Shermer flips GW stance

CapelDodger said:
"Unprecedented" cannot be qualified, any more than "unique" can.
Click to expand...
This is a really dumb thing to argue. I'm trying to get some information from you and not debate the meaning of "unprecedented". You are at best being unnecessarily pedantic.

The temperature goes up.
The temperature goes down.

By definition, an unprecedented high temperature means that the temperate is higher than it has ever been before (give or take a few variables like the formation of the planet).

Question: How much higher is this unprecedented temperature from the previous record?

See, you knew that. But you didn't want to address my question you simply wanted to play games.

Permafrost that has not melted since the Younger Dryas is now melting. That's pretty sound evidence that today's temperatures are unprecedented in this inter-glacial.
Click to expand...
Cite? Assuming this is so, has the permafrost ever melted in another inter-glacial? If yes then how do you account for that?

You've effectively claimed that that natural variations have occurred that mimic the current climate event. I claim different, but how do I prove a negative? You could at least provide a counter-example to put me straight.
Click to expand...
No, this is wrong. I have said that the earth has cooled and warmed, too varying degrees both moderate and extreme, for eons and I would like to know how you can be so sure that humans are the cause for this current trend? I'm assuming that scientists have an answer. I'm confident that you don't. If you did you would likely have provided it by now.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
If you want to read what the scientists say, read the IPCC reports. Plus, there is a new one coming out next year, they are hard at work on it right now.
Click to expand...
Cool, but if you are addressing me then it is entirely beside the point. I suspect that there are people who are much smarter than I that can make Capel's argument. My only point is that he isn't making it. Further I'm not certain if he has a clue as to what he is talking about. Often his posts look like he is just winging it.

What I haven't been able to figure out is if he is serious or if he is just pulling my leg to see how long I'll keep respond to him.

Thanks though,

RandFan
 
Capel Dodger is not a troll, and as far as I can tell, has tried to respond to your questions as best he can. While, from I can tell, he has been involved in related research some years ago, he is not engaged in active work in that area now. If he is not a scientist with expertise you require in this area, then that is not his fault. If you want the information from the horses mouth, that is, scientists actually conducting research in this area, then you will have to go to them and read their conculsions and research yourself.
 
a_unique_person said:
Capel Dodger is not a troll, and as far as I can tell, has tried to respond to your questions as best he can. While, from I can tell, he has been involved in related research some years ago, he is not engaged in active work in that area now. If he is not a scientist with expertise you require in this area, then that is not his fault. If you want the information from the horses mouth, that is, scientists actually conducting research in this area, then you will have to go to them and read their conclusions and research yourself.
Click to expand...
?

AUP, this is a skeptics forum. If someone makes a claim it is understood that he or she will support that claim with evidence and logically valid argument. Look, this isn't difficult. There are many ways that Capel can respond. For whatever reason he is choosing to respond in an obtuse fashion. I have every right to ask questions of someone who makes a claim. If this is beyond him then he can simply state that it is. I'm guessing that his ego won't let him.

More importantly, this is a valid line of inquiry. If current trends are not unprecedented in other glacial periods then I think that it stands to reason that we must try and find out why the other periods warmed with out man's contribution to green house gas.

Now, perhaps there is an answer. Perhaps the scientists working in this field understand how and why or even why my question is irrelevant. Show me that and I will go away. Telling me that it is my responsibility to demonstrate Capel's claim or telling me that it is up to me to find out why I'm wrong is not good form. I'm not going to simply go away because it is making Capel uncomfortable.

Hey, he can always stop responding.
 
Do you know how much time it takes to answer a lot of questions in a non-trivial fashion? We do have real lives outside the forum. You could go out there and spend a few months going over the books, IPCC website, etc yourself. Scepticism also takes work on your part.
 
RandFan said:
This is a really dumb thing to argue. I'm trying to get some information from you and not debate the meaning of "unprecedented". You are at best being unnecessarily pedantic.

The temperature goes up.
The temperature goes down.

By definition, an unprecedented high temperature means that the temperate is higher than it has ever been before (give or take a few variables like the formation of the planet).
Click to expand...
To repeat myself (a failing of mine, I know)
Current temperatures are unprecedented in this inter-glacial, so they aren't "moderate" by any measure.
Click to expand...
That was in response to your question of what "moderate" meant. (You see, I am being helpful.)

The current climate event has to seen in the context of the general climactic environment. That means in the middle to late period of an inter-glacial, normally a period of gradual cooling. That's what makes it an unusual event. If it were common for suddent bursts of rapid warming - more rapid than the warming leading up to the interglacial - to occur during such periods it would not be unusual. There is no evidence that such sudden warmings are common.

So we either have an uncommon natural forcing that manifests very rarely (and which we're not spotting, on a very well-monitored planet) or we have an unnatural forcing, a very good candidate for which is the CO2 load in the atmosphere caused by human activity. AGW. I go for the latter.

The world has been much warmer in the past. It's always warmer when there are no ice-sheets and no ice-ages. Ice has a high albedo (0.8) and ice-sheets reflect a lot of energy. Ergo, a warmer planet without them. Ice-epochs are not that common. Ice cannot form on open ocean (too much heat-transport from the tropics, and too much wave-action). Ice-epochs require continents or enclosed seas over one or other poles. Currently - and for millions of years - we have Antarctica over the South Pole and an almost enclosed ocean over the North Pole which gives us the Greenland ice-sheet.

This sort of long-term variation is of no relevance when considering the current climate event. Continental-drift operates on a vastly different timescale.

"How much unprecedented" is a dumb question, and that's not just pedantry. Look at it. If you mean "how much more than the previous high", say so.

Question:
Click to expand...
How much higher is this unprecedented temperature from the previous record?
Click to expand...
I don't know. And don't really care. Effects are what's important. Permafrost is melting, and that's very important.

See, you knew that. But you didn't want to address my question you simply wanted to play games.
Click to expand...
I used the word "unprecedented" because that's the point I was making. Your point is that this sort of variation happens all the time. Is it, in your opinion, simply coincidence that these unprecedented temperatures coincide with the increase of a known forcing - CO2-load? Address one of my points for a change.

Cite? Assuming this is so, has the permafrost ever melted in another inter-glacial? If yes then how do you account for that?
Click to expand...
Permafrost only forms during an inter-glacial. When glaciation advances permafrost is scoured off. New permafrost starts to form as glaciation retreats. Bare rock is colonised by arctic fauna which build up soil, or peat-bog, with permafrost forming at the bottom when it gets deep enough. We have no ancient permafrost to examine. The relevant point is that permafrost has not stopped accumulating since the Younger Dryas, until now. Now it's in decline.
 
RandFan said:
No, this is wrong. I have said that the earth has cooled and warmed, too varying degrees both moderate and extreme, for eons and I would like to know how you can be so sure that humans are the cause for this current trend? I'm assuming that scientists have an answer. I'm confident that you don't. If you did you would likely have provided it by now.
Click to expand...
Actually I have provided my reasons for thinking that AGW is behind the current climate event. I have pointed out that climate change caused by the drift of continents onto and off the Poles is not relevant when considering the current event. That's why the "eons" are irrelevant. Antarctica has not suddenly emigrated to the Pacific. The planet has not suddenly swerved in its orbit or changed its tilt. Climate change on that sort of timescale is not relevant to the current climate event.

When Panama rose and cut off communication (and heat-transfer) between the Atlantic and Pacific, the climate changed. It got colder. A quick check on GoogleEarth reveals that Panama hasn't suddenly gone away again, so that's not behind the current warming.

It's not as if no effort has gone into postulating and finding alternative forcings to AGW. There was the solar hypothesis, which fell to improved observation of the sun. There was the stronger Thermo-Haline Circulation which fell to real data which show a weaker THC. (Not that that's given Dr Gray any pause.) There used to be the "it's not happening anyway" hypothesis, but that's fallen by the wayside.

There has always been, and always will be, the conspiracy hypothesis. There's always a conspiracy hypothesis for anything. From the evidence your wife has on you, to prayers in school, there's always conspiracy to fall back on.

(edited for speling)
 
CapelDodger said:
Actually I have provided my reasons for thinking that AGW is behind the current climate event. I have pointed out that climate change caused by the drift of continents onto and off the Poles is not relevant when considering the current event.
Click to expand...
Which to date is just you flapping your lips.

That's why the "eons" are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Says you.

Antarctica has not suddenly emigrated to the Pacific. The planet has not suddenly swerved in its orbit or changed its tilt. Climate change on that sort of timescale is not relevant to the current climate event.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

When Panama rose and cut off communication (and heat-transfer) between the Atlantic and Pacific, the climate changed. It got colder. A quick check on GoogleEarth reveals that Panama hasn't suddenly gone away again, so that's not behind the current warming.
Click to expand...
Another strawman and not relevant to what we are talking about. I'm asking a simple question and you are not addressing the question.

