Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position. You do both.
Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position. You do both.
Right, only AGW theory ignores evidence. Right. Ok. I want to laugh if it weren't for you must have NO idea of the body of evidence you are ignoring. Maybe it would help you stop committing this fallacy yourself if you just took a peak at ANY basic climate research done in a peer reviewed context.
So, quite the ramble. But, are we clear?
1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.
no, I don't think we are clear. that is, perhaps, the biggest stumbling block to discussing this whole issue.
Von Storch's poll on AGW was perhaps the best, and it pointed out the difference between scientists believing in a) global warming, b) mechanism of CO2 to affect radiative transfer, c) magnitude of CO2 effect, d) positive and negative feedbacks to disruptions caused by CO2 and e) wild ass guesses about the benefits or costs of temperature change.
I think everyone should agree that there has been some warming since we came out of the Little Ice Age. but our understanding of the magnitude of that change has been compromised by the steady stream of adjustments and arbitrary corrections implimented over the last few decades.
I think everyone should agree that there is an existing mechanism by which doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere theoretically should cause a ~1K increase, if all other components in the equilibrium remain unchanged.
(as an aside, I am unhappy with this being more or less just assumed as correct. at the very least, I would like to know what the theoretical calculations say is the necessary concentration of CO2 to raise the first 1K so that we have a better understanding of how much of the greenhouse effect is attributible to CO2. 5-26% is a rather large span).
the radiative effect of CO2 is basically a boundary effect (first at the surface, secondarily at the top of clouds). the radiation choked off by extra CO2 goes into conduction, convextion, latent heat and atmospheric/surface heat sinks. some of the radiation will go into heat sinks and raise temps but some just shunts off to other routes, which are more efficient as temps go up. equilibriums change when conditions change. but on the whole natural systems work towards homeostasis via governors and negative feedbacks, not positive feedbacks which overwhelm the balance. the planet didnt burn up during the MWP, RWP or any other time during this interglacial when the temps were warmer than today.
I dont believe in the anthropogenic theory of global warming with CO2 as the control knob because there isnt enough evidence for it even when you ignore the evidence against it!
until we get some realistic idea of how much warming is directly attributable to CO2 should we just carry on in the present SOP and blame everything on CO2?
the demonization of CO2 is just a proxy for demonizing humanity. I would rather spent the trillions of dollars cleaning up real pollution and improving the standards for most of the people of the world, rather than spend it on futile and wasteful attempts to curba necessary energy usage.
Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!
A thinking person would ask how it is that the political heads of all those societies make such claims with zero actual evidence to support them....a drone just accepts and then repeats a logical fallacy endlessly in an attempt to justify his drone status.
So, you are accussing millions of scientists of outright fraud. Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat..............................
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.
CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.
More ad hominems.
CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.
The sky is green and will be cloudless for the next 1000 years.
See how saying something doesn't make it so?
CO2 does drive climate. Before you respond, go here and take your finger and click to watch the vid posted by Old Rocks. It specifically talks about CO2 and its relation to climate. Barring the possibility of you having a PhD in climate science and received multiple awards for your breakthrough climatology research, I think it's safe to say you have got it backwards. Climate and CO2 are inexorably linked.
Appeal to authority is...also [a] fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position. You do both.
Right, only AGW theory ignores evidence. Right. Ok. I want to laugh if it weren't for you must have NO idea of the body of evidence you are ignoring. Maybe it would help you stop committing this fallacy yourself if you just took a peak at ANY basic climate research done in a peer reviewed context.
So, quite the ramble. But, are we clear?
1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.
no, I don't think we are clear. that is, perhaps, the biggest stumbling block to discussing this whole issue.
Okay, I'm listening
The results of the five or six or seven polls mentioned, as to the percentage of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid are extremely close and the differences have a strong time correlation indicating that the consensus accepting AGW is large and has simply grown over time. Do you see anything in Von Storch's work that does not work with such a construction?
Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown objective evidence that such adjustments were not justified by the science or were intended to falsely represent past climates - though precisely those charges have flown like a swarm of locusts. Your reference to coming out of the LIA rather than the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is less than subtle. If you do not see a change between the rate of warming of 1650-1850 and the rate of warming of 1850-present, you need to get your eyes checked.
Then rejoice, because aside from a few holdouts here (and scattered thinly there), they do. They call it THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. However, the amount of warming that will result from a doubling of the CO2 concentration is under discussion but they've got it whittled down to a range of accepted values.
Climate sensitivity has most ASSUREDLY not been "just assumed to be correct".
Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf and scroll wa-a-a-a-ay down to section 10.8.1 and read (or just skim the 6 pages) from there to the end of 10.8.4. Then feel free to explain to us how mistaken you were about climate sensitivity just being assumed to be correct.
Maybe I'm just not following this ramble, but it seems to have a few flaws.
o The top of the atmosphere is a gradient, not a boundary.
o If IR absorption by CO2 is a boundary effect, how does it get to boundary number two?
o If it's a boundary effect, how does it get to surface heat sinks?
o Where is IR stored in the atmosphere as latent heat?
o What are these "other routes" that radiation can take?
o Why are these other routes more efficient as temperatures increase?
o If IR is taking all these other routes, how are temperatures increasing?
o You say equilibriums change when conditions change. When has the Earth's climate EVER been in equilibrium?
o Isn't saying "Equilibriums change when conditions change" analogous to saying V=dX.
o Unless you're bringing up the Gaia Hypothesis, there is no homeostasis in the Earth's climate.
o The Earth has spent significant amounts of its history in states that would be VERY harmful to modern civilization. To constrain the near future to that range is not a comfort.
o The only times in the Earth's history in which it has experienced a CO2 dump similar to the last 150 years, it had just been struck by a 7-mile wide asteroid or was suffering the creation of the Deccan Traps.
The world's climate scientists tell us that you are simply wrong here. There is an enormous and constantly growing balance of evidence that human activity is the primary cause of the last 150 year's warming. Read AR5. Read the work AR5 uses. Don't cop out.
until we get some realistic idea of how much warming is directly attributable to CO2 should we just carry on in the present SOP and blame everything on CO2?
We HAVE a very realistic idea of how much warming is attributable to CO2. Unfortunately, mostly because humans are lazy, stupid bastards, but partially because of folks like you making bullshit arguments like this, we're not going to do a damn thing about it.
the demonization of CO2 is just a proxy for demonizing humanity. I would rather spent the trillions of dollars cleaning up real pollution and improving the standards for most of the people of the world, rather than spend it on futile and wasteful attempts to curba necessary energy usage.
You don't think switching from oil and coal to wind and sunlight will clean up any real pollution? Of course it won't.
CO2 Does not drive climate, it never has.
The sky is green and will be cloudless for the next 1000 years.
See how saying something doesn't make it so?
CO2 does drive climate. Before you respond, go here and take your finger and click to watch the vid posted by Old Rocks. It specifically talks about CO2 and its relation to climate. Barring the possibility of you having a PhD in climate science and received multiple awards for your breakthrough climatology research, I think it's safe to say you have got it backwards. Climate and CO2 are inexorably linked.
He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.
As if a custodian and a burger flipper know any PhDs at all. By the way, I couldn't help but notice the miscapitalization of PhD
I haven't the slightest doubt they had good reason to make those changes. Data gets adjusted all the time for a variety of reasons. Why don't you pick out one dataset adjustment that you find suspicious and we'll look into it?
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.
As if a custodian and a burger flipper know any PhDs at all. By the way, I couldn't help but notice the miscapitalization of PhD
Who's the custodian and who's the burger flipper?
ps: I couldn't help but notice your ignorant views on numerous basic science topics.
Barring the possibility of you having a PhD in climate science and received multiple awards for your breakthrough climatology research, I think it's safe to say you have got it backwards.
