Global warming or not?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ralph there is no need for me to do your research for you.

I've provided you with plenty of information to begin the search. You might even try Google and report back to us.

Seek and ye shall find.

Enjoy.

kennyc, I know the answers. They don't agree with global warming. You don't want to know the answers, for the same reason. You want your faith over uncertainty. <shrug> Ok, just stop insisting that I follow your rules, because they aren't for something proven....

[Vector]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Why things were so warm around 1000ad? Nobody was creating extra greenhouse gases then.

Why did the Maunders Minimum correlate with the Little Ice Age?

We have had 4 Ice Ages in the last 2 million years, with big warm-ups in between. Could somebody explain why the wild cycles, and why the current period is different?

The current period is different because of anthropogenic global warming. The current period is different because humans are putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

The present is often different from the past. Change happens. There has been non-anthropogenic climate change in the past. It does not follow that there is no anthropogenic climate change now.

I had the flu once. It does not follow that I can't get cancer. Yesterday was Saturday. It does not follow that today can't be Sunday.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Vector

The current period is different because of anthropogenic global warming. The current period is different because humans are putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

The present is often different from the past. Change happens. There has been non-anthropogenic climate change in the past. It does not follow that there is no anthropogenic climate change now.

I had the flu once. It does not follow that I can't get cancer. Yesterday was Saturday. It does not follow that today can't be Sunday.

Yes, humans are putting billions of tons of carbon in the atmosphere. That is one factor. But there is no way of proving it's the causative reason. You could only prove that if you could account for all other factors from your calculation, over time. but no one can accurately describe all the non-anthropogenic factors to start with. So to say any correlative facts are causitive is simple not proven.

For example, there have been a lot of sunspots (on average) in the 20th century. The Maundy Minimum saw sunspot drop to around 1 per every 10 years! And with that drop occurred the Little Ice Age in the 1600's. Can I prove causation? Of course not, too few data points. But the 20th century temperature run up could be caused by either, both, or neither. Too little data, too sparse.

As to the Ice Ages themselves, we don't have a clue why they started or stopped. We just know they did. Maybe we are in a warm bubble before the next Little Ice Age. After all, there's been 4 bubbles like this before. Who knows, not enough data! Maybe all that carbon is staving off the next Ice Age...

Having said all this, I can't see the implementation of Draconian standards, reducing the standard of living for (literally) billions of people, over something not proven. Especially when technology will probably be solving the problem within the next 50 years anyway.

But all this doesn't matter to Global Warming Believers. They know the Truth, and want to convert everybody to their beliefs, no matter how much it may hurt the convertees....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

kennyc, I know the answers. They don't agree with global warming. You don't want to know the answers, for the same reason. You want your faith over uncertainty. <shrug> Ok, just stop insisting that I follow your rules, because they aren't for something proven....

I'm not insisting on anything Ralph other than if you want to argue science then you must follow the scientific method. The scientists that have published the research in peer-reviewed journals all agree that global warming is real and being caused by humans. Unless you can scientifically disprove it, the theory stands.

The minor issues you bring up have all been taken into account. They are anomalies that have little to do with what we are seeing with the current climate issues.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Vector

The current period is different because of anthropogenic global warming. The current period is different because humans are putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

The present is often different from the past. Change happens. There has been non-anthropogenic climate change in the past. It does not follow that there is no anthropogenic climate change now.

I had the flu once. It does not follow that I can't get cancer. Yesterday was Saturday. It does not follow that today can't be Sunday.

I've had a cold all week!

[RWood]

Considering that the published "scientific" data on "global warming" has been corrected to ensure that it proves the point of the writers and that groups of scientists have banded together to keep other scientists that do not agree with them silent, I find the whole affair to be nothing more than an invented crisis designed to provide a justification for one group or another to gain more control over our lives.

When I was in school we were taught that we were emerging from a mini ice age. The ground temps as measured from space show a slight cooling over the past several years. If this is news to you then you can thank those that have surpressed the data.

When they took core samples from Greenland they found that rising CO2 levels were a result of warming, not a cause of warming. Since the CO2 rise happened after the temp rise it could not have caused the temp rise.

Sure humans pump tons of stuff into the air each year, Mt St. Helens pumped more in a week than humans did in a year. One agency wants to regulate the amount of methane cows produce. Since getting a cow to regulate its own methane releases is a bit tricky, their solution is to limit the number of cows allowed in the US thus raising the brice of meat to levels that would make most people vegans. I am sure that RSE and Red agree with me that taking away good steaks would be a far worse fate.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not insisting on anything Ralph other than if you want to argue science then you must follow the scientific method. The scientists that have published the research in peer-reviewed journals all agree that global warming is real and being caused by humans. Unless you can scientifically disprove it, the theory stands.

The minor issues you bring up have all been taken into account. They are anomalies that have little to do with what we are seeing with the current climate issues.

The theory may "stand" but scientifically and logically speaking you do not seek to disprove a theory, you seek to prove it and in so doing, by default, may end up "disproving" it.

I have a theory that there are flying pink elephants in my back yard and they are what recently broke my rear bedroom window. Does that theory "stand" until you can "disprove" it? My brothers kid, who was playing in the room at the time swears it was not him who broke it and there is no quantifiable evidence as to what did break the window.

The scientific method requires a theory to be "proved"(at least to a replicatable or functionally and logically useful, standard) for it to have any validity/credibility, not the other way around. The flying pink elephant theory may "stand"(especially in the absence of a rock or some other evidence showing how the window broke or an admission by my nephew) but it has no credibility.

All that is not to say the "climate change" theory isn't credible though. As I've said, I don't know.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The theory may "stand" but scientifically and logically speaking you do not seek to disprove a theory, you seek to prove it and in so doing, by default, may end up "disproving" it.

I have a theory that there are flying pink elephants in my back yard and they are what recently broke my rear bedroom window. Does that theory "stand" until you can "disprove" it? My brothers kid, who was playing in the room at the time swears it was not him who broke it and there is no quantifiable evidence as to what did break the window.

The scientific method requires a theory to be "proved"(at least to a replicatable or functionally and logically useful, standard) for it to have any validity/credibility, not the other way around. The flying pink elephant theory may "stand"(especially in the absence of a rock or some other evidence showing how the window broke or an admission by my nephew) but it has no credibility.

All that is not to say the "climate change" theory isn't credible though. As I've said, I don't know.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Well, if you wanna pick navel fluff, you are right, but the point is the same you have to come up with an experiment that disproves the hypothesis (which having been proven IS the theory)....and it repeatable, replicable, etc. per the terms of the scientific method.

What I find quite amazing in these sorts of discussions is that often those opposing the current scientific theory quite often don't even understand the Scientific Method and how these theories come about, nor the processes that the science establishment go through to verify and validate each and every paper that is published.

[GeoffC]

I personally do not know whether mankind is directly responsible for the phenomenon currently doing the 'rounds' as "Global Warming" - but as an ex-weather forecaster of 35 years I have seen enough to suggest that yes something is happening to weather patterns in general - not just locally, but globally.

Irrespective of man's involvement, there is sufficient happening to our weather and climate systems that will impact upon our lives and our childrens' lives unless there is a concerted and effective decision to globally 'sort-it-out', instead of the political and insular posturing that 'our leader' seem to enjoy.

Despite all talking since Kyoto leading up to Copenhagen, we appear no further forward on what to do.

Indeed the 'hot air' spouted from these conferences seems, collectively, to do little good....other than exacerbate differences.....

[astra]

Do I believe it or not?
He said it for me:
(you can ignore foreign subtitles)
The Planet Is...

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Having said all this, I can't see the implementation of Draconian standards, reducing the standard of living for (literally) billions of people, over something not proven.

Isn't that the problem with science though - that it deals in probabilities rather than cast-iron proof that the general population demand?
There will always be some degree of uncertainty to chisel away at.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by astra

Do I believe it or not?
He said it for me:
(you can ignore foreign subtitles)
The Planet Is...

"build a house on mount kilauea and then wonder why there is lava in the living room"



Geologic time, like infinity is pretty good while. I agree we as a species tend to be over-arrogant but also feel we should be as responsible as possible, not take a defeatist attitude knowing that we won't be around forever.

[Vector]

There is no absolutely certain knowledge of anything, not even mathematical propositions. It may be that two and two do not add up to four. It just seems that way to us because we are all hopelessly insane.

People determined to deny the undeniable may place an impossible burden of proof on those who assert what they wish to deny. Disprove any possible alternative, no matter how speculative, to what you claim is true.

Those of us who claim that global warming is anthropogenic cannot prove, as a matter of absolute certainty, that it is not due to sunspots. No one can prove or disprove anything as a matter of absolute certainty. We cannot prove that global warming is not caused by astrological influences, or by the exercise of psychic powers by malicious extraterrestrials.

The case for anthropogenic global warming is not based on speculation. It is based on established science and solid empirical data. Attributing global warming to sunspots is pure speculation. It is not reasonable to reject solid science based on pure speculation.

Imagine it is December 8, 1941 and we are U.S. Senators considering a declaration of war. Should we decline to vote for such a declaration because no one can disprove the following possibilities?:

1. The attack on Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. The reports that it did are all lies. The films and photographs are clever forgeries, prepared by Hollywood technicians.

2. The attack happened, but the Japanese didn’t do it. It was hawks in the U.S. military pretending to be Japanese.

3. The attack happened, but the British did it. They want to bring us into the war to help them defeat their enemies.

4. The attackers were Japanese but they were rogue elements in the Japanese military acting without authorization. Declaring war would be counterproductive, as it would force the Japanese to close ranks against us.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, if you wanna pick navel fluff, you are right, but the point is the same you have to come up with an experiment that disproves the hypothesis (which having been proven IS the theory)....and it repeatable, replicable, etc. per the terms of the scientific method.

What I find quite amazing in these sorts of discussions is that often those opposing the current scientific theory quite often don't even understand the Scientific Method and how these theories come about, nor the processes that the science establishment go through to verify and validate each and every paper that is published.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not insisting on anything Ralph other than if you want to argue science then you must follow the scientific method. The scientists that have published the research in peer-reviewed journals all agree that global warming is real and being caused by humans. Unless you can scientifically disprove it, the theory stands.

I follow Karl Popper's method of falsification. Take all the know facts (not just pick and choose the ones you like) and create a theory that covers all the facts. Then try to find a new fact that disproves the theory. If you can, then you make a new theory covering all the old facts and the new ones as well. Repeat ad infinitum. You'll never know the "truth" but you limit the locus that contains it.

Global Warming theories pick and choose what facts they want, leaving out lots of other facts because they don't fit the "theory". Then they claim to "prove" Global warming with the remaining facts and ignore any facts that disagree with their theory. If I may quote....

Originally Posted by kennyc

The minor issues you bring up have all been taken into account. They are anomalies that have little to do with what we are seeing with the current climate issues.

They have not been taken in account, they have been ignored because they don't "fit" the theory. I refuse to let them be "swept under the rug". Any theory of climate change must explain older climate changes, so they can be properly discounted to eliminate existing variables. Only then can you speculate on the causality of new variables.

What I get is the following.

Humans add CO2 to atmosphere.
CO2 causes greenhouse effect.
Temperature went up.

Case closed. Kill civilization to stop CO2 being generated.

(No explanation of the Ice Ages and wild long-term temperature swings. No explanation of the Medieval warm-up. No explanation of The Little Ice Age. No explanation of core sample CO2 lags to temperature changes. No explanation.... Nothing beyond being able to handle a simple Aristotelian syllogism...)

[kennyc]

What? WWII was a Hollywood Movie? Just like the Moon Landing? Say it ain't so Joe!