Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?

But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

Jane/Lonny Eachus also won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood. Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious. There is nothing more to be said.

Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

... It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. ...

Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.

In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.

So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.

In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!

Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of anything I actually said I'll count it as a lie in its entirety. First, I didn't at any time say I was talking about statistics actually involving "young earthers" per se. I was simply speaking of statistics, as a field, in a completely general sense. The science of statistics. Which has NOTHING to do specifically with young-earthers. ...

How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:

... They just happened to be topic under discussion, but my comment was about the nature of evidence, not about young-earthers.It's a fact of life that if you hunt long and hard enough, you can find evidence for just about anything. It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. They may not have any good evidence. But the notion that they have found some kind of evidence -- not proof mind you, but evidence, no matter how thin or tiny -- is strongly supported by a smidgen of statistical thinking. He flatly denies the idea that they could have any evidence at all, even though I've explained to him repeatedly that he appears to be conflating evidence with proof. Or even possibly just degrees of evidence. ...

Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.

... So for him to imply, as he does above, that I my comment in any way "treats creationism as a scientific hypothesis", is just crazy. Plain and simple. There is zero truth to it. ...

Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.

Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have some evidence would destroy science.

Jane, did you read the list of examples I gave showing that science would be destroyed if we said that supernatural explanations like creationism had some evidence? For example, why would Laplace have studied orbital stability if a supernatural explanation like creationism could be described as having some evidence?

In that case, I don't think there would be a reason for Laplace or anyone else to have studied orbital stability. And again, that list isn't exhaustive.

This has nothing to do with statistics, Jane. If we take seriously the idea that supernatural explanations can have some evidence, science would be destroyed. In a very real way, we owe all our current technology to our predecessors’ refusal to take seriously the idea that supernatural explanations can have some evidence.

... As he states above, he has had some kind of personal issue with the young-earthers, so apparently -- this is as close as I can figure but it's only a guess -- if anybody says anything even in the same paragraph where they are mentioned, of which he disapproves, that must somehow equal "support" for their ideas. What utter garbage. ...

Actually, my conversations with young-earth creationists have been mostly civil and respectful. For instance, none of them ever called me a goddamned stupid dumbshit despicable human being fraudulent dishonest lying fucking moron idiot asshole malicious lying sonofabitch.

As usual, Jane's guess is exactly backwards. I don't have any personal issues with young-earth creationists because they were comparatively polite and comparatively scientifically literate. In fact, I look back more and more fondly on my pleasant, productive conversations with them after "enjoying" each of Jane's adorable comments...

Comment: Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413 413

"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...

Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.

As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.

Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".

Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.

But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.

It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on the axes. Amusingly, TapeCutter showed Jane that he was complaining about a graph that had labels with actual numbers. It's even stranger that Jane/Lonny Eachus kept complaining about "unlabeled graphs" for years after being shown a screenshot disproving his claim.

And yet, after years of baselessly complaining about unlabeled axes that he'd already been shown really did have labels, Jane confuses an unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Go figure.

But why not humor Jane? What if Jane's accusation is right, that Marcott et al. 2013 really had "conveniently" left out the MWP and the Little Ice Age? What would that imply? When Marcott et al. 2013 was published, Richard Alley responded:

"... because the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes."

So if Jane insists that the MWP and Little Ice Age anomalies in Marcott et al. 2013 are too small, without corresponding errors in radiative forcings, that implies the Earth is more sensitive to radiative forcings than originally estimated.

... and is cherry-picked to evade discussion the Holocene Optimum. As I understand it, even Young Earthers are willing to accept that the Earth might be as much as 10,000 years old. So why leave out those 4,000 years? The answer is obvious: to avoid having to discuss periods of the past that don't fit her thesis. That's called cherry-picking. ...

Nonsense, Jane. What makes you think the Holocene Optimum doesn't fit her thesis (i.e. the thesis of mainstream climate science)? 6,000 years of data are more than enough. That's roughly as old as civilization. Despite Jane's vague insinuations, an extra 4,000 years of data wouldn't really change Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream conclusions. In fact, I've told Jane that adding an extra 500 million years of data just reinforces Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream concern about rapid CO2 spikes.

Since 500 million years+ of data supports the thesis of mainstream climate science, it's unbelievably silly to insinuate that a specific 4,000 years would somehow not fit that thesis. Does Jane seriously think that Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream climate science thesis would be busted if only she'd shown those exact years? If so... why? (Keep Richard Alley's words in mind.)

If Jane could quote Dr. Hayhoe making an absurd claim like "young-earthers have some evidence" then

Of course they do. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't good evidence, and I am pretty sure most if it is quite invalid. But even very poor-quality evidence is still evidence. You might be surprised learn that the "moon landing is a fake" crowd also have some evidence. Again, it isn't good evidence but some of it took quite a bit of effort to successfully refute. And no, I don't subscribe to their view either. But neither am I a reality denier who claims there is NO such evidence. ...

Since you're repeatedly accusing people of being "reality d***ers" again and again, aren't you worried that by using that odious label you throw away any pretense at objectivity?

Let's pretend the "moon landing is a fake" crowd has a genuine scientific hypothesis rather than conspiratorial delusions. In that case, it's not a supernatural claim like creationism so it's possible to describe them as having some evidence... if one were especially gullible. Ditto with the Obama birther and 9/11 truther crowds. Of course, Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't subscribe to their views either.

But once again none of that applies to creationism because it's a supernatural claim. Once again, evolution is testable science but creationism is religion. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science. Actual competing scientific hypotheses might be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

In fact, I've explained that treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science.

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

Huh? Jane, I simply gave you links to my previous refutations of your examples when I was responding to an actual young-earth creationist. Those examples, and all the other creationist examples I'd already refuted on that page, should suggest who's rigorously addressed the issue.

Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.

... while you may dislike the Cornwall Alliance for whatever reasons of your own, the only "religion" in their actual position, as stated in their "what we believe" section, is here:

1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

Now, other than the stated belief that God created the world -- which, again, is central to all Christian belief -- I see nothing in that statement which is radical or unreasonable, or which actually mixes science with religion. Nor do I see such in the rest of their "What We Believe" or "What We Deny" sections. I see no evidence in those passages that the religious beliefs and the science are getting crossed up at all in the way Hayhoe garbles them together. Now, to be clear, I'm only going by that page you linked to. I know nothing else about them. Nor do I really care, since I've seen nothing to indicate the scientific position is being driven by the religious position.

Jane, you just quoted Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick and the rest of the Cornwall Alliance saying they believe recent global warming is a benign "natural cycle" because God.

Under any other circumstances, Jane would recognize that such a silly "belief" is unscientific. But it's not surprising that Jane can't recognize the divine benign "natural cycle" belief held by Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick et al. is unscientific. After all, Jane's already said: "Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact."

Once again, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane/Lonny Eachus, Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick, etc.

Anyone who claims (as you have) that the creationists and young-earthers have NO evidence, is a reality-denier. They don't have much evidence, and they sure as hell don't have much if any GOOD evidence, but they do have some evidence.

... claiming that even the young-earthers have NO evidence to support their position, is just false. It might be sparse, and it might be bad evidence, but even bad evidence is still evidence. ...

... your implication that you "taught" me Young Earthers are wrong is another example of your subtle distortions. I've known they were wrong since I was in grade school. And I have never (except perhaps in jest, but I don't even recall that) claimed their view was correct. In fact I've publicly denounced it many times in many places, including here earlier. It's really quite fascinating to see you distort things so far that you're actually defending someone who caters to young-earthers, then try to imply that somehow I might be defending them. I'm not and I haven't.

Jane, Dr. Hayhoe never said that "young-earthers have some evidence" which is "catering to young-earthers" much more than simply not wanting to "provoke" even more misogynist hate mail. It seems like many guys (and guys posing as gals) are easily "provoked" into attacking female scientists simply for presenting mainstream science that challenges the guys' preconceptions. (For instance, Jane/Lonny Eachus will also deny attacking Dr. Naomi Oreskes.)

So I understand Dr. Hayhoe's desire to avoid unnecessary conflict, but once again if you could quote Dr. Hayhoe making an absurd claim like "young-earthers have some evidence" then I'd finally agree with your accusations that she's an enemy of science who caters to young-earthers, spreads scientific falsehoods and makes demonstrably false claims. But you can't, can you?

It's really quite fascinating to see you distort things so far that you keep insisting that only a "reality d***er" would claim "young-earthers have NO evidence" and simultaneously object to implications that you're defending young-earthers. But you can't say both and remain self-consistent. Choose one. Or keep "pulling a Jane".

Of course I have, above. You just can't accept that your insults are unprovoked and your regurgitated accusations are false.

Again with the distortions. You haven't demonstrated anything about provocation, in either direction. ... you've shown us absolutely no -- not one word -- of actual evidence that any of my comments were "unprovoked". ...

Once again, it simply doesn't matter to Jane/Lonny Eachus that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults. Once again I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that all his unprovoked insults are justified. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus will coyly insinuate (without links, of course) that Dr. Hayhoe really has contacted him and "provoked" him into baselessly accusing Dr. Hayhoe of being a flake with no credibility who spreads scientific falsehoods and makes demonstrably false claims. Maybe Jane/Lonny will simply claim that he was provoked into making all these baseless accusations because something Dr. Hayhoe said publicly really hurt his feeling. Who knows?

The one thing we can rule out is Jane/Lonny admitting that his baseless accusations and insults were unprovoked. Not just to Dr. Hayhoe, but to everyone on that growing list. (Now including "the Red Pope", CSI, Barry Bickmore, etc.)

Anyone who doubts that cynical viewpoint should read this exchange. All the stars would burn out before Jane/Lonny Eachus admits his insults are unprovoked.

Comment: Re:suckers (Score 1) 141 141

You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you. I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]

And I know you've been repeatedly talking about absolute changes without referring to timescales, which means you're (inadvertently?) ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of our CO2 emissions. Can we agree that adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited? Or, once again, would you like to dispute that proposition for either migration or evolution, or both?

Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodies of water because of the CO2 they emit. I am really surprised that you aren't advocating draining all the lakes. And I repeat, too: beavers probably back up more water than hydroelectric dams do. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-10]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2. In fact, that's the position Jane/Lonny keeps citing, and I keep debunking!

Once again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. Once again, that's just silly, Jane. Speaking of "talking to yourself" did you notice that you're the only one talking about CO2 emitted by bodies of water, or anything related to vegetation to begin with? I just explained that I was only referring to the limited extent that any concrete structure like a dam rapidly emits CO2, compared to the huge extent that a coal plant does for the same energy.

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692 692

... you cherry-picked a quote out of it:

Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).

While completely ignoring the very next sentence:

"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."

If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.

... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:

While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....

Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.

... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.

As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.

I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled all other anthropogenic warming factors aside from CO2. This is evident because the CO2 forcing estimate of ~1.66 W/m^2 is within the error bars of the total anthropogenic forcing estimate.

So the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" applies to our universe because global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975, leaving the total anthropogenic forcing in 2005 very close to the total CO2 forcing. And as I pointed out, that NAS statement turned out to be quite accurate.

But to return to the actual point Jane made:

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" [Dumb Scientist]

So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]

Jane dismissed the NAS because Jane mistakenly thinks the NAS claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. But all they did was refer to perfectly valid evidence that SO2 emissions reflect sunlight, and reasonably say that if the current emissions trends in 1975 continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2.

Once again, those emissions trends didn't continue. So their if statement simply doesn't apply in our universe. The statement they made which does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Needless to say, this isn't a reason to dismiss the NAS. Quite the opposite...

Once again, you dig up old shit as if I were saying it now. That's a really terrible habit, you know. Either you don't learn, or you think I don't. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane hasn't learned about the irony of criticizing my "really terrible habit" after Jane repeatedly digs up reports from 40 years ago. Jane complains about my link to the last time I debunked his talking point just 6 months ago while Jane digs up a NAS report from 40 years ago as though it contradicts a modern NAS report (even though it doesn't).

Comment: Re:suckers (Score 1) 141 141

"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere." Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your way out of that. As far as hydro dams contribute to "ocean acidification", there is zero evidence that they contribute any at all, COMPARED TO natural lakes of the same size. Another point I made which you are trying to weasel out of. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. "Limited extent" isn't overridden by "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere" and these aren't weasel words. Once again, my point is that anything which rapidly increases CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to ocean acidification. Coal plants do this to a huge extent. I've explained that conventional nuclear plants do this to a limited extent because of mining/enrichment/recycling/disposal of fuel, and because of curing the concrete containment domes. Hydro dams typically require pouring lots of concrete, so they're similar to nuclear power in that respect.

I strongly support nuclear power for many reasons, but one is that a lot of electricity in the USA and the world is generated by coal plants, which are responsible to a huge extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that I acknowledge that nuclear power plants (and solar/wind, etc.) are responsible to a limited extent for the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't constitute trying to "weasel" out of anything. So it's not clear why Jane accuses me of doing that with respect to hydro dams, and it's not clear why Jane is ranting at me about them. Again, I don't have anything against hydro dams or bodies of water, nor do I think we should eliminate lakes. That's just silly, Jane.

I specifically stated that I wasn't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period. Did you not see that? I made that statement in so many words. Is there something wrong with you? In fact, I see you quoted my comment about that. Reading comprehension much? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. The fact that you weren't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period is exactly my point. I've been telling you that for months, because for months you've been saying things like ""Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today's CO2."

You've been repeating nonsense like this for months, irrelevantly tweaking the factor to "well over 10" in your most recent regurgitation. For months, you've been comparing absolute CO2 values, which is wrong. Only rapid increases in CO2 concentration cause ocean acidification. After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."

If Jane really doesn't need a lecture, then Jane already sees why his repetitive comparisons of absolute CO2 values are misleading. Jane should be examining the rate of change of CO2 concentration, like Kiessling and Simpson 2010 who concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."

So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.

But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.

That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.

Sure. If we buy your assumptions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, MY assumptions? Jane, I just referenced each "assumption" to the peer-reviewed literature. They're not my assumptions. And again, Diffenbaugh and Field 2013 (PDF) reached the same basic conclusion by noting "potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid."

Note that the PETM happened within the last 65 million years. These aren't my assumptions, Jane.

... You say a lot about "causes", but you don't actually show any causes. We all know the saying about correlations and causations. But there were A LOT of things going on here, and you don't have shit for showing causes. You can ASSUME all you like, but that doesn't make evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-06]

Good grief, Jane. I've already told you that Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes: "The main phase of the PETM was characterized by a 5C global warming driven by the massive release of greenhouse gas..."

Cui et al. 2011 isn't alone. If you don't believe me, look around (not on blogs, but on Web of Science or Google Scholar, etc.) for peer-reviewed papers about the PETM. Papers which address PETM causality will likely note that the PETM was caused/driven/forced by a massive release of greenhouse gas (CO2 or CH4). If you find a peer-reviewed paper disputing this fact which wasn't written by a Sky Dragon Slayer, please let us know.

Comment: Re:suckers (Score 1) 141 141

Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.

Another straw-man. Actually two. Hydro dams have been accused of emitting a "pulse" of CO2 when the plant-covered area behind them is flooded. Perhaps, but no more than if the same area burned in a forest fire. Hardly significant. THEN, the other accusation is that they emit CO2 because organic material falls on them and decomposes at the bottom. Also probably true. BUT... that is no more true of the dam than it is of any other large body of water. Apparently you have something against bodies of water. Do you think we should eliminate lakes because of the CO2 they emit? Because that's basically your argument. And beavers probably flood more total area than hydro dams do. I find that argument truly laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power, while supporting them. I'm not accusing hydro dams of anything. And I certainly don't have something against bodies of water, or think we should eliminate lakes "because of the CO2 they emit"(?!). In fact, my argument has always been that bodies of water aren't emitting significant amounts of CO2.

Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change

It wasn't mistaken, it was quite deliberate. Nor was it misleading. I was comparing values from the Cambrian period. It's rather pointless to talk about "rate of change" between Cambrian and now (see chart again), when the time period was > 500 million years ago, and concentrations have had many rises and falls since then. Another straw man. I know your point is partly about rate of change, but it's ALSO about total change. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.

As Jane says, CO2 concentrations have had many rises and falls over the last 500 million years. That's why I've repeatedly showed Jane Kiessling and Simpson 2010, which concluded that "four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA [ocean acidification] and rapid global warming."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010 isn't misleading because, unlike Jane, they examined CO2's rate of change over the last 500 Myr.

... we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperature rise. ... There are many variables to the PETM situation, not all of which are known. Among them, as I have stated, was whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures or the other way around. What caused the pulse of methane, or whatever it was (still unknown)? There are several theories, none of them strong enough to dominate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. I've told you that glacial transitions are orbitally forced, so ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the glacial cycle. In other words, the warming caused by that outgassed CO2 is necessary to explain the full amplitude of that orbitally forced glacial cycle, regardless of the "lag". Richard Alley made similar remarks on ice core "lags" at 33:51 in his 2009 AGU talk. He calls this topic "the one that I'm supposed to be fired for" because of the charming and familiar email he shared at 3:42.

Ironically, I mentioned the end-Permian extinction and PETM above specifically because both events were forced by rapid CO2 emissions (like modern AGW) rather than orbitally forced like Milankovitch cycles. The end-Permian and PETM weren't orbitally forced, so Jane's tired nonsense about "whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures" is just as irrelevant now as it was when a WUWT commenter tried it out on me.

I've repeatedly noted that in the case of the PETM it's not known if the forcing was CO2 or methane, but methane oxidizes to CO2 within decades anyway.

Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes: "Atmospheric pCO2 increases from 834 ppm to either 1,500 ppm (CH4 scenario) or 4,200 ppm (Corg scenario) during the main phase of the PETM (Fig. 4d). The corresponding global ocean surface temperature increase during the peak PETM is 2.1C (CH4 scenario) and 6.5C (Corg scenario) respectively. (Fig. 4e)."

Like I've told Jane, Henry's Law just won't allow ~6.5C of ocean surface warming to release anywhere near that much CO2 or CH4. I later told Jane that John Nielsen-Gammon dismisses a similar suggestion that modern warming caused the huge modern atmospheric CO2 increase by noting that would imply negative CO2 concentrations during the last glacial maximum. That might be one reason why papers like Cui et al. 2011 are very blunt about the causality: "The main phase of the PETM was characterized by a 5C global warming driven by the massive release of greenhouse gas..."

I did ignore the PETM paper because it's worth ignoring in this context. CO2 levels at the time were already several times what they are now, and according to that paper, they then briefly multiplied by 3 to 4 times that level. So they are referring to a rapid rise to roughly 9 to 12 times current CO2 levels or more. (You can see the blip in the chart I referenced.) We aren't looking at anything like that in the near future. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

No, we're looking at a much faster increase in the near future. Since CO2 warming is roughly logarithmic, multiplying CO2 levels by 3 to 4 times causes roughly the same long-term surface warming regardless of the starting CO2 level. (Some caveats.)

Note that IPCC AR5 scenario RCP 8.5 projects ~900 ppm CO2 by 2100. That's ~3 times higher than its value in 1900, which is the lower bound of Currano et al. 2007's PETM CO2 multiplication factor of 3-4. Currano et al. 2007 also estimated that global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C during the PETM, which is also roughly comparable to the projected RCP 8.5 warming by 2100.

So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.

But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.

That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.

Diffenbaugh and Field 2013 (PDF) reach the same basic conclusion by noting "potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid."

And it's already begun. Cui et al. 2011 (PDF) notes that during the PETM, "the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.3-1.7 PgC/yr, much slower than the present rate of carbon emissions."

They're right. Current emissions are already ~10 PgC/yr, which is already ~5 times faster than emissions during the PETM, even without projecting into the near future.

So no, we aren't looking at anything like the PETM in the near future. No. We're looking at a change of comparable magnitude, but much faster. And it's already begun.

... Further yet, not just insects but plants and mammals thrived during that period. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Mammals actually shrank during the PETM, and plants got chewed to pieces because "insects thrived" basically means "plague of locusts".

It's bizarre that some people seem to think this wouldn't cause any damage to human agriculture.

Comment: Re:suckers (Score 1) 141 141

If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?

Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again it's meaningless to ask if an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere causes significant ocean acidification. If that 50 ppm increase occurs over centuries or millenia, it's less likely to cause significant ocean acidification than if it occurs over decades because of the higher rate of increase.

... You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

No, I've already told you that your second question is meaningless because paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

There's a difference between "unknown" and "unknown to Jane".

... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change. Once again, if atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification.

... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane's telepathy fails once again, because I'm not asking Jane to join in feelings which he might be projecting. I'm just asking Jane to stop spreading misinformation. For instance, Honisch et al. 2012 "rather vaguely and timidly suggests" that "Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place."

Once again, the rate of pH change is more important than the absolute pH change, because adaptation via migration and evolution is rate limited. That's why I suggested these papers the last time Jane drew mistaken conclusions from the absolute change in atmospheric CO2 rather than its rate of increase:

Payne and Clapham 2012: End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?

"The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth's largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010: On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises

"Anthropogenic rise in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads to global warming and acidification of the oceans. Ocean acidification (OA) is harmful to many organisms but especially to those that build massive skeletons of calcium carbonate, such as reef corals. Here, we test the recent suggestion that OA leads not only to declining calcification of reef corals and reduced growth rates of reefs but may also have been a trigger of ancient reef crises and mass extinctions in the sea. We analyse the fossil record of biogenic reefs and marine organisms to (1) assess the timing and intensity of ancient reef crises, (2) check which reef crises were concurrent with inferred pulses of carbon dioxide concentrations and (3) evaluate the correlation between reef crises and mass extinctions and their selectivity in terms of inferred physiological buffering. We conclude that four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA and rapid global warming. However, only two of the big five mass extinctions show geological evidence of OA."

That PETM paper is also worth reading, even if you just skip to the pictures of fossilized leaves with insect teeth marks. Again, it has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum

"The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 55.8 Ma), an abrupt global warming event linked to a transient increase in pCO2, was comparable in rate and magnitude to modern anthropogenic climate change. Here we use plant fossils from the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming to document the combined effects of temperature and pCO2 on insect herbivory. We examined 5,062 fossil leaves from five sites positioned before, during, and after the PETM (59–55.2 Ma). The amount and diversity of insect damage on angiosperm leaves, as well as the relative abundance of specialized damage, correlate with rising and falling temperature. All reach distinct maxima during the PETM, and every PETM plant species is extensively damaged and colonized by specialized herbivores. Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures."

Since human agriculture competes with insects and roughly a billion humans depend on seafood, this suggests our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are causing more than zero damage. And it seems like over a dozen national science academies agree that our rapid CO2 emissions are causing more than zero damage, because they've said with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable".

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692 692

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact"

So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]

Go ahead.

Comment: Re:suckers (Score 1) 141 141

I'm sorry for still being alive. Think carefully about context, and you'll realize your accusations of dishonesty are baseless. Once again.

As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.

Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692 692

I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692 692

Yes, what you're saying matches my conclusions.

Of course, the link between clouds and temperature is even less straightforward. As I recall the research suggests there is only a very small effect on average temperatures, though there is a dramatic effect on the diurnal variation - cloud cover tends to stabilize temperatures, causing slower heating during the day, but also slower cooling at night.

Yes. Another complication is that high, thin clouds warm the surface while "low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth."

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...