Parihaka

Yes Ames is a lovely little logic circle isn't she.
"Mars is warming because the dust storms are increasing".
But why are the dust storms increasing?
"Why? Because Mars is warming"
Tell it to Hansen, he'll believe it. Oh wait, he did.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Parihaka

Now then, where's your evidence for your theory of anthropogenic global warming?

gunnut

The sun's activity has increased over the past several decade is unsubstanciated? Are you calling Max Planck Institude a liar?

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame - Telegraph

Why can't we say the earth heats up and cools down all on its own, without our help?

Linky no worky...


This is what I have found most common from people who believe in man-made global warming:

Logical Science: The warming is natural, the sun and cosmic rays are heating the earth.

A cursory glance will show that all the data is less than 150 years old. What is 150 years in the scheme of the earth? When was the undisputed Medieval Warming Period? More than 1000 years ago. While it may seem long, it is still just a blip in the earth's history.

We simply don't know what the earth will do in the long run. Nothing we have can actually say for sure what the earth is up to.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Tang, let's for one minute, say you are correct. We humans are the cause of increased global temperature by way of CO2 emission in the atmosphere. What is your solution? Let's hear it.

tanq_tonic

Well, lets dig into the paper in question ad see what the authors say (instead of what a paper says what the publication says....)

What the authors really said

Even the authors still say that "at the most extreme assumption" that only 30% of the warming since 1970 can be of solar origin. the most extreme case

But, hey, this is your own basis.

Let's turn to some of mine:

linky that was chopped off:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf

Also, Bard et al. (2000) conclude that currents levels of solar activity were also reached or exceeded around 1200 AD.

PMOD at the World Radiation Center shows no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, based upon when satellite observations began.
welcome to pmodwrc


According to your Max Planck Institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekt...te/climate.gif



So now you are basing your statement of "its the sun" on the MWP? How does sun activity during this time have anything to do with the irradiance readings of today?

You are correct, we do nto know what the earth will do in the long run. This has *no* bearing whatsoever on whether the sun is "going brighter" *now* or for the last thirty to forty years.

You made the statement that (and I paraphrase) "GW is caused by the sun". So, the important thing is to look at the sun irradiance for the time in question (i.e. since the 70's or so). The record seems to be clear that there is plenty of evidence that there is nothing special going on with the sun since the 70's. Unless the Medeival Sun can somehow *zap* its effects to us right now (didn't I see tha in a Star Trek episode?), what may or may not have happened in the sun is utterly unimportant to the current record and the current GW issue.

By the way, i did like the statement from Solanki above in his own paper, didn't you?

Parihaka

Here's an interesting paper for the more scientific amoungst us.
From what my limited intelligence allows me it seems to assert that surface record readings used as proof of global warming theory ( I assume he means Mann's use of GISS's data specifically) are wrong.

Edit: indeed as I read again, calls into question the whole surface record accuracy in totality.

Edit again: so given this, Tanq, where is your evidence for unusual activity from the seventies forward?
We're back to Mann again, aren't we?

Ramo

Tang, you just stated that you would not consider reducing man made carbon emissions if it were proven that we were directly and significantly contributing to climate change, and that the consequences of climate change were on par with the moderate predictions of climatologists.

Have I understood you correctly?


And you, Dalem, have just stated that you do not care for the opinions of scientists, even if that opinion is backed by large numbers of them.

Have I understood you correctly?

Parihaka, my use of the word 'scientists' obviously implies those who are qualified in the areas relevant to climate science.
Furthermore, the scenarios I listed are obviously entirely hypothetical.

I was asking for you response to this situation, not a critique of it, especially not a misinformed one.

Parihaka

You asked us what degree of proof we'd require. I asked you to supply the proof. You tell me it's entirely hypothetical. hypothetical of what? If you could get a survey that doesn't exist?

Ramo

No, I was asking what your response would be to a variety of hypothetical scenarios.

Nothing more.

You could easily have said: 'I won't tell you my response to those scenarios, because I believe they are so improbable that there's no point in doing so.'

I'm not required to supply proof of anything.

Parihaka

So why are you asking? Your hypothetical questions were obviously leading, if your not actually prepared to stand up for what you believe, what is your point?
You want me to take assertions on faith? I'm not going to sorry.

Julie

How about the EPA ? Future Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Ramo

I'm asking for people's response to hypothetical scenarios to ascertain how much the position of climatologists has an effect on their opinions.

I can't fathom why you find this so hard to grasp.

If you don't like the question, you are quite entitled to not answer it, but you have no right to make demands of me, nor assume that I am using this as a tool against your arguments.

I am quite prepared to 'stand up for what I believe', simply ask me to do so, but my belief on this topic is, quite literally, an entirely separate issue.

tanq_tonic

No, your question was "if 100% of the scientists believed", NOT "if the scientists proved".

I am a firm critic of "science by consensus", there is no such thing. Science always has another viewpoint --- it has to to work. The key for for is, if sufficeint evidence were presneted to ME to believe, not whether 100% of other people, 99% of other people, or if 1% of other people believed something.

Having 100% of the scientists "believe" an idea does not equate to something being proven.

ArmchairGeneral

From the 1st century AD until Copernicus, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in a geocentric solar system. Not until Kepler was a sound heliocentric model developed, and not until Newton was there a sound theoretical basis for such a system. Unfortunately, that sound theory was wrong.

Phlogiston was the best explanation of heat for a century. It was, of course, shown to be false, and we finally understood that, as everybody knows, heat is composed of caloric fluid.

I mean, was. Now, of course, we know exactly what heat is, and that understanding will never change. Because real Science never changes. Science is Truth. And the Scientists are its prophet.

'Course, the scientific consensus is useful, when it exists, and it does weed out nutcase theories -sometimes. I'm not saying we should ignore the opinions of scientists in their area of expertise, but we should always take such opinions with a grain of salt, and with the understanding that scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us.

<rant off>

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

gunnut

Tang, you have not answered my question. What do you propose we do about this man-made global warming?