Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 117

Thread: Global warming.

  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The only concern I think you noted was the difference between reported number of models used. Hawkins notes he used 42 models to develop his output range. The Daily Mail author says that Hawkins used a portion of the 138 from the IPCC
    The Daily Mail's graph does not say that. I don't see it anywhere in the article either.

    It's misleading to say the least. Let alone saying it makes a "mockery" of warming when there obviously is warming. Cutting off the earliest portions of the graph - where the models didn't align with the observations also - is also, I'd argue, done on purpose to mislead.

    There's also three different colors in the Daily Mail graph - only two shaded areas in the graphs you posted in your last post and those only show projections out to 2050. The Daily Mail graph goes out to 2060.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #82
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    The Daily Mail's graph does not say that. I don't see it anywhere in the article either.
    This is now the fourth time I’ve quoted this to you:

    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    It's misleading to say the least.
    Why? Saying a reputable climate scientist used a portion of the 138 current IPCC models to develop a forecast and here is how it compares to the data? How is that “misleading?” Or are you saying that Hawkins’ is wrong for his selection? Remember, Hawkins picks out the 42 for very good reasons as he explains in the posts I’ve referenced here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Let alone saying it makes a "mockery" of warming when there obviously is warming.
    There is obviously warming? Please support or retract that statement. After all, the entire point of Hawkins writing here was to try to explain why there hasn’t been warming over the last two decades.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Cutting off the earliest portions of the graph - where the models didn't align with the observations also - is also, I'd argue, done on purpose to mislead.
    I’m not sure you phrased that correctly. Do you mean when the models did align with the observations?
    That isn’t misleading, it is because that is the data used to create the model cowboy. Surely you realize that the model hasn’t been around since the 1960s. That observational data is what they used to create the model in the first place, thus not relevant to the model’s accuracy. Take a look at post 80 where the graph has that little line that says “historical data” on it.

    Let’s use a simple example. Let’s say I asked you to make a model for how a certain quarter would flip in the future. Here is the past data:
    1: Heads
    2: Tails
    3: Heads
    4: Tails
    5: Heads.

    You make your predictive model and it spouts out the following answers (top row) and then I flip the quarter (bottom row) and compare the result. Would you say your model is correct? What’s more, would you say ignoring flips 1-5 is misleading?

    Model Prediction H T H T H T H T H T
    Observation H T H T H H H H H H


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    There's also three different colors in the Daily Mail graph - only two shaded areas in the graphs you posted in your last post and those only show projections out to 2050. The Daily Mail graph goes out to 2060.
    There is also a call out box on the graph pointing to the third color with its explanation.

    Also, the Daily Mail graph also only goes out to 2050.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #83
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is obviously warming? Please support or retract that statement. After all, the entire point of Hawkins writing here was to try to explain why there hasn’t been warming over the last two decades.
    The Daily Mail graph starts at about 13.6 and ends about 14.4. How is that not warming?

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    There is also a call out box on the graph pointing to the third color with its explanation.

    Also, the Daily Mail graph also only goes out to 2050.
    Sorry, it was 2040 and 2050.

    ---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Why? Saying a reputable climate scientist used a portion of the 138 current IPCC models to develop a forecast and here is how it compares to the data? How is that “misleading?” Or are you saying that Hawkins’ is wrong for his selection? Remember, Hawkins picks out the 42 for very good reasons as he explains in the posts I’ve referenced here.
    It's misleading. The callout box says that is the range of the 138 models...it may be. But the article says it is based on Hawkins graph which uses 42 models. Where does the data range come from with the 138 models?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #84
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The Daily Mail graph starts at about 13.6 and ends about 14.4. How is that not warming?
    I'm having a hard time telling if you are serious right now.

    13.6 is 1988, a decade before the pause. That's why I said in the last two decades, as did Hawkins, as did the Daily Mail article. By your reasoning we could say it has been cooling since the 30s. The relevant discussion is the pause in warming that has occurred since 1998.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sorry, it was 2040 and 2050.
    Well I'm not sure it is clear that Hawkins' graph only goes to 2040, but let's assume it does. So what?

