Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Gordon_R]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles


What is being argued is that because there is no way to distinguish between natural or artificial CO2, it is not reasonable to conclude that the system treats natural and artificial CO2 differently.

LOL, that link leads to the most amusing description I have read on Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly how this applies to global warming, but it does refer to the level of discussion on this thread:

Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via reductio ad absurdum, such as the following argument based on a secret identity:

1. Entities x and y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa.
2. Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact.
3. Lois Lane thinks that Clark Kent cannot fly.
4. Lois Lane thinks that Superman can fly.
5. Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly.
6. Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent.
7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:
   • Leibniz's law is wrong; or
   • A person's knowledge about x is not a predicate of x; or
   • The application of Leibniz's law is erroneous; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic, properties; or
   • What people think about are not the actual objects themselves; or
   • A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs.

Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

LOL, that link leads to the most amusing description I have read on Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly how this applies to global warming, but it does refer to the level of discussion on this thread:

I'm also not sure what your discrediting of Descartes has to do with a principle forwarded by Leibniz.

Given what you've quoted, however, I'm satisfied to grant that what is known about [x] is not a predicate of [x] as a way of resolving whatever little dilemma you believe you've uncovered.

Nevertheless, I think that you will find that science as a whole depends upon stable concepts of identity such that any two hydrogen atoms can be treated as being identical insofar as they retain all the same properties. The bone of contention, as it applies to this discussion, would seem to be as I initially indicated, i.e. whether or not there are any property differences between natural and artificial CO2 that can be identified.

Unless you have a candidate to propose here, what's the issue?

 

[Cray]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles


What is being argued is that because there is no way to distinguish between natural or artificial CO2, it is not reasonable to conclude that the system treats natural and artificial CO2 differently.

Which is fine I miss-quoting a principal of Einstein's which has no application except in describing general relativity is more than a little dishonest.

If his conclusions are valid let them stand on their own merits rather than trying to prop it up on the shoulders of better men.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Which is fine I miss-quoting a principal of Einstein's which has no application except in describing general relativity is more than a little dishonest.

The words mean the same thing. The identity of indiscernables is an equivalence principle. It is saying that two indiscernable things are equivalent. i.e. "A = A"

This is not what dishonesty looks like, sorry.

 

[Cray]

The words mean the same thing. The identity of indiscernables is an equivalence principle. It is saying that two indiscernable things are equivalent. i.e. "A = A"

This is not what dishonesty looks like, sorry.

Yeah No, attaching Einstein's theories to something totally unrelated to give it un-earned legitimacy is exactly what dishonesty looks like.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Yeah No, attaching Einstein's theories to something totally unrelated to give it un- earned legitimacy is exactly what dishonest looks like.

He didn't attach Einstein's anything, you did.

Within GR, there is an equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass, such that iM = gM. That's what the equivalence principle means within the context of GR.

What the climate guy's argument does is make an analogous use of the same principle, but within the context of atmospheric gasses. Einstein, however, did not invent it. In fact, the first incarnation of it is probably Aristotle's law of identity.

 

[Geoff.D]

Having read Ed Berry's original "paper" which appears to have been the main reference used in the article, including ALL the comments to his paper while it was open for comments, I understand what Ed Berry was driving at with his reference to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Certainly, he could have used a much better way to describe what he was referring to when he made the statement. I am pretty sure there is a better scientific way but I can't find it (yet).
Never the less, the issue is about what "natural processes" do with the CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is pretty clear that CO2 absorbed by the Oceans as one example does not distinguish between so-called man-made CO2 and "natural CO2" --- both will be absorbed by the Oceans.


There appears to be a way now of verifying the "source" of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs found in the atmosphere, which it is claimed can distinguish between CO2 from "natural processes" such as volcanic eruptions and CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Have not found a decent reference yet to how this is done and monitored.

Edit:/ I suggest that those interested do read Ed Berry's original paper and description of his model and commentary on the Bern model used by the IPCC.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Something I think that many are also not aware of is how important CO2 is in the world around us, not only for life but also for technology. Pretty much every single thing around you that was not mined from the ground (like metals, glass, rocks) originated from atmospheric CO2.

 

[Cray]

He didn't attach Einstein's anything, you did.

Oh FFS, Xarog, really...?

https://www.esi-africa.com/industry...-ed-climate-change-a-different-point-of-view/

Einstein used the Equivalence Principle to develop his General Theory of Relativity. He realised that data cannot tell the difference between gravity and inertial forces. Therefore, they are the same thing. This equivalence is the foundation of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that is used today.

 

[Geoff.D]

Oh FFS, Xarog, really...?

https://www.esi-africa.com/industry...-ed-climate-change-a-different-point-of-view/

And that is a quote out of Ed Berry's paper in which he describes his Carbon cycle model based purely on inflows, outflows and the Gas laws (excluding Henry's Law), as his model is about the atmosphere not including the oceans.
The Issues is about the Bern model used by the IPCC. The Bern model implies that nature will treat CO2 derived from different sources differently, which Berry contends is not so.

As indicated in this post:

What the climate guy's argument does is make an analogous use of the same principle, but within the context of atmospheric gasses. Einstein, however, did not invent it. In fact, the first incarnation of it is probably Aristotle's law of identity.

a much simpler explanation would have been to simply stick to the Law of Identity:

In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic.

The "data" used by CC Scientists measure CO2 in the atmosphere. At best the "data available" on CO2 can reflect the amount of 13C, 12C, 14C in the atmosphere all of which arise from both natural and man-made processes. The Bern Models used by the IPCC ( there are a few variants) "claim" or propose that the different forms of CO2 stay in the atmosphere for different times, which Berry rejects because he says nature is incapable of telling them apart and the data available cannot at the moment confirm the different proportions of each in the atmosphere.
14CO2 = 13CO2 = 12CO2 , they are identical as far as the carbon processes are concerned and therefore are equivalent to each other.

Therefore the Bern model is trying to come up with predictions based on plenty of guesswork, which is just "clouding the debate" (pun intended).

Hence his derivation of a simple straight forward model based on physics instead of plenty of mathematical gymnastics.

Inflows + Storage capacity of the atmosphere - outflows = the Carbon Balance driven by the Gas Laws of Physiscs.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Oh FFS, Xarog, really...?

https://www.esi-africa.com/industry...-ed-climate-change-a-different-point-of-view/

I was going by the summary of the argument.

As for the equivalence in GR, he is invoking it absolutely perfectly within the context of the quote. Einstein indeed found that an increase in inertia translated into an increase in gravitational mass. That's the basis of time dilation and all the other funky effects of general relativity.

There's nothing dishonest about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. It is the first of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle. However, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provide inference rules, such as modus ponens or DeMorgan's Laws.
In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic. It is that which is expressed by the equals sign "=", the notion of identity or equality. It can also be written less formally as A is A. One statement of such a principle is "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose."

Unless you can establish how Einstein's equivalence principle is fundamentally distinct from the equivalence principle at play within the laws of logic, which no doubt Einstein inherited from those who did science before him, I really don't see how your complaint has any validity whatsoever.

 

[Geoff.D]

And Berry is by no means the only one challenging the Bern Mathematical models. I came across another rather humorous commentary of the Bern model : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/

with these quotes which are pretty spot on in my opinion:

Y’know, it’s hard to figure out what the Bern model says about anything. This is because, as far as I can see, the Bern model proposes an impossibility. It says that the CO2 in the air is somehow partitioned, and that the different partitions are sequestered at different rates. /snip/
Now let me stop here to discuss, not the numbers, but the underlying concept. The part of the Bern model that I’ve never understood is, what is the physical mechanism that is partitioning the CO2 so that some of it is sequestered quickly, and some is sequestered slowly?
/snip/
So my question is, how do the sinks know the difference? Why don’t the fast-acting sinks just soak up the excess CO2, leaving nothing for the long-term, slow-acting sinks?

It is all a bit of a joke really - a model with "fiddle factors" which can be "tuned" to generate whatever outcome you want. And they wonder why they have such a spread of rather incomprehensible scenarios (to laymen including Politicians), but not to critical scientist analysts more than capable of seeing through the mathematical gymnastics and smoke and mirror BS, and suspicious outcomes.

It always comes back to the suspicion that the UNFCCC and the IPCC defined a definition of AGW (now ACC) and are hell-bent on manipulating the data to get this pre-determined answer come hell or HiCO2.

 

[Cray]

I was going by the summary of the argument.

Unless you can establish how Einstein's equivalence principle is fundamentally distinct from the equivalence principle at play within the laws of logic, which no doubt Einstein inherited from those who did science before him, I really don't see how your complaint has any validity whatsoever.

Please cite the prior scientific research that Einstein supposedly inherited where the equivalence principle or the Law of identity is used as fundamental in scientific research?

 

[rietrot]

Please cite the prior scientific research that Einstein supposedly inherited where the equivalence principle or the Law of identity is used as fundamental in scientific research?

What is the point even?

 

[Cray]

What is the point even?

Surely it must be an easy thing to provide? I mean GBM had "no doubt" in making the claim, I would just like to see some evidence of this principle being used anywhere else in any scientific research...

 

[rietrot]

Surely it must be an easy thing to provide? I mean GBM had "no doubt" in making the claim, I would just like to see some evidence of this principle being used anywhere else in any scientific research...

Why?

 

[Cray]

Why?

Troll elsewhere...

 

[rietrot]

Troll elsewhere...

It's a legitimate qeustion. What point are you trying to make that wasn't addressed in #566. You don't have something here, and you are wondering down a path blindly arguing semantics.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Please cite the prior scientific research that Einstein supposedly inherited where the equivalence principle or the Law of identity is used as fundamental in scientific research?

Surely it must be an easy thing to provide? I mean GBM had "no doubt" in making the claim, I would just like to see some evidence of this principle being used anywhere else in any scientific research...

You realise that for almost a millenium, what passed for "science" in the Western world was the writings of Aristotle, yes?

You do realise the fact that Aristotle was the one who coined the 3 classical laws of logic?

Do you think that science can work without something as basic as being able to draw equivalences such as E=mc2?

 

[Gordon_R]

Having read Ed Berry's original "paper" which appears to have been the main reference used in the article, including ALL the comments to his paper while it was open for comments, I understand what Ed Berry was driving at with his reference to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Certainly, he could have used a much better way to describe what he was referring to when he made the statement. I am pretty sure there is a better scientific way but I can't find it (yet).
Never the less, the issue is about what "natural processes" do with the CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is pretty clear that CO2 absorbed by the Oceans as one example does not distinguish between so-called man-made CO2 and "natural CO2" --- both will be absorbed by the Oceans.


There appears to be a way now of verifying the "source" of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs found in the atmosphere, which it is claimed can distinguish between CO2 from "natural processes" such as volcanic eruptions and CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Have not found a decent reference yet to how this is done and monitored.

Edit:/ I suggest that those interested do read Ed Berry's original paper and description of his model and commentary on the Bern model used by the IPCC.

I didn't have time to look further, but this link does a thorough job on demolishing that source: https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-ed-berry-is-full-of-****.html

It's the bathtub model.

You don't even have to look at Ed's equations -- because this POS model is obviously wrong for CO2.

It's shitty because the real world of carbon dioxide isn't a bathtub. This is obvious and I just do not understand how a semi-intelligent person does not understand this.

Climate denialism turns the brains of semi-smart people to dog food.

Why is this model wrong? Because CO2 doesn't follow a simple in-out model. CO2 inputs come from burning fossil fuels, and from the ocean, and from the land, and from the biosphere as a result of warming. Even a bit, about 0.5-1%, from volcanoes.

Where does the CO2 go? It goes into the atmosphere and the ocean and the soil. Do you see any of these sinks in Ed Berry's model -- and that they also serve as sources of CO2?

No. NO. Of course not. Ed doesn't do real physics. Or care about it in any way. He's a denier who left science a long time ago.

Back to reality: in fact, humans are responsible for all of the excess carbon in today's atmosphere. And, in fact, nature still absorbs not only as much CO2 as it admits, but also about 50% more, of what humans emit -- the so-called airborne fraction.

Don't believe me? Consider this -- Ed has been trying to get his paper published for almost two years now. It has been rejected -- he won't say how many times. And he wonders why.... The answer is, because his claims are full of ****!

Some people just refuse to learn. Literally. Climate denialists, like Ed, most of all.

People: if your claim does not agree with the consensus claims honed over a century, the chances are overwhelming that you are mistaken and not thousands of scientists. You'd think someone who once did science would know that.