.You are in the position of listening to static on the radio and claiming that you are hearing aliens speaking to you. There may be a great likelihood that there is alien chatter in the static but you haven't proven to anyone you've actually filtered out all the static. So claims like those made by James Hansen (climatologist) that we are in danger of a run away Venusian greenhouse effect are just catastrophic chicken little end of the world scare mongering.
Instead of insulting me and making patently false statements, I suggest you got back to school. All of your issues have been addressed here and other places. You are just trying to be a troll. You're done.
This is outstanding. I've bookmarked it. (That's me being lazy. Instead of coming up with the same stuff over and over again I can extract a suitable quote from your work, cite the link and save myself time and trouble.)
That is why I put it here. Glad I can help.
Thank you, Professor. Thanks to your information I will be able to make the 'science' part of the science fiction novel I'm writing a little bit more accurate.
Glad I could help.
This is the most helpful post on models I've seen anywhere. Right on, Professor!
Thanks. I hope it is useful.
You sir just got wrecked. HARD.
"Skeptics don't claim that CO2 emitted by man causes no warming."No. And now that the submissions are in, look at some of them. Certainly, some deniers are claiming this."The claim is that much of the warming is likely natural warming"If we examine the natural forces at work right now, we should be seeing global cooling. What we see right now is warming (claims that we haven't warmed recently have been debunked countless times). That means something other than natural forces is causing our warming. And it's us with lots of scientific evidence to show this."But they can't prove how sensitive climate is because the climate is too complex and chaotic to fully model." Did you just tell me that climate is chaotic? Yes, climate is complex, but it's NOT chaotic, that's weather. Climate is the average of weather which reveals longer term trends that can be modeled and used to show climate sensitivity."One of the most complex parameters is cloud feedback. Even the IPCC was forced to concede that there are large uncertainties in calculating cloud feedback."Correct. But the only thing that proves is that we don't fully understand cloud feedback. That doesn't mean we don't understand climate science. Most other aspects are well understood and are included into models.Your entire last paragraph about models is misinformed. Read what Dr. Keating has to say about them here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html