or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished. - Page 3

post #81 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

No, the key point is that humans are responsible for only a tiny fraction of global warming.

I don't see why you have a problem with this. Do you have a problem with other scientific facts?

If global warming is going to be a problem, we NEED to know what's causing it. Placing the blame where we KNOW it does NOT belong doesn't help anything.

Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Please do!

Because people here don't like the gross oversimplification of the GW problem that you present, that the global perturbations and subsequent rates are what are importent here. Not a black and white, boil it down to one number gross conclusion, A/B = C, a static situation, surely you can present a more concrete and scientifically accepted dynamic GCM effort PROVING negligable human impacts to current/future GW?

Please do!

And if you presist in your 0.28% logic, why we'll submit to you the following FACT, that a one degree centigrade rise in mean global temperature is a 0.34% rise in temperature on the Kelvin scale, you know basic thermodynamics!

So in one sense you are correct, humans have a relatively small impact on GW when the appropriate temperature scale is applied! Get it now?

So it is all about the current rate delta that we as humans are adding to the system and what real impacts these WILL produce going forward.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #82 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Please do!

Because people here don't like an oversimplification of the GW problem that you present, that the global perturbations and subsequent rates are what are importent here. Not a black and white, boil it down to one number gross conclusion, A/B = C, a static situation, surely you can present a more concrete and scientifically accepted dynamic GCM effort PROVING negligable human impacts to current/future GW?

Please do!

And if you presist in your 0.28% logic, why we'll submit to you the following FACT, that a one degree centigrade rise in mean global temperature is a 0.34% rise in temperature on the Kelvin scale, you know basic thermodynamics!

So in one sense you are correct, humans have a relatively small impact on GW when the appropriate temperature scale is applied! Get it now?

So it is all about the current rate delta that we as humans are adding to the system and what real impacts these WILL produce going forward.

Do you have references to any climate models that directly compare climates with and without human input online?
post #83 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Do you have references to any climate models that directly compare climates with and without human input online?

To be honest with you no, BUT that's because I can't find the one I had that was published last fall, and trust me I've spent all day trying to find it on the web. But I do remember it was hard to find the first time. You see my HD crashed about a month ago, and I lost all my (rather good) GW stuff, mostly peer reviewed scientific PDF's.

I can't remember if it was in PNAS or Science or Nature or ???

But I do remember it was published in the September/October 2006 timeframe, and it was quite clear in it's conclusion about human impacts to GW.

About the best I can currently offer is the 2001 IPCC reports (there are A-B comparisons within them), and I believe that the 2007 IPCC reports will provide further evidence with the improvements made to GCM's since the last reports.

But in general math modelling is a 3 step process, 1) theories, 2) calibration of said theories (historic data), and 3) validation (documentation of more recent (or current) events (or a more recent subset of the historic record) and future trends). And that this basic 3 step process is constantly updated with better theoretical models (and/or greater computing capabilities), refined and updated historical data, additional forecasts, and subsequent comparisons with new data to gage how well these models do once they make a set of forecasts.

James Hansen at NOAA has published most recently with their GISS models, which provide excellent agreement with the recent historic records (ice core data and human records of temperature and atmospheric measurements).

NOAA GISS Publications
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #84 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

To be honest with you no...

Let's just say I half agree with you

I know that things like this are more logarithmic, that there's a tipping point, and all that, and my 14% statistic isn't the end all be all.

But my overall point is that regardless of human intervention, CO2 IS going up. Even if we stopped all dependencies on fossil fuels, we'd still need to address the increase in CO2. In other words, that we can't just cut back (though it's always a good thing to err on the side of caution), but that we possibly need to take on drastic methods of CO2 reduction, such as planting insane amounts of trees, or somehow filtering the air. Any of these would be incredibly expensive, so we really need to ascertain our future before we make that call.

You can probably see my frustration, though, with being labeled as a "general GW skeptic." Anne Coulter, I am not (Well, you can also see my frustration with some of ic's completely made up statistics).

I'm just trying to present a viewpoint that's only slightly off the general public's viewpoint (but not, that I've seen, scientia's viewpoint): that simple things like driving a Prius, while a good idea, may not alone be enough to stop global warming. I think people all too easily buy into an idea that combines blaming your neighbor and the promise of a quick fix.
post #85 of 248
Just a thought: I wonder what percentage of smokers' inhalation is tobacco smoke. I'd guess a very tiny percentage - it's probably 99.72% air. Does that mean tobacco smoke couldn't possibly cause lung cancer, and someone would be wasting their time quitting?
post #86 of 248
Ohdeargodpleaseletthatbetrue.

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #87 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Ohdeargodpleaseletthatbetrue.

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.

Good work. Remember this above everything else: it's the very next cig that will get you. All you have to do is not have that one, and you can worry about all the other ones later.

When people backslide it's inevitably because they can afford to have that "one".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #88 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.

Then you're home free! Congrats!

(Watch the food intake, I gained about 15 pounds after I quit. What a bitch.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #89 of 248
Addabox: Yeah, but one would be really, really fucking nice and would apparently not contribute to global climate change.

But I can say that the commit lozenges do the trick.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #90 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Addabox: Yeah, but one would be really, really fucking nice and would apparently not contribute to global climate change.

But I can say that the commit lozenges do the trick.

Tell me about it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #91 of 248
I considered telling you all about what they are and how they work as a joke about taking people literally. And then I remembered this:

Quote:
Steve McCroskey: Jacobs, I want to know absolutely everything that's happened up till now.

Jacobs: Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.

And then I couldn't figure out a way to post it and have it make sense unless I told you how I got to it.

So there it is.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #92 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I considered telling you all about what they are and how they work as a joke about taking people literally. And then I remembered this:



And then I couldn't figure out a way to post it and have it make sense unless I told you how I got to it.

So there it is.

And the coveted "Laughing snake eating its stone faced tail" statuette for meta-meta comedy goes to......
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #93 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)


No, he's not. That's because if you think global warming may not be caused by humans, you're dismissed as an idiot. It's just the way it is. See, global warming is a "fact." Why? Because there's a consensus! Nevermind that any scientist or, well...person that expresses an opposing view is immediately shouted down. Never mind that no person, scientist or not, can explain the variations in the Earth's temperature millions of years before humans were on this earth.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 248
Thread Starter 
Franksargent:

Quote:
Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Well my my, that sounds so sophisticated for my cro-mag brain!

The problem is with the "accuracy." What is "very accurate?" Within how many tenths of a degree are these models accurate? Therein lies the problem.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 248
I am anxiously awaiting the day when conservatives who have adopted postmodernist tactics of argument (very effectively, I might add) realize that those tactics and their own philosophies are diametrically opposed.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #96 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Franksargent:



Well my my, that sounds so sophisticated for my cro-mag brain!

The problem is with the "accuracy." What is "very accurate?" Within how many tenths of a degree are these models accurate? Therein lies the problem.

Well, exactly. God himself could come to your door wearing a sandwich board emblazoned with the words 'YOU ARE FUCKING UP THE ENVIRONMENT' and it wouldn't be enough for you.

Some people don't believe the planet's older than 6,000 years and there's no convincing them either.
post #97 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Just a thought: I wonder what percentage of smokers' inhalation is tobacco smoke. I'd guess a very tiny percentage - it's probably 99.72% air. Does that mean tobacco smoke couldn't possibly cause lung cancer, and someone would be wasting their time quitting?

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. I say that probably too much, but yours really does quite top them all.

Is human-made carbon dioxide somehow more "special" than carbon dioxide from say, volcanoes, or zebras, in that it causes more global warming?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air.
post #98 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air.

Well it has to have a bunch of air in it, though. Otherwise all those chain smokers would be passing out from oxygen deprivation.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #99 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. I say that probably too much, but yours really does quite top them all.

Is human-made carbon dioxide somehow more "special" than carbon dioxide from say, volcanoes, or zebras, in that it causes more global warming?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air.

I think it's a perfect analogy. The fact is, even small amounts of something can cause large effects. Even though a tiny tiny fraction - let's call it .28% - of the total air smokers breathe has cigarette smoke, it's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year. In the same way, even if only a small proportion of the contents of the atmosphere sees a dramatic increase, it may cause huge effects.

How about you try a few millionths of a gram of LSD and tell me that small quantities can't have dramatic effects.
post #100 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Iit's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year.

No no no. We think it is responsible. Correlation does not equal causation! This is the problem with you "humans are affecting global climate change" and "cigarettes cause lung cancer" people...always jumping to conclusions!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #101 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

No no no. We think it is responsible. Correlation does not equal causation! This is the problem with you "humans are affecting global climate change" and "cigarettes cause lung cancer" people...always jumping to conclusions!

But, but, there's a scientific consensus!
post #102 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

But, but, there's a scientific consensus!

Well, there was scientific consensus for geocentrism, too, wasn't there? Hegemony does not equal truth, mister pseudoscientist! :P (my own discipline is, of course rigid and scientific to the core) And besides, it's likely that the medical journals are full of true believers about cigarettes causing lung cancer, and so when an outlier submits, the article is simply rejected. And so what you have is a kind og lung cancer+cigarettes group think or echo chamber. What the world needs is a Copernicus or Galileo to debunk all of this consensus! EPPUR SI MUOVE, I SAY!!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #103 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think it's a perfect analogy. The fact is, even small amounts of something can cause large effects. Even though a tiny tiny fraction - let's call it .28% - of the total air smokers breathe has cigarette smoke, it's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year. In the same way, even if only a small proportion of the contents of the atmosphere sees a dramatic increase, it may cause huge effects.

It's an appallingly bad analogy.

If I were to say that carbon dioxide was irrelevant because it was only .04% of the atmosphere, then your analogy would be perfect.

What I said is that we're only responsible for a fraction of that .04%. And certainly the carbon dioxide that we put there isn't "magic" carbon dioxide that is mysteriously more harmful than the carbon dioxide that the Earth is putting there.
post #104 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

It's an appallingly bad analogy.

If I were to say that carbon dioxide was irrelevant because it was only .04% of the atmosphere, then your analogy would be perfect.

What I said is that we're only responsible for a fraction of that .04%. And certainly the carbon dioxide that we put there isn't "magic" carbon dioxide that is mysteriously more harmful than the carbon dioxide that the Earth is putting there.

What you've said is that the human contribution is so small that it's insignificant. That is contrary to these scientific consensus papers from all of these panels of scientists and from the journal Science, which say that the human contribution is the major cause of the recent global warming.

I've never really heard you address that: Either you're wrong in saying that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, or all of these panels of the world's leading experts and these reviews by the journal Science are wrong. You're contradicting them, there's no way around that.

Here's my take, gregmightdothat: You're trying to take what seems to you to be a reasonable middle ground in the "debate." But, as so often occurs when people take a middle ground on something, you end up splitting the difference between one side which is well-founded, and the other side which is unfounded. You'd be better off sticking to the side that's well-founded than inching toward the side that's unfounded. If I'm wrong on my take on what you're doing, let me hear it.
post #105 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

What you've said is that the human contribution is so small that it's insignificant. That is contrary to these scientific consensus papers from all of these panels of scientists and from the journal Science, which say that the human contribution is the major cause of the recent global warming.

I've addressed this 80 times, at least. In fact, if you look at the first thing I said to icfireball, you'll see exactly this.

Scientists ONLY agree that global warming is happening. As to the results of it, or the cause of it, there is ZERO consensus.

Since we're on analogies: is it possible to be Christian and not hate gays and deny evolution? Of course. Only a few extreme Christians hate gays (well, sadly more don't believe in evolution).

Just like gay-hating Christians are just a subset of all Christians, scientists that believe humans are entirely responsible for global warming are a very tiny subset of all scientists that have researched or have opinions on global warming.

Also, realize the ramifications of this. I'm not disputing any global warming evidence or research, nor am I denying that it exists. I'm just pointing out that current ideas for getting rid of it are likely insufficient in solving the problem.

As I've pointed out before, the UN will be officially downgrading the impact of humans on global warming in the next few months (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml). More and more scientists are pointing out that yes, global warming is happening, but no, it's not quite like you think (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html).

Quote:
I've never really heard you address that: Either you're wrong in saying that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, or all of these panels of the world's leading experts and these reviews by the journal Science are wrong. You're contradicting them, there's no way around that.

No I'm not. I'm just pointing out that because panels agree on some facts, doesn't mean you can run amok with that and say they agree with anything that's been ever said about global warming.

I'm not contradicting any large-scale consensus. Rather, you're confusing what that consensus consents to.

Quote:
Here's my take, gregmightdothat: You're trying to take what seems to you to be a reasonable middle ground in the "debate." But, as so often occurs when people take a middle ground on something, you end up splitting the difference between one side which is well-founded, and the other side which is unfounded. You'd be better off sticking to the side that's well-founded than inching toward the side that's unfounded. If I'm wrong on my take on what you're doing, let me hear it.

I'm not trying to find a middle ground at all, nor am I splitting any difference.

People that deny global warming are ignoring relevant facts.

You are taking unsupported hypotheses, claiming them to be fact because they're vaguely similar to other facts.
post #106 of 248
I'll just refer you back to this post of mine from earlier in the thread that collected the quotes on what these papers say. They don't say what you say they say. They say things like:

"The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels." (from IPCC report)

and

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." (from Science)

and

"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." (from Science)

Now how does that square with your statement that human effects on climate change are insignificant? I'll be honest with you that I'm not well-versed enough in this stuff to analyze these things in detail myself. But I can read, and what you have said contradicts what they have said.
post #107 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'll just refer you back to this post of mine from earlier in the thread that collected the quotes on what these papers say. They don't say what you say they say. They say things like:

"The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels." (from IPCC report)

If you read the report, you'd notice that there are no facts to support that claim. Rather, the facts within point fingers at humans, and rightly so, but don't support the idea that humans are primarily responsible.

More tellingly, this report was from 2001. If you read the article I posted about the IPCC's 2007 report, you'd see:

Quote:
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.


Quote:
"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." (from Science)

and

"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." (from Science)

Here you go again with quotes I'm not disagreeing with: humans produce carbon dioxide, which does affect global warming. I've never said anything contrary to this. Neither did the 928 papers analyzed in that article.

I'm pointing out that humans aren't solely responsible for global warming.
post #108 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

I've addressed this 80 times, at least. In fact, if you look at the first thing I said to icfireball, you'll see exactly this.

Scientists ONLY agree that global warming is happening. As to the results of it, or the cause of it, there is ZERO consensus.

Since we're on analogies: is it possible to be Christian and not hate gays and deny evolution? Of course. Only a few extreme Christians hate gays (well, sadly more don't believe in evolution).

As I've pointed out before, the UN will be officially downgrading the impact of humans on global warming in the next few months (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml). More and more scientists are pointing out that yes, global warming is happening, but no, it's not quite like you think (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html).

From the first link;

Quote:
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

Quote:
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

Quote:
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.

Quote:
The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.

Quote:
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

OK, I take this to mean that the GCM's now include aerosols in their estimates, that including aerosols in the GCM's has lowered future estimates WRT previous estimates, and that our current situation would be even worse without aerosols.

I must invest heavily in aerosols, as there's sure to be a run on the market for hair spray!

and from the second link;

Quote:
Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

Quote:
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

So basically, shit's still going to happen, just not as fast as previously estimated, and it's our shit that's the major cause of the problem!

Additional links for you're review;

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

This counters gregmightdothat's contention that we humans are not raising CO2 levels.

Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study

This may address SDW's question on SOTA GCM's temperature accuracy, see Figure 3 (towards the end). That GCM was calibrated with 125 years of empirical/observational weather data, by my eyeballing the fit of the model to that data set, I'd estimate sigma < 0.1 degrees celsius.

And after playing with a bunch of ice core CO2 data and the SIO/NOAA CO2 data from Mauna Loa, HI, I can categorically state that at no time in the previous 650,000 years has Earth seen such a rapid rise in CO2 levels over as short a timespan as the last 50 years, it's not even close, the next most rapid rise was over an order of magnitude less than the current rate.

Also the average rise in CO2 from ~4,500BC to ~1,800AD was 0.0029 ppm/year (and yes it's almost linear over that timespan), compare that number to the current rare of ~2ppm/year!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Additional links for you're review;

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Quote:
carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm.

Wake me up in 2100 when we get to that level of CO2.

Quote:
This counters gregmightdothat's contention that we humans are not raising CO2 levels.

Have I ever contested this? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
post #110 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Wake me up in 2100 when we get to that level of CO2.



Have I ever contested this? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

Yes you are mostly correct, but it is in your presentation of those numbers, that I take issue with.

Saying human CO2 contributions are a small fraction of the total CO2 gives people the wrong impression as to the consequences of our contribution to the CO2 budget. People look at that fraction and are bound to think that we as humans do not affect Earth's climate. It gives the wrong impression. Those consequences may be small but over time will have a significant impacts nonetheless.

That is all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Well, exactly. God himself could come to your door wearing a sandwich board emblazoned with the words 'YOU ARE FUCKING UP THE ENVIRONMENT' and it wouldn't be enough for you.

Some people don't believe the planet's older than 6,000 years and there's no convincing them either.


Strawman. I'm not one of those people. I even addressed your analogy earlier. Go look it up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, there was scientific consensus for geocentrism, too, wasn't there? Hegemony does not equal truth, mister pseudoscientist! :P (my own discipline is, of course rigid and scientific to the core) And besides, it's likely that the medical journals are full of true believers about cigarettes causing lung cancer, and so when an outlier submits, the article is simply rejected. And so what you have is a kind og lung cancer+cigarettes group think or echo chamber. What the world needs is a Copernicus or Galileo to debunk all of this consensus! EPPUR SI MUOVE, I SAY!!


Let me just make sure I've been reading correctly: You're saying that cigs causing cancer is as well proven a theory as man made global warming? If so, that's foolish.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #113 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me just make sure I've been reading correctly: You're saying that cigs causing cancer is as well proven a theory as man made global warming? If so, that's foolish.


It's the fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence about GW SDW!

Given what we know it's much more likely than not. So who's the fool here?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 248
Thread Starter 
As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #115 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

If you read the report, you'd notice that there are no facts to support that claim. Rather, the facts within point fingers at humans, and rightly so, but don't support the idea that humans are primarily responsible.

More tellingly, this report was from 2001. If you read the article I posted about the IPCC's 2007 report, you'd see:

So you do disagree with this panel of the world's leading experts on climate change. You found some stuff on wikipedia, and the experts are wrong and you're right. That's all I wanted to know.

Quote:
Here you go again with quotes I'm not disagreeing with: humans produce carbon dioxide, which does affect global warming. I've never said anything contrary to this. Neither did the 928 papers analyzed in that article.

I'm pointing out that humans aren't solely responsible for global warming.

You haven't just been saying that "human aren't solely responsible." The whole point of your many posts in this thread is to say that humans' contributions to global warming are so small that they're insignificant, that global warming is not our fault and the view that it is our fault is old fashioned, and that the blame does not belong with us. Those are the things you've said in this thread.

Just to be clear, this is exactly what the deniers say. They of course can't deny the recent rise in temperatures - the global warming - but they say it's natural, they say it's not caused by humans. You say you're not a global warming denier, but you're saying exactly the same things Crichton and Inhofe and all the others say.
post #116 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's the fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence about GW SDW!

Given what we know it's much more likely than not. So who's the fool here?


Now hold on...those are two different statements. If forced to choose A or B, I would choose A....it's more likely than not. But that is not at all what we're talking about. Moreover, how can you say "it's only a fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence" and then in the same breath say only "it's more likely than not?" That seems to contradict itself. "More likely than not" is a far cry from proven to the point where people are shunned for suggesting other possibliities, agreed?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #117 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

I agree completely. I also think it's important to point out that we cannot really explain why soap gets us clean. There is certainly consensus, but when you get down to trying to figure out why the molecules bond in the ways they do, we just can't be sure.

But back to my point: there is no clear scientific evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #118 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

Even hundreds of millions of years. My understanding is that things like the earth's position in the solar system and the eruption of volcanoes play a role in climate change. But I think everyone agree that the biggest role is played by the composition of our atmosphere, i.e., the greenhouse effect.

Quote:
To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

I'm trying to follow you - you're asking how can changes so small be "significant," given that even larger variations occurred in the past? What do you mean by significant? Many of those larger changes that occurred in the past were so large that if they happened today, they would kill off all land animals on the planet. But I think everyone agrees that even small changes of average temperature can have very significant consequences for humans, e.g., the state of Florida would get a lot smaller, and the Netherlands would really live up to its name.
post #119 of 248
Guys, did it ever occur to you that the reason this "conversation..."











....sorry -- is even taking place means that Global Womping is a fairly ambiguous topic?

No one agues over what we should do with the Hudson River, or whether we should put scrubbers on Coal-fired plants -- but this is a little nuts. When the evidence is clear, we'll know, and not before.

We won't need 'special' reports dribbled out from the UN to tell us that, or science-by-press-release. Algore, and greenie-weenie, earth muffin scare tactics notwithstanding.

Science doesn't need defending.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

When the evidence is clear, we'll know, and not before.

Scientists are pretty clear about the impact of the human contribution to global warming.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.