what's the deal with global warming?

[Diamond]

You quote one paper and I'm supposed to fall off my chair in awe?

Its considered to be the best meta-analysis to date by earth scientists and has not been refuted, despite spawning numerous new research.

By whom is it considered one of the better analyses? Most papers in climate science are not refuted unless experiments are conducted which falsify predictions made. Guess what? There are other meta-analyses which contradict this paper. Guess what? You haven't read them, but are so sure that this one paper is the be-all-and-end-all that you've spent several pages on this message board not discussing its findings but attacking me because I haven't happened to have read this one paper.

If you're going to argue that this one paper is so phenomenal, then point to it on the Internet and stop giving us the BS about how this proves anything.

Guess what Galileo, sometime you just have to go the library. Its not available online.
Again, the article is in Science Vol 268, pages 59-68 (April, 1995)
But you won't read it. You don't care about real science. You never have.

Now prove that I don't care about real science. I've spent a lot of time studying science (more than 20 years). Prove that you're not a troll.

Your physics knowledge is so poor and your use of scientific terms so wretched that I can only conclude you work as a janitor in a University someplace.

Really now, because I inverted one defenition? Do you have anything tangible to offer in support of your position? Anything at all? Have you even read ONE paper you can provide as a reference to support your position?

Yes, that's as close as you'll come to admitting you're a troll. Yes. Yes. Yes.

How can you claim knowledge of the subject when you aren't even aware of the current research thats going on?
Do you have anything other than ad-homs?

All of this from someone who insults me personally in every single post. You've claimed that I don't know basic science when it is you who has made basic science mistake after basic science mistake.

A unanimity of people around you who accept AGW as true means nothing without testable and replicable results on the foundation of a falsifiable hypothesis. That's why I have a problem with AGW, its not falsifiable. It could be true or not, but I can't tell since it doesn't predict specific phenomena that other, simpler theories predict just as well.

AGW is easily falsifiable. Either show that the earth is not getting warmer or that an increase in warmth is real but due to non manmade causes.

Alas, not so. That's where your understanding of climate science fails. It isn't that simple.

On the scale of the last three centuries, the earth has warmed (but carbon dioxide only started to rise halfway through that period, natch). On the scale of millenia, the earth has cooled. It isn't as warm now as it was 1000 years ago or 6000 years ago.

If you would read the paper, you would understand that Dr. Thompson looked at precession, vucanism and solar flucuations to explain the rate of temperature gains this century. He found minor correlations amongst all of them. The strongest correlation, by far, however, was human CO2 emissions.

This is where you argue that carbon dioxide causes a warming that had already begun 150 years before? In the 20th Century, most warming happened in the early part of the century but most rise in carbon dioxide happened in the latter part. The correlation would have to be a miracle of mathematics to show a cause that comes after the effect. Time travel, perhaps?

There are lots of people on this board who would remind you of the logical fact that correlation does not prove causation

You would undestand that if you read the paper.
But you haven't and you won't, because you've already made up your mind. You have no interest in the truth, science or discovery. You stick your head in the sand and refuse to examine the evidence.

Nope. No ad hominems there.

 

[rockoon]

If we find out global warming will have a catastrophic outcome then those six years will make all the difference in the world.

This is an appeal to consequences. Yet another of yeti's logical fallacies.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING EVERYBODY IN DOORS OR BE CRUSHED!!!

[Edited for typo]

 

[EvilYeti]

This is an appeal to consequences. Yet another of yeti's logical fallacies.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING EVERYBODY IN DOORS OR BE CRUSHED!!!

[Edited for typo]

Looks like rockoon doesn't understand the appeal to consequences fallacy either:

There are two types of cogent argument with which this fallacy is easily confused:
When an argument concerns a policy or plan of action--instead of a proposition--then it is reasonable to consider the consequences of acting on it.

When an argument is about a proposition, it is reasonable to assess the truth-value of any logical consequences of it. Logical consequences should not be confused with causal consequences, and truth or falsity should not be confused with goodness or badness.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

This is an appeal to consequences. Yet another of yeti's logical fallacies.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING EVERYBODY IN DOORS OR BE CRUSHED!!!

[Edited for typo]

HOMO STRAMINEUS - THE STRAW MAN

 

[Aoidoi]

oooh, I love it when science gets vicious.

 

[rockoon]

Looks like rockoon doesn't understand the appeal to consequences fallacy either:

There are two types of cogent argument with which this fallacy is easily confused:
When an argument concerns a policy or plan of action--instead of a proposition--then it is reasonable to consider the consequences of acting on it.

When an argument is about a proposition, it is reasonable to assess the truth-value of any logical consequences of it. Logical consequences should not be confused with causal consequences, and truth or falsity should not be confused with goodness or badness.

I'm just following the thread and your posts. You made a claim and when a valid arguement was brought up you appealed to the consequences rather than address the arguement.

The arguement still stands that kyoto will have negligable effect and you did not address that but instead have appealed to consequences. You can play the word game all you want. You still have yet to give any logical arguements about any of the topics here in this thread.

Thanks again for your wonderful contributions.

 

[EvilYeti]

I'm just following the thread and your posts. You made a claim and when a valid arguement was brought up you appealed to the consequences rather than address the arguement.

Read this again:
There are two types of cogent argument with which this fallacy is easily confused:
When an argument concerns a policy or plan of action--instead of a proposition--then it is reasonable to consider the consequences of acting on it.

I was making a cogent argument, not a logical fallacy. Not that I expect you would have any experience with the former, but hey its never to late to learn.
In this case, the plan of action of reducing global CO2 emissions via the Kyoto accord will slow the rate of AGW. This will give us more time to study its long term effects. I feel that it is worth it despite economic repercussions. There is no logical fallacy here, move along.

The arguement still stands that kyoto will have negligable effect and you did not address that but instead have appealed to consequences. You can play the word game all you want. You still have yet to give any logical arguements about any of the topics here in this thread.

How would you know? You don't even understand simple, basic logical fallacies! And to top it off, you make a strawman argument in the process, as DM pointed out.
There an no word games here, you are just blatantly wrong.

Thanks again for your wonderful contributions.

Do you anything of substance, at all, to bring to this debate?

 

[EvilYeti]

By whom is it considered one of the better analyses? Most papers in climate science are not refuted unless experiments are conducted which falsify predictions made. Guess what? There are other meta-analyses which contradict this paper. Guess what? You haven't read them, but are so sure that this one paper is the be-all-and-end-all that you've spent several pages on this message board not discussing its findings but attacking me because I haven't happened to have read this one paper.

It's considered one of the better analyses by the population of earth scientists that study global warming.
How the HELL would you know that other analyses contradict the paper? You haven't even read the paper! From what you've said earlier you obviously didn't even understand the synopsis. Name the studies and the journal they were published in and I will be happy to read them. Why do offer nothing but empty assertions, time and time again?

Now prove that I don't care about real science. I've spent a lot of time studying science (more than 20 years). Prove that you're not a troll.

You claim to be interested in the study of AGW but displayed ignorance of then a refusal to examine some of the best current evidence. Why? Because you can't find it on google. Here's a hint guy, real Scientists go to the library, not google. Oh, and its contrary to your religion.
Btw, you can't prove a negative. I would have thought a scientist would know that.

Yes, that's as close as you'll come to admitting you're a troll. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do you have anything of substance, at all, to bring to the debate other then ad-hom attacks? No, of course not.

All of this from someone who insults me personally in every single post. You've claimed that I don't know basic science when it is you who has made basic science mistake after basic science mistake.

No, I claim you don't know how scientific research is done in the modern world. You also seem to be unaware of how the vast majority of earth scientists feel about global warming. Other than that I have no idea if you know anything about science at all, because you never provide any. Just assertions, assertions, assertions.

On the scale of the last three centuries, the earth has warmed (but carbon dioxide only started to rise halfway through that period, natch). On the scale of millenia, the earth has cooled. It isn't as warm now as it was 1000 years ago or 6000 years ago.

The earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in recorded history. Thats what the concern is, not what the temperature was 6000 years ago.

This is where you argue that carbon dioxide causes a warming that had already begun 150 years before? In the 20th Century, most warming happened in the early part of the century but most rise in carbon dioxide happened in the latter part. The correlation would have to be a miracle of mathematics to show a cause that comes after the effect. Time travel, perhaps?

Wrong, most warming happened in the latter half of the century, from 1970 to the present. Where do you get this garbage from? Are you just making it up?

There are lots of people on this board who would remind you of the logical fact that correlation does not prove causation

The inverse of that fallacy, which you are comitting, is that not all correlation is bogus.

I have to admit, I find you Galileo quote deeply ironic. I'm sure if you were around in his times you would have been one of his religious persecuters. Ignoring scientific evidence in favor of religious beliefs.
Your arguments are no different than those of creationists, parapsychologists, holocaust deniers and flat earthers. You reject all evidence contrary to your established belief while accepting uncritically that which reinforces it. That is the very antithesis of science.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Kyoto effect isn't supposed to be a solution but merely a small step in a long chain towards a solution. Attacking the Kyoto effect as "neglible" then is a straw person.

 

[rockoon]

Do you anything of substance, at all, to bring to this debate?

In 1975 the outcry was for global cooling and the proposed solution was to have the government set limits on economic growth, limits on the use of natural resources and fossil fuels, and other government restrictions on economic activity.

In 1988 the idea of global warming was brought up by James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies before the U.S. Senate. He came armed with a computer model. This has grown to the new global warming outcry and the proposed solution is to have the government set limits on economic growth, limits on the use of natural resources and fossil fuels, and other government restrictions on economic activity.

Notice the same solution? I did. I find it very interresting.

In 1975 the "mountain" of evidence for global cooling was supposedly indisputable. Now the "mountain" of evidence for global warming is supposedly indisputable. Its a good thing both problems have the same solution. We can tackle two birds with one stone eh?

Studies over the last 20 years shows that the brightness and overall activity of the sun is rising and that the sun is currently at its most active for 30 years. Add to this the fact that the majority of the half-degree rise in global temperature over the past 120 years happened before 1940.... you begin to wonder what exactly is going on with the people doing these studies rather than whats going on with the climate.

Now I ask you this since you admit to being an earth scientist. If global cooling were real what would your solution be? An increase in CO2 emissions perhaps?

All the experts I have read say the opposite. If global cooling is real the solution is to limit CO2 emissions. But here you are saying the solution to global warming is to limit CO2 emissions.

Would you folks make up your mind please?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

So basically you have anecdotes concerning outdated research, which you are trying to paint all GW research and testimony with.

 

[Diamond]

By whom is it considered one of the better analyses? Most papers in climate science are not refuted unless experiments are conducted which falsify predictions made. Guess what? There are other meta-analyses which contradict this paper. Guess what? You haven't read them, but are so sure that this one paper is the be-all-and-end-all that you've spent several pages on this message board not discussing its findings but attacking me because I haven't happened to have read this one paper.

It's considered one of the better analyses by the population of earth scientists that study global warming.
How the HELL would you know that other analyses contradict the paper? You haven't even read the paper! From what you've said earlier you obviously didn't even understand the synopsis. Name the studies and the journal they were published in and I will be happy to read them. Why do offer nothing but empty assertions, time and time again?

I'd love to, but you don't understand basic science, nor the scientific method.

Now prove that I don't care about real science. I've spent a lot of time studying science (more than 20 years). Prove that you're not a troll.

You claim to be interested in the study of AGW but displayed ignorance of then a refusal to examine some of the best current evidence. Why? Because you can't find it on google. Here's a hint guy, real Scientists go to the library, not google. Oh, and its contrary to your religion.
Btw, you can't prove a negative. I would have thought a scientist would know that.

That's right. I can't prove that AGW is not real, or Santa Claus does not exist. If popularity of beliefs mattered then we should be hearing from lots and lots of people concerning your inability to explain your lack of belief in lots of commonly held beliefs.

Yes, that's as close as you'll come to admitting you're a troll. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do you have anything of substance, at all, to bring to the debate other then ad-hom attacks? No, of course not.

You make scientific mistake after mistake (and I mean really basic scientific mistakes) and I'm supposed to take you seriously?

All of this from someone who insults me personally in every single post. You've claimed that I don't know basic science when it is you who has made basic science mistake after basic science mistake.

No, I claim you don't know how scientific research is done in the modern world. You also seem to be unaware of how the vast majority of earth scientists feel about global warming. Other than that I have no idea if you know anything about science at all, because you never provide any. Just assertions, assertions, assertions.

The assertion that you know how the vast majority of earth scientists feel about global warming is the mere assertion of someone who mistakes rhetoric for proof.

On the scale of the last three centuries, the earth has warmed (but carbon dioxide only started to rise halfway through that period, natch). On the scale of millenia, the earth has cooled. It isn't as warm now as it was 1000 years ago or 6000 years ago.[

The earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in recorded history. Thats what the concern is, not what the temperature was 6000 years ago.

...is a non answer. If the rate is "unprecendented" then you should be able to look at the climate record and say why it is unprecedented. But you can't because all you have is rhetoric and insults.

This is where you argue that carbon dioxide causes a warming that had already begun 150 years before? In the 20th Century, most warming happened in the early part of the century but most rise in carbon dioxide happened in the latter part. The correlation would have to be a miracle of mathematics to show a cause that comes after the effect. Time travel, perhaps?

Wrong, most warming happened in the latter half of the century, from 1970 to the present. Where do you get this garbage from? Are you just making it up?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/globanntemp_pg.gif

Nope. Now tell me how they reconstructed the temperature of all the oceans (70% of the planet's surface) prior to satellite measurement in 1979. Are you making it up? Can you analyse anything or do you accept anything put on a website as unalloyed truth?

There are lots of people on this board who would remind you of the logical fact that correlation does not prove causation

The inverse of that fallacy, which you are comitting, is that not all correlation is bogus.

Another non-answer.

I have to admit, I find you Galileo quote deeply ironic. I'm sure if you were around in his times you would have been one of his religious persecuters. Ignoring scientific evidence in favor of religious beliefs.

Another set of ad hominem attacks, by claiming I have relgious beliefs in these matters. You don't know any better.

Your arguments are no different than those of creationists, parapsychologists, holocaust deniers and flat earthers. You reject all evidence contrary to your established belief while accepting uncritically that which reinforces it. That is the very antithesis of science.

You don't know science and the scientific method at all. All you have is attack after attack on my beliefs because I don't accept yours at face value.

 

[Schneibster]

Rockoon

I'm still waiting for this study which links tree ring growth with temperature. Please supply the reference.

The following link shows two abstracts which have such studies: http://office.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/abstract.htm. The following link has another two: http://instaar.colorado.edu/AAAR/volume32/32-1abs.html. The following link is an abstract relating tree-ring data to borehole data: http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Seminars/Abstract111705.html. The following link is an abstract that says directly that climate and mostly temperature determines differences from year to year in the same tree, but that differences between trees are more commonly from environmental factors; however, dendrochronology is based on successive samples from different trees, and thus environmental factors can be normalized out: http://www.esajournals.org/esaonlin...&issn=0012-9615&volume=044&issue=04&page=0411.

ETA: those were the first four hits on Google for "tree ring variation temperature abstract."