Global Warming

[Niocan]

Appeals to authority

Instead of appealing and hyping up this field, how about detailing exact numbers instead of using media sound bytes?

A nice link from pharyngula: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

An interesting comparison, but my first quick comment is that there's absolutely no mention of any other factor then CO2... Why is that?

 

[Niocan]

The implication that the anti-science crowd is making is that somehow they can think of things that thousands of climate science experts, and all of their students, somehow missed out on noticing. They really think that climate scientists have never heard of climate cycles, or... THE SUN. :facepalm:

Stop justifying your own position by straw-manning the opposition; Why aren't there other well known hypotheses that are taken on par with the human-driven CO2 hypothesis? Why is it that one guess is protected and the others are dismissed based only upon that protectiveness?

 

[ExeFBM]

Why aren't there other well known hypotheses that are taken on par with the human-driven CO2 hypothesis? Why is it that one guess is protected and the others are dismissed based only upon that protectiveness?

CO2 is not the sole reason behind climate change, no-one is saying it is. It's just a large factor that we have the ability to control.

CO2 doesn't have to have an effect as large as the sun or magma to be dangerous. It just has to have enough of an effect to raise the global temperature by a few degrees.

If there are no "other well known hypotheses" to gravity or evolution, does that make them part of a conspiracy as well, or is it just that all of the available data fits?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why aren't there other well known hypotheses that are taken on par with the human-driven CO2 hypothesis? Why is it that one guess is protected and the others are dismissed based only upon that protectiveness?

CO2 is not the sole reason behind climate change, no-one is saying it is. It's just a large factor that we have the ability to control.

CO2 doesn't have to have an effect as large as the sun or magma to be dangerous. It just has to have enough of an effect to raise the global temperature by a few degrees.

If there are no "other well known hypotheses" to gravity or evolution, does that make them part of a conspiracy as well, or is it just that all of the available data fits?

What he's dishonestly claiming is that other hypotheses are really facts that have been rejected by a scientific conspiracy because they don't fit into the orthodoxy. The reality is that those hypotheses have been examined and rejected because they failed to match up to the evidence, and failed to explain things better than accepted theories. Niocan believes that bad ideas should be embraced because he and his fellow non-experts want them to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Niocan]

CO2 is not the sole reason behind climate change, no-one is saying it is. It's just a large factor that we have the ability to control.

It isn't the sole reason, and I know that; But it's the only factor that's being 'actively' looked at and debated. The real question here, is if we are able to control our contribution to the CO2 levels (As it's impossible to control the eruption of volcanoes and the like) will this control have *any* effect on the earths climate? I think not, because of the other driving factors behind the climate.

CO2 doesn't have to have an effect as large as the sun or magma to be dangerous. It just has to have enough of an effect to raise the global temperature by a few degrees.

Only if the system cannot balance itself, and the sole fact that plants grow far better with additional CO2 is enough to put the fear inherent in this 'unbalance' to rest.

If there are no "other well known hypotheses" to gravity or evolution, does that make them part of a conspiracy as well, or is it just that all of the available data fits?

The data either fits well enough for what we use it for, or it doesn't. If active debate and full disclosure of information aren't brought about, then yes, a conspiracy is naturally brought about.

What he's dishonestly claiming is that other hypotheses are really facts that have been rejected by a scientific conspiracy because they don't fit into the orthodoxy.

No, that would be your attempt to stawman this argument. What I'm saying is that the hypothesis of AGW is wrong because there are better models to support the climate as its seen today. Though, we'll have to wait to verify in more detail the connection between cosmic rays and clouds. The urge to continue the talks based on a failed hypothesis should say something all on its own.

The reality is that those hypotheses have been examined and rejected because they failed to match up to the policies being implemented.

Fixed

Niocan believes that bad ideas should be embraced because he and his fellow non-experts want them to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

Strawman, again.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Appeals to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. It's you saying something is impossible (based on what exactly? your opinion as a layman?), and me pointing to the people who have spent years DOING that which you claim is impossible.

If you said it would be impossible for humans to go to the moon, would I be appealing to authority by citing NASA records of the landing?

You have nothing to back up your claims. AGW has this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+warming&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

 

[RichardMNixon]

What I'm saying is that the hypothesis of AGW is wrong because there are better models to support the climate as its seen today. Though, we'll have to wait to verify in more detail the connection between cosmic rays and clouds. The urge to continue the talks based on a failed hypothesis should say something all on its own.

Really? A better model? Peer reviewed literature, please.

Found your CERN stuff, the conclusion is that CLOUD might have part of the effect attributed to CO2. Where in there do they say GW is not affected by human activity?

 

[scalyblue]

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php

I invite any deniers to read and understand this article, cite the specific data and/or concepts that you wish to refute and provide sources to the refuting information. Otherwise, shut up.

Conclusion.

Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. The contrarian arguments raised by Alexander Cockburn lack scientific validity.

This is not to say that Cockburn and other skeptics should not have raised some of the questions they have. Science demands constant scrutiny and the misuse of science, when it occurs, is everyone's concern. But it is also important to recognize a truth when it has been established. The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there is still time.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What I'm saying is that the hypothesis of AGW is wrong because there are better models to support the climate as its seen today. Though, we'll have to wait to verify in more detail the connection between cosmic rays and clouds. The urge to continue the talks based on a failed hypothesis should say something all on its own.

Really? A better model? Peer reviewed literature, please.

Found your CERN stuff, the conclusion is that CLOUD might have part of the effect attributed to CO2. Where in there do they say GW is not affected by human activity?

Maybe he's now dishonestly claiming that climate scientists have never heard of cosmic rays and clouds? Who can tell, from someone who rejects everything real and embraces every stupid idea on Earth?

 

[obsidianavenger]

Maybe he's now dishonestly claiming that climate scientists have never heard of cosmic rays and clouds? Who can tell, from someone who rejects everything real and embraces every stupid idea on Earth?

are you capable of making an argument without insulting people?

while he's looking for evidence of non-human induced global warming, you should look for evidence of him "rejecting everything real". good luck proving he doesn't confidently roll out of bed in the morning expecting the ground to hold him

anyways, fun fact: if each american went vegetarian one day a week, it would be the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road.

curse ye cow farts!

 

[Squawk]

CO2 is not the sole reason behind climate change, no-one is saying it is. It's just a large factor that we have the ability to control.

It isn't the sole reason, and I know that; But it's the only factor that's being 'actively' looked at and debated. The real question here, is if we are able to control our contribution to the CO2 levels (As it's impossible to control the eruption of volcanoes and the like) will this control have *any* effect on the earths climate? I think not, because of the other driving factors behind the climate.

[/quote]

Well quite frankly thats a load of crap, how do you propose climate models arise without consideration to other factors? Climate science is a dynamic entity that continues to look at all known factors and is constantly trying to identify new ones. It's not even true to say that CO2 is the only subject under debate in the media, I can cite the miriad of articles that appear in the press that proclaim that all warming is due to factor X, whatever the in fashion factor is this week.

CO2 is, however, rightly considered when discussing policy because it is the factor that we can influence. Humanity accounts for the vast majority of CO2 released to the atmosphere (I can go and get the figures if you want) and CO2 has a non-trivial impact on the climate.

Your final line, I think not, is merely uninformed speculation.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Don't forget methane. On a per unit basis its significantly worse as a greenhouse gas, just less attention since there's less of it I guess. And people (myself definitely included) would rather drive an efficient car than give up meat.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think this says it all:

 

[Aught3]

Actually that cartoon highlights one of the problems in getting people to accept that something needs to be done about climate change. Liberals should be swayed by the argument presented by conservatives would be against implementing a better world because all the changes are being put in place by governments. This fear of government control is likely enough to make them reject the science so they can reject the government-based plans for a better world.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I like that conservatives are so scared of the big evil government managing healthcare or the environment, but they're A-OK with having the government tell people what counts as marriage and which pharmacologically active plants can't be grown.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I like that conservatives are so scared of the big evil government managing healthcare or the environment, but they're A-OK with having the government tell people what counts as marriage and which pharmacologically active plants can't be grown.

i like how liberals are the exact opposite. :mrgreen:

the concept that "big gov't is OK so long as they are enforcing something i like" frustrates me to no end, and it is rife on both sides.

 

[Niocan]

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php

I invite any deniers to read and understand this article, cite the specific data and/or concepts that you wish to refute and provide sources to the refuting information. Otherwise, shut up.

In 1991, a rather disturbing thing happened in Kuwait: Oil wells were set ablaze. This addition to the CO2 of the world is recorded, as per this monitoring station in Hawaii and the first graph listed on your linked paged, is 1.2ppm.

Apparently nothing changed that year, at all, even with this massive release of CO2.... in terms of human generation. Why is that? And rest assured I'll be pointing out the rest of the bullshit in said article

 

[scalyblue]

In 1991, a rather disturbing thing happened in Kuwait: Oil wells were set ablaze. This addition to the CO2 of the world is recorded, as per this monitoring station in Hawaii and the first graph listed on your linked paged, is 1.2ppm.

Apparently nothing changed that year, at all, even with this massive release of CO2.... in terms of human generation. Why is that? And rest assured I'll be pointing out the rest of the bullshit in said article

This is a chart the data set that you provided, You can certainly see a large increase in the concentration of CO2 in 1991.

The only bullshit is what's coming out of you, you twit. You don't understand any of the core concepts of AGW if you think that feedback can occur in the space of a single year.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I like that conservatives are so scared of the big evil government managing healthcare or the environment, but they're A-OK with having the government tell people what counts as marriage and which pharmacologically active plants can't be grown.

i like how liberals are the exact opposite. :mrgreen:

the concept that "big gov't is OK so long as they are enforcing something i like" frustrates me to no end, and it is rife on both sides.

From where I'm standing, conservatives just love to make victims out of victimless crimes. Especially if the bible told them to. I have no issue with big government as long as it's serving some purpose other than taking rights away from people for no good reason.

 

[Jotto999]

I think this says it all:

I agree with this. Even if the contribution to climate change of humans is insignificant, the progress made from taking action surely is reason enough, even with the possibility of our original motivator as a hoax. Besides, I kind of doubt human impact on climate change has been "insignificant".