Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,898 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

The effect of CO2 on average temperature is well known & well proven. That is chemistry not climate science The key is the word "average" as there are other factors at play that can cause short term variations and even a decade is short term. The fact of the matter is that an increase in CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature whether it is this year or 20 years from now. Either way we are responsible for changing our world in a way, and at a rate, that we may be unable to handle. That is the crux of the matter, not blips in year by year data. We have data and even atmospheric samples (from amber bubbles) from the past know the effects on the climate of the time. What worked for dinosaurs is not likely to work well for us.

You "ad hom" attempts to defend quack science, Chris, make no sense.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 13 2011, 01:46 AM
The effect of CO2 on average temperature is well known & well proven. That is chemistry not climate science The key is the word "average" as there are other factors at play that can cause short term variations and even a decade is short term. The fact of the matter is that an increase in CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature whether it is this year or 20 years from now. Either way we are responsible for changing our world in a way, and at a rate, that we may be unable to handle. That is the crux of the matter, not blips in year by year data. We have data and even atmospheric samples (from amber bubbles) from the past know the effects on the climate of the time. What worked for dinosaurs is not likely to work well for us.

You "ad hom" attempts to defend quack science, Chris, make no sense.
First, my charges of ad hom are not defensive of anything. It is merely to point out how some people litter their posts with logical fallacies. It seems to me you wish to defend it. But how, tell us, can fallacious argumentation lead to true conclusions? Really, please explain that.



"The effect of CO2 on average temperature is well known & well proven. That is chemistry not climate science The key is the word "average" as there are other factors at play that can cause short term variations and even a decade is short term. The fact of the matter is that an increase in CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature whether it is this year or 20 years from now."

It's well-known and proven that CO2 rises cause temp rises, oh, but there are other factors at play? IOW, such oversimplifications obscure the complexity of climate, which as NGC pointed out, is not very well known.

The key word is not so much average, a statistical manipulation of data, but running means to form trend lines that ignore details.

A decade is short term yet "CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature whether it is this year...."? And over a decade. But it's not happening.

Well proven? Science doesn't prove things.


I do appreciate your arguing facts logically, that promotes discussion. I've responded to some of the contradictions and holes in your statements, please respond in kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"The fact of the matter is that an increase in CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature"

Pretty much what Brewster argues.

The last decade doesn't support that conclusion.

Nor do data over the last 11,000 years.

ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE AND CARBON DIOXIDE: FEEDBACK OR EQUILIBRIUM? (pdf)

Following a discussion of your and Brewster's conclusion, the author presents this argument:
Quote:
 
Let us turn our attention to the last 11,000 years, during which humans have disturbed the equilibrium between T and CO2. The most recent CO2 determination from the ice-core has a date of about 340 BCE. We can add an early-industrial-era value of 290 ppm at 1800 CE and a value of 365 ppm at 2000 CE to provide figure 4. The scaling in the figure is consistent with the equilibrium model that fits the overall Vostok record, where a change of 1 °C in T causes a change of 10 ppm in CO2.

Posted Image

T and CO2 appear to have been in equilibrium until about 3,000 BCE. Over the 5,000 years since then, CO2 has risen increasingly above its natural equilibrium. By 1,800 CE, CO2 had risen to a level comparable to the highest in the Vostok record. During this time, T declined at a rate of 0.1 °C per thousand years, indicating again that CO2 has no apparent effect on T. The trends of this 5,000-year interval of excess CO2 are consistent with the equilibrium model, in which T is independent of CO2.

Nor does data over the last 420,000 years:
Quote:
 
The last 5,000 years are trivial compared to the 420,000 years of the Vostok record; of even less significance are the last 1,200 years. However, climate science has put great emphasis on the features of this interval, even though they fit within the noise-envelope. The “medieval warm period” spanned 800 CE to 1,200 CE; Vostok shows it wasn’t really warm, but wasn’t really cold either. The “little ice age” followed (although average T was barely lower), and ended after the low of -1.84 °C around 1,770 CE. By the early 1800s, T was higher than it is at present, and it has fluctuated within levels typical of the last 11,000 years since then. It is remarkable that climate hysteria should be based on noise-level changes in T over the last 200 years, which is an eye-blink in the Vostok record....