    Given that nothing in Hawkins' argument, the Daily Mail article, your posts, my posts, or any other reference here discusses the 2040-2050 timeline, why is that relevant at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    It's misleading.
    Again, how is that "misleading?" What specifically are they trying to get you to think, and what is the correct information? Please be specific because I think you are mixing "confusing" with "misleading."





    I'm also curious if you had any response to this:

    I’m not sure you phrased that correctly. Do you mean when the models did align with the observations?
    That isn’t misleading, it is because that is the data used to create the model cowboy. Surely you realize that the model hasn’t been around since the 1960s. That observational data is what they used to create the model in the first place, thus not relevant to the model’s accuracy. Take a look at post 80 where the graph has that little line that says “historical data” on it.

    Let’s use a simple example. Let’s say I asked you to make a model for how a certain quarter would flip in the future. Here is the past data:
    1: Heads
    2: Tails
    3: Heads
    4: Tails
    5: Heads.

    You make your predictive model and it spouts out the following answers (top row) and then I flip the quarter (bottom row) and compare the result. Would you say your model is correct? What’s more, would you say ignoring flips 1-5 is misleading?

    Model Prediction H T H T H T H T H T
    Observation H T H T H H H H H H

    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm having a hard time telling if you are serious right now.

    13.6 is 1988, a decade before the pause. That's why I said in the last two decades, as did Hawkins, as did the Daily Mail article. By your reasoning we could say it has been cooling since the 30s. The relevant discussion is the pause in warming that has occurred since 1998.
    Ok, in 1998 it's at 14.1 and ends at 14.4. Still warming.

    ---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well I'm not sure it is clear that Hawkins' graph only goes to 2040, but let's assume it does. So what?

    Given that nothing in Hawkins' argument, the Daily Mail article, your posts, my posts, or any other reference here discusses the 2040-2050 timeline, why is that relevant at all?
    Right, so where did it come from? Did the Daily Mail just draw that bit in?

    ---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, how is that "misleading?" What specifically are they trying to get you to think, and what is the correct information? Please be specific because I think you are mixing "confusing" with "misleading."
    That that graph (the shaded part) represents all 138 models - that is not referenced and unsupported.

    ---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    You make your predictive model and it spouts out the following answers (top row) and then I flip the quarter (bottom row) and compare the result. Would you say your model is correct? What’s more, would you say ignoring flips 1-5 is misleading?

    Model Prediction H T H T H T H T H T
    Observation H T H T H H H H H H

    [/indent]

    Yes, "did". I'll accept that that's how the model was made.

    It's still misleading to cut the beginning part of the graph off. The graph intends to make a "mockery of warming" not the models.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #86
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Ok, in 1998 it's at 14.1 and ends at 14.4. Still warming.
    Two obvious ways to respond to that.

    1) Just because two numbers are different doesn’t mean they are significant or show a trend. For example, is there an upward trend in the following data?
    2
    10
    7
    5
    4
    3

    3 is higher than two after all. Obviously we have to take more than just the two endpoints into consideration. We also need to consider whether they are statistically different enough to warrant noticing. All data has variability (sigma) and that variability determines whether observed differences are actually something worth noting about.

    2) The second response, is of course that on that graph in 1998, it is 14.25, and in 2012 it is 14.2. (at no point does it approach 14.5). By your reasoning that would mean it is cooling right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, so where did it come from? Did the Daily Mail just draw that bit in?
    You missed the point Cowboy. Who cares? A) No one is talking about that section of the graph. The question is only about the 1990-2020 timeframe. B) Hawkins takes no issue with the graph’s data (only that it originally wasn’t cited). So if Hawkins has no issue, how can you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That that graph (the shaded part) represents all 138 models - that is not referenced and unsupported.
    Again, that might make the graph confusing, it doesn’t make it misleading. Are you saying he didn’t use the number of models the graph claims? If so, can you support that?

    If not, what is misleading and what is the correct data?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, "did". I'll accept that that's how the model was made.
    Did what? I didn’t use that verb in my explanation.

    Also, does this mean that you accept the explanation such that you can agree that it wasn’t misleading to truncate the beginning of the graph which had nothing to do with the author’s argument?





    I found an interesting example of something I referenced to you the other day, called anchoring. This is when a modeler or anyone really selects a specific starting point to highlight or create a trend. The example I found can be found here: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...fraud-at-noaa/

    In this graph:



    Now, we can somewhat ignore the rest of the post, while he is correct that there is clearly quite a bit of data manipulation (not a pejorative), and that at least some of that manipulation is specious, his hyperbole is a bit much, and I’m not forwarding it here as an argument.

    He is correct that the manipulation has dramatically changed the overall trend line in temperature, but look at where he starts, the 1920s. I doubt this was an accident given that decade’s status as (depending on what day you visit the NOAA site) the hottest decade on record. Mr. Goddard seems to be using that anchoring so he can make a stronger argument against NOAA.

    If he had picked, say the 1960s, his article would have been (its warming, but not as much as NOAA says), which is not nearly as impactful as (its cooling, but NOAA thinks its warming).

    My point is that when we look at modeling, we need to be very conscious of the starting points. He might well have a good argument for the 1920s (start of major anthropogenic CO2 production in the atmosphere), but a good argument for the 1960s could be made as well (start of major data substitution in the NOAA record). Regardless, when we have claims like “it is cooling” or “it is getting warmer” we need to ask the basic question “compared to when?”
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #87
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3 is higher than two after all. Obviously we have to take more than just the two endpoints into consideration. We also need to consider whether they are statistically different enough to warrant noticing. All data has variability (sigma) and that variability determines whether observed differences are actually something worth noting about.

    2) The second response, is of course that on that graph in 1998, it is 14.25, and in 2012 it is 14.2. (at no point does it approach 14.5). By your reasoning that would mean it is cooling right?


    You missed the point Cowboy. Who cares? A) No one is talking about that section of the graph. The question is only about the 1990-2020 timeframe. B) Hawkins takes no issue with the graph’s data (only that it originally wasn’t cited). So if Hawkins has no issue, how can you?

    For the modelling question, yes. For warming, no. The graph claims to make a mockery of global warming.

    ---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, that might make the graph confusing, it doesn’t make it misleading. Are you saying he didn’t use the number of models the graph claims? If so, can you support that?

    If not, what is misleading and what is the correct data?
    That would be the Daily Call's responsibility. That is their claim, that it represents all 138 models, but where did it come from?

    ---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Did what? I didn’t use that verb in my explanation.

    Also, does this mean that you accept the explanation such that you can agree that it wasn’t misleading to truncate the beginning of the graph which had nothing to do with the author’s argument?
    Right, I'll accept that as far as the models go in reference to his argument.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #88
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    For the modelling question, yes. For warming, no. The graph claims to make a mockery of global warming.
    It's the title in the graph of a newspaper cowboy. I would interpret the title as meaning "this graph mocks the idea of a current "consensus" on global warming."

    Either way, so what. Do you have any material, relevant objections to the data provided? To the critique of IPCC modeling? Anything more than the journalists word choice?

    Also you didn't answer any of the questions posed to you in that section:

    1) Was there an upward trend in the numbers I offered?

    2) On that graph in 1998, it is 14.25, and in 2012 it is 14.2. (at no point does it approach 14.5). By your reasoning that would mean it is cooling right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That would be the Daily Call's responsibility. That is their claim, that it represents all 138 models, but where did it come from?
    Well, no, it is your responsibility here Cowboy. You made a positive claim: "the graph is misleading." That last word means that the graph is deceiving people. IE that it is saying something that isn't actually true. Do you have any support for that claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, I'll accept that as far as the models go in reference to his argument.
    Thank you.


    Can I ask if you found any profit in the anchoring description I offered?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #89
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well, no, it is your responsibility here Cowboy. You made a positive claim: "the graph is misleading." That last word means that the graph is deceiving people. IE that it is saying something that isn't actually true. Do you have any support for that claim?
    The graph makes a claim about 138 models, it is "based" on a graph that, when checked, is only based on 42 models. That is misleading. If it wasn't intended to be misleading then why not provide the citation?

    ---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It's the title in the graph of a newspaper cowboy. I would interpret the title as meaning "this graph mocks the idea of a current "consensus" on global warming."

    Either way, so what. Do you have any material, relevant objections to the data provided? To the critique of IPCC modeling? Anything more than the journalists word choice?

    Also you didn't answer any of the questions posed to you in that section:

    1) Was there an upward trend in the numbers I offered?

    2) On that graph in 1998, it is 14.25, and in 2012 it is 14.2. (at no point does it approach 14.5). By your reasoning that would mean it is cooling right?
    Why was 1998 chosen? I see what you're saying about the numbers.

    It's more like "A mockery in the ability to project global warming"

    ---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Thank you.


    Can I ask if you found any profit in the anchoring description I offered?
    That cherry-picking can be bad, yes. That other scientific methodologies used to extrapolate for missing data is "fradulent", no.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #90
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The graph makes a claim about 138 models, it is "based" on a graph that, when checked, is only based on 42 models. That is misleading. If it wasn't intended to be misleading then why not provide the citation?
    To be clear, the graph makes a claim about a section of it referencing the larger model output, not the entire graph (that is how a call out box works). The rest of the graph references the 42 models picked by a reputable climate scientist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why was 1998 chosen? I see what you're saying about the numbers.

    It's more like "A mockery in the ability to project global warming"
    I would likely pick words along that line as well (more like the ability to model climate), but publishers have word limits, so reporters tend to be overly concise. Regardless, he is writing this for a non-technical audience who likely better understand the term "Global Warming" as the political cause that references the claim we are talking about.


    And, as I pointed out given that he uses 1998 as his base year (more on that in a moment) he is correct that the globe is not warming and his source agrees with him.


    As for 1998, it is usually used as the base year in the pause argument (both by supporters and detractors mind you, this isn't really a bias thing) for three important reasons.

    1) It is the year that the IPCC released quite a few of its models as part of the Second Assessment Report. It is also around the time quite a few of these models were developed (and thus when we could really start using data observations as test data).

    2) It is also the year that significant improvements in temperature measurement came online, specifically detailed, coherent satellite data, along with some expanded sea temp data, and, importantly, a more precise measurement of urban heat effects on ground stations.

    3) It is also the year dictated by the data. If you take a look at the data over the last two decades it falls into a range (variance). 1997 is the first year that the data falls outside that range and thus 1998 is the start of the trend.


    Most importantly, we can note that both AGW supporting research as well as AGW skeptical research uses this date in their exploration of the "pause." So we can conclude that the experts don't seem to have an issue with using it as a base year.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That cherry-picking can be bad, yes. That other scientific methodologies used to extrapolate for missing data is "fradulent", no.

    I mostly offered the article as an example of anchoring, as described above. The authors conclusion of data "fraud" is clearly hyperbolic and his inference on motives is ridiculous. That the data massaging is unsupportable is, however, a pretty valid claim, but not specifically relevant to the discussion we are having.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  12. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Well I did not read entirety of posts since first few pages were from 2010 but went to last page to see if same judgement's were being made by some as in global warming has little evidence. I abject to this entirely. 1) Same science pioneered by Clair Cameron Patterson that showed the build up of lead due to the use of leaded gas is the same science used to show rise in CO2 levels. 2) CO2 is known to conclusively hold heat or high thermal mass. 3) We produce more CO2 than any other green house gas, so therefore logically is is the culprit. 4) There has not been one geological record of this level of C02. 5) These effects take time to be recorded, the warming we feel now could actually be form 10+ years ago, the Earth is a large and vast system and it takes time for compounding effects to show results globally. 6) The current warming trend will get worse not better anytime soon, it is even worse than an economy as per seeing the effects of a change in our lives years later typically if changes occur gradually over time.

    Now these are just some points and I would refer anyone to go through this site above all else before retorting with ambiguities against: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ their is 5 parts Evidence, Causes, Effects, Consensus, Vital Signs, and questions/FAQ.

  13. #92
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis View Post
    Well I did not read entirety of posts since first few pages were from 2010 but went to last page to see if same judgement's were being made by some as in global warming has little evidence.
    Hi Excubis, welcome to ODN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    1) Same science pioneered by Clair Cameron Patterson that showed the build up of lead due to the use of leaded gas is the same science used to show rise in CO2 levels.
    I'm not aware of anyone claiming that CO2 levels are not positively impacted by human activity. The question often raised is how much of that variation is the result of man made activities?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    2) CO2 is known to conclusively hold heat or high thermal mass.
    And while there are a few atmospheric scientists that have questioned this, I think they are in the ulta-minority and their predictive models are generally unreliable. So I think we can take it as a given that CO2 directly has a warming effect. However, there are two issues here. 1) The amount of CO2 warming is incredibly minor, directly it would drive only about 0.01c over the next 1000 years or so. The issue is never what CO2 will do, it is what are the follow on effects? Because 2) CO2 does not have a high thermal mass (I don't think this is the term you meant, CO2's role is via radiative forcing, not its thermal mass).

    If we take a look at the standard IPCC charts we see that CO2's contribution is relatively low for anthropogenic emissions, something like 1/21 of the closest competitor, methane.

    So how was the warming predicted? Because it was theorized that the CO2 in the atmosphere would drive additional cloud creation and that that water vapor (which is something on the magnitude of 1200 times more efficient than CO2 at warming) would cause the warming. The problem was, that the additional cloud creation seems to have had the opposite effect, reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space, mitigating the warming rather than amplifying it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    3) We produce more CO2 than any other green house gas, so therefore logically is is the culprit.
    This is clearly the case. Human production of CO2 vastly outpaces our production of other gases. The problem though is two fold. The contribution caused by that CO2 is relatively weak, and the natural sources of those gasses are orders of magnitude larger. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Global Warming- A closer look at the numbers 2015-10-19 12-40-48.png 
Views:	13 
Size:	19.2 KB 
ID:	3770

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    4) There has not been one geological record of this level of C02.
    Well that doesn't seem to be the case at all:



    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    5) These effects take time to be recorded, the warming we feel now could actually be form 10+ years ago, the Earth is a large and vast system and it takes time for compounding effects to show results globally.
    Two points here:

    1) This doesn't really solve our objection though. The climate models that predict catastrophic warming didn't say it would take time to move through the system (well they did, but that time has already passed). As with all good science, they represent a prediction based on a hypothesis. The observed evidence disagreed with the prediction meaning the hypothesis is incorrect. Now that doesn't necessarily mean there is no warming, it only means we don't have observed evidence for the AGW hypothesis.

    2) If the system is so complex that it takes decades for effects to move their way through it, why are you so confident we understand it?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. Likes Lukecash12 liked this post
  15. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    I am not sure how quote on this forum and thanks for the welcome. First I will address thermal mass of CO2, I will agree I was too vague the thermal mas of liquid water concentrated with high levels of CO2 is dramatically higher than without. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ca...de-d_1000.html

    Now as per natural creation of CO2 naturally vs. man made is correct, yet there was always a balance in the biosphere. We have due to more than just production of CO2 have destabilized this balance. Now yes we can go back to 600 million years to 100 million years ago and geological record shows higher rates than today, sorry I was being to vague again. Now one must consider type of life that existed in such an environment. Where we around? So we cannot attempt to say with certainty we could survive in such a environment, as of all science we can only go by what is. Now over the past 650,000 years there is not an indicator in the natural record of CO2 levels as today.


    Also margin of error for anything older is quite large although CO2 would be still be dramatically higher.
    Name:  500million.jpg
Views: 127
Size:  41.5 KB
    pink shade in margin of error.


    Well, as per objection to "5) These effects take time to be recorded, the warming we feel now could actually be form 10+ years ago, the Earth is a large and vast system and it takes time for compounding effects to show results globally.". your logic is sound, yet this is how even electricity came about and it's use, planetary science, photonics, ect.... No science is absolute especially when only a few decades old, claims will always be made does not undermine reality of the cause & effect observed, even if formula's are off on type, & time of effect and therefore predictions are off. Scientists are people they make mistakes and allow emotion just like all people to take control at times. Also within our society if fantastic, sensational claims are not made very little attention will be paid to findings. Money drives all and attention gets you funding $$ not a soft spoken "We know we are causing a warming effect on the Earth but at this time we do not entirely know the impact but know if not arrested consequences could be grave to our way of life." no one would actually care, all science are if's, maybe's, based on trends and likelihoods even established applied science (technology). We often only accept those that do not cause an inconvenience or suits our world view. Global warming is occurring, we are a cause, this is a consensus of 98% of climate scientists based on comparative studies of geological record that includes environmental factors. So what if the Dinosaurs existed in CO2 levels higher than now we are not Dinosaurs, life will survive, but will we and if we do in what fashion? These are the questions we need to ask and if our way of life is important than lets attempt to protect it. Will add in my opinion we are past the tipping point and global warming will get worse not better even if we stop all production of greenhouse gases today. The world in a few generations will be dramatically different not because of progress but environment, but just an opinion.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  16. #94
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis View Post
    I am not sure how quote on this forum and thanks for the welcome.
    We use quote tags wrapped around the text, looks like this (but remove the quotation marks)


    ["quote=quotedperson"]quoted text[/quote]




    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    First I will address thermal mass of CO2, I will agree I was too vague the thermal mas of liquid water concentrated with high levels of CO2 is dramatically higher than without. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ca...de-d_1000.html
    I'm not sure what you mean here by "Thermal Mass," I can't seem to find a reference to it at all in your link. Thermal Mass is generally an engineering term referring to the ability of a building to retain heat. Given that do you mean Specific Heat or a related concept?

    Regardless, I don't think this is the concept that is generally invoked as part of AGW theory. The ability of CO2 in the atmosphere to retain heat is generally irrelevant to IPCC predictions. Rather, it is the ability of CO2 to reflect thermal energy from the earth back down rather than letting it escape into space. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    I think we agree though that the direct affect of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively small right? Rather it is possible secondary affects that are invoked in AGW theory?


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    Now as per natural creation of CO2 naturally vs. man made is correct, yet there was always a balance in the biosphere.
    Over what time scale?


    I ask this because we do see large natural variability in CO2 levels historically, so the biosphere's balancing act isn't necessarily a perfect balance at all times.

    Additionally, what is the mechanism for this balance? And why would this mechanism discriminate between Man made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2?


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    So we cannot attempt to say with certainty we could survive in such a environment, as of all science we can only go by what is.
    Hmm, what about that environment would be prohibitive to human life? Temperatures, O2 levels, etc are all within human tolerable limits, so I'm not sure what would cause us problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    Now over the past 650,000 years there is not an indicator in the natural record of CO2 levels as today.
    Why are we artificially limiting our scale to 650,000 years?



    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    No science is absolute especially when only a few decades old, claims will always be made does not undermine reality of the cause & effect observed, even if formula's are off on type, & time of effect and therefore predictions are off.
    I think we are completely in agreement here. The question is, when a hypothesis makes a prediction, how do we interpret data that disagrees with the prediction.

    Normally, in non-politically charged debates, we reject the hypothesis and work to refine the theory based on the new data.

    In the actual scientific realm of this discussion that is what has happened. The initial IPCC estimates were largely rejected within just a few years as additional data was collected, especially sea temp and satellite data.

    As data has been refined, the possible range of outcomes has changed, moving slowly towards less and less warming:




    In order for us to fully accept this theory, as we would with any other theory, we would need to have a predictive model that accurately predicts temperature changes. I don't think it is too much to ask for a theory to make predictions that actually agree with observations before we dramatically impoverish the third world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    Money drives all and attention gets you funding $$ not a soft spoken "We know we are causing a warming effect on the Earth but at this time we do not entirely know the impact but know if not arrested consequences could be grave to our way of life."
    I completely agree with you. The politicization of science via funding is definitely a problem and has increasingly led to its coopting by the chattering political class.

    It is no coincidence that when Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex he only spent two sentences, but then spent a whole paragraph warning of the scientific/political complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

    And when we look at the relative funding on this issue, the disparity is pretty striking. That pro-AGW forces outspend skeptics by an order of magnitude is an understatement if anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excubis
    Global warming is occurring, we are a cause, this is a consensus of 98% of climate scientists based on comparative studies of geological record that includes environmental factors.
    There are a couple of individual premises here that I think it benefits us to break down.

    1) There is warming occurring. I would generally agree with this. I think it is far more likely than not that there is warming occurring on the 100-200 year timescale (not attaching a timescale to this makes the claim a bit nonsensical). There are an increasing number of climatologists that are predicting cooling on the 40-100 year timescale and it seems more questioning of whether the 100-200 year warming will occur.

    2) That we are the cause. Again, without proper specifications this claim is hard to evaluate. That we contribute to warming is pretty undeniable (more or less). It is very likely that our carbon sink activities (farming, and other activities) are generally outweighed by our carbon producing activities, though there does seem to be quite a bit of work on this. The question is how much of the warming is attributable to humans. This is an area of great contention. Even quite a few of the IPCC group members estimated human contribution at less than 10% of overall warming.

    Given the data we saw above about the relative contribution between CO2, a weak greenhouse gas, and H2O, a strong greenhouse gas, it is hard to say that we are likely responsible for a plurality of observed warming.

    3) 98% Consensus This is largely an urban legend. No such consensus exists (nor is consensus any kind of measure of scientific accuracy, afterall scientific consensus once put the earth at the center and said that human beings would die if they traveled at 60MPH). Rather, the 97% (rather than 98%) is based on a review of papers published, most not by climatologists. This paper was retracted later because of implications of fraud and several complaints by climatologists that their work was misrepresented. http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ensus_Myth.pdf


    As I pointed out earlier in thread, when actual surveys are done of scientists rather than the researchers key word search of papers, only 36% of scientists agree with the AGW hypothesis laid out here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post513105

    4) You didn't mention it, but one of the implied premises is that the man made contribution to global warming will caused environmental disaster. After all, if our contribution won't really affect anything, who really cares, right? It is the idea that millions will die, or that vast extinction effects will occur because of it that drives this as an important issue. And as has been mentioned in this thread before, there is essentially zero scientific evidence of any kind of cataclysmic outcome resulting from human induced warming.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Have any of you considered the possibility that global warming might have a supernatural rather than a natural cause?

    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/20...mate-change-2/
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  18. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Have any of you considered the possibility that global warming might have a supernatural rather than a natural cause?

    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/20...mate-change-2/
    Let me think about this.... mmmmmm. Nope.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Over population is a myth: we as human beings can choose whether or not to have children, and if the environment does not allow it i.e. economically or environmentally as in there is a food shortage then people wouldn't have much children since they wouldn't be able to afford it or be able to have enough land to support it. The reason primarily for this myth is India and China for many years have had a population issue since families are willing to lower their standards to have more children then they can afford for the chance of either A: having a boy which some families try to get because traditionally THEY support the elderly and there are no retirement homes around, or they use their own resources so poorly that there are hardly any regulations against expansion of homes unto forestry and nature: that they accommodate toward their own populations economic growth rather then sustaining their economy by keeping such places intact. This is mainly china. The u.s. will not with the current state have an epidemic like this for the reasons I have mentioned. Those countries will, and are having those problems as we speak.As for global warming: Battery powered cars won't cut it: batteries cause more harm then good when it comes to the environment in the long run. The trick here is LOCALIZATION of the economy and products/services to create a local competitive market therefore creating less shipping, and also the value of fixing things rather then throwing them away, such as computers, phones, buildings, cars etc. It is always wanting new that causes the waste in the first place: 90% of things today can be restored but aren't, and furthermore if you want to talk about water conservation and recycling issues: for one the government couldn't actually be having some programs with lower water usage because people would be paying less public service for water and therefore the gov. would get less, so you'd need to transfer the tax for something else or delete some unnecessary programs rather then what they HAVE done for water conserving cities which is simply raise the price! and as for recycling: it's been a slippery slope. Just like the RTD prices going up: it seems being good natured toward the environment has to: if you want more people to recycle then you should have it as a service WITH the trash company. But the prices of the green lifestyle indicate they obviously AREN'T urgent about the actual state of the environment rather then lining their pockets.

  20. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  21. #98
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    "Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause"

    "The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming."


    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...content=202802
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause"

    "The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming."


    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...content=202802

    And yet, it still would seem that something like 95% of "greenhouses gases" are water vapor and humans are having little effect on that.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    (link has been posted already in this thread by another)


    Geology shows us that the earth is either coming into an "ice age" or coming out of one. This is a dynamic planet that is in constant motion/evolution (maybe why life seems to like it here as apposed to the more static planets in our own solar systems "habital zone").

  23. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  24. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And yet, it still would seem that something like 95% of "greenhouses gases" are water vapor and humans are having little effect on that.
    "Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming...hoax after all?
    By Apokalupsis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: December 27th, 2010, 08:06 AM
  2. Global Warming III
    By Zorak in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 11:33 AM
  3. Global Warming
    By Firewing in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 AM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2007, 11:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •