| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Luck of the Draw |
Re: thinking | ||
|
Posts: 2213 (05/18/07 02:49:59) Proto-imperialist |
Will attempt to find the video mentioned.
In the mean time could you address this: "How do you know this for sure? What's to say that the 2% increase mentioned, is the breaking point/that which tips the balance/scale?" |
||
 aspong |
Re: thinking | ||
|
Posts: 705 (05/18/07 03:27:25) Ho Ho, it is to laugh |
Quote: First, I'm not sure what 2% you're talking about. You could be talking about a 2% rise in temperatures. So I'll address that first. But I won't go into too much detail or we'll be here forever. For more detail, look up the things I talk about. We've had rises in temperatures before. The Medieval Warm period was a couple of hundred years or warmer temperatures. The warmer temperatures actually helped prosperity in a number of ways. Additionally, where once there was permanent snow cover, they've found tools, such as miners tools that have been uncovered in recent thaws. It seems that some areas once upon a time only froze over during winter and were mined or farmed etc at other times. We are definitely warming, but warmings have happened before. If you're referring to increases in CO2, the layer of the atmosphere where the CO2 is, the CO2 amounts to about 0.03% of the total. Increases might push that up, but it's still a tiny percentage of the atmosphere. Water vapour is the greatest green house gas (GHG). And as anyone who has studied meteorology knows, clouds inhibit or enhance warming by the sun. If con-trails from aircraft (lookup global dimming) can have a significant effect, how much more would changes in cloud cover. The other thing about increases in CO2, as suggested by the scientists in the film is that rather than CO2 causing global warming, it's actually a result of it. And while there's significantly useful ideas surrounding feedback, where both encourage each other, the graphing seems to suggest that warming has far more impact on production of CO2 than CO2 has on producing global warming. LotD, I had well and truly embeded myself in the man-made GW camp and couldn't be convinced otherwise. As a well informed layman, when anyone tried to present a counter argument, I criticized it and couldn't believe how ignorant the protagonists were. Since seeing the film and changing my views I have read far more about it all again. I have read the debunkers and also those who support the ideas portrayed in the film. You have to read widely to be sure not to read only the kneejerk responses and those invested in their own beliefs, but to carefully sift the information. It takes a pragmatic approach and I get the idea you are such a person. Begin with the film. Be sceptical. But it's a good start. Exploading Toad has a long string of links to scientists who disagree with the IPCC. Perhaps he'll post the links again. |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/18/07 09:11:50) |
Allan, I'm interested in facts and logic, not cheap rhetoric. So, let's try again:
1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 2. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was 200 years ago? 3. If there is, where did it come from? If not, are you on Earth? After we answer these we can move on. |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/18/07 09:43:46) |
Quote: Excellent. Then it logically follows that higher concentrations of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. Quote: The answer is, yes. In fact, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher today than it has been in the last 650,000 years or so. It has increased around 100 ppm in the last 200 years. Therefore, it logically follows that the Earth will warm up. Quote: Um, no. That is merely a rhetorical trick. The fact is that the *increase* is what's at issue here, not how much CO2 nature puts out. The increase in CO2 is due almost exclusively to human activity. That is a fact based on hard science. Quote: Water vapor is a feedback rather than a forcing. You know, it's funny how the anti-AGW crowd uses virtually the same rhetorical tricks and tactics as the anti-Evolution crowd. I doubt that that is an accident. Anti-evolutionists have had over a century to learn how to mislead, quote out of context, and obfuscate. Why should the anti-AGW crowd reinvent the wheel?  Let me put this out there and see who can answer it. What actual evidence do you have that something other than human activity is causing the current GW? Anything at all? Or will you, as the creationists do, continue to bolster your belief on the "weaknesses" (which are usually manufactured by the creationist) of the view that you dislike? |
||
|
aspong |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 705 (05/18/07 11:26:25) Ho Ho, it is to laugh |
Birthmark,
I'm not into "rhetorical tricks". I'm a guy who once firmly believed in what the IPCC concluded. I'm the guy who could not fathom the opponents; the guy who, up until very recently, thought much of the opposition was based in ignorance or fantasy (or agendas), that they were all tip and no iceberg. I'm the guy who finally took a hugely sceptical look at what the opponents were saying, with the intent of finding the holes in their arguments. Did I find holes? I certainly did. But I also found convincing information. Quote: If CO2 makes up some 0.03% of the atmosphere, and you double it, for the sake of argument, you're still talking about such a minor part of the atmosphere. Yes, higher concentrations would lead to higher temperatures, in the same way (to quote an old opponent) that tipping a 4 litre bucket of water into the Atlantic Ocean will raise the sea level. I like your logic. Quote: The increase matters if CO2 is more than a minor player, but I refer back to my bucket-and-ocean analogy. And don't think the debate about CO2 causation is over. The following is from someone on your side of the fence, someone who seems open to wherever science may lead him, rather than being closed to all but the popular theories: Quote: But back onto "rhetorical tricks", your entrance to this thread is a typical method of the true believer. Don't declare your hand straight up; first draw your opponent out so that you can then take a clean shot at them. That's the MO of someone whose sole reason for participating is to win, to take out the opposition. No, you snarl about rhetoric when your own motives are entirely onesided. Pot-kettle. How very scientific of you. This is not politics. So, as you obviously like rhetoric, your might also like this TimesOnline quote from former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder: Quote: |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/18/07 11:51:17) |
Quote: Quote: Your second quote utterly refutes your first quote. Quote: Ah, more rhetoric. Or do you honestly believe that the ocean is only 3333.333... times as large as a bucket?  Quote: Of course, the gold standard is only 95%. There is always some sort of chance that we are wrong. So, 90% is pretty robust. Quote: More rhetoric. Equating the opinion of one scientist on one experiment to the situation in climate science (where something like 98% of scientists agree, not because they're agreeable people, but because of numerous studies and data from numerous lines of evidence) is blatant dishonesty. And I take it you have no evidence of anything other than human activity causing the increase in CO2? Just rhetoric. |
||
|
not2serious |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 1133 (05/18/07 19:54:58) Oracle |
Again, answer my questions.
1. What caused the last 5 ice ages? 2. Why did the earth even have ice ages 3. It this was 15,000 years ago, would they also blame man for the global warming to end the ice ages?  allan |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/18/07 20:13:20) |
I accept your concession, allan. Thanks.
|
||
|
aspong |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 705 (05/18/07 20:52:19) Ho Ho, it is to laugh |
Quote: I may not be into rhetoric, but I am human, just like you, as you've shown. But the bucket analogy was an exaggeration to make a point. You want to blame the current warm conditions on CO2. Whereas CO2 is arguably so minor a contributor as to be moot. The alternative to the popular science is that the currently higher than normal activity of the Sun is the major reason for the recent warm period, as it was during the Medievil warm period. Why is that so nonsensical? |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/18/07 21:34:44) |
Quote: I'm not looking to "blame" anything or anyone. However, the facts are nearly irrefutable at this point. GW is occurring. Man's activities are almost certainly to blame. The only reason this is denied is not for scientific reasons, but for economic and political reasons. There is a belief out there that if man is to blame, that we have to do something like Kyoto --and free marketeers don't want to do that. For the record, neither do I. But that's not going to cause me to reject good evidence. It shouldn't cause you or anyone else to reject good evidence, either. The political/economic stuff is a separate fight for a different day. Quote: It's probably because of the near complete lack of supporting evidence for that position. I believe that that's why it's nonsensical. Now, if you have some actual evidence, I'll be happy to take a look at it. |
||
|
not2serious |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 1133 (05/18/07 23:14:33) Oracle |
Quote: And that says it all. You have used the "ALMOST" word. What caused the last 5 ice ages? you still believe in WMDs in Iraq? BT BARNUM was right, and you prove it.  Allan |
||
|
aspong |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 705 (05/19/07 02:49:03) Ho Ho, it is to laugh |
Quote: If you're saying this, then you're obviously unaware of the plethora of non-economic, non-political "reasons". Nor have you watched the film. Nor have you looked at any of the many links to evidence and arguments that I've posted in this conversation. Look at the other thread, "Other Voices on Global Warming". You'll see that my position was radically opposite to what it is now. You'll also see that my economic hero then was Mr Stern and his report which suggested (iirc) only 1 or 2% of GDP was needed to fix the problem. Politics and economics have never figured large in my evaluation of this, other than being pissed at the extent of the politics. Quote: I couldn't agree more!! In that other thread you'll also see Toad's long list of eminent scientists who disagree. Quote: That "near complete lack of support" is only the impression of people on your side of the fence, which is understandable, I once thought the very same thing. But when you go looking, the evidence is certainly there. It's just not popular (politics) which is why it doesn't get the same notoriety. And anyone who suggests that man may not be responsible quickly raises the ire of the masses. It's quite rare to find a report which isn't biased. One of my favourites was actually by someone on your side. He was pragmatic about it and not dismissive of opposition theories and research. Unusually refreshing. Link |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/19/07 08:49:28) |
Quote: And, allan, that statement highlights a grotesque ignorance of science on your part. There is not a single piece of science that is known to a certainty. None. That probably explains your inability to understand it. Go and learn something about science before you try to debate it. |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/19/07 09:12:06) |
Quote: You know that...how, exactly? There is zero credible evidence that GW is caused by ANYthing other than human activity. I'm perfectly aware that there are people in the world (frequently paid by oil interests) who *claim* that there is such evidence. But in every case it comes up short. Far, far short of what real scientists have in support of AGW. Quote: Another creationist tactic. The sad thing is that the creationists can come up with more "scientists" even though evolution is an observed fact. Quote: Yeah, if you look at it just right, ignore Occam's Razor, and maybe bow three times to a gas pump, you can just about make out the "evidence." But ya gotta squint real hard. If you have evidence, post it. Don't link me to rhetoric. Link me to actual science, or at least something that relates actual science with footnotes telling me where I can go see the actual evidence for myself. Show me how solar output has changed in the last 30 years or 150 years. Otherwise, it's all rhetoric. Quote: There are no opposition theories or research. Theories and research imply science and publication in scientific journals. Where is this research? What journals were they published in? How did they stand up to review after publication? What is the theory?  "Nuh-uh!" is not a scientific theory. Btw, what in that link do you think is helpful to the irrational anti-AGW view? |
||
|
aspong |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 705 (05/19/07 10:12:33) Ho Ho, it is to laugh |
Quote: Thus you prove your complete and convenient ignorance. No, you want not to be convinced. Right from the start your approach has been hostile. You claim to want science but your actions suggest otherwise - no, you want victory, not science. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Hence any further effort would be wasted because your mind is fixed. You want scientific proof? First unfix your mind. Oh, and you can claim victory now (or "concession", if the word makes you feel better about winning). After all, that's what's important to you. Quote: Pot kettle. Science is neither about victory nor hostile scepticism. But of course, you have your reasons, don't you. |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/19/07 10:40:55) |
Quote: So, you have no studies positing any cause other than human activity for GW? Quote: That is correct, oddly. I don't want to be convinced. I want to be informed and consistent. So far, so good. Quote: Bah, ya pansy. You should see me with creationists! :D Quote: Victory is all you've offered. I'd prefer science any day of the week, but so far you've presented none. Nada. Zip. Science is not done in YouTube. At least not you're better brand of science. :D Science is done in laboratories and published in peer-reviewed journals. Then it is read by other scientists in the field. If it is good science, it gains acceptance. If it is bad science, it is rejected. So far, the only good science on GW says that man is the culprit. Why this offends some is beyond me. We didn't intend to do it. And it might not prove to be all that big a deal. I do understand those that pillory the prophets of doom. I sometimes have occasion to pillory them myself. Quote: Look, if you're going to cry a river, might I humbly suggest that you do so in Australia. They could desperately use the moisture. OTOH, you could quit personalizing and present your scientific evidence for anything other than man causing GW. |
||
|
not2serious |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 1133 (05/19/07 16:47:52) Oracle |
Quote:  Hey, Instead of giving insults, you shoule be re-inforcing your argument. Stating someone is ignorent just shows that you have no facts to present, and you have a losing case.And the ALMOST just shows you still have doubts about your position according to Dr Phil. And he has more degrees than a thermometer Hey, just observing the obvious.  Finally, there is a lot of "science" that is known, it is called practical science, I use it all the time in engineering buildings. However, looking at GW as real, I got some WMDs to sell you as long as you will go pick them up in iraq.  Hey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you REAL cheap. Bt Banrum was right. allan |
||
|
Birthmark |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 91 (05/19/07 19:38:14) |
Quote: You misspelled "ignorant."  But you really are ignorant of science if you think that certainty is to be found there. That's not an insult. It's a fact. Fortunately, it's a fact that you can change with a little study. As for evidence, no problem: www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Quote: Of course. There are always doubts in science. It's possible (though unlikely in the extreme) that gravity doesn't exist --let alone our explanations for it-- and that something else is at work instead. IOW, there is doubt. Quote: And every bit of it could be wrong. Anyone telling you anything else is trying to sell you something. There is no certainty in science. Certainty is for zealots, philosophers, and mathematicians. Quote: And it was P T Barnum. But you certainly feel strongly, allan. 
|
||
|
Florida Jeff |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 2125 (05/19/07 19:48:44) Unindicted |
There are certainties in science and math.
Certainty in science: A perfect gas heated at constant volume will increase in pressure. Certainty in math: INT[xdx] = x^3/3 |
||
|
not2serious |
Re: thinking..... | ||
|
Posts: 1133 (05/19/07 23:21:44) Oracle |
Quote: Again, instead of attacking the messenger, you should be reinforcing your argument. My spelling is terrible, but at 60 WPM, I really don't care. You get here what you pay for. You problem is you are looking for spelling errors, instead of looking at data error. When you don't have a case, I guess that is all you can do.  Now about that bridge in brooklyn, or those WMDs in Iraq. I never bought either. The bridge is logical, and no WMDs was logical. If you wish to deny yourself gas, CO2 ommissions, etc, knock yourself out. I will be glad to use your share. And all this melting going on, new york should be under at least 2' of water, same with Biloxi, Mississippi and New Orleans. But looking at the air photos that I had to do working in biloxi, the coastline has not shifted one foot, and the water is at the same level as 50 years ago. When will the flooding start? I mean, half the glaciers have dumped into the sea, where did the water go? I know :oh!oh! pickme! it is right next to the WMDs in iraq. Mr barnum is right again. allan allan |
||
