Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I dont think I have put forth *any* "case study, have I? In fact, I haven't even made a single refernce to climate effects in this single question, have I? So back to the original question, do you agree that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and re-radiates it in the IR band?

Simple yes or no.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion. I didn't realize I was enrolled in Tanq 101.

My answer is......... Yes.

And, what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

I dunno. I don't care if it is or is not C02 - if the global temp is rising I want it studied with all reasonable possibilities examined first. If we examine the known quantities first then we can look at the fringey stuff like CO2 or angels.

btw, I would throw a "strawman" foul at you for claiming (presciently, apparently) that what I am asking or will ask (or will relate) would be any form of a "loosely based correlation", ala Al Gore........

Again, I'm sorry for not recognizing we were engaged in some sort of formal debate with witnesses and an escrowed deposit.

-dale

Originally Posted by Ramo

Ok, thanks .

Here's a question for a few of you guys:

In which scenario would you believe a reduction in carbon emissions is warranted, assuming the effects of global warming were on par with what the more sensible climate-doomers are predicting:

1. Scientists prove that humans are significantly contributing to climate change through CO2 emissions.

2. 100% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

3. 90% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

4. 80% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

5. 100% of scientists are 90.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

6. 100% of scientists are 80.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

7. 100% of scientists are 70.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.



Do see where I'm going? At which point do you consider the risks of the possibility of climate change to outweigh the benefits of limitless carbon emissions?

Oh, and gunnut, what gave you the impression that I believe humans are causing climate change?

Maybe I'd start considering it if your #1 were true. I don't care what scientists believe, let alone what a lot of scientists believe.

But even if those darned scientists came up with a verifiable and accurate mechanism by which human industry affects global climate, I'm not sure I'd care much anyway. I'd have to know how much the affect was and a lot of other details. I like human industry.

-dale

Originally Posted by Ramo

Ok, thanks .

Here's a question for a few of you guys:

In which scenario would you believe a reduction in carbon emissions is warranted, assuming the effects of global warming were on par with what the more sensible climate-doomers are predicting:

1. Scientists prove that humans are significantly contributing to climate change through CO2 emissions.

2. 100% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

3. 90% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

4. 80% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

5. 100% of scientists are 90.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

6. 100% of scientists are 80.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

7. 100% of scientists are 70.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.



Do see where I'm going? At which point do you consider the risks of the possibility of climate change to outweigh the benefits of limitless carbon emissions?

Oh, and gunnut, what gave you the impression that I believe humans are causing climate change?

Sure
You trot off and find a survey of 100% of scientists, with their names and degrees, then come back with their opinions. If you could correlate it with the opinions of 100% of climatologists it'd be good too.
Okay,pumpkin?

Originally Posted by soutie

while everyone is debating this ,i read that the pole has dropped even lower and melted faster than anticipated ,there are islands coming out of the sea now, they where not there 2 years ago ,i think we are in for a bumpy ride,if motor cars are causing this climate change and i believe it is then we must stop using things that cause co2 omissions right now ,full stop.its no use cutting back ,its like someone who smokes 40 a day cutting back to 10 aday
he is still doing himself harm ,i think we are too late and nature always reclaims what is hers anyway.

While everyone is reading this, the antarctic ice shelf is getting larger and the temperature is getting colder. If we don't increase our use of carbon fuels, all the water will disappear

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I am sorry that some of your "pet" theories about why AGW might not be happening are not borne out by "the numbers" and the underlying hard science behind those numbers.

So, do you disagree with those "numbers" and observations as they pertain to the counter theories on C02 that they were presented in response to? If you do, I would be all ears as to why the "damn numbers" *don't relate to th specific theories presented.

Now, you present some counter-arguments, actually "counter-stories" since you fail to cite any basis for them aside from that "Dale and Gun told us."

Let's turn to them.



Well first of all (as indicated above) you present no specific citations to the studies that show this. Please provide them. I, for one, "think" (as opposed to what your snarky aside says.) Accordingly I require evidence to support that. (much like Dale, interestingly enough.) So now, much like Dale, I suggest that you "prove" your statement. I mean, what is good for the goose *is* good for the gander, right?

In fact, I'll start and spot you one:



source: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

(starting to get the drift?)

However, the cite also goes on to say:


This gets to my second point. There may very well have been "warmer periods" in the Earth's history. Now, please point out the driving mechanisms behind *all* of your (as yet unnamed) warming periods. Next, please point out *why* the mere existence of any unsourced warming trend in any way, shape, or form counts as evidence against AGW theories. Please try to remember "causation". The mere fact that "a warming trend occurred" many years ago is absolutely worthless in characterizing anything that might be happening today. In fact, that is probably far worse than the "cheesy correlations" that Dale deemed were unworthy.

Remember, per Dale's instructions above, "cheesy correlations" are *not* good. To wit, without any basis to tie the mechanisms of any cited warming trend, the existence of *any* previous warming trend provides not one iota of proof for or against the theory of AGW.



Again, instead of trying to "prove" by "a story I heard", provide references. Again, "prove it". (Funny how I hear that over and over again from one side, yet that same side inthe argument tries to do without....)

Well then, let me toos you one specific (among many) that are just opposite:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf



I will be happy to provide you with others. So, at the very least, I would back away from asserting that "solar is the sole cause of excess warming" as "fact".



And, again (like #1) this supposition is fact only in the sense that it might show that a portion of coastal regions in Greenland in that time period were free of ice. Again, aside from the explicit evidence of that fact, this tasty little morsel (again) has no value in assessing the physics of CO2, nor of the many other issues that might have happened.

You in relating a tale that tells us nothing more than a specific thawing of a specific region of the world. Good for you.... Its scientific value as to the theory of potential CO2 warming effects is nil.

Let me put your "historical" narratives in perspective. I am driving down the road in my Ford Explorer and it stalls. Let us assume that the battery cable has gotten loose. However, the parties (right now) don't know the reason, but I suspect (but don't know) its the cable.

The guy behind me stops and says "Gee willikers, my Ford Explorer stalled on me 22 years ago. I don't know why it stalled out on me. And without even relating or knowing the symptoms of my stall 22 years ago, I can tell you that the reason my car stalled 22 years ago and why yours is now stalled is the same reason."

Do you understand *now* why your "proof by story" really doesnt rise above the level of a nice anecdote?



See #1, and #3 above. Hmmmm...... I know of outcroppings that have radiocarbon dates that are older than those that are below them. Does this automatically mean that they were deposited on top of the newer ones (but somehow older).

I am glad that there are reefs that are many meters higher. Too bad you don't see the many thousands of reasons that this occur. Interestingly you fixate on this as proof that AGW doesn't happen. How, I don't know, but you seemingly do.....



And if you had some, it would be blindingly obvious that while these items *might* be facts (remember that citation and proof thingy.... right?), that they are no way "proof" of anything related to carbon cycles.



Correct. They are puffheaded and rash conclusions on your part.



If you knew the first thing about me (which you do not, btw), you would realize that I am a true capitalist at heart. Stunningly so. But why let that fact get in the way of your sweeping generalizations...



no, just basic physics, and basic scientifically reported studies and facts. Sorry that you cannot recognize them.

So here we go again. Opponents of anthropogenic global warming required to prove that it's not happening rather than the proponents of the theory having to prove it is.

tanq_tonic, I'll ask you again. Show me a study that proves Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

Originally Posted by soutie

when i log on to my e-mail account i read the news on UK and Ireland Yahoo,thats where i read that islands are appearing because the ice is melting quicker than expected.

Wait...islands are appearing? That's good. It means water level is dropping for more land to show.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

This gets to my second point. There may very well have been "warmer periods" in the Earth's history. Now, please point out the driving mechanisms behind *all* of your (as yet unnamed) warming periods. Next, please point out *why* the mere existence of any unsourced warming trend in any way, shape, or form counts as evidence against AGW theories. Please try to remember "causation". The mere fact that "a warming trend occurred" many years ago is absolutely worthless in characterizing anything that might be happening today. In fact, that is probably far worse than the "cheesy correlations" that Dale deemed were unworthy.

The sun.

End of story.

Now please explain why Mars is getting warmer right now.

I don't claim to know enough about this subject to dive in and mix it up with the scientists here. Those who support the thesis that man's activity is partly to blame for global warming and those who question it do folks like me a valuable service. I don't want it to be true, but at the same time I don't want to hide my head in the sand. The following is dated February 2007:

First of all, given the science that has been done since the Third Assessment Report ("TAR") of 2001 - much of which has been discussed here - no one should be surprised that AR4 comes to a stronger conclusion. In particular, the report concludes that human influences on climate are 'very likely' (> 90% chance) already detectable in observational record (b); increased from 'likely' (> 66% chance) in the TAR. Key results here include the simulations for the 20th Century by the latest state-of-the-art climate models which demonstrate that recent trends cannot be explained without including human-related increases in greenhouse gases, and consistent evidence for ocean heating, sea ice melting, glacier melting and ecosystem shifts. This makes the projections of larger continued changes 'in the pipeline' (particularly under "business as usual" scenarios) essentially indisputable.

RealClimate » The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM

To continue, though by this point, I expect folks will not entertain a wholly different question. I'll give it a shot anyway.

One thing that strikes me when I listen to the debate is how much of it begs the question. That is, when I listen to the side that argues most vehemently that man is the "culprit", that he is the one adding on top of the CO2 already in the atmosphere the decisive margin causing today's global warming. And he has to stop!! That begs the question.

If man is indeed the cause, why does it matter? Afterall, in the earth's long history there have been any number of atmospheric ups and downs caused by any number of factors? Man is, afterall, just another factor. Could it not be that in that part of nature we do not and cannot comprehend, man has a critical role to play in the evolution of the earth? Prehaps the next iteration of the earth atmosphere will be better.

It may not be better for GM or NYC. That worry seems to be a big part of the debate. Sr. Gore, who represents the panic element in the debate, is quite wound up about what will happen. For one, we'll lose some valuable coastal real estate to rising oceans. It's striking how many other downsides are petty to the earth, but disasters for man--we're always thinking business and property. Begging the question...

What I want to know is whether there is a reason for us to do something about global warming aside from the socio-economic reason.

Ok, now I'll crawl back in my hole.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

So here we go again. Opponents of anthropogenic global warming required to prove that it's not happening rather than the proponents of the theory having to prove it is.

far from it Par. I suggest you reread the post that generated the response. When *anybody* makes a claim or proffer of proof, they should be expected to back it up. Whatchamacallit wrote something on the order that "Greenland's coast was Green *proves* that agw doesnt exist." No offense but it is far from it, and I pointed that out. Not my fault the dude decided to make some wild statements that make no sense....

And, any statement I make on the science will have as good of a basis in a study or facts as possible.

tanq_tonic, I'll ask you again. Show me a study that proves Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

I see you are into reading comic books..... "A study".... c'mon man, you crack me up.

I will draw you a picture of the energy balances of the Earth. It will take more than one point, and it will take more than one corroborating source and/or study. If you do not have the patience for that, TB My Friend,

Or, just buy the Thermal Heating Physics For Dummies Handbook for 10.99.....

Lets say forty eight hours. Otherwise you're just another of the ourbabyjesusalgore troll, full of shyt.

See the above point. I will not add the prospective ad hominen attack that you seem to want to employ, although I hope it makes you feel better.

So, Phar, since you are so full of piss and vinegar and rip rairing to go, do you believe that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and re-emits that energy in the IR spectrum. I believe that the physics behind it is very well thought out (going back nearly a century). As a first point, do you agree, disagree, or just don't care?

I am proffering as a first step that this is so.


(and yes, when I see someone put out a half baked idea that is not supported by science, nor supported by normal scientific process, I will call that out, just as I did with the "meters of coral" and "Vikings farming bamboo in Greenland" comments. Further, I will treat people with respect when I am treated with the same. I will not tolerate comments like the ones you just made.)

Sorry but work intrudes, and I will return.

Heyyy, this thread is getting good again. And without my feeble efforts. Sweet. Think I'll just sit and watch on this one.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I see you are into reading comic books...c'mon man, you crack me up....just buy the Thermal Heating Physics For Dummies Handbook for 10.99...you are so full of piss and vinegar and rip rairing to go...and yes, when I see someone put out a half baked idea...

tang:

In the immortal words of the warden, after whacking Hud with a blackjack, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

Not a one of the old hands you are debating takes offense with your erudition, and be assured that their disagreeing with you is not meant to offend. But if you choose to patronize them, be aware they can give as good as they can take.

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I see you are into reading comic books..... "A study".... c'mon man, you crack me up.

I will draw you a picture of the energy balances of the Earth. It will take more than one point, and it will take more than one corroborating source and/or study. If you do not have the patience for that, TB My Friend,

Or, just buy the Thermal Heating Physics For Dummies Handbook for 10.99.....

In other words, you can't.

What You can do after 50 billion dollars worth of study, is come up with some theories that equate localised weather patterns with AGW.
For this to happen you need to ignore and dismiss all those studies which demonstrate weather variance that doesn't fit your model. Exclude all other theories that would explain the current naturally occuring warming trend. Dismiss all historical data that shows previous warming and cooling cycles. All these things you've done in this thread, with the usual preisthood tactic of making the skeptics put up the evidence rather than you supplying any yourself. THe Auto de fe lost I'm afraid, you live in the age of reason now, no matter how much you'd like to drag us back.


[QUOTE=tanq_tonic;399815]
See the above point. I will not add the prospective ad hominen attack that you seem to want to employ, although I hope it makes you feel better.[QUOTE]Part of my job as moderator on this forum is to be a realist, although I will allow I have a low tolerance at the moment. If as I've since read Dale is willing to vouch for you then I withdraw the troll accusation.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

So, Phar, since you are so full of piss and vinegar and rip rairing to go, do you believe that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and re-emits that energy in the IR spectrum.

Yes.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I am proffering as a first step that this is so

You won't get any dispute from me. Here's one in return. Would you agree that the earth has been warming since the mini ice age?

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

(and yes, when I see someone put out a half baked idea that is not supported by science, nor supported by normal scientific process, I will call that out, just as I did with the "meters of coral" and "Vikings farming bamboo in Greenland" comments. Further, I will treat people with respect when I am treated with the same. I will not tolerate comments like the ones you just made.)
Sorry but work intrudes, and I will return.

Since as I've already pointed out you're not above positing the odd half-baked idea yourself, I don't really care whether you're prepared to tolerate them or not. As I've said, I withdraw the troll comment: the ourbabyjesusalgore disciple characterisation stands as far as I'm concerned as I've seen nothing to the contrary. Like I keep asking, show us your evidence.

Originally Posted by gunnut

The sun.

End of story.

Unsubstantiated. The rest of the story.

Why don't you just say "little green Anatarians", I mean, that statement is as nearly substantiated as your first two word sentence.

Well then, let me toss you one specific (among many) that say that you are dead wrong in your two sentence proffer of proof.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf

Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

I will be happy to provide you with others. So, at the very least, I would back away from asserting that "solar is the sole cause of excess warming" as "fact".

I know this is the same one I posted before, but you apparently didnt bother to look at it, did you?

Now please explain why Mars is getting warmer right now.

Don't know, could be hundreds or thousands of reasons. This is your "proof" that all above normal warming is sun-driven? lol.

Well here we go with another softball lob potential "spantation" of why your reasoning isn't horribly on point.

The mean global temperature of the Mars is particularly sensitive to hemispheric dust storms.

Access to articles : Nature
(fee article warning)


Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; accordingly they (in their presence or absence) can effectuate large-scale changes in the temperature.

Mars General Circulation Modeling Group @ NASA Ames


Further, the main claim to "Mars warming" has been an indication that the South pole is shrinking. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 show that the localized climate at the south pole is not stable. This is partly based on peculiar topography in that area. One would not be surprised see rapid changes in any ice in the region as the climate there oscillates between the unstable states.

Access to articles : Nature
(again, fee based article)

Good enough gun?

Now please show that the sun is the sole and only cause of climate change in Mars. I look forward to your sources.

Par, as I said, if I proffer something is true or should be accepted, I will make a source or sources available.

On the other hand, when someone else tells me that their favorite theory is "true", all I ask is the same. If it is bs causation, I wil tell them so.

A blanket statement of "corals exist that are meters above existing ocean" are far from any notion of anything approaching evidence pro- or con- AGW. But the world is full of huckster statements like that.

And, I will grant you that statments that "because the ice caps are shrinking" or that there is a "correlation between atmospheric CO2 and deglaciation" is also just as far.

But, as I said, when someone blanketedly states "agw does it" or "the sun. end of story." without any proffer of evidence or a proffer of half-baked evidence, that would be a bs statement whether made by a pro- or a con- AGWer.

The concept of providing evidence is *not* delineated by what that person thinks regarding agw. If I make an assertion, I should back it up. However, when someone else states unequivocally that "its the sun", then yes, they should also back that up. That is the nature of a scientific inquiry.

Dale is absolutely on solid ground when he says "prove it", as are you when an assertion is made. When a skeptic makes a comment that "its all the sun", then the burden of that proffer falls to them. And when someone makes a wild statement, I will definitely call them on those.