It's not as if no effort has gone into postulating and finding alternative forcings to AGW. There was the solar hypothesis, which fell to improved observation of the sun. There was the stronger Thermo-Haline Circulation will fell to real data which show a weaker THC. (Not that that's given Dr Gray any pause.) There used to be the "it's not happening anyway" hypothesis, but that's fallen by the wayside.

There has always been, and always will be, the conspiracy hypothesis. There's always a conspiracy hypothesis for anything. From the evidence your wife has on you, to prayers in school, there's always conspiracy to fall back on.
Click to expand...
That's all very nice Capel. I'm sure we are all deeply edified. Unfortunatly it doesn't address the point at hand but I'm glad you had the opportunity to share.
 
CapelDodger said:
To repeat myself (a failing of mine, I know)
That was in response to your question of what "moderate" meant. (You see, I am being helpful.)
Click to expand...
No, you are not being helpful at all. You want to get into an unnecessary semantical argument. Please don't insult me.

The current climate event has to seen in the context of the general climactic environment. That means in the middle to late period of an inter-glacial, normally a period of gradual cooling. That's what makes it an unusual event. If it were common for suddent bursts of rapid warming - more rapid than the warming leading up to the interglacial - to occur during such periods it would not be unusual. There is no evidence that such sudden warmings are common.
Click to expand...
?

You have said over and over that you are only interested in the current period. If that is true then you don't have a basis to make this statement. How do you know that it is "more rapid"? Compared to what? Perhaps the earth always warms significantly at this point in the cycle.

So we either have an uncommon natural forcing that manifests very rarely (and which we're not spotting, on a very well-monitored planet) or we have an unnatural forcing, a very good candidate for which is the CO2 load in the atmosphere caused by human activity. AGW. I go for the latter.
Click to expand...
To date, unsubstantiated by you. It is only a claim that you make.

The world has been much warmer in the past. It's always warmer when there are no ice-sheets and no ice-ages. Ice has a high albedo (0.8) and ice-sheets reflect a lot of energy. Ergo, a warmer planet without them. Ice-epochs are not that common. Ice cannot form on open ocean (too much heat-transport from the tropics, and too much wave-action). Ice-epochs require continents or enclosed seas over one or other poles. Currently - and for millions of years - we have Antarctica over the South Pole and an almost enclosed ocean over the North Pole which gives us the Greenland ice-sheet.
Click to expand...
Well thanks, it doesn't address the question but hey...

This sort of long-term variation is of no relevance when considering the current climate event. Continental-drift operates on a vastly different timescale.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is your opinion that it is of no relevance. You have not established this however.

"How much unprecedented" is a dumb question, and that's not just pedantry. Look at it. If you mean "how much more than the previous high", say so.
Click to expand...
I DID SAY SO. This is disingenuous of you.

I don't know. And don't really care.
Click to expand...
No kidding. But that is the problem.

Effects are what's important. Permafrost is melting, and that's very important.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That permafrost is melting doesn't prove AGW. It proves GW.

Your point is that this sort of variation happens all the time.
Click to expand...
NO, NO, NO!!! Let me say that again, No, that is not my point.

Do you understand? That is not my point. Would you please pay attention? Would you please not state arguments that I did not make?

Here is my point, are you ready? Are you paying attention.

If the earth was warmer or if it has gone through similar warming trends in other glacial periods then how can you be certain that humans are the result of the current trend?

My Point: I don't know! Are we clear? I don't know. I'm asking you.

Is it, in your opinion, simply coincidence that these unprecedented temperatures coincide with the increase of a known forcing - CO2-load? Address one of my points for a change.
Click to expand...
{sigh}

1.) You have not addressed any of my points.
2.) You have not established that these temperatures are unprecedented.
3.) You acknowledge that you don't care about other glacial periods.

This raises an important and valid question. How do you know if the temperatures in this period are unprecedented compared to other glacial periods?

Look, if the earth always warms at this point in the cycle and humans were not here before then why don't we conclude that the current trend is not AGW.

Let me guess, "you don't care", right?

Permafrost only forms during an inter-glacial. When glaciation advances permafrost is scoured off. New permafrost starts to form as glaciation retreats. Bare rock is colonised by arctic fauna which build up soil, or peat-bog, with permafrost forming at the bottom when it gets deep enough. We have no ancient permafrost to examine. The relevant point is that permafrost has not stopped accumulating since the Younger Dryas, until now. Now it's in decline.
Click to expand...
Perhaps at this point of the cycle the the permafrost always stops accumulating. Can you say unequivocally that it doesn't?
 
RandFan, where do you draw the line between your consept of sceptisicm and solepsism? We cannot, after all, know anything, not even that an objective reality exists.

Solipsism is, of course, utterly barren and pointless. When scepticism becomes "anything could be true", how does it differ from credulity?

I've never tried to be the best sceptic, I've always tried to be right. I have always been one for saying "told you so". AGW has been a sure-fire winner for years. I hate to be wrong, and the unidentified natural forcing might move into a cooling phase which would not only help to identify it but would also prove me wrong. I'm not losing sleep over the prospect.
 
CapelDodger said:
RandFan, where do you draw the line between your consept of sceptisicm and solepsism? We cannot, after all, know anything, not even that an objective reality exists.

Solipsism is, of course, utterly barren and pointless. When scepticism becomes "anything could be true", how does it differ from credulity?

I've never tried to be the best sceptic, I've always tried to be right. I have always been one for saying "told you so". AGW has been a sure-fire winner for years. I hate to be wrong, and the unidentified natural forcing might move into a cooling phase which would not only help to identify it but would also prove me wrong. I'm not losing sleep over the prospect.
Click to expand...
You and I are not even communicating. Try as I might I can't get you to understand my point. I'm not abusing skepticism here. I'm trying to make a point. I have said over and over that I'm more inclined to accept AGW and the scientific consensus.

You seem to want to bring this to a close and perhaps that is appropriate. Let's move on. I'm sorry for some of the impertinent things that I said.

RandFan
 
CapelDodger said:
snip....

I've never tried to be the best sceptic, I've always tried to be right. I have always been one for saying "told you so". AGW has been a sure-fire winner for years. I hate to be wrong, and the unidentified natural forcing might move into a cooling phase which would not only help to identify it but would also prove me wrong. I'm not losing sleep over the prospect.
Click to expand...

I guess this tells me what I need to know.

There is no use talking about this with you.

Randfan, take a look at this. It's what led me to belive CD was full of ...... misinformation

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
 
Last edited:
Sure.

Take a look at the graph of ice core temperature/CO2 concentration data. It adds some perspective, in my opinion.

That's all. No proof one way or another, but perspective to the discussion.
 
Badger said:
Sure.

Take a look at the graph of ice core temperature/CO2 concentration data. It adds some perspective, in my opinion.

That's all. No proof one way or another, but perspective to the discussion.
Click to expand...
There will be no proof. Proof only applies to mathematics and logic, not science or the real world. What is the information you think I'm unaware of?
 
CapelDodger said:
There will be no proof. Proof only applies to mathematics and logic, not science or the real world. What is the information you think I'm unaware of?
Click to expand...

Think? That implies opinion.

Ok, what I THINK is that at the end of some previous glaciations, temperatures have been higher than now. It APPEARS TO ME, from the graph, that CO2 levels increase AFTER temperatures begin to increase at the end of glaciations, and decrease AFTER temperatures decrease during glaciations. I THINK that the last glaciation APPEARS longer and milder than previous ones.

Like that matters.

Why do you ask, anyway? You already obliquely stated that you have your mind made up and are unlikely to change it.
 
I don't think the issue of whether there have been higher temperatures than there are now is a new idea to anybody.

The arguments for AGW are of two types, IMHO.
1. theorectical analysis based on the theoretical effect of green house gases and/or other human caused effects on the climate.
2. empirical arguments based on the idea that something unusual is happening right now and the most likely cause is somethat humans are doing.

Under item 2 is the argument that earth is warming faster now than in the past and this warming corresponds roughly with the rise in CO2 and other human produced gases. The sight you linked to seems to support that idea.

And so does the study referred to in this article:
http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=197149

Many other observed effects seem to be consistent with an unusually quick change in the earth's climate including the melting of the tropical glaciers and the melting of perma frost.

Now, I am thinking that Randfan will reasonably want to know how fast the tropical glaciers are receding compared to how fast they have reseded in the past. I don't know but I have read several estimates that they will be gone within a 150 years and they have existed for thousands of years previously. Perhaps with a little digging around I could find a site with data on the rate that tropical glaciers are receding and how that compares with the fastest rates that they have receded at in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom