GW: Separating facts from fiction

Geckko said:
Admittedly I haven't been around here very long. But don't people on this forum use their own facilties to assess the information, or is it the accepted practice to simply throw links around?
Click to expand...
I can only speak for myself: I assign little weight to the unsupported opinion of an anonymous internet persona who claims insight that eminently qualified scientists do not possess.
 
varwoche said:
I can only speak for myself: I assign little weight to the unsupported opinion of an anonymous internet persona who claims insight that eminently qualified scientists do not possess.
Click to expand...

Not my business how you approach others in a debate forum but wouldn't it be more betterestlyer to simply explain a likely rational rather than getting snitty?

For example: using his analogy of losing .04 grams, you might, as he said, be doubtful that he could measure such a tiny change. Then he could show you a baggie containing .04 grams of hair clippings from his recent haircut.

What he forgot to tell you was that on his way to show you, he stopped at McDonald's and had a quarter pounder with cheese, biggie fries and a coke.
 
Geckko said:
But the percentage is particularly pertinant as a measurement of what is observable, which is what this particular study is about.

What if I told you I weighed myself this morning and I had lost 0.04 grams in weight. You would most likely say to me that it is highly questionable whether I am able to measure my weight with that level of precision.
Click to expand...
From the article :
"The GRACE mission is unique in its ability to measure mass changes directly for entire ice sheets and can determine how Earth's mass distribution changes over time," she said.
Click to expand...
I might well doubt your ability to weigh yourself so accurately, but I don't doubt there are instruments and facilities that could do so. Isabella Velicogna judges that the GRACE satellites are sensitive enough to measure accurately. What makes you think her wrong?

Most of the loss came from the West Antarctic ice sheet, which tallies with other, mostly ground-based observations.

Same with this study in my mind. I just don't think this paricular study is worth anything given the scale of the findings.
Click to expand...
The GRACE mission was launched at great expense by people who have better knowledge of its capabilities than you. It wasn't just thrown together. The findings are of a scale that lies within its capabilities.

Another reservation I would have about this study is that this scale of variation over an extremely short time span doesn't seem like it would be outside expected variations from year to year. Again, take my weight analogy. There would be something wrong if our weight didn't vary by 0.0005%, or around 0.04 grams from day to day. I would think the same about the Antarctic Ice sheet from year to year.
Click to expand...
This is not about whether or not you ate that last spoonful of ice-cream last night, it's about massive amounts of ice melting in a high-inertia, insensitive system.

I think the more correct conclusion should be that the measured variation in the ice sheet over the short period of study has been too small to draw any conclusions about whether it is growing or shrinking.
Click to expand...
The conclusions given are that the ice-mass shrank over a three-year period. There was less at the end of the period than at the beginning. GRACE has only been flying since 2002, so no longer-term conclusions were presented.

Your assumptions of the normal variation over three years appear to be entirely subjective.
 
RandFan said:
I assume this is in response to my post. If so, thank you so much for that. However, what does this specifially have to do with your argument?
Click to expand...

Scientific American is telling you exactly the frequencies that the two specifically mentioned gases absorb. That is what they do, they absorb radiation at a specific frequency. The more gas present, the more radiation they absorb. It is not a linear relationship, but you get the general idea.

The link is a history of how long it was known and appreciated that CO2 was a Greenhouse gas, and how it worked. IIRC, over a hundred years now.
 
a_unique_person said:
The link is a history of how long it was known and appreciated that CO2 was a Greenhouse gas, and how it worked. IIRC, over a hundred years now.
Click to expand...
It was discovered because of the discrepancy between thermodynamics - the Earth as a black-body radiator - and the observed conditions on Earth. Thermodynamics being unassailable, the discrepancy revealed that there was something else going on. That's how science works. Doncha love it?

Of course, when the Greenhouse Effect was worked out it had no political or economic implications, and so there was no controversy. It was just science. And, of course, still is.
 
a_unique_person said:
Scientific American is telling you exactly the frequencies that the two specifically mentioned gases absorb. That is what they do, they absorb radiation at a specific frequency. The more gas present, the more radiation they absorb. It is not a linear relationship, but you get the general idea.

The link is a history of how long it was known and appreciated that CO2 was a Greenhouse gas, and how it worked. IIRC, over a hundred years now.
Click to expand...
{sigh} I don't know how long I want to chase you around the room. You made some unsupported assumptions in your original post (the one that started this) and to date you have not demonstrated how you got from point A to point B.

We have 3 choices as I see it.

1.) Withdraw the argument and simply state that CO2 is bad for the reasons stated in your provided links.

or

2.) Rethink and restate your argument so that it is logically valid and supports the claims made.

3.) keep posting links and spouting data that does not address the problems inherent in your argument. Just understand this will not advance or correct your argument.

Look, it's not my argument or claim, it's yours. If you don't want to provide a logically valid argument to substantiate the claim made then fine. I'll gladly ignore it. Stop wasting my time.
 
I never claimed CO2 was 'bad'. CO2 is what it is. CO2 absorbs radiation at certain frequencies, that is a scientific certainty. No CO2, that is, no absorption of the energy at frequencies it absorbs, means the earth would be a lot cooler than it is now, that is, uninhabitable for us. As levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, so does the absorption of the radiation from the sun at the frequencies specified. That is, the earth will be warmer. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is, IIRC, projected to double. That will not cause a doubling of the earths temperature, (CO2 only absorbs a certain range of radiation, also the relationship is not linear, that is, if you keep increasing the amount of CO2, you will not keep increasing the ability to warm the earth. CO2 is effective at the very low levels (IIRC 300PPM) in the atmosphere at already capturing most of the radiation that is coming in. However, increase it, and the amount of radiation captured will still increase, to the so that the earth will still get warmer.
 
RandFan said:
I think your argument is incomplete. Aren't you begging the question here?
Click to expand...
Are you making an arse of yourself deliberately?

Thermodynamics predicts an Earth much colder than it is. Does every post have to include that to be complete? We're discussing - in the widest terms - Earth climate and if that fact is not in your posession, you really have nothing to contribute. The Greenhouse Effect explains why the Earth is as we experience it, not as thermodynmaics alone would explain. The effect is closely intertwined with quantum physics - born of another discrepancy with thermodynamics, by the way - and lots of other physics and technology. Discrepancies have yet to be found.

The greenhouse denialist position, which long post-dates the acceptance of the Greenhouse Effect because of its overwhelming evidential support, is essentially that the effect plateaus at about what it's been recently. And therefore any further CO2 contribution can be ignored. It is not generally the idea that there is no Greenhouse Effect. If that's your position, you'll find it a lonely one.
 
a_unique_person said:
I never claimed CO2 was 'bad'. CO2 is what it is. CO2 absorbs radiation at certain frequencies, that is a scientific certainty. No CO2, that is, no absorption of the energy at frequencies it absorbs, means the earth would be a lot cooler than it is now, that is, uninhabitable for us. As levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, so does the absorption of the radiation from the sun at the frequencies specified. That is, the earth will be warmer. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is, IIRC, projected to double. That will not cause a doubling of the earths temperature, (CO2 only absorbs a certain range of radiation, also the relationship is not linear, that is, if you keep increasing the amount of CO2, you will not keep increasing the ability to warm the earth. CO2 is effective at the very low levels (IIRC 300PPM) in the atmosphere at already capturing most of the radiation that is coming in. However, increase it, and the amount of radiation captured will still increase, to the so that the earth will still get warmer.
Click to expand...
So, # 3. Ok, fine. Thanks.
 
CapelDodger said:
Are you making an arse of yourself deliberately?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

Thermodynamics predicts an Earth much colder than it is. Does every post have to include that to be complete?
Click to expand...
No, an argument should be logically valid. As it is AUP's argument (his statement) is not logically valid.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it must be, or else the earth would be something like 20C cooler. More CO2 = warmer, less = cooler.
Click to expand...
This statement by itself is not logically valid. It beggs the question. A conclusion is based on a premise based on the conclusion.

Proposition #1: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Proposition #2: If Carbon Dioxide wasn't a greenhouse gas the earth would be cooler.
Proposition #3: More CO2 = warmer, less = cooler

Proposition #1 proves #2 and #3
Proposition #2 proves #3 and #1
Proposition #3 proves #1 and #2

Can you say circular? All I'm asking is for AUP to correct and justify his claim. Sheesh, heaven forbid I should ask for logic in a skeptics forum.

Whatever, go ahead and call me an arse. Ad hominem is a good response to a logical request.
 
Leaving aside your frustration with AUP, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in any serious dispute that I'm aware of.
 
jj said:
Leaving aside your frustration with AUP, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in any serious dispute that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Sorry jj, I'm the self proclaimed logic police. My mission is to stamp out illogical statements wherever I find them (not counting my own of course). ;)
 
a_unique_person said:
I would say logically consistent. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not denied by anyone. The rest of the statements logically follow.
Click to expand...
No, you are making an argument AUP. You are drawing a conclusion. Please note the following "it must be, or else ".

You are using one proposition to prove another without establishing the first.

How about:
CO2 is accepted as a green house gas.
Because CO2 is a green house gas it causes the earth to be warmer.

Now THAT is a logically valid argument. Your's is demonstrably not a logially valid argument.

AUP, you can construct a logically invalid argument and arrive at a valid conclusion. Without speaking to your conclusion I'm questioning your argument.
 
Hence my providing you with links on the scientific discovery of the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the specific frequencies it absorbs. That is, proof that it is a greenhouse gas, in case there was any doubt about the fact. No-one that I have ever read of who is an AGW denier has not accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
 
a_unique_person said:
Hence my providing you with links on the scientific discovery of the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the specific frequencies it absorbs. That is, proof that it is a greenhouse gas, in case there was any doubt about the fact. No-one that I have ever read of who is an AGW denier has not accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...
{puts head in hands and weeps}

Ok, how about this, do you understand that your original argument is logically invalid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom