I'm not following your gish gallop. Do the analysis I asked for.

I don't see the analysis I asked for. I've already refuted your point. Now do the analysis I asked for.

You are having a hard time with the concept of 'do the analysis I asked for' aren't you. You just keep repeating the misinformed jibberish I've already addressed.

No it isn't, you don't understand non-linear systems. I've explained this to you, c.f. the pendulum example I gave you previously.

"Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels?"

Not the way you are doing it. But I told you the analysis you need to do. Show me a multi-decadal analysis with apropriate statistics and I might be convinced, but not that tripe you have been posting here with significance incorrectly calculated. Do the SMP analysis I asked for and you might convince me. You do know how to do it right?

I've refuted your point (you don't understand non-linear systems and I've pointed out how), and you wont acknowledge it. You have failed to refute mine, and wont even entertain the possibility. I feel fine thanks.

So you cant do the analysis then.

I'm sorry I didn't see the analysis I asked for in there. Are you not able to do it, is that the problem?

You haven't done the analysis I asked for, do the analysis I asked for.

No, no I haven't. Your deficient understanding of non-linear systems has lead you to an erronous conclusion (or rather since you know and I suspect you don't believe your position you are presenting a misunderstanding you know will play well because it is a subtle misunderstanding). Your position is the same as saying you cant displace a pendulum by displacing the attachment point with a DC signal because it only wobbles a little bit when you hook it up to a cam on high frequency AC motor.

Open a cannister of CO2 at the North Pole, how long will it take to diffuse to the South? How long before the planet responds to that dispersal by releasing more CO2 from the oceans? Those aren't rhetorical questions, we have answers to those calculations. If the time scale is more than a week, and it is, then the earth will act as a low pass filter and you wont see a delta function like spike, but a smoothed peak.

Now don't gish gallop with a new point. Do the analysis I asked for.

No, I'm not entertaining another point from you until you do the analysis I ask for. I've addressed your points and now you gish gallop. Do the analysis I suggested.

You didn't do the analysis I asked for, go do it.

"Okay, so then why don't the buffers you speak of erase *all* anthropogenic impact?"

Seriously, you need to get an understanding of how a non-linear system propogates oscillatory signals. Go grab yourself a pendulum and swing the top back and forth really fast and watch the pendulum not move much. Now drag it from one side of the room to the other and watch as it follows, wobbles a little bit then settles in a completely new location. The low frequency terms propagate differently than the high frequency trems.

We are perfectly capable of seeing human CO2 emissions, just long term (are you seriously trying to claim chemistry doesn't work now and that CO2 changes into something else magically in the atmosphere?).

"If there is a uniform delay, then we should still see a weekday/weekend pattern."

So you have no idea how oscillatory signals propagate through a non-linear system. That mistake there is enough to dismiss your argument. The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things. The relevant citation is the body of work by, oh look, Dr. Inez Fung, who is border line obsessive compulsive about tracking down where the CO2 on planet goes. While some of it remains unaccounted for her work can provide you with the mechanisms you are after.

You haven't posted the analysis I asked for. If you don't in your next post then you are going to get the same request for that analysis over and over again. I will not partake in your gish gallop.

I have no problem acknowledging that CO2 has weekly cycles due to human activity. That isn't especially useful when the contribution of CO2 on it's own is not that large without feedbacks. The time constant for the earth to respond to CO2 is larger than a week. You will, as you clearly intend, massively underestimate sensitivity if you do the analysis you are proposing.

What you are doing is like giving someone a large does of paracetamol and then concluding it isn't harmful because the effects take a while to occur.

Weekly cycles in climate. Are you insane?

Your indignation is not evidence, provide evidence.

So you agree, we can exclude absurd criteria for falsification? Glad you agree with me and admit climate science is comprised of falsifiable hypotheses.

"your tests don't exclude natural climate variation as a precedent" - Don't have to, just have to show that clinging to natural variation requires assuming something absurd.

A weekly variation in climate? I'm not sure you know what climate is. I'll repeat my offer to you of a falsifiable claim. After you remove natural variation in the global temperature signal do the spm analysis I told you last time you gish galloped with me on this one. That is you take the climate record from thermometers, any reasonable data set will do, then you subtract off fits for solar variation, cosmic ray intensity, the pacific oscillation, the full shebang. Then look for a deviation from zero in the climate record. If you want to get really fancy include the human CO2 contribution and do the relevant statistical tests. It is a simple analysis to do. I look forward to your results.

"I did answer your question - you just didn't like the answer"

Then where is your explanation for why a precambrian rabbit fossil cant be a weird example of convergent evolution and the other possibilities I made. This is the question I keep referring too. By your standard you have to address every possible rationalisation of a experimental result. So get started, do all of them.

You wont do that though, because this is rhetoric to you, not truth seeking. So you pick the points I make that you think will resonate best. Yes ideas have to be falsifiable, but within something like a foundherentist framework. Like you have illustrated, remote but unlikely possibilities which don't violate the laws of physics without requiring extreme mental gymnastics do not make a theory unfalsifiable (for example your links only show that, given certain assumptions, time travel in which the thermodynamic arrow of time was violated are in violation of the current laws of physics, and I'm always free to question those assumption, but this objection is clearly assinine because 'necessary' is a stupid standard). Your 'necessary' condition renders no endeavour science because we can always engage in mental gymnastics right the way back to solipsism if we want to.

The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. I've offered you basic assumptions you can test which on thier own would falsify that assertion. I've offered you webs of experiments which would falsify it (in the past I've asked you to go away and do the necessary SPM statistics on the global temperature data sets and you haven't done them, instead you are now linking to a blog with the data sets which does exactly the kind of analysis I warned you was invalid). Your standard of falsification cannot be met, except for with theories you like. That is special pleading.