Edited by Chris, Nov 13 2011, 02:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You know climate science contains many factors, some of which tend to cancel each other out. For exampel particulate pollution in the past has tended to offset greenhouse gas pollution. What I am talking about is basic chemistry. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas. There is no escaping that fact, it can be proven in a laboratory. It isn't going anywhere, the balance of it in the atmosphere has changed and it is more or less permanent unless some way can be foudn to scrub it out, which is unlikely. If we disappeared off the planet tomorrow it would take millennia for the balance to restore itself, assuming no other outside incidents prevented that. We have managed in the course of a couple of hundred years to invoke a change int he composition of our atmosphere that natural processes would have taken millenia to accomplish. The increase in concentration is measurable, the effects can be proven in a Lab. How the heck can anyone with any logical sense try to deny that. the problem with you people is you let your political dogma get in the way of both what is common sense & logic, without even bringing science into the equation. Bring the science in, which is overwhelmingly against your position, and it's a no brainer. You may as well argue that dumping raw sewage into a reservoir has no effect on your drinking water. I am assuming you can understand the logic in that one, since its reduced to a local scale not a planetary one and supposedly is easier for a human brain to grasp. When it comes to climate change a large number of people appear to have lost the ability to put 2 & 2 together & come up with 4. Its like a disease of collective stupidity. It is a repeat of what Columbus was up against. I thought modern humans were beyond that sort of self induced blindness. Apaprently not.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You claimed "The fact of the matter is that an increase in CO2 levels means an increase in global temperature"

That's what I argued. See above.

"How the heck can anyone with any logical sense try to deny that. the problem with you people is you let your political dogma get in the way of both what is common sense & logic, without even bringing science into the equation.... Its like a disease of collective stupidity. It is a repeat of what Columbus was up against. I thought modern humans were beyond that sort of self induced blindness. Apaprently not."

Ad hom. :-) Made up too, since I have presented scientific data and arguments.

Why didn't you respond to what I said?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 12 2011, 12:14 PM
But in the case of global warming, as I reported in post #64, most scientists have withheld judgment on the matter taking a wait and see attitude that 13 to 15 years on no rise in warming is not significant enough, though 17 might be, against a recently reported dramatic rise in CO2 levels.
I thought we agreed that "most scientists" is irrelevant since this is not their area of expertise. The question is what is the consensus of those scientists expert in the questions about planetary climatology, atmospheric physics and the such?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 13 2011, 02:48 AM
Chris
Nov 12 2011, 12:14 PM
But in the case of global warming, as I reported in post #64, most scientists have withheld judgment on the matter taking a wait and see attitude that 13 to 15 years on no rise in warming is not significant enough, though 17 might be, against a recently reported dramatic rise in CO2 levels.
I thought we agreed that "most scientists" is irrelevant since this is not their area of expertise. The question is what is the consensus of those scientists expert in the questions about planetary climatology, atmospheric physics and the such?
To say most are withholding judgment till more data comes in is not to cite consensus as proof of a theory about climate.

Your question makes little sense if we agree consensus about theory is irrelevant.

From what I read there's not much consensus to even speak of.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

NGC is correct. A lot of these scientists trying to support the denier crowd are not climate scientists at all. It's like that list someone bought out a couple of years back. All the names were people like doctors & dentists. experts in their own field, sure, but climatology? I don't think so. Climate scientist who are on the denier side almost always turn out to be n the pay of industries with a financial interest in sweeping the problem under the carpet. After all we saw plenty of co-opted scientists working for the tobacco industry in the past as well. The fact is, however, the vast majority of climate scientists agree there is a problem, andthat man is a significant, if not the most significant, factor in it. There are a few who disagree, and many of them have changed their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some skepticism is healthy, no one is denying that, but they are facing overwhelming evidence against their position, and to support it they can only cherry pick isolated bits of data, which is practicing bad science. After all there are some biologists out there who believe in Creation Science as well.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 13 2011, 02:59 AM
ngc1514
Nov 13 2011, 02:48 AM
Chris
Nov 12 2011, 12:14 PM
But in the case of global warming, as I reported in post #64, most scientists have withheld judgment on the matter taking a wait and see attitude that 13 to 15 years on no rise in warming is not significant enough, though 17 might be, against a recently reported dramatic rise in CO2 levels.
I thought we agreed that "most scientists" is irrelevant since this is not their area of expertise. The question is what is the consensus of those scientists expert in the questions about planetary climatology, atmospheric physics and the such?
To say most are withholding judgment till more data comes in is not to cite consensus as proof of a theory about climate.

Your question makes little sense if we agree consensus about theory is irrelevant.

From what I read there's not much consensus to even speak of.
Never said it was any sort of proof. But you seem to have skipped over my question about WHO is withholding judgement. You wrote "most scientists" without specifying a rough listing of academic expertise. We agree the only ones whose judgement matters are the climatologists and others working in that area of expertise.

You have claimed "there's not much consensus to even speak of" while Brew claims the majority of climatologists support the idea of man-caused global warming. (I haven't gone back to verify this claim about Brew, but knowing Brew, I'm sure he will have something to contribute before too long).

The point about "consensus about theory is irrelevant" seems to have left out the proviso about the qualifications of those sharing a consensus. Since we know science "is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic" all consensus signifies is that more people think Theory A describes the observations more accurately that Theory B. Consensus is all we've got, isn't it?

So the question boils down to "What is the consensus of atmospheric physicists and climatologists about the role of CO2 in global warming?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 13 2011, 04:13 AM
Chris
Nov 13 2011, 02:59 AM
ngc1514
Nov 13 2011, 02:48 AM
Chris
Nov 12 2011, 12:14 PM
But in the case of global warming, as I reported in post #64, most scientists have withheld judgment on the matter taking a wait and see attitude that 13 to 15 years on no rise in warming is not significant enough, though 17 might be, against a recently reported dramatic rise in CO2 levels.
I thought we agreed that "most scientists" is irrelevant since this is not their area of expertise. The question is what is the consensus of those scientists expert in the questions about planetary climatology, atmospheric physics and the such?
To say most are withholding judgment till more data comes in is not to cite consensus as proof of a theory about climate.

Your question makes little sense if we agree consensus about theory is irrelevant.

From what I read there's not much consensus to even speak of.
Never said it was any sort of proof. But you seem to have skipped over my question about WHO is withholding judgement. You wrote "most scientists" without specifying a rough listing of academic expertise. We agree the only ones whose judgement matters are the climatologists and others working in that area of expertise.

You have claimed "there's not much consensus to even speak of" while Brew claims the majority of climatologists support the idea of man-caused global warming. (I haven't gone back to verify this claim about Brew, but knowing Brew, I'm sure he will have something to contribute before too long).

The point about "consensus about theory is irrelevant" seems to have left out the proviso about the qualifications of those sharing a consensus. Since we know science "is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic" all consensus signifies is that more people think Theory A describes the observations more accurately that Theory B. Consensus is all we've got, isn't it?

So the question boils down to "What is the consensus of atmospheric physicists and climatologists about the role of CO2 in global warming?"
My claim about most scientists was not to support a theory but confirm a definition we agree on, that science is, at lease, tentative. Post #64 supplies my source.

"You have claimed "there's not much consensus to even speak of" while Brew claims the majority of climatologists support the idea of man-caused global warming. "

Putting his argument squarely in the justificationist camp. Science, we agreed, is not about consensus.

"Since we know science "is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic" all consensus signifies is that more people think Theory A describes the observations more accurately that Theory B. Consensus is all we've got, isn't it?"

So you're taking a justificationist stance?

"So the question boils down to "What is the consensus of atmospheric physicists and climatologists about the role of CO2 in global warming?" "

Not at all, it boils down to what explanation best fits the data. Deutsch again: "The opposing position – namely the recognition that there are not authoritative sources of knowledge, nor any reliable means of justifying ideas as being true or probable, is called fallibilism…to those of us for whom creating knowledge means understanding better what is really there, and how it really behaves and why, fallibilism is part of the very means by which this is achieved. Fallibists expect even their best and most fundamental explanations to contain misconceptions in addition to truth, and so they are predisposed to try to change them for the better."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis