Atomsk's Sanakan

Oh, and just to be transparent: I've posted about this on Twitter, just so people who understand and are genuinely interested in the science, can see the sorts of people we're dealing with and some of the ways they will likely evade evidence.

Some people are beyond having their minds changed by evidence, since they're too busy with personal attacks, saying everything is "bullshit", talking about people instead of addressing scientific evidence, tone trolling, etc. That's why, for example, there are still flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers. Enjoy your corner of the Internet where you can have like-minded folks ignore the scientific evidence with you. Other folks will be off actually reading about, and understanding, the science. See ya.

And that's about as far as you can go.

I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not. You were cited evidence addressing answering your question, and the answer was explained to you at a layman's level. You responded by showing no interest in the evidence or the answers. You were asked questions to help you make it clear which piece of evidence you didn't accept. You responded by willfully ignoring the questions. And you wrapped it up by doing the standard contrarian tactic of acting as if the science you don't accept is on par with religion, while not bothering to actually address the evidence None of your claims display the response of someone actually interested in scientific evidence that addresses their questions. But your lack of a cogent response was a useful object lesson, nonetheless.

And there we have it. You ask for repeatable, falsifiable science on climate change. And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in scientific evidence.

I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer some questions on the science (by the way, I know william.scherk and brad from Twitter; the former from around the time of Scott Adams' climate challenge, and the latter for longer than that). I don't have much patience for ideologically-motivated evasions of science. So what I'm going to do is ask direct questions and then cite you the information needed for answering them. I'm not interested in tangents about me being a Nazi, or other red herrings. The questions I will to ask will help keep things focused on the topic at hand. You don't need to address all of the questions at once; you can pick which ones to address [here's a hint: the right answer to all of them is "yes"]. And I'm not interested in evasions of the questions: Question 1: In the 1960s and 1970s, did scientists predict that increased CO2 would warm the lower atmosphere and cool the middle atmosphere? Or to put this another way: did they predict increased CO2, with tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that increased with increasing stratospheric height? Question 2: In the 1970s, did scientists predict that ozone depletion would cause stratospheric cooling that was pronounced in the lower stratosphere and didn't significantly increase with increasing stratospheric height, such that mitigation of ozone depletion (ex: by limiting CFCs) would mitigate lower stratospheric cooling? Question 3: During the 1970s, did scientists predict that increasing total solar irradiance (TSI) would warm the troposphere, but not significantly cool the stratosphere, instead warming the stratosphere? Question 4: Was there a post-1950s and post-1970s multi-decadal tropospheric warming trend and stratospheric cooling trend, with stratospheric cooling increasing with increasing height? Question 5: Did the Montreal Protocol help successfully mitigate human release of ozone depletion substances, resulting in post-1990s mitigation of lower stratospheric cooling, while cooling continuing higher in the stratosphere? Sources for answering the questions (if you have trouble finding some of the sources, then paste their titles into https://scholar.google.com/ or https://sci-hub.tw/ ) : Question 1: Figure 16: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity" Figure 4b: "The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model" Figure 3: https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/climate/02_technological-forecast-on-co2-greenhouse-effect-1980.pdf Question 2: Figure 12: "Sensitivity of surface-temperature and atmospheric-temperature to perturbations in stratospheric concentration of ozone and nitrogen-dioxide" Figure 18: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity" Question 3: Page 2048: "The effects of changing the solar constant on the climate of a general circulation model" Question 4: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html "Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new data set of large-area anomaly time series" "Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)" Question 5: "Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol" "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer" "Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer" "Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations" "Radiosondes show that after decades of cooling the lower stratosphere is now warming" "Stratospheric temperature climate data record from merged SSU and AMSU-A observations" "Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